The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before we begin our regular proceedings today, the hon. the Premier has asked that he make a statement to the House. I believe there has been consent granted by all parties for him to do that at this particular time.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to all hon. members opposite for granting me leave to make this statement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Dr. Harry Roberts, father of Lieutenant-Governor, His Honour, Edward Roberts.

He was a devoted father and husband who actively served his community throughout his life. Dr. Roberts was a very generous, compassionate and empathetic man. Providing the best care for his patients and ensuring their comfort was of utmost importance to him. He was motivated by a desire to treat and care for all people, regardless of their ability to pay in times before Medicare existed. He will be fondly remembered for his unwaivering commitment to his patients.

Mr. Speaker, throughout his medical career, Dr. Roberts held many prestigious positions, including President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, and he was the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian to serve as President of the Canadian Medical Association. A firm believer in the importance of education, Dr. Roberts worked diligently on behalf of Memorial University to bring the Faculty of Medicine to that University. He also served on the school boards of the United Church and Prince of Wales College.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Roberts' career was not limited to the medical field. He also explored many business opportunities and established a number of enterprises, some of which are still in operation today.

In 1994, Dr. Roberts was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame. I actually had the distinct pleasure of serving with him as a shareholder and a fellow director of Avalon Cable in the late 1970s, and I learned a great deal from his business acumen and his experience.

In an evolving Newfoundland and Labrador, Dr. Roberts recognized the need for opportunities for youth in our Province, regardless of their socio-economic status. He was instrumental in bringing Sea Cadets to the Province, and once again he proudly represented Newfoundland and Labrador as President of the Navy League of Canada, another first for a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Dr. Roberts' involvement in his community also extended to the Gower Street United Church where he was a lifelong member.

Mr. Speaker, as Premier of this Province, I am appreciative that a person as well-rounded, devoted and genuine as Dr. Roberts has represented Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at home and abroad. His commitment to serving others in an effort to improving lives is inspiring. There is no doubt that he is loved and he will be missed tremendously.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Harry, as he was affectionately known, was frank, and he was blunt, and he was brutally honest, and I can say with absolute certainly that Dr. Roberts' community and his Province were very positively impacted by his presence and his considerable contributions.

I ask this hon. House to join with me in expressing sympathy to the Roberts family and also to pay tribute to a great man and indeed a great family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure for me, on behalf of the Official Opposition, to join with the Premier in the most appropriate comments that he just made with respect to Dr. Harry Roberts.

I can tell you, having known Dr. Roberts from some years ago, personally, and the family, there is no question that his personal success, both in the medical field and in business in particular, and the other contributions to the communities, will be known for a long, long time, and recognized into the future, and that there are contributions that continue to be made by the whole family - it seems to have rubbed off - in Newfoundland and Labrador today that will continue for some time into the future.

It is true, I think, that a person of this stature comes along very rarely, and that the contributions are immense, and that the person will be missed, very much so, not only by the family but by the community generally and by all the people of the Province who came to know him over the years.

We do join with the Premier in recognition and in sending condolences to the family at this time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in commending the contribution of Dr. Harry Roberts to this Province, to the medical profession, to the business community, to the young people through activities of the Sea Cadets and the Gower Youth Band. He also, of course, is recognized by the Business Hall of Fame, and I understand the only doctor to be so recognized, so it is quite a considerably broad-based contribution that Dr. Roberts has made to the Province. He deserves the commendation of members of this House, and I would like to join in offering condolences to the family: to his sons Peter and Douglas, and, of course, our former colleague and current Lieutenant-Governor, the hon. Edward Roberts.

I would hope that Your Honour would send a message of condolence to the family on behalf of all Members of the hon. House of Assembly on this occasion to first of all commend the contribution of Dr. Roberts and, secondly, to offer our condolences to the family of the late Dr. Harry Roberts.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by members.

MR. SPEAKER: Under statements by members, the Chair has notice of two statements: the hon. the Member for Port de Grave and the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This past weekend, I attended the Newfoundland Historical Society Symposium, titled, "Down on the Labrador."

The Symposium was sponsored by the Bay Roberts Heritage Society and held in that community. The two-day event saw such presenters as Anita Best, Bert Riggs, Shannon Ryan, Sean Cadigan and Maudie Whelan.

A panel discussion involving locals like Mrs. Greta Hussey of Port de Grave, Mr. Agustus Menchions of Bay Roberts, and Mr. David Hiscock of Brigus, explained the yearly voyage by hundreds of people who left Conception Bay each spring to fish on the Coast of Labrador.

This Symposium provided the opportunity to examine the experience of those who sailed "Down to the Labrador" and how the profits from the fishery allowed communities in Conception Bay to grow larger and be more prosperous.

Hats off the Newfoundland Historical Society and the Bay Roberts Heritage Society for this symposium, and also to the Baccalieu Trail Heritage Corporation on winning an award for their tremendous work on the Baccalieu Trail.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Maurice Lewis, a resident of Bonavista South, who was recently selected as the provincial Principal of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lewis is the Principal at St. Mark's All Grade School in King's Cove, and this award recognizes him as the best in the Province. Mr. Lewis was nominated for this award by the staff at St. Mark's who wanted to acknowledge his dedication to the school and to the community. Mr. Lewis has introduced many initiatives at St. Mark's, including bi-weekly meetings to examine curriculum, a recycling program, and a scholarship program for students.

In the community, Mr. Lewis is an active member of the local fire department, the parish finance committee, the Knights of Columbus Council, and he is vice-chair of the Cross Memorial Health Care Foundation Board.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lewis credits the staff, students and parents of St. Mark's School for his success, but I am sure all will agree that Mr. Lewis, himself, has a lot to do with this award.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Maurice Lewis on this very prestigious award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Members?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to stand today and inform members of this honourable House of a significant event that occurred this weekend. On Saturday morning, an injustice which has plagued this Province for decades was rectified when the Prime Minister accepted our proposal to receive 100 per cent of our provincial oil and gas revenues under the Atlantic Accord.

Mr. Speaker, I have been working extremely hard since entering office to represent the issues of Newfoundland and Labrador to the federal government and I have done so with a co-operative and collaborative approach. Federal-provincial relations had certainly hit an all-time low in the past several years to the detriment of our Province. I committed to the people of this Province that I would renew and rebuild this relationship, so that we could finally see our issues addressed in a positive and productive manner. Saturday's commitment by the Prime Minister was evidence that our new approach is indeed working. The result has been action on 5 Wing Goose Bay, foreign overfishing and now offshore revenues.

In my first meeting with the Prime Minister late last year, I made it clear that getting more revenues from our offshore resources was a priority for me and for my government. Since then, I have discussed this issue with him and his federal Cabinet Ministers and presented a proposal which will see us receive 100 per cent of our offshore oil and gas revenues. This will result in approximately $700 million additional dollars in provincial coffers over the next four years.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I went around the country and garnered the support of eleven of twelve premiers, and we have received commitments on this issue from Mr. Stephen Harper and Mr. Jack Layton.

The result is that Newfoundland and Labrador has never been more ideally positioned heading into a federal election. Regardless of which party is elected on June 28, Newfoundland and Labrador will finally start to reap some real benefits from our offshore resources. I am, quite frankly, delighted that this issue has made it to the national stage and is finally getting the recognition and the support it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, as a Premier of the Province, I am satisfied with the commitments of all three leaders and their individual assurances to me that we will start to receive 100 per cent of our provincial offshore revenues. I would now encourage Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take a serious look at the platforms, the policies and the commitments of all parties and choose for themselves who they will vote for in the upcoming election.

Mr. Speaker, I have been saying for quite some time that we have a serious fiscal situation facing this Province. Though we are clearly delighted that we will finally start getting some substantial revenues from our offshore resources, we must also be realistic and recognize that this will not be the answer to all of our fiscal problems. The Prime Minister personally recognized this when I spoke to him over the weekend. However, this is a significant step on our road to fiscal health.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work to restore our fiscal integrity, while also focusing on growing our economy, creating jobs, revitalizing our rural communities and finally realizing our true Province's potential. We will also continue to foster this new and very positive relationship with the federal government, no matter what party is in power, in our efforts to deliver the best possible results for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from joining in the standing ovation just yet, but to say that we, on this side of the House, have always supported exactly what has been stated in a hasty telephone conversation early in the morning on the weekend. We supported it when we were in the government and we support it now in Opposition, and our greatest hope is that it is real. We will ask him questions about that in the coming days because I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need to know a little bit more about the actual commitment and what we are dealing with than we do as of today. We have certainly lobbied hard for these kinds of changes for several years and I am glad to see the Premier and the government making some progress, albeit in the very dicey atmosphere of a highly charged political campaign.

Not to be negative, Mr. Speaker, but just as a caution to all of us so we don't get too carried away, prior to the last federal election there were some commitments in writing from a Prime Minister of the country to change the equalization program - in writing, I say to the members opposite. Maybe they have forgotten, but they were given by a Prime Minister, on the eve of an election, in writing. The current Prime Minister, who has given this verbal commitment, was the one who came down a couple of months later and said, we cannot do it, and has not agreed to do it since and has now deferred equalization for another five years, which is also an issue very important to Newfoundland and Labrador. So, I don't tend to get too excited too quickly.

I think it is a very good statement, I think it is a very good sign, and we will, on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, ask some very serious and much needed questions in the next few days about exactly what the commitment is and exactly what it is we can expect for the betterment of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the next several years.

Mr. Speaker, if it is the kind of overstatements that the Premier makes about what happened in Goose Bay, which is nothing - the government was going to pull out early and they decided not to pull out early, no commitment beyond 2006, talking about an industrial complex instead of military training. The overfishing results: What are the overfishing results that he is bragging about in this particular statement?

Not to be negative, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time as expired.

MR. GRIMES: - it is a good sign and we will ask some questions to make sure it is a real commitment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to what some people have said in the past, and what certain Cabinet Ministers have said this time, election time is, in fact, a good time to get commitments, particularly on issues as important as our offshore oil and gas revenues. I look forward to the Premier being able to table, in this House, a written commitment from the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Liberal Party, as to what exactly he is prepared to commit to.

I am proud to say that our Party, and our Leader, Jack Layton, has committed, in writing, not only to 100 per cent of our resources coming to Newfoundland and Labrador on our offshore revenues, but also to a ten-province standard on equalization, and also to the transfer of the 8.5 per cent Hibernia equity share now held by the Government of Canada, to transfer that to the Province for a nominal fee, the only party to have done so.

We have worked together with our national party to ensure that the best possible deal for Newfoundland and Labrador can be obtained with the election of our members to the House of Commons. I commend other members of the different parties to do the same thing and to get even better commitments -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: - than we have right now from Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers? Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past weekend the Prime Minister apparently committed to giving the Province more of our offshore resource revenues, and this commitment was given to the Premier during a telephone conversation. The Prime Minister is quoted in the media as saying: I believe the proposal that the Premier has put forth certainly provides the basis of an agreement between the two of us.

I ask the Premier: Would he commit to table the proposal he put forth to the Prime Minister so all the people of the Province can see the details of exactly what was proposed and then we all can determine whether or not the Prime Minister lives up to his commitment after the election? Would he commit to table the proposal that he put forth that was agreed to in a telephone conversation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have stated publicly exactly what that proposal was, what the offer was and what the details were. We submitted that proposal to the federal Minister of Natural Resources. I believe it was on February 27, but I would have to check the exact date. We have been very public about it, very open about it, and very transparent about it. Of course, we would have absolutely no objection whatsoever to providing the details of the proposal. Quite simply, the proposal is that there would be a new offset mechanism that would, in fact, guarantee 100 per cent of the net provincial revenues to the Province as opposed to a declining balance which would have basically whittled away to virtually nothing over a period of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

We have heard that description of it before and look forward to seeing the details so we can examine it further, now that it looks like we may have some very good news in terms of it actually occurring.

Mr. Speaker, there is, though, still a significant amount of uncertainty in the Province relating to the exact commitment given by the Prime Minister. Will the Premier put the weekend proposal that he discussed with the Prime Minister in writing and ask the Prime Minister to sign it, to give a written commitment, so that, in fact, there is no confusion as to what the Prime Minister's commitment is with respect to this critically important issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Prime Minister is presently overseas. I think he is still, actually, overseas. I was over for the D-Day ceremonies. I do not know when he is actually returning. The proposal is actually in writing to the Minister of Natural Resources. So the federal government has it. I, and the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury, as well, provided a copy to Minister Ralph Goodale, the Minister of Finance for the federal government. The Prime Minister's office also has a copy of it. So they are in receipt of full copies of the proposal. All the relevant people in authority who are party to this decision have copies of the proposal. I will, sort of, allow the Prime Minister the courtesy, when he gets back, to following up to see whether he intends to present it to us in writing, but we will certainly do a follow-up to the Prime Minister's office to cement the commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that a follow-up will be there because as I have mentioned earlier, we have had written commitments from Prime Ministers on the eves of elections in the past that were then changed, even though they were in writing. So I can only encourage you to try to take the next step before June 28 and make sure there is a written commitment with respect to this.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Layton, has committed to giving the Province the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia. The Conservative Leader, Mr. Harper, has stated in writing that he will not transfer these shares to the Province.

I ask the Premier: Did you ask the Prime Minister to commit to the transfer of the Hibernia shares this past weekend, and is that part of the overall commitment to the offshore?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, of course, and the copies have been made available to all members of the House, that the Leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Layton, has committed to a transfer of the 8.5 per cent interest. At this point in time, the other two leaders of both other parties, despite our requests, have not committed to transfer the 8.5 per cent Hibernia interest at this point in time. It is a matter of ongoing negotiation. It is a matter that we will continue to pursue. It is a matter that is personally important to myself and to all the members of our government, and we will continue to keep that on the front burner, so to speak. However, this weekend there was no commitment from the Prime Minister with regard to a transfer of the 8.5 per cent Hibernia interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been reference in the past and acknowledgment that the Premier has sent a letter to the Prime Minister last week asking for a commitment on fourteen issues of importance to Newfoundland and Labrador, and the leaders of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party have responded in writing with their positions.

I ask the Premier: The 8.5 per cent was not part of the discussion on the weekend. Were any of the other fourteen items, such as defence spending in Happy Valley-Goose Bay at 5 Wing, offshore jurisdiction issues for the fishery, assistance with the hydro development in Labrador, were any of those discussed at all on the weekend or was it just an issue solely with the 100 per cent of the offshore revenues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the context of this discussion. It was at 7:22 a..m. on Saturday morning when the Prime Minister phoned me. I realized that he was in town, of course, for other business because he had other functions in the Province on that particular morning. When he called me he called to discuss the Atlantic Accord and that is exactly what we discussed. As a result of the agreement that was reached between us in the early hours of the morning, or, I suppose, the mid hours of the morning, on Saturday morning, it was a $700 million commitment for the next four years with ongoing additional monies available as this goes on into the future and as new fields come on.

This was a huge concession and a huge commitment from the Prime Minister of Canada. It would have been totally inappropriate, totally improper, foolhardy for me to start to try and deal with other issues when I had him coming to the table on a minimum $700 million commitment for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. These other issues I have put in writing to him, and in all fairness to him, that was very recently. So he will have an opportunity to respond. These are issues that I put to him back in December of last year when I had a meeting with him in his office, and he has now indicated that he is prepared to act on at least three of those issues. He has also indicated that he has an expressed interest in the development of the Lower Churchill, which was item number 4. Item number 5 is the Hibernia interest, which is still outstanding.

I can only suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that it would have been very, very inappropriate for me to take the Prime Minister, on a Saturday morning, very early, when he was coming to the table on the Atlantic Accord, down a road of other issues for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will have an opportunity. I will continue to speak with him. He has been good enough to have a conversation with me four times over the last three weeks. I felt it was appropriate, at that particular point in time, to try and close this deal, and I did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to hear the Premier say, in a roundabout fashion, that this does not mean that this is the only item he is interested in, that the rest are now insignificant or not important because they were and are part of the plan for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Natural Resources is on record publicly as saying he is willing to discuss the details of the Atlantic Accord amendment with the Premier any time, including during the election. He will interrupt his campaigning, he said, because he will get elected even if he is running for the Green Party. He will interrupt his campaigning. He does not need to campaign. He would do this deal with the Premier right away.

I ask the Premier: When do you plan to sit down with Minister Efford to hammer out the deal that the Prime Minister says he committed to on the weekend, and would you consider starting that process with the federal Minister of Natural Resources right away, as the minister indicates he is willing to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to sit down at any time with Minister Efford to discuss any of the details of finalizing this proposal. The Prime Minister has already stated that he accepts our proposal, as presented, in full. That was his clear and unequivocal statement not only to me on Saturday, but also to the public and to the media on Saturday. I have heard since that Minister Efford has, in fact, indicated that he would be prepared to sit down. I have a call in to Minister Efford, waiting for a response to that.

The other thing, of course, we need to understand is that we are in the middle of an election and the minister is somewhat handcuffed in what he can do during an election with regard to dealing with his officials.

There may be some procedural problems that he may have to overcome there. I am ready, willing and able to meet with the minister at any point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again - a final supplementary - words are very important. The Premier just said that the Prime Minister said: I agree with your proposal as it is.

The words the Prime Minister used in the media are: I believe the proposal that the Premier has put forth certainly provides the basis of an agreement.

It does not say, I agree with you in full. We have seen negotiations happen before where the basis of an agreement can be very different at the end than at the beginning. Again, will he take the earliest opportunity, as he just indicated, to meet with Minister Efford, who says he is willing to meet, to nail down the details as much as can be done before June 28?

I acknowledge that some great work has been done, and I think the opportunity is here right now to finish it, right now, before the election is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we have done for the last six or seven months, we will do everything possible to move forward on this file. As I said before, we are very proud of what we have accomplished. We have brought it to a head. We have the people of Newfoundland and Labrador ideally positioned in this election. We have commitments from all federal leaders, good commitments, some of them in writing. I take these people on their word. They are reputable individuals. They have provided us with good proposals. They have answered the call. They are finally going to turn around a grave injustice that has been done to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I did indicate that I had heard in the media that the Prime Minister had made some statements. I can tell you what he said to me on the phone, and that was that he did confirm that my proposal, that our proposal as a government, was acceptable to him. Based on that, we will then pursue that in an agreement. We will pursue that with Minister Efford if and when he is available, and we will ask for that meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier, regarding automobile insurance reform.

Premier, insurance reforms enacted in other provinces have used a cap rather than the deductible that you propose in Bill 30. To date, the cap in the other three Atlantic Provinces, even over a short period of time, have proven to be workable and to provide substantial and meaningful savings to consumers.

Premier, Bill 30 talks about a 9 per cent reduction in premiums on mandatory third-party liability. Why is this government trying to pacify consumers with 9 per cent, using a deductible scheme, when it is well-known now that consumers could easily get 20 per cent or more with a cap system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about pacifying consumers. This is about coming up with the best automobile insurance legislation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is ultimately about coming up with the best general insurance legislation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, dealing with, as the member knows, the very serious problems that we have with commercial insurance in the Province, where people are losing their businesses because rates are skyrocketing, going through the roof. Some of our tourism establishments cannot afford to insure their business.

As the hon. gentleman opposite is also familiar, this is also about marine insurance, where fisherpeople in this Province cannot afford to insure their boats to go out on the water, to perform their trade. We are going to look at all of it. It is not just strictly about pacifying automobile insurance rates.

As well, with regard to the whole issue of a deductible: a deductible, as the hon. gentleman knows, is the simplest way to deal with it. We had looked at a cap. We indicated back in September that we would go by way of a cap of insurance. We also indicated at that time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- that we would look at minor injuries, and minor in the true sense of the word, as you understand minor being the mild to moderate type of injury that occurs and that has been decided by the courts.

When we attempted to reach an agreed definition between the various stakeholders and with our own government officials, they could not arrive at an agreement. So, it is not just simply putting in a cap. A cap implies a definition of minor, which implies a threshold, and what is the definition of a permanent injury.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter is very complex. We have said all along that we will come up with the best solution for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we see, again today in the Premier's response, that the deductible is nothing but ducking the issue again. It is not giving any answers to the consumers of this Province.

Premier, you indicated publicly that the Public Utilities Board will do hearings this fall to get input from stakeholders regarding further reforms. Last week, I asked both your Minister of Government of Services and your Minister of Justice to table copies of all e-mails, letters, directives, and instructions, from your government to the Public Utilities Board regarding the conduct and process of these hearings. Both ministers refused to provide this information.

Premier, there has been a Freedom of Information request filed to get this hidden information. In the spirit of preserving the openness and accountability you promised the people, will you undertake today, here and now, to table this information immediately?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will provide any relevant information within the guidelines as set under the Freedom of Information Act, and we will comply with that. If there is a request in, obviously this information is being gleaned and prepared.

The question is: What is being implied here by the hon. member opposite? Everything is an open book here. We are providing all the information to the public. We have made our decisions on our legislation based on the best actuarial information that we can get. We are also relying on the actuarial information that has been presented and prepared by the Public Utilities Board. We have met with stakeholders on this issue, and we continue - the minister and I met with insurance representatives this morning. The minister was unavailable on Friday, but I met with insurance representatives on Friday as well. We are continuing to take all the available information, and as it becomes available we will certainly provide it to hon. members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Speaker, this government has brought chaos to the regulation of petroleum products in the Province just when we need it the most. Earlier in this House, both the Minister and the Premier confirmed that the office would stay open in Grand Falls-Windsor, but now we are hearing that all employees of this office, whose contracts expire at the end of this month, may not be renewed.

Will the minister tell this House if these contracts will be renewed or extended, and will she also reconfirm that this office will remain open in Grand Falls-Windsor with its current staff?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the Petroleum Pricing Products Commission's office is still in Grand Falls-Windsor. There is an employee there now who has been moved up to director. The operations of the PPPC are still continuing the same, there has been no disruption in service there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, under the current legislation, the Petroleum Products Pricing Commissioner has the authority to set the price of petroleum products. The price is set at least once a month and the Commissioner can use an interruption formula if certain criteria are met.

Minister, as the Public Utilities Board is a regulating body, will it use the same procedures and will they have the same authority to act swiftly in the regulation of petroleum prices?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the PPPC is operating. There has been no change. The only change that has been made has been the political appointee. The operation is carrying on. The same method of formulas are being used. It is no different than the PPC, other than the fact that it is now with the PUB Commissioner.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious the minister does not understand how this new act is going to work.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 32 does not contain any proclamation date and there is uncertainty as to when the transfer of responsibilities will go to the Public Utilities Board. As we are fast approaching June 15, when the Petroleum Pricing Commissioner would normally set the price for gas in this Province, minister, when do you plan to proclaim this act? Can you advise this House, with confidence, that the price will be set as normal and there will be no interruption to gas price stability in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, as I just stated for the hon. member, there has been no change in the PPPC. This legislation is not even passed in the House. I have not done the second reading yet today. There is no change. There is no disruption. The only problem that I see right now is the hon. member is concerned about replacing the political appointee. We have taken that out of PPC right now and put it under an independent agency.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The Premier has indicated that as a result of the indication by several insurers that they intend to leave the Province, that public automobile insurance may be something his government would choose to undertake. Given that, Mr. Speaker, would the Premier please indicate to the House what type of public automobile insurance is being contemplated? Has he given consideration to the number of forms that exist with different types of insurance, when an implementation date might be available? Is he prepared to be ready in the event that these three insurers have now indicated - and perhaps others - will pull out by the end of the year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I may take the questions in reverse, certainly we are prepared to be ready. That is something we are looking at. As I said previously, I have indicated that public insurance is more of a last resort from our perspective. We have always kept the door open a crack in case this happened to be an alternative that was viable and was a proper alternative for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I have indicated to the member in a late night discussion just the other evening, that is something that should be considered by the Public Utilities Board and, of course, a proper presentation would be made to the Public Utilities Board.

I can assure the hon. member that I have had discussions with the minister. We have the department actually looking at it right now and we will certainly be looking at a contingency plan which will be in place. So, we will look at all alternatives and welcome the input of the member on that particular issue as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know why it would be a last resort since it has consistently produced the lowest automobile rates in the country where it exists and the fairest system for people with no discrimination on age and gender.

Will the Premier not consider doing what New Brunswick did in order to be ready for our public automobile insurance, should a decision be made, in studying all the various models, looking at the kind of risks and costs that would be associated with automobile insurance so that in the event that the public desires it or, in the event, that the Premier is forced to undertake it, that he would be ready to go on January 1 with a public automobile insurance system that has already passed muster with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that our government will do rashly or without a plan. What we will do is make sure that we investigate it thoroughly. We will ask the minister and her officials and her entire department as to exactly what the alternatives are and what the repercussions are. We will consult with people in the industry. We will look at the other jurisdictions. As you and I know, we talked about it the other evening, they are different in all jurisdictions. The success rates have been different. The setup is different. The consequences are different. So, we cannot just sort of jump in and say tomorrow we are going to have public insurance and here is what it is going to be. If we start to head down that road, at any particular point in time, we will make sure that we have a thorough investigation done. As well, it would be a matter of some detailed consideration for a comprehensive hearing at the Public Utilities Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education. Under the education act, 1997, eleven school boards were elected for a fixed period of time, that being four years. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, now that he has unilaterally dissolved these elected school boards effective August 31, when will the new boards be elected and how many will be on each board to allow for effective regional representation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I answer specifically and respond to the question directly, I would like to point out that the transitional committees that are now in place are comprised of, by and large - the vast majority of our transition committee members, on our new three transitional boards, are duly elected members; the vast majority. In fact, with one board all of them are. These are all duly elected members. There are a couple of exceptions on both the Central board and the Western board.

The decision, as the hon. member knows, is that the existing boards will cease to operate as a legal entity come August 31. The transitional boards will commence to become the legal school board as of September 1 and in September, 2005, we will revert to the duly election procedure and model that, of course, is envisaged by the very act that was mentioned by the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the education act, the minister knows that directors -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the current education act, 1997, directors and board employees are hired by elected school boards and the location of school boards, or offices, are determined by the elected boards.

Mr. Speaker, under whose authority were the three new directors hired this morning, and under whose authority were the office sites, the locations for these offices, determined?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: These decisions were made in accordance with the authority that is given under the act, the Schools Act, 1997. There are provisions in the act that allow for transitional boards and duly-elected boards to work in unison with one another. These decisions have been made, and I want to reassure the hon. member, they had been done in accordance with the legislation of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like for the minister to name the section because there is nowhere under the act that gives appointed school board members the authority to hire - there is no authority under the act for the minister to hire directors of school boards, and that is exactly what he did this morning, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that this minister and this government is trying to circumvent the education act, because they do not have the authority to impose new directors and board office locations on these new boards. There is nowhere in the act that gives you the authority to do what you did today. I ask the minister: Is it not true that these decisions can only become legal if the new boards that you are appointing, not electing, agree to them in September?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the appointment of the new directors of our new school boards, a procedure was put in place. With respect to the public service commission, the newly appointed chairs of the transitional committees, the Deputy Minister of Education was a part of the interviewing process, in addition to the Dean of Education, Dr. Alice Collins at Memorial University. The procedure was carried out. If hon. members are aware, and I am sure they are, aware of the fact that the three directors, the directors designate who were announced this morning are, in fact, directors from existing school boards within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is doing is misleading the people of the Province. He knows that under the act the only people who can hire directors are elected school boards. You have abolished the school boards, effective August 31, and you have hired these individuals this morning under the guise of an elected school board and they were not elected. You appointed them just last week, in the House. I ask the minister: Show me in the act where you have the authority to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that these decisions that were made where done completely and totally in accordance with the legislation of this Province. The decisions were made. They were appropriate to the need that is now required with respect to the transition that is taking place in education in Newfoundland. I wish to guarantee the hon. member that these decisions were made appropriately and totally within the legislation of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, previously I asked the minister if the government is committed to a group of stakeholders in the Province who give of their time and expertise to try and improve the social and economic well-being of our rural communities. These stakeholders comprise of Regional Economic Development Boards, otherwise known as REDBs. I ask the minister: Is the government going to reduce the number of Regional Economic Development Boards like they have reduced the number of school boards?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the record will show that there will not be any reduction to the Regional Economic Development Boards, and I appreciate that, but there are hundreds of volunteers involved in the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council and they give daily of their time as well. Unfortunately, they are not feeling very appreciated by this government or by this minister. First, they have trouble getting a meeting. When they finally do, you set aside forty-five minutes only, to hear their concerns. Minister, why are you not making time for this council, and why did neither you nor the Premier accept their invitation to attend their annual general meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have time for a very short response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I have met with a number of rural development councils. I have met with representation from the provincial body. I am on the front end of a Province-wide consultation with all stakeholders in economic development throughout the Province, and that process will continue for a number of months to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order or a point of procedure, probably, more properly, Mr. Speaker. We have operated in this Province for some three years now with televised proceedings of the House proceedings. The people of the Province have come to accept that the proceedings would be televised when the House is actually in session. In fact, we embarked upon the whole process of televised proceedings because it does, indeed, give the people of the Province access to what happens here, in their House, regardless of where you live in the Province. Also, it makes the Legislature, both government and the Opposition, more open, transparent and accountable to the people of the Province.

On Thursday past, June 3, the issue of televised proceeding beyond the normal sitting hours was raised by myself. The Government House Leader had given notice that the House would sit beyond 5:30 p.m. and beyond 10:30 p.m., and once we proceeded beyond 10:00 p.m. the proceeding were not televised. The explanation provided at that time was that the booking arrangements for additional satellite time beyond 10:00 p.m. had to be made at least forty-eight hours prior to the time when you wish to use the time.

Given that explanation, and the erratic House sitting times - and we certainly acknowledge that the sitting times are sometimes erratic and unknown - a forty-eight hour explanation was reasonable. It was a reasonable explanation, but I have made some inquiries, Mr. Speaker, with the satellite provider this morning, a company called Fifth Dimension out of Ottawa, and I spoke with a Mr. Donato Dipietrantonio, who informs me - and I am sure I have massacred the pronunciation of his name, and I apologize for such - of the following. He says that you do not need forty-eight hours advance notice in order to book satellite time. In fact, it can be booked within minutes, he tells me, if the signal is indeed available on the satellite.

He also tells me that in order to book it, you only need to call a 1-800 number, and he provided me with the 1-800 number, which I certainly undertake to provide to the House. When you need the extended service, you simply call the 1-800 number. There is always someone there, twenty-four seven, on the other end of this 1-800 number. You simply tell him, particularly when he already has a booking arrangement like he does with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly, that you want to continue on because your session is extended. He says, never in the history of this House, whenever there has been a request made to have an extension, has it ever been denied because of lack of satellite time. In fact, he says, it would be very improbable that it would be denied because there are several options that he has in terms of satellites.

Now, he got into the technical differences of where we operate right now, but he said it is no big deal. You do not need a rocket scientist to figure it out, once you just tell them that you want to have the extension.

Given this information, Mr. Speaker, which it totally contrary to the explanation we had last Thursday, we would like confirmation from the Chair, and hopefully receive the agreement of the government and the Leader of the NDP, that whenever there are extended sittings, additional satellite time will indeed be booked. I would go so far as to say, Mr. Speaker, given that explanation that the satellite time is available, given the fact that the people of this Province have become adjusted to the fact that they can see it anywhere in this Province whenever the House is sitting, if you cannot book the satellite time there should not be any additional sittings of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to add my comments to those of the Opposition House Leader. I made an intervention as well on Thursday evening, suggesting - to guffaws of members opposite - that when we have a session of the House cut off from television in mid-sentence or in mid-speech, as we have had in the last number of days, in fact, the House is effectively going into private session because the public has come to expect that when the House is in session they are able to watch it on the various channels in their local area.

I have had a number of e-mails, in fact, since that date, agreeing with my position and saying they have no other means of availing themselves of these House of Assembly proceedings and they like to watch what is going on. We had a situation where, up until I think it was somewhere close to 3:30 on Friday morning, members were sitting here making speeches, some of them very good speeches, debating legislation at that hour of the morning on something that is of importance to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We had, earlier in the week, last week, second readings being called at 11:30 at night, approval in principle of important legislation for the Province.

Having made the decision, as a House of Assembly, to go the route of being televised, I think we have a commitment to the public to ensure that sittings of the House are available to the public through television, and that we should have - given the information provided by the Opposition House Leader - agreement, a commitment from the Chair, that unless satellite television, or the television, is able to proceed, unless it is some kind of absolute emergency, that the House not sit until the television can be obtained and operated so the public can come to continue to expect to see what goes on in the people's House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to that, I have been sitting on the Internal Economy Commission that oversees the House since television came in. Under the former government, the Leader of the Opposition there, I was left with the impression in IEC previously that there had to be advance notice. I am sure Your Honour will check that out, but I was left with the impression that there had to be an advanced booking of so much time ahead. That is what I was informed, in that Committee that I sat on. I have sat on that Committee, Mr. Speaker, actually, for the last six years, and have been at just about every meeting of that Committee. That is the impression I was left with.

The reason at the time was that it goes through, I think, Memorial University's satellite and you have to give notice. If they have a priority, it would take over if there is not an advance booking. That is the understanding I had, but I am certainly agreeable to finding out what the specifics are. I would like to know what the truth of it is, but that is the impression I have always had. I have not heard any different.

Even when the ruling statement was made in the House before - it is what I had from day one. I sat on the Committee when television was coming in, and decisions were made about that. We called for that for a number of years, Mr. Speaker, to have it come into the House. We did, and we pushed the issue many times for the last several years. We were delighted it came here to the House. We fought for that, and we saw it accomplished.

I certainly abide by the Speaker's following up on this specific thing, and back there, because when we made a decision to bring it in, we supported that and we would like to hear the specifics. We were told, initially, when the former government was in power, and again this time, it was the same reason I heard, exactly the same reason given to me on two different occasions by two different governments. I would like to find out if that is accurate or whether we are getting the right information.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the comments - and I thank the hon. members for raising the issue again. It was raised last Thursday evening and we did some following up this morning.

There are some variations in what we have been told locally and what the hon. the Opposition House Leader found out, I do believe, from the representative that is stationed in Ottawa. My understanding is that we have to give some notice and that we, today, for example, have given notice that we will be sitting until 10 o'clock so television time has been booked until 10:00. If it is the wish of the House, and I chatted with the Clerk before we came in, we can extend that in two-hour segments, and we would that today. So, if we sit beyond 10:00, then tonight the television will be on, extended in two-hour segments.

The reason for that is, every hour that we extend it, we have to pay for it, and the cost is $327 an hour. That is for the satellite time, and for the gentleman who has to sit in some kind of a booth somewhere in Pippy Park to make sure that the satellite system works.

As of now, we will extend it from 10 o'clock until 12 o'clock. At 12 o'clock, if the House still wants to sit, we will keep on extending it in two-hour segments to make sure that we have wise expenditure of the taxpayers' money.

From the Chair's perspective, the Chair believes that the House is open, it should be televised, and we will make every effort we can to make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have access to televising of the proceedings of this House.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to, in accordance with section 35 of the House of Assembly Act, hereby table the 2003-2004 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Members' Interests for the period April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.

Tabling of further reports? Notices of motion.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following private member's motion:

WHEREAS fair, affordable and accessible automobile insurance is a concern for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

AND WHEREAS public automobile insurance has been suggested as a model that could bring relief for Newfoundland and Labrador drivers, and may be a necessity in the event private insurers discontinue their operations in the Province;

AND WHEREAS there are many models of public insurance that contain numerous options and, in the interest of an informed debate, these models and options should be explored in the Newfoundland and Labrador context;

AND WHEREAS the Province should be ready to operate a public automobile system that has been developed to satisfy the needs and desires of the people of the Province with a practical plan for implementation and delivery;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House appoint a Select Committee on public automobile insurance to examine into and inquire on the most suitable form of public insurance system for Newfoundland and Labrador should the Province conclude that a public system is required.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select Committee shall inquire into and identify: 1. The most suitable model of public automobile insurance to ensure fair, affordable and accessible public automobile insurance including: (a) the type of public automobile system to be recommended; (b) the types of coverage and benefits to be offered; (c) a proper risk rating system for establishing premiums; (d) the method of distribution; (e) the types of insurers; 2. the start-up costs for establishing the proposed model, including infrastructure, office equipment, payroll, initial provision for losses, et cetera; 3. the fixed and recurring costs of operating the proposed models; 4. the legal and trade implications involved in setting up the proposed models; 5. the downstream impact of the proposed model on the legal community, the physiotherapists and other therapists, as well as on the brokers, independent adjusters, automotive repair shops and trades or professions; 6. the creation of a basic automobile insurance policy within a public system.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select Committee be provided with sufficient resources to conduct an adequate public consultation process and engage consultants to advise on matters required to fulfill its mandate.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 8, 2004.

Further, I give notice pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 8, 2004.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to give notice of the following Private Member's Motion.

WHEREAS the Premier has written to the Prime Minister of Canada and the Leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada asking for commitments from them on fourteen issues which are important to the future of this Province including: Support for Newfoundland and Labrador's claim to 100 per cent of our offshore oil and gas provincial revenues, making the Province the true principal beneficiary as intended under the Atlantic Accord.

Transfer at no cost to Newfoundland and Labrador of the 8.5 per cent Hibernia shares owned by the federal government.

Give Newfoundland and Labrador jurisdictional control and ownership over petroleum and other economic resources in the offshore.

Supporting calculation of equalization based on a ten-province standard.

The restoration of federal transfers to the Province for health care, post-secondary education and social services to the 1994-95 levels adjusted for inflation.

The allocation of future transfers on the basis of need rather than population numbers alone.

Giving Newfoundland and Labrador a direct and meaningful say in the management, that is the allocation and harvesting of fisheries stocks in the ocean territory adjacent to the Province.

Support for imposing custodial management on the Continental Shelf immediately outside Canada's 200-mile exclusive economic zone, where such action is warranted to preserve fish stocks from international unsustainable harvesting practices.

Support for efforts to develop the Hydro-power resources of the Lower Churchill River system for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, including the provision of a federal government guarantee, if necessary, to proceed with the project on a stand alone basis.

Support for initiatives that make amends for the grossly-lopsided Upper Churchill power contract that was signed after Ottawa refused to support a reasonably-priced power corridor for Newfoundland and Labrador to wheel electricity across Quebec to external markets.

Support for the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway and to raise it to an acceptable standard.

Support for efforts for the repair, replacement and maintenance of key transportation infrastructure in the Province on a timely basis.

Support for the construction of a fixed link across the Strait of Belle Isle to give this Province the continuous land-based connection to the North American highway grid that most residents of the nine other provinces enjoy, and which will complete the Trans-Canada Highway from coast to coast.

Finally, number fourteen: Support efforts to restore and enhance military training activities at 5 Wing Goos Bay, which has served for many years as a key NATO international flight training base; and

WHEREAS the people of this Province have not received satisfactory and/or definitive answers on many of these issues;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the government of this Province to follow-up and request definitive answers in writing on these issues so this information can be made public to the people of the Province before election day, June 28.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3) I give notice that the motion to be debated on Private Member's Day, this coming Wednesday, June 9, will be the notice for which the Leader of the Opposition just read into the record.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion? Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear, I guess, from the petitions that I have been given over the past week that the truth is the greatest casualty of this government to date. We heard today in Question Period that there was no authority under the current legislation to hire new directors. What we are seeing now is that the Minister of Health and Community Services is embarking on a journey to consolidate health care boards. We have seen a lot of unrest in our communities of Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander, whereby both communities are concerned that there is no criteria outlined as to what measures the minister will take in determining which community will actually accommodate both of the health care boards. I will table this today, but, more importantly, I want to speak to it.

We have heard from the Chamber of Commerce in Exploits Region, that they are overly concerned because they have not seen any criteria that the minister has set out. I asked her in this House, would proximity to the facilities be a part of the criteria, and she said she had reached no decision, but yet in her March 30th budget she said that they would be undertaking to consolidate health care boards within eighteen months.

I have clearly stated, and others have within the region of Grand Falls-Windsor, and indeed Central Newfoundland, that the Central West Health Care Board does met all the proposed, I would think - anyone being reasonable and fair, in trying to determine the location for the two boards, naturally would set out and look at what is the location, who will use the services, do we have the administration facilities in place, do we have the space and is there going to be any cost to government. All of this criteria has been met, yet, for all that, the minister herself will not outline, for the people of those two communities, what she expects as criteria for government making that decision.

It is clear that the Chamber of Commerce has taken out a full-page ad in the provincial newspapers, at great expense I might add, and there is a lot of uncertainty in Grand Falls-Windsor right now, because we have seen the school boards consolidate without any good argument as to why it should have gone to Gander. The Minister of Education could not even defend his decision, and we have seen the cancer clinic being cancelled.

Naturally, we are concerned about the health care board. We have, in our opinion, every reason as to why is should be located in Grand Falls-Windsor, and we certainly have the population base that is served closest to the area, 66,000 of the 100,000 now using the Cental West Health Care Board facilities. We have the space, we have the specialists, and it is administrative only. All of this work is done by road, 99 per cent of it. When you take all these factors into account, and the exemplary fiscal and operational status that the Central West Health Care Board has, and continues to have, over the past ten years, I can tell you, they are a board that always came in and had a balanced budget, and they always did their homework before they ever gave a proposal to government. When they brought in a proposal to government, you could be sure that all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed, there was nothing left to get.

I would hope and encourage -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to close by saying I hope the Minister of Health and Community Services will use fairness in this regard.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today and present a petition on behalf of the people of the Bay of Islands-Corner Brook area concerning the long-term care facility in Corner Brook. I will not read the prayer of the petition because it was read in the House of Assembly on numerous occasions. I just bring to the attention of the House, and to the government, and especially the members for the West Coast, the Member for Humber East, the Premier, and the Member for Humber Valley, the concerns of the people from Corner Brook-Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, as we speak now there is in the vicinity of thirty acute care patients who are in the facility right now, in the acute care facility, waiting to go in the long-term care facility, but there is no room for the residents in the area. This has been a major concern for the last number of years for the people of Corner Brook-Bay of Islands. The problem with the facility, itself, is that there was a commitment made before the election and during the election to have this facility built, publicly funded, publicly run by the Premier and the Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber East. Now we see, when the Premier just had his latest talk with the media, he said: We are doing it as quickly as possible.

I call upon the government and urge the government, in the strictest way and in the strongest way, that this facility needs to be built. It was a commitment that was made. It was a commitment that was followed up during the election. It was a commitment to the Western Health Care Corporation. It was a commitment made to all of the people of Western Newfoundland, this long-term care facility.

We know that to have such a facility built, work has to begin immediately. Now we see that there is a back step of the commitment that was made back in 2002-2003 and most recently in the election of 2003 whereby the facility will be built in the four-year mandate. Now we have it confirmed by the Minister of Health and Community Services that there is no such funding in place to do the next phase of the facility in Western Newfoundland.

This is a much-needed facility. This facility, as the Member for Humber East is well aware, is something that we need for all of our seniors on the West Coast of the Province. It is something, Mr. Speaker, that we have united together as a group, as a community, to try and get built. I urge the government, I urge the members for the Corner Brook-Bay of Islands-Humber Valley region, to follow through on your commitment, to follow through on the promise that you made to the seniors of this Province, to follow through on the commitments that you made to the children of the parents, and have this facility built in four years. I know that time is running short. It is a year-and-a-half by the time the next funding may be announced, or may not be announced. That is something that I urge the government, instead of doing it in piecemeal, follow through the commitment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. JOYCE: I just thank the House for the opportunity to present the petition on behalf of the people of Bay of Islands.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 800 people on the Burin Peninsula who are concerned about the proposed sewage treatment facility. I understand that while some people have suggested that, in fact, the proponent has withdrawn his proposal, I have no confirmation of that. Having said that, because the date for making representation to the minister is June 11, I have been asked by these 800 people, in fact, through a petition, to make further representation to the minister to ensure that this particular project does not proceed.

We are talking here, Mr. Speaker, about a sewage treatment facility that is being proposed to be located in a very densely populated area. In fact, it is an area that the prayer of the petition suggests is not a suitable location for a sewage treatment facility because it is too close to the Burin Peninsula school bus depot, elementary and junior high schools, the Burin Peninsula Hospital, and homes and businesses in the area. The area is used by people from Burin and Marystown for recreational purposes such as walking, jogging, hiking and skiing. The access road is a major snowmobile route, connecting trails in the Salt Pond area with Southwest Arm. The area is frequented by many species of wildlife, including moose, rabbits and osprey, to name a few. This facility should be constructed in a more remote location, not central to the most densely populated area on the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to present the prayer of the petition and I am pleased that the minister has just indicated that the proponent has withdrawn his application, and I think for all of the reasons listed above. I am glad that is, in fact, the way it has turned out.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just take a moment to enter a petition on behalf of the residents of not only Southwestern Newfoundland but indeed Newfoundland in general, concerning the closure of the weigh scales at Port aux Basques. In case the Minister of Government Services might have thought we all forgot about the issue, of course, just because we do not raise it here in the House by way of Question Period or by way of petitions does not mean that the people in this Province are not concerned about some of the decisions that this government has made, and this one in particular, because it concerns not only an issue of employment for the people who work in the facility, which is important to me as a member, certainly, in that area, because it means that these people have to uproot and move their families. That is a very important issue, but even more important to this Province is the fact that the closure of the weigh scales is going to allow 80,000-plus commercial vehicles to enter this Province, come off the boat and travel 270 kilometres on the TCH, which we all acknowledge is in terrible condition, particularly in Western Newfoundland where we do not have the benefit of four-lane highways and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Environment again - he asked about when it was fixed - perhaps if somebody in government, or not in government but who works for government, like some supervisor, had been doing what they ought to have done last year, there would not have been any down time. You cannot blame the employees who work in the weigh scales for not getting it fixed. They brought it to the attention of the supervisor and the Minister of Government Services department many, many times, and somebody in there, some bureaucratic person who is above these inspectors out there, is responsible for getting that done. It was not done, that is where the fault lays. You cannot blame these people for doing it. The fact that is was not done - I say to the Minister of Environment, he should be more concerned about other than just the environment, there are people's lives at stake here. We are not talking about just sludge pits or anything else, we are talking about the lives and safety of the people who travel on our highways.

Maybe the commentary coming from the Minister of Environment is indicative of how this government feels about safety in this Province. Well, I say I have no time for it, and the people of this Province has no time for it. We are concerned when we travel on our highways. We want to be sure that the guy coming at you is allowed to be on the road and that his vehicle, particularly these eighteen-wheel rigs, have been inspected and are allowed to be there. When you allow 80,000 plus vehicles to come into this Province and travel just about 300 kilometres without having any kind of inspection, you are leaving yourself open to accidents, and that is not wise. For the sake of the money that you are going to save, and I have done the cost estimates on it, it is about $200,000 that you are going to save per year. Whose life in this Province is worth $200,000? Whose life is going to be sacrificed because this government wants to save $200,000?

I put it to the government, the first motor vehicle accident we have on that stretch from Port aux Basques to Pynns Brook, as a result of a tractor-trailer, this government is going to be the subject of a law suit. You will pay through the nose then, far more than you are ever going to pay by leaving that weigh scales open. You need one accident only to forever tarnish yourselves -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: - and your reputation for safety.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader has moved pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, June 7, 2004.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader has moved pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Monday, June 7, 2004.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act." (Bill 32)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act.

The bill allows for the integration of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission with the Public Utilities Board. As we announced on May 18, the PPPC will be eliminated as a separate commission and its operations will be brought under the PUB. The PUB will be responsible for administering the Petroleum Products Act.

Mr. Speaker, we, as a government, reviewed the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission to determine whether it should remain as is or if it needed to be changed. This review coincided with the expiration of the former commissioner's three year contract.

We started this review totally committed to fuel price regulation in the Province. People wanted fuel price regulation and regulation has been resulted in a stabilization of prices. The PUB already regulates Hydro and auto insurance rates. It has the experience, the expertise and the procedures in place for rate regulation.

This bill will create one umbrella organization responsible for Hydro, auto insurance and fuel pricing in this Province. This allows for a more effective regulation with less duplication.

The integration of the commission with the PUB is not intended to make any changes to the method of fuel price regulation. The same staff will be using the same formulas to set prices as in the past.

The Opposition has accused us of playing politics with the commission. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. The former government put politics into gas regulations when they made the commissioner a political appointee. We are now taking the politics out of it.

The former Commissioner, Mr. George Saunders, did a good job of regulating gas prices for the people of this Province during his three year contract. This is not in dispute. I have thanked him personally, myself, for his work since 2001 and I publicly thank him in this House today. But, this government is not interested in retaining the position as a political appointment. We want to be fully independent. We are putting fuel price regulation into the hands of professional price regulators. We are removing any perception of political interference.

Staff researchers will continue to monitor fuel prices and make recommendations to the PUB, rather than a commissioner. We are committed to fuel price regulation in the Province and that is not in question.

Mr. Speaker, we are retaining the fuel price regulation division in Grand Falls-Windsor. The newly appointed director, an employee of the commission, will oversee the operations and report to the PUB. There is no additional staff.

I want to assure the consumers, and this House, that it is business as usual with the fuel price regulation in this Province. The objective is a seamless transition. The staff in Grand Falls-Windsor will essentially continue responsibility for fuel pricing in the Province. We still have dedicated staff solely for the purpose of fuel price regulations. The PUB can conduct hearings into the price of petroleum if necessary.

Since announcing our intention to restructure the commission two weeks ago, there has been some suggestion made that the restructuring will result in a de-stabilization of fuel price regulation. This is simply not true. Fuel prices are set based on the market factors. It is an international problem that is beyond the scope of any provincial government to fix. Price regulation only ensures that price increases are justified.

There has also been some suggestion that the restructuring is a result of lobby from the oil industry. I can assure the people of the Province there has been no such lobby. This was strictly an internal decision to make the process more efficient and to take advantage of the experience and expertise of the PUB in the right regulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond to the minister's comments in her introduction of Bill 32. I listened intently to her comments and it is interesting that she says her whole thrust for doing away with the commissioner's position was that it was political. It is also interesting to see - why you would fix something if it is not broken?

I would say to the minister today that if she thought it was political and, of course, it was - she also said that she did not see anything wrong with his good work. In fact, she complimented Mr. Saunders on his good work. I do not think anyone has questioned his capabilities. He did a marvelous job. He designed a system that held up through scrutiny far and wide. If she was saying it was political, why didn't she, in her wisdom, choose a commissioner of her choice? Anyway, she has decided to use the Public Utilities Board for the purpose of regulating gas prices in this Province.

It is interesting to see how this actually came about, and I would have a good memory of how this started. It actually had roots in Grand Falls-Windsor where the office now is. I remember there was a group of people and they called themselves NAGG, Newfoundlanders Against Gas Gouging. Some of the key people of that group were Jim Courtney, who is now a councillor in Grand Falls-Windsor. I see there are a good few - Gary Hayley, I think he was an independent service station operator. I remember Dan Hiscock was there, and there were several others. Their protest at the time had been a swing to high prices in gas. I remember it was summertime and it was when the median was being erected through the community of Grand Falls-Windsor. This particular group protested the increase in gasoline prices. I can still remember, Jim Courtney and others with their protest signs in the centre of the Trans-Canada Highway in Grand Falls-Windsor protesting the high gas prices. They were suggesting that motorists would boycott several gas stations that were doing business in Grand Falls-Windsor and beyond. It was later, then, that a group was formed in St. John's, the Consumers Group for Fair Gas Prices. It was that particular group of NAGG that I remember had a meeting at the Mount Peyton Hotel. That was in the spring of 1997. I was a backbencher at the time. They came to me and asked me would I present their concerns to government, and I did present their concerns to government. Then, at that particular time, Cabinet agreed to an independent study on fuel pricing in the Province. That was carried out by Mr. Dennis Browne. His recommendation from that study was: Let free market prices dictate the prices of fuel, gasoline, anywhere.

They kept up their lobby and, of course, they were joined by the group here in St. John's. Throughout the years they continued. They were not satisfied with the outcome of leaving that alone. It was the Premier of the former Liberal Administration - who is now the Opposition Leader today - who agreed to gas regulation. That was put into effect some three years ago. Through that effort there has been considerable stability. People will question: Did they bring down the price of gas by having fuel regulation?

I suppose you cannot say that the gas prices were brought down through fuel regulation, but you would say that there has been stability. I think that is what people were looking for, because prior to that you could have gas prices change about three times in the one day, or more frequently depending on world markets. At the fifteenth of every month, I think there was a great deal of certainty of what the gas prices would be for the entire month.

What we have seen today - and I questioned the Minister of Government Services today. I asked her - it is unusual when you see an act come forward like this, the duties and responsibilities of the fuel commissioner's office are now going to be the responsibility of the Public Utilities Board. Usually when you see an act come forward like this you will always see a proclamation date attached at the end of that particular act, but I do not see one here and it is not indicated. The minister has not told this House when she, indeed, intends to proclaim the act and make all the duties of the fuel oil commissioner's office become the sole responsibility of the Public Utilities Board.

I think the people out there want to know that, because they want to know that there is going to be no interruption and that they can depend on prices being stable for a month at a time. We did not hear that today, but I am encouraged by the fact that she just said the same staff will be remaining in the office in Grand Falls-Windsor, and the office, itself, will remain in Grand Falls-Windsor. I am pleased to hear that, and I am glad she confirmed that today.

I guess what we are not hearing is - we all know that the Public Utilities Board is a regulating body. She did say, in her opening statement today, that the Public Utilities Board can conduct hearings into fuel price regulation. So, even though they are going to be the governing body in the future of setting fuel prices, now she is saying that the Public Utilities Board can conduct hearings into fuel price regulations. I am wondering now what their sole responsibility will be in the future, or will it be a combination of setting the price and also conducting hearings? That was a bit fuzzy when she mentioned that today in her opening statement.

Of course, we all know that there is absolutely no cost to government for running the fuel commissioner's office. There is entirely no cost to government or the taxpayers of this Province. When the Commissioner, Mr. Saunders, when his contract expired on May 25, there was apparently $480,000 of a surplus going to government that was over and beyond what was necessary to operate the office, itself, in Grand Falls-Windsor. Now, had that continued until the end of the fiscal year, we would be looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $800,000 that would be going to government coffers to run that particular office at no cost to government.

Will we, as a people of this Province, have any accountability? Will we get any numbers on what it will cost the Public Utilities Board to actually take on that extra duty of running the commissioner's office? How much money will it cost the Public Utilities Board, or what will they do with the surplus that is being paid currently by the oil companies? Will that go into the coffers of the Public Utilities Board? Will it be rolled into general revenue of this government? Will the Public Utilities Board continue to charge the same rate that it had been charging previously?

These are kinds of questions that need to be asked, and it will be interesting to find out, too, because we all know that, with a so-called cash-strapped government, can this surplus be used for the other parts of government that need attention, other programs?

I would also like to ask the minister, section 7 of the bill repealed sections 24 to 27, and sections 24 and 25 both deal with the budget and the audit requirements of the Petroleum Products Act. I am wondering now, what accountability will be brought to the Public Utilities Board in separating its duty for the fuel oil pricing commission? Will the general public know what it is going to cost to operate this program as part of the Public Utilities Board? Will we have access to knowing those numbers? I think that is very, very important.

Also, I would like to ask the minister, too, section 2 of the bill repeals section 3 of the act, which not only removes the commissioner but also references to the position including the appointment of the staff. Now she did say, when she stood there this afternoon, that she intended to keep the office in Grand Falls-Windsor open and she did intend to leave the staff there, who are currently working there. In saying that, I hope that we can gather from her words that she intends to renew their contract at the end of this month.

Now, I know she did not say what term their contract would be renewed for, so I hope that when the minister stands she will be able to say that contract will be extended, for certain, to the term of the government's mandate, for the next four years. At least we would like to hear that, so there would be some stability there.

We do not know what the rate of assessment will be to oil companies, and we are not overly concerned about that. We are more or less concerned that the job of providing stability in the market for our consumers of this Province will stay into effect. That it is not of any interest, really, to us as long as the assessment will cover the cost of operating the office. Any money that is made over and beyond that, I think it is important to know, for the people of this Province, where that extra money is going to go. We know that there is a surplus there today.

We also know that under section 7 of the bill, the elimination of section 26 of the act actually destroys the ability of the Public Utilities Board to establish interim pricing or to set pricing upon an application from a petroleum company. It eliminates any petroleum company from making application for a price change other than through the normal process. These are questions that should be answered.

Section 8 of the act eliminates the position of the commissioner from the existence, including the recognition of the Chairman of the Public Utilities Board as the Commissioner for Petroleum Products Pricing Regulation. So, it is apparent that you intend for the Public Utilities Board to take over the complete running of the commission into the future and beyond. You will never go back to the system that is in place now. I guess that is what you are saying, because that is what section 8 of this bill says here. With adoption of the bill there will be no commission, it will be under the PUB. I guess it will probably end up with a new sign over the building. It will be directly under the PUB.

It is also interesting, in asking questions about this transfer from the commission to the Public Utilities Board, we also know that in this current atmosphere of high prices for gas there will be an expected windfall from prices. The three leaders of the federal parties - this is a good time to do it - are now making concessions everywhere they go in saying what they are going to do for different provinces. In fact, the three leaders of the federal leadership, now running for election, are saying that they will determine the best use for the windfall in high gas prices.

I questioned the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board a week or so ago, and I asked him what we would do with the windfall that is expected from high fuel prices in this Province, and he said: There will be no windfall. Now, that is difficult to imagine, there would be no windfall, when we know people are paying $1 a litre for fuel, and the federal government themselves say that anything over $.85, they will analysis it at the end of the year, they will put it in a separate category and it will be given back to the people in social programs. What is our Minister of Finance saying? He is saying that there will be no windfall, and that is not true.

It was interesting when the Minister of Government Services, on May 18, gave her initial release about the doing away with the fuel oil Commission in Grand Falls-Windsor. She said: We are integrating the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission to the Public Utilities Board to improve efficiency. Now, that is a bit of a joke, because we all know that she had accolades for the Commissioner, Mr. Saunders, and she felt, and government felt in general, the people of the Province felt, that it was a very efficient operation. She said her plan was to reduce the cost charged back to the petroleum industry. Well, the charges back to the petroleum industry have been a bit of a boost to the government coffers. Is she going to try to reduce the assessment to the petroleum industry? I don't know what her plan would be in doing that. She thinks, by doing that, ultimately the consumer will get a break from the gas companies. If there is anybody out there who believes that, tell me. The Minister of Government Services said in her press release that, if she were to reduce the assessment to the oil companies, the oil companies in good faith would pass along that decrease to the consumers. Now, if anybody believes that, go out and buy a lottery ticket; because, I will tell you, the oil companies will not pass along a decrease to the consumers, this assessment. What we do know, the office in Grand Falls-Windsor has become very efficient in their operation. In fact, they are now recording a surplus for the six months of this year, $480,000, and they expect that to go to $800,000 by the end of the fiscal year.

She also goes on to say that the Public Utilities Board will now be responsible for regulating fuel prices in addition to hydro and auto insurance rates. The Public Utilities Board has the experience, expertise and procedures in place for rate regulation, but have they actually done this work of the fuel commissioner's office? No, I do not think so. That was a new plan that was devised solely by Mr. Saunders in Grand Falls-Windsor, and his staff, and it has met the scrutiny of this entire Province. I know that I hear occasionally, on a routine basis, actually, the Consumers Group for Fair Gas Prices, Mr. Denis O'Keefe, Mr. George Murphy and others associated with that group, they are on the media all the time and they have been giving good compliments to Mr. Saunders and his work. They had some serious concerns whether or not the actual commission would be able to operate properly in the future. Their concern was about stability, and whether or not the people of the Province would have any assurance that gas prices were going to remain uniform on a thirty-day period. In fact, they were quite shocked, I think, that the commissioner had taken leave, or had been fired from the commission. They knew, too, that it was political, but they also knew that he was doing a good job. Their greatest concern, at this point, was that the Public Utilities Board already has a full agenda on what they are responsible for in regulation only, and they were wondering and concerned whether or not they could pay close attention to the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission.

That is a concern right around the Province. You have to look at the fact that now we are going into summer when you will see big gas usage by tourists and, of course, the greatest number of tourists in the Province are ourselves. We are the ones who really explode the numbers. We are the ones who actually move around to all parts of the Province in the summertime, and pull travel trailers and set up camping in our provincial parks and so on. So, we are the ones who are mobile as much as anyone else in the summertime. If we are going to be hit with high fuel prices, that is going to keep people parking their cars in their own backyards.

She said, "A survey conducted by the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission in August of 2003..." - not quite a year ago - "...showed that 78 per cent of consumers want fuel price regulation". We know that consumers out there today want fuel regulation. They want pricing regulation.

I think what is missing from this is what the minister has not said in her answers to me today, which I did not get. She has not given me the answers as to when this act will be proclaimed. When will the Public Utilities Board take over the direct obligation of setting fuel prices, or will the Director of the Pricing Commission, currently the one who was appointed awhile ago, Mr. David Toms, will it be his responsibility to recommend to the Public Utilities Board what he feels the prices should be on a monthly basis? Will the commissioner, who is now Mr. Bob Noseworthy, of the Public Utilities Board, will it be his duty to go back to the director, check and make sure that the proper work has been done, or will he accept Mr. Toms recommendation? Who will actually be setting the price for fuel regulation in this Province? Who will actually be setting the price? Will it be the director in Grand Falls-Windsor, or will it be the commissioner, who is now Mr. Bob Noseworthy, and currently appointed temporary, I guess, as representing the Public Utilities Board?

These are things that need to be answered by the minister herself. She is saying, "Government will be asking the Public Utilities Board to do an operational review of gas pricing regulation to ensure the concerns of all interested and industry parties are being addressed."

What does she mean about that, industry parties? Is there a leaning by this government now to be leaning on the side of industry, the oil companies, and making sure their concerns are addressed? I would hope that she would be leaning on the side of the consumer and making sure the consumers' needs are addressed, because she has already said in her news release that she is hoping to reduce the cost charged back to the petroleum industry. She thinks they will pass on that decrease to the consumer. I do not think that is going to happen, but I am interested by her statement where she says that she wants to make sure that the industry parties' concerns are being addressed. Have the industry parties been to see government, and what concerns do they have? I think her main concern should be the consumer in this regard.

She said, "We are committed to fuel price regulation to ensure fairness, stability and transparency of pricing for resellers, suppliers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers". I think we all want that, but what we want is to make sure that consumers are protected. I did not hear the answer today and I do not think anybody heard the answer as to whether or not - will the Public Utilities Board use the same procedures as the Pricing Commission right now? Will it have the same authority to act swiftly in the regulation of petroleum? Will it be setting prices on a monthly basis, on the fifteenth of every month, like the Pricing Commission had been doing? I never got any answers when I asked her those questions today.

Bill 32, as I said, does not have a proclamation date. That is very important because every bill that ever comes to this House has a proclamation date as to when it is going to be in effect and the transfer of authority goes from the fuel commission to the Public Utilities Board itself. The minister did not put any date on that. What is she implying by leaving no proclamation date on this bill?

There are a few scenarios that she is implying. She may not be going to go ahead with this. She might be passing this bill here in the House and never acting on the bill itself. She may be delaying the responsibilities of the Public Utilities Board or she might have some reason why she is not going to proclaim it. I think she has a responsibility to this House to give us an answer as to why she is not going to proclaim this bill, where she has no date set there. So, there are all kinds of unanswered questions. When you have unanswered questions you have instability in the markets; instability for the consumers of this Province. That is what is troubling from myself here and other people.

I would like to ask the minister, as well, about section 13, 14 and 16; if you would take note of it. Section 13, 14 and 16 are virtually the same as in the current act except the word commissioner and him or her, as it appears in section 13 and 14, are substituted with a person authorized by the board, and the board in 16(2). Does that mean the Public Utilities Board now or the Commissioner of the Public Utilities Board is replacing this section and he or she would have that authority instead of the commissioner? I would like for her to answer that if she would.

I would also like to ask the minister: Does she have a complete understanding of the actual cost of the operation of the commission? Is she aware of any committed contracts that might have been outstanding by the commission when this office was changed over from the commission to the Public Utilities Board?

I know, in fact, that there was a land transportation study being undertaken by David French and Associates, which would have had a significant effect on zone boundaries of this commission in determining prices and pricing margins and future directions of the commission with regard to the pricing policies. Is she aware of this report that is being carried out by David French and Associates, and whether or not she has received the actual final report by David French? Does she plan on implementing any of the recommendations that comes from this report, or is this a report that was commissioned by the commissioner prior to his leaving? Will she pay any credence to this report when it now ends up on her desk? These are important questions, because naturally for every question there has to be an answer. There was money spent in commissioning this report. We all know how important it is with the boundaries that are currently set out by this commission in determining the cutoff for different zones in the pricing by the fuel commissioner. So it is important. I would like to hear the minister's answer in this regard.

I would also like to ask the minister: Has she, herself, actually been to the office in Grand Falls-Windsor and seen the setup for the process of setting fuel prices? I would like to know if she has actually been in that office and if she has talked to the staff. Is she familiar, herself, with the actual procedure that takes place in getting to the point where the commissioner can set the fuel prices in this regard? Is she familiar with any of this? I think if she is not, it would be a good experience for the minister herself to travel to Grand Falls-Windsor, probably with the Member for Windsor-Springdale. I know that he is fairly familiar with the office in Grand Falls-Windsor. I am myself, I have been there many times. I think it would be time well spent to actually look into the operation of that particular office because it has received the accolades from all over this Province; in fact, outside our Province. Other provinces are looking at fuel regulation because they have all been hit hard now with prices over the past month.

I have not heard whether or not the minister herself has actually looked at the books and what it costs to keep this operation going. She, herself, knows that it is no cost to government. I think knowing that there is a surplus paid by the oil companies to operate this office, would she now consider using some of that surplus for finding out more information on how consumers can be better served? There are all kinds of ways to use up a surplus where it is going to be a benefit to consumers in the future.

I really would like to see the Minister of Finance stand on his feet and say: Yes, there could be an apparent windfall. There could be a windfall from those high prices. I would like the minister to stand on his feet and say that he is determined to do the best for consumers in this Province and that he will, at the end of this fiscal year, March, 2005, look at how much extra money was put into the government coffers over and above what was predicated. I know for a fact that in determining revenue from gas sales he was ultra-conservative. The Minister of Finance was ultra-conservative in projecting revenue from gas sales in this Province. It has always been the process where you underestimate and overachieve. We know, for a fact, that he used a low figure there. If he is determined to put that money back into consumer's pockets he will agree that at the end of March, 2005, to actually analyze the gas sales in this Province. If there has been a windfall, which I expect there will be, he should commit, as part of a budget strategy, to make sure that goes back into consumer's pockets.

We have just witnessed one of the worst Budgets in our Province. It would only be fair and just for the minister, himself, to commit to that. He is the same minister who stood here in this House, while he was in Opposition, and insisted that consumers get a break on fuel oil prices for home heating. Yet, this winter he would not agree to that. In fact, the current Minister of Education put out a news release saying that consumers who are heating their homes with electricity should get the same benefits and the same subsidy as those heating their homes with oil. Now, when they are the government, just fifteen feet away across in this House, they decided to disband that idea, that premise altogether, and say: No, the prices were not so bad this year. Well, I can tell you, they were a lot lower in 1998 when we brought in that particular - 2001, I think it was, when we brought in the subsidy for homeowners in the past for low-income earners and seniors; the fuel subsidy. When we brought in that in the past, fuel oil was thirty-nine cents a litre. This winter, at the highest point in February, around the middle of February, it was fifty-one cents. We gave the subsidy - the former Administration - when it was only thirty-nine cents a litre. This winter it was fifty-one cents a litre and we did not hear this government wanting to take part in a fuel oil rebate. So, it is a different matter when you speak from the Opposition side and then you go into government. It is entirely different, things change.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he will consider taking up that matter and do that analysis next March, and if there is any benefit to consumers, if the government has taken in more money than they projected in their Budget, make a commitment to consumers who have been hard done by this Budget, to put some money back in their pockets. I think that would be the fair thing to do.

I am concerned about the proclamation date. I still have not gotten any answers on that. Why would a minister not set out a proclamation date in a bill coming to the House? That is troubling. I do not know why; there must be an ulterior motive. I hope that when I am finished here she will hop up and tell us why.

I would like to ask the minister, too, we know that there is a set of staff with the commissioner's office, almost identical to the one with the Public Utilities Board, and we understand that in order to carry out the proper functions of the fuel commissioner's office in Grand Falls-Windsor you need every one of those staff that are out there. They have been confirmed as doing an excellent job. I am sure that will continue again in the future. Even though the minister said she was going to extend the contracts for the staff in Grand Falls-Windsor, she did not give the duration of the extension. That is troubling. I hope now, when I am finished my response, she will get up and tell me, and tell this House, what the length of that term will be. That would be very settling for the people, the staff, in Grand Falls-Windsor. It would also be good news to consumers right around the Province, who want to know what the status will be of the future of the fuel commissioner's office in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I want to close my questioning today, temporarily, because I am sure that I will be up again, but I want to ask the minister if she can tell me - you said, when you gave your opening remarks today, that the fuel oil commissioner's office will be eliminated as a separate commission and it will be brought under the PUB. When you said it would be eliminated as a separate commission, and now the responsibilities will be those of the Public Utilities Board, you did not outline what date it will become the responsibility of the Public Utilities Board, because that would be the date of the proclamation of this particular bill. You did not outline that date. You did not outline if the Public Utilities Board would be taking on a dual role of actually setting the prices for gas and then, in the same breath, you said that the Public Utilities Board can conduct hearings into fuel price regulation. Will it be their job to set the prices and, since they are a regulating body, also do the hearings?

These are questions, I think, that are important and need to be asked. I will sit down for now and I hope that the minister will be able to stand on her feet and answer these questions. They are very important to the consumers of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for a few minutes just to speak against Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. There is another prime example of the complete incompetence and bungling of the department and the government itself. It is bad enough to go off and praise up Mr. Saunders and say what a great job he did, and he did this Province a service. The work that was assigned to him, he did it well, but then they turn around and phone him on the May 24 weekend and ask him to resign because we forgot that your tender did not finish until May 31. So, instead of coming out and saying that you are being released, the deputy minister apparently called him and asked him to resign so that it does not look so bad on the government itself, that we got rid of the pricing commissioner.

It is ironic when the minister, herself, in such glee, and she did it in such style, that she said it is going to save the Province $100,000 or $110,000, and it was a budgetary decision made to save the Province money. She was outside the House telling the media how much she is going to save by it. That is just not true, Mr. Speaker. The funding for this commissioner, itself, is paid by the oil companies. It is not costing the Province or the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador one red penny. It is just not costing one red penny. So, if the main goal of the government was to get rid of a so-called political appointee who the minister, herself, said did such a great job, he fulfilled his duties as best as anybody that she could think of, why wouldn't you just appoint somebody else if the duties were being properly controlled, properly served, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? To try and say and suggest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we are going to save $110,000 by this is just incorrect. It is just not true. Then, to try to come -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, why don't you read the whole act and why don't you see who pays for the commissioner? You are a member of Cabinet. I am sure you read it. It is very obvious, to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that you have not read the act. If you are thinking this costs the taxpayers of this Province any money whatsoever, you have not read the act. You have not read the act, or you are making the same assumptions, telling the people of the Province the same assumptions, that the minister made outside this House. She said, outside this House, that it is saving the taxpayers $110,000. It is just not true. It is just not true. The cost of the comptroller and the office itself is charged back to the oil companies. So, if it costs less now under the PUB to operate this here, who is going to get the savings? It is the oil companies. The oil companies are the ones who are going to save the money. It is not the taxpayers of this Province.

Then the minister stands up in this House and thanks George Saunders - I think this is an insult, actually - she thanks George Saunders for the hard work and dedication, and he served this Province well, and turns around and says he is nothing but a political appointee.

So, here is a political appointee who the minister says, herself, has done a good service to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and has informed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador of all the necessary information, has done a great job, but yet she has to add that he is a political appointee.

I ask the minister: If the commissioner is needed as you said, why not just appoint another competent person to do it? If it is a competent person who is associated with the PC Party and who is going to help out the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, by all means, make the appointment if the person is competent. In this case, the minister has stated that he is a political appointee, but yet he is a competent political appointee who did his three years of service well.

Once again, I say to the minister, she should stand up and clarify how it is going to save the Province, the taxpayers of this Province, $110,000, which she said outside this House. If that is her rationale for the minister to get rid of Mr. Saunders, it is just not true. The rational is just not true.

Now we go to the PUB. Everything is the same out in Grand Falls, according to the minister, although she would not answer the question today that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans asked: Will the contracts be signed for the current employees at the office now?

The minister would not answer that. What the minister said is, they are still doing their duties as we speak now, but she would not say that when the contracts are up, will those people be extended or will there be a wholesale change. That is what the minister would not answer. I say, with the bungling of bringing it under the PUB, and the way the minister did it, now we have to bring this Bill 32 before the House, which was never discussed when Mr. Saunders was first released of his duties, or his commitment that was made was fulfilled or not renegotiated. The minister had no idea that this had to be enacted under legislation or brought to the PUB.

I ask the minister: When you have a person, David Toms, who is going to be out there now, and he is going to be the Executive Director, if David Toms is the person who is going to do all of the work, as the minister has stated, here we have an office set up, here we have a person who is Executive Director, here is the person who is going to do all of the work, he is going to make all of the recommendations, he is going to do all of the research, and now, all of a sudden, he is the one who is going to do up the final proposal, hand it on to the Public Utilities Board, whose chairman is just going to make the decision and say: Here is what we are going to do. Why not just keep it in the hands of the commissioner himself? If the main goal of this act was to get rid of George Saunders, why don't they just appoint somebody else? Or, if Mr. Toms is doing the job without Mr. Saunders, why don't they keep it in the same position, I ask the minister? There is just no need for this act. You know it.

MS WHALEN: Do you want (inaudible)?

MR. JOYCE: I say to the minister, I do not want an appointment. I just say to the minister that I want the best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why don't you stand up and say what you just said? Do you want a political appointment?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I say to the minister, why don't you stand up and say what you just said? The Minister of Government Services and Lands said: What do you want, another political appointment?

How can you stand up in this House of Assembly and praise the man up for the great job that he has done, how he saved and helped out the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through the oil companies and gas regulations and now sit down and criticize him under your breath without speaking into the microphone? Stand up!

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this was an attempt, a very futile attempt, to say that we do not need it; we could put it on the PUB. If it was such a futile attempt, why are going through Bill 32 today? Why was it, all of a sudden, that this bill had to be brought forth to take this and put it under the Public Utilities Board? Once again, we see the bungling of this government, the bungling of this minister, and this is not the only thing that the minister has bungled. We look at the weigh scales out in Port aux Basques. We look at the car insurance that two or three of them, all of a sudden, sat around and said: Oh, we came up with this $2,500 deductible. There were two or three of us who sat around, but yet she will not name who the two or three were.

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of how this act was brought in for the wrong reason, and now what they have to do is go off and introduce a bill, Bill 32, to try to cover their own tracks. Even in the act, even in this bill, I ask the minister, when will it be effective? When will it take effect and when will the act be proclaimed, that the PUB has the right to set pricing, I ask the minister?

I wonder, is the reason why, at ten o'clock on a Friday night, the Pricing Commissioner, George Saunders, gets a call from the Minister's Deputy Minister asking him to resign, I wonder is it anything to do with this bill, that they knew they had bungled it and had to bring it forward? The minister still hasn't stood up and said if she gave her Deputy Minister direction to call Mr. Saunders and offer to give him an extra week's pay if he sent in his resignation. Why doesn't the minister stand up and take responsibility, if she did it? It might have been somebody else, because who knows who is running the department over there.

I say to the minister: What guarantees do we have now that the PUB - and you say that the PUB doesn't need lawyers. I ask the minister again to answer the question: What lawyers does the PUB hire outside? They may have one on the PUB on a retainer. They may have one assigned to the PUB. How much cost did the PUB have last year for external lawyers? The minister gave the impression, outside this House, that part of the decrease of the funding for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be because we don't need any lawyers now, because the pricing commissioner had a lawyer for their office in Grand Falls, and now we won't need any lawyers. The lawyers who were doing work, last year, for the PUB, were they doing it pro bono? If that is the logic of the minister, are the lawyers doing their work pro bono?

Mr. Speaker, there are so many unanswered questions with this bill. Pro bono is what the minister is trying to say, they are going to do it free of charge, they are not going to charge whatsoever, therefore the taxpayers -

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of a lawyer would do that?

MR. JOYCE: Well, that is what the minister said, and I was out there listening to her.

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of a lawyer would do something pro bono?

MR. JOYCE: There may be some lawyers in this Province who will, I am not sure, but that is what the minister said and that is why the taxpayers of this Province are going to save money. There are going to be lawyers with the PUB who are not going to be charging fees for the work they are going to do, therefore it is going to be less to operate the commission.

Now, we see Mr. Toms appointed executive director, and it is not going to cost the taxpayers of the Province any money anyway. Is Mr. Toms getting any extra increase in pay? Those are the kinds of questions that the minister - the PUB now, under Mr. Bob Noseworthy, is going to set the pricing. We have all the information in place, but the minister turns around and takes another person and makes him executive director, so that person then can go ahead, do all the research, gather all the information. Once they gather all the information, they pass it on to Bob Noseworthy. Now, is that person receiving any extra pay? It is not costing the taxpayers any money, out of the coffers of the taxpayers of the Province.

I am not sure if the minister understands that herself or realizes it because what she says outside the House of Assembly to the media is not what she is saying in here in this House. Even today - and I ask her again - she was asked a question and she should, out of the courtesy of the employees who are in Grand Falls-Windsor: Are those employees, the contract ones who are finished this month, are they going to be extended and given another three-year contract? The minister would not answer that. Does she know the answer? I do not know. Will she turn around and take it upon herself - because there are people out there who are wondering: Do they have a job? Good, bad or indifferent, give them a decision, one way or the other, so they can take it and move on and get on with their lives. If the contract is going to be extended, don't let them sit and wait and wonder. Don't let them sit back in Grand Falls and say: Should we move on? What is our status? The minister, out of courtesy to those employees, out of courtesy - and we see how they handle the public sector employees in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is a great opportunity for the minister to start on the road of treating people, the workers for the government, with respect, with a bit of dignity, and at least say if their contracts are going to be extended. Yes or no?

George Saunders was the same as a political appointee, therefore his contract was terminated. That is fine. That is fine if that is what the minister is willing to do, but the other employees - who, again, are not costing the taxpayers of this Province one red penny - should have the courtesy of knowing if they are going to be working once their contracts are terminated.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I offer my congratulations to George Saunders. You can ask the group that has been hanging around with the gas consumers, they say George Saunders has done a good job. George Saunders has met with a lot of different groups. He met with a lot of different oil companies. He met with a lot of interested parties. Everybody who dealt with George Saunders said that he did a good job. His position was well worth it. It was a great initiative by the Liberal government. It was a great initiative by the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, but now here we are on the one hand saying what a great job he did, and the next hand saying what a political appointee.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this bill because I am hopeful that the work will be done by the PUB. I am hoping that the work will be done as efficiently as it was done before. I am hoping that all the safeguards for the consumers of this Province are put into effect and that the safeguards for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be adhered to. If the minister, once again, wants to treat the workers right now in that office in Grand Falls-Windsor with any respect whatsoever, he should let them know if their contracts are being extended, just out of respect.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to have a few words today. I say to the minister, I trust that, under the PUB, all the needs and the concerns of the consumer will be taken care of and will be adhered to in the same efficiency and the same manner as they were under Mr. George Saunders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words today on Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that the pricing commissioner, in their role that they had prior to this legislation, did not stop - and I think it is important that everybody understand - the price of fuel increases. What it did do, however, was made the increases not occur so often and stopped the pulling and tugging that was going on, if you will, in the way that prices fluctuated. However, when we had huge, rapid fluctuations in price, then the interruption formula had to be used and prices went up. So, there is nothing in this that really controlled the price of gasoline or fuel. It is simply a matter of not being subjected to rapid ups and downs. Not really downs, I might add, but rapid increases in gas.

Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition today are talking a lot about the former commissioner, George Saunders - who, I am sure, is a good person, a good man who worked diligently at the task that he was assigned - but we must also remember that it was a political appointment and political appointments, I guess, are as old as the political process, itself. It does not make it right but it is old. There is an old saying that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. That is a system that has been at play in this Province and in this country for years and years and I guess it will continue to be a factor in appointments to different positions on boards or commissions throughout this Province, other provinces and throughout the country as well. But I do know, and I feel quite confident in saying, that when the pricing commissioner was being put in place that there were many, many bright young graduates from our university who could have qualified for that position and would have given their careers a big boost and would have gotten them out of debt over the last number of years.

I do not have a whole lot of sympathy for people who lose positions that they got by the political process when they lose them as a result of the political process. I do believe that the time for that has to come to an end because we are seeing, each and every year, a number of graduates from our universities and schools who are highly qualified, highly trained and look for opportunities such as this which would have been a golden opportunity for any young person who is graduating from Memorial University in the Faculty of Business or other faculties that may have been pertinent towards the oil industry.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a system that I advocate. It is one that is a fact of life, but it works both ways. I do have some concerns, however, with the Public Utilities Board being placed in charge of this. We are now looking at the Public Utilities Board that decides on our utilities, the hydro, telephones, things of that nature, whether or not they are given increases. They have control over that.

The proposed insurance plan that the Premier and his government have put forward - they are talking about the PUB playing a critical role in that process as well. Now we are talking about the gas commissioner and that system where the PUB again - I mean the PUB is in control of the Province it seems like. All of the things that affect us, and affect people across this Province, the PUB is front and center. I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I do not agree. I think the PUB is being used as a barrier to government. They are being used as a deflector to government. They are taking the responsibility from government that they should have, and that is making sure that we, as citizens of the Province, are not subject to undue increases by the very things that we absolutely need and depend on in order to lead our lives.

Government has a role to play in making sure that the public is not gouged. I do not believe for a minute, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Utilities Board is the right organization that protects the public. I think they protect the corporations much more than they do the public. It is a rubber stamp organization, in my opinion, that justifies why these corporations get the increases that they are asking for from time to time.

I have had a bit of experience, Mr. Speaker, with the Public Utilities Board and the hydro increases in my District of Labrador West. I can tell you, it is a waste of money when that board travels with their team of lawyers and all of their support staff into the different regions of this Province. You go and appear before them - on your own most times, or with a group of concerned citizens who are concerned about the same issue - and make representation. We are at an unfair disadvantage because we do not have the wherewithal, we do not have the ability to get all of the information, do all of the research, collect all the data and figures and put before the board, but at times when we did, Mr. Speaker, we were not successful. The board, in our case, ignored all of the pertinent and relevant information that we placed in front of them and made their own decision, totally ignorant of the information that we paid dearly for by a legal staff and took the time to make the presentation to them.

The Public Utilities Board, I do not believe for a minute, Mr. Speaker, plays a crucial role in our Province in protecting the consumer. As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is more of a case where a company wants a certain increase in whatever product they happen to be selling, that we would have to use, and they figure out a way to rubber stamp that, because if they ask for ten they will probably give them seven. It is just a simple matter of trying to deceive the public.

The thing that offends me most, Mr. Speaker, is that if the Public Utilities Board come down with a decision that is totally against what the public of this Province want, and if every single man, woman and child in this Province is against it, then the rules for the Public Utilities Board today differ from what they were a few years ago, Mr. Speaker, because a few years ago the board's decisions were subject to review by Cabinet. Today, they are not. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the reason they are not is because it takes government off the hook without having to face the public in things that are not pleasant or popular for them to have to do.

Mr. Speaker, it is a complete waste of time and I certainly fear, and I certainly do not relish the thought of the Public Utilities Board being involved in any insurance scheme that this government may come up with, and I certainly do not look forward to them performing the work of the gas pricing commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of fuel in this Province is something that this government has a certain amount of control over because there is a taxation on the fuel that is consumed by our residents. The government can - if they were willing, if they had the political will to do so - cap that tax and say, after fuel reaches a certain price per litre, then our tax will freeze at that point. Because, at today's prices, what we pay at the pumps today, Mr. Speaker, say $1 a litre, the HST on that alone is fifteen cents. Other forms of taxation that are built into the gasoline tax account for a significant amount of the price that we pay at the pump. Even though, from time to time, you will hear people in the public talking about the gas stations, and how they are being gouged, many times I guess we forget to realize and understand that it is not the gas station operators who are doing this. It is the big oil companies and governments who are in cahoots with them by way of their taxation that are allowing this to happen.

Government makes a tremendous amount of money, Mr. Speaker, when the price of fuel increases. That is why they are not very quick off the mark to try and do anything about it in the way of keeping prices low.

Speaking of prices, Mr. Speaker, and gasoline and fuel oil in this Province, we have a tremendous amount of reserves right off our coast. We have one oil refinery, and that oil refinery is producing oil from the Middle East. We are not even producing our own oil. Mr. Speaker, I ask: What would be wrong with government putting as much energy into trying to attract other oil producers to this Province to build refineries?

Back when Come by Chance was reactivated, Mr. Speaker, one of the rules that applied to that refinery was that they were not allowed to sell one litre of oil in this country. That has changed since, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out, at that time there was an oversupply of refining capacity on the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. and in Canada. That refining capacity has now diminished, so there is room for additional refineries, and where better to have that than in a Province that sits right on the edge of a vast amount of oil reserves that we should be processing in this Province?

When we talk about processing oil, there are other spinoffs to that, Mr. Speaker. It is a way of us getting out of the box that we are in and being able to create employment, good paying jobs, I might add, in the secondary industries that could be related to having the primary oil and gas industry in this Province.

I find it ironic sometimes when you hear politicians and other people, other business people, talk about the gas and oil industry in our Province. We have oil and gas, but I do not believe that we yet have an industry, because an industry would mean many different things. It would not mean bringing your reserves on board a tanker and shipping them off all the way around the world. It would not mean bringing them to tanks in Whiffin Head and storing it there, only to have it pumped out and taken away again. An industry would provide meaningful jobs for the young people, for the unemployed and for the underemployed in this Province. We have yet to do that. We have failed miserably, in my opinion, to meet the needs and wants of the people of this Province by not making the most of our natural resources.

It is all well and fine for the Premier, for the leaders of the federal parties in the upcoming election, to say that we should be the prime beneficiaries of our oil off the coast of this Province. I would point out that while that is good, and while we all could support that, much more is needed, and we should be getting a better deal. We should be getting a better deal. It should not just be in terms of taxation or royalties. It should be in terms of secondary industry, further processing, probably a plastics industry, and all of the good paying jobs that would come with that so that the people of the Province would have to stop leaving here in order to obtain employment. Because, we can get whatever royalties we want come in, and the GDP can grow, but that does not mean there is more work. That does not mean there are more people in this Province employed today than yesterday. The GDP increases, that is mainly driven by our offshore reserves, only means that the companies are doing better most times with less people. It is not reflection whatsoever on the employment opportunities, or the ability of our young people, upon graduation, to find meaningful employment in this Province without having to go away. Therein, I think, lies the answer. It is for more processing to create the jobs that pay well and allow people to stay within our Province.

The commissioning, itself, Mr. Speaker, and back to Bill 32, the Petroleum Products Act, is that hopefully the new system, the new regime that they are going to put in place, will perform the same as it has in the past couple of years. It is really important - and I want to say this to the minister - it is really important that the office in Grand Falls-Windsor stay in tact, and that the people who have worked hard over the years, who have now developed an expertise in this field, be able to stay and perform the work that they have been doing on behalf of residents of the Province, and that the minister would be well-advised not to tamper with that. Let them do the work that they have done.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks for now. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 32.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make some comments at second reading with respect to Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act.

Mr. Speaker, just to make this general comment and point at the beginning of my few remarks, I will lay out the five or six concerns that I have with respect to this particular bill here, at second reading in principle, and say my piece as to why, at the end, I believe it is unnecessary and why I will vote against it, again understanding fully in my own mind that I do not expect anything I say to cause the government to change their minds.

I have the opportunity to raise my concerns, which I appreciate. I will have the opportunity afterwards to vote against this particular bill, because I think it is unnecessary. I will spend a few minutes making those points, but I am under no illusion whatsoever that anything I might say would cause the minister responsible, or the government, to change their minds and withdraw the bill. So, let's make that clear from the beginning, that is not my intent or purpose.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points, probably five or six, that I would like to make for the record, because this is an issue that was brought forward by the previous Liberal Administration; an issue, actually, that had been lobbied for in the Province for years. Lobbied for extensively and supported by the then Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party, which is now the government. I am glad to see the minister confirming that they still believe that the notion of regulating fuel prices in the Province is a good one, and that they are going to continue on with the regulation. That is what I understand from the introductory remarks made by the minister. Those things are reassuring, and I take some comfort in that: that it is not a matter of changing course and abandoning a regulatory process when it comes to fuel price regulation, but this government having decided to do it in a different fashion. For the life of me, having read the bill and examined the bill and looked at what it purports and intends to do, I cannot see any advantages to the switch that is being made. I will talk about my own thoughts as to why I believe it is occurring.

What is happening, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 32, this act that is before us, sponsored by the Minister of Government Services, is that they are eliminating the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission as a separate stand-alone entity. The Petroleum Products Pricing Commission will no longer be a separate entity in Newfoundland and Labrador. The function, we are told, that it carries out, which is to set the price on a monthly basis and to then decide whether or not it needs to be interrupted or changed because of volatility in the marketplace, will be performed by another regulatory agency, the Public Utilities Board, instead.

The question that it begs is: Why would you do that? We have been given two answers as to why. One is, that the Public Utilities Board already exists; it does and performs these kinds of regulatory functions, and they will take advantage of their experience and expertise. It does not hold any water, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever. There is no substance at all to that argument and rationale as to why this would occur. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the new commissioner, the current Chair of the Public Utilities Board, is on the public record as saying: I do not have any expertise in fuel price regulation. We have never, ever done it before.

The Public Utilities Board in this Province, nor any Public Utilities Board anywhere in the country, has ever done fuel price regulation before. As a matter of fact, there are only two jurisdictions in the country doing it: Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island. Until this particular bill passes, up to this point in time, what they have is a separate commission performing the function. There is a separate commission still functioning in our Province today. The chairperson, who was Mr. Saunders, his contract was not renewed, and they have a new chairperson named. The chairperson is Mr. Noseworthy, who also happens to be the Chair of the Public Utilities Board, but for purposes of the law and being able to do fuel price regulation next Monday, when it is due again, the Public Utilities Board cannot do it. It is only the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission that can perform that function. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we will see what happens a week from today. We will actually see what happens then.

Mr. Speaker, the other part of it is this: The minister, today - the minister has said this several times - made a comment about politics, there being some political motivation here, and that they wanted - the phrase that I made note of today when she was making her introductory remarks was that: we are going to make this change to the Public Utilities Board to take the politics out of it.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about that just for a second. There is no politics in it. There never has been. The Petroleum Products Pricing Commission is an independent arm's-length removed commission, every bit as independent from the government as the Public Utilities Board is; every bit as independent. It has its own piece of legislation, stands alone. The government has no members on it. The government has no say in what it actually does. It runs itself. There is a piece of legislation like this that gives it its authority. It sets its own regulations, and they are all in place. It does its own research. They do not call the minister and say: Am I allowed to change the price next Monday? As a matter of fact, the minister, in the last three years, would not even get advance notice. They would hear in the news and in the media what the price was going to be, the same as everybody else in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no politics in it.

What the minister, I think, seems to have confused, is that the first commissioner, Mr. Saunders, who is now retired and whose contract was not renewed, was appointed by the government of the day. That is what she says made it political; but, Mr. Speaker, if you follow that, the person who is now the commissioner, Mr. Noseworthy, guess how he got his job? Guess how he became the commissioner who is in place today? He was appointed by the minister. They did not go out and advertise. They did not go out and go through the Public Service Commission. They did not put ads in the paper and say, who would like to be the commissioner? They appointed Mr. Noseworthy. This government has appointed today's commissioner, and that is what the last government did. The last government appointed the commissioner.

The question is, then - there is a staff of four or five, I think. Guess how the rest of them got their job? The government had no say in it whatsoever. The government had nothing to do with any advertisements. The government had nothing to do with how big an office was in place. That was done by the commissioner, under the authority given to the commissioner in the legislation. So, there seems to be some confusion. As a matter of fact, if there was political concern about the fact that the former commissioner was well known to the Liberal Party and the Liberal government, the way for this government to take the politics out of it - which is the phrase that the minister used: We want to take the politics out of it - the way to take the politics out of it was to say Mr. Saunders, whom she raved about what a great job he has done and how well the commission is functioning, is going to be hired on again, and he is so good that a Conservative government is going to keep a known Liberal, who did a good job, in place because we do not want any politics in it.

Now, I will tell you what. Mr. Saunders, I think, if you ask him, does not want the job any more even if he was offered. He enjoyed it. It was a good experience. He did a good job. He is pleased to be recognized for that. You now have a Mr. Noseworthy appointed by this government. They picked him. They said Mr. Robert Noseworthy will now be the new commissioner, chosen by the Conservative government, and not done through any screening or vetting or so on, Mr. Speaker, but that is not the main point. Again, it is an issue that the minister uses as a reason that holds no water. They talked about independence. You cannot be any more independent than to be arm's-length removed from the government operating under your own piece of legislation.

That is exactly, by the way, how the Public Utilities Board was set up. It has its own act called the Public Utilities Board Act. It empowers it to do certain things, and then they go and do it with no interference from the government, from the elected government, and that is exactly how the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission is structured and set up today. So there is no need to subsume it under the PUB for any political neutrality. There is no need to suggest that is going to make it arm's-length removed. You cannot be any more arm's-length removed. The minister today did not hire the staff that is out in Grand Falls-Windsor, in the office. No more did the minister in the previous Administration. As a matter of fact, they had no say in it. They did not have to come to Cabinet and say: Can I hire this researcher? Can I hire this communications director? They did it themselves. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that they went through public processes, advertised, screened the candidates. The commissioner out there chose them based on the application they received. There is no more of a process, no more political involvement in that, Mr. Speaker, than there is in the Public Utilities Board.

The other issue that was raised is: Why should you eliminate this independent commission, and roll its functions into the Public Utilities Board? The first answer that the minister gave when saying it two or three weeks ago - and this is a pattern that we found with this government. They tend to give an answer or a rationale. It is found out that it does not really make much sense, so then they give a different answer and a different rationale. That might not make much sense. Then they change it and give another answer, or another rationale.

We need an independent commission. That cannot be the answer, because the Products Pricing Commission is independent by law. Taking the politics out of it cannot be the answer, because there is no politics in it. There is no politics in it, other than the current minister has done exactly what the previous government did. There is a role for the government to appoint the commissioner, and this government said: We are not renewing the old commissioner; we are appointing a new one. So I guess there is just as much politics at play in this. They have appointed a commissioner. In some other cases, like the new board chairs for education, they said: We will not appoint them, even though we could. We are going to go out and advertise through the Public Service Commission.

They did not do that. They said: No, no, we will take Mr. Noseworthy and we will make him the chair. Now, what was the first bit of information, Mr. Speaker? The first bit of information was, we were doing it to save money. We were going to save $110,000, I believe the number was, and it was broken down into two allotments. One was, they were going to save $60,000 on the commissioner's salary, and there was about $50,000 in legal fees.

The fact of the matter since then, Mr. Speaker, is that the people of the Province have found out that you do not save a cent. You do not save one penny, not a copper. Not one red cent do you save; because, the way the Public Utilities Board operates, where this is now going, is that the Public Utilities Board, by the way - for those who do not know it - does not receive a grant from the government. As a matter of fact, it does not impact on the government's budget at all. It does not receive one penny of direct taxpayer's dollars that they send to the government.

If you look through the Estimates - as we spent a month or so doing - if you look through the Estimates in the Budget and try to find out inside the Budget where the amount of money is that the government gives to the PUB, to the Public Utilities Board, guess how much it is, Mr. Speaker? Zero. It is not in the Budget because there is absolutely no connection between the operation of the Public Utilities Board and the function of the Budget of the government. No connection whatsoever. Just like, by the way, if you look in this Budget and say: Where is the amount that the government has to vote in the Budget for the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission? Guess what the number is? Zero. Because there is not one penny spent by the government on the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission and there is not one cent spent by the government on the Public Utilities Board.

The minister stood up the first day, when she talked about changing and doing away with the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission and giving it to the PUB - she said in the House in a prepared statement and she said outside to the media that it is going to save $110,000. It turns out since, of course, that is wrong. So it is a different reason now, because there is absolutely no savings. The $60,000 - the way the Public Utilities Board covers its expenses, Mr. Speaker, is that whomever they are regulating at the time, whether it be hydro rates or whether it be some other rates, insurance rates or whatever they are going to do, the cost associated with operating the Public Utilities Board is charged back to the companies. It is charged back to Hydro when Hydro goes in for a hearing. It is charged back to Fortis when Newfoundland Power goes in for a hearing. It is charged back to the insurance companies when they go in looking for these benchmarks in these closed case studies and so on that look at insurance rates for regions. It will be charged back to the oil companies when they are regulating gasoline prices. So there is no savings.

The cost of the commissioner, the prorated cost of the commissioner, who is now Mr. Noseworthy, whatever portion of his salary and whatever portion of his time is assumed to be associated with regulating gasoline prices once a month, which he will now have to do, gets charged back to the oil companies. So there is no saving on salary, because if it is deemed to be $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000 worth of his time that is performing that function, that is what will be charged back to the oil companies.

Then legal fees she said. I guess she thought that because they have a lawyer on staff at the PUB that they would not have to pay for the legal fees. Well, guess how the lawyer at the PUB gets paid? If the lawyer at the PUB is asked anything about hydro rates, they send the bill to Hydro. If they are asked anything about Fortis, they send the bill to Fortis. If the lawyer is asked anything about gasoline prices and oil companies, they send the bill to the oil company. So there is no savings for anybody. There is no savings for the provincial budget. There is no savings with respect to the cost of the operation and all of these issues will have to be covered again. So, you look at that again.

The rationale given, she said : Well, the commissioner's contract was up so we reviewed the whole thing. Now, here is an interesting one - because that is the fourth supposed reason she gave. The commissioner's contract was up so we reviewed the whole thing. I would like to challenge the minister to lay on the table in this Legislature the recommendation she got to her department as a result of that review, because I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, there was no recommendation as a result of that review. Here is what she said today: the commissioner's contract was up so we said we should review the whole operation. It was a good time to review the whole operation. That part of her statement made sense. Then, she said: as a result of that review we decided to do away with the commission and get the Public Utilities Board to perform the function.

I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, I would like for her to put on the table - she probably will not, but we will get it through the Freedom of Information anyway - the reports that were submitted as a result of that review; what the Terms of Reference of that review were within the department; how extensive the review was, and what the options were that were presented to the minister for consideration, because in every review that was ever done, one of the options given is the status quo, is to continue on with the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission. It would have said get yourself a new commissioner because Mr. Saunders' contract is up. One of the options clearly would have been, let the commission operate and decide whom the new commissioner will be. So, we will see that. Then we will see what the other options were, because I tell you, unless the officials have changed dramatically and drastically - which they do not very often do, Mr. Speaker - unless they have changed dramatically and drastically, when the work was being done three years ago to establish fuel price regulation in the first place, guess what the recommendation of the officials were? Guess what the recommendations of the officials were? - because one of the options that was examined was go and have it done at the Public Utilities Board.

The recommendation, Mr. Speaker, of all the officials involved in Mines and Energy at the time and Government Services and Cabinet Secretariat is: Don't use the Public Utilities Board because their model and their procedures do not fit. The model and procedures of the Public Utilities Board says that you have to allow for intervener status. You have to let the proponents bring in their lawyers and bring in their accountants and bring in their bookkeepers and argue the case as to whether or not the change that you are going to make is right and appropriate. You have to allow for public hearings. You have to let the public - you have to have a decision made whether or not there is going to be a Consumer Advocate appointed to speak up for the consumers. Those are the normal procedures of the Public Utilities Board that are outlined by law. If they are going to do a hearing - if they are going to intervene in something those are the processes they are normally supposed to follow.

Again, unless the minister is going to explain to us that in this new act, Bill 32, that they are going to pass over this function to the PUB, the Public Utilities Board, but they are going to say to them: Don't use your normal practices. If you are going to be the Public Utilities Board and you are not going to use your normal practices, what is the point?

Mr. Speaker, my conclusion of the whole thing is this: The government determined, as they have the right to do, that they did not want to renew the contract of the first ever commissioner. They were totally within their right to do that. Then, rather than just make that decision - and they did say that the commission has done a great job and the commissioner did a great job, and the minister reaffirmed that today, but rather than just say: We would now like to go get a new commissioner and give that commissioner a three, four or five-year contract to go ahead for the next four or five years, they wanted to try to pretend that it was something other than just getting a new commissioner. They said: Oh, we will give it some additional credibility by giving it to the Public Utilities Board. It has done the exact opposite. There is no additional credibility - as the Member for Labrador West pointed out - by going to the Public Utilities Board. There is an awful lot of people who do not like decisions that have been made by the Public Utilities Board and do not think they have made decisions in the best interest of consumers. The processes that are there - unless they are now going to be abandoned and done differently for regulating fuel prices once a month - do not fit the model. It makes it cumbersome. It makes it unwieldy.

Again, unless the minister is going to describe to us all - and we will deal with that at the committee stage - that there is something in here that we have not seen yet which says: We are going to give it to the Public Utilities Board, but the Public Utilities Board is not going to do what it normally does. If the Public Utilities Board is not going to do what it normally does, why send it over there? Why not let the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission, which is just as independent, if not more so than the Public Utilities Board, and just as cost-effective because it does full cost recovery from the oil companies anyway, no cost to the taxpayers, why not let them continue on?

My point, Mr. Speaker, is that it is totally unnecessary what we are doing here. They can accomplish what they want just by appointing a new commissioner under the current act and they do not need to try to pretend they are doing something wonderful and something great for Newfoundland and Labrador. They tried to pretend they are saving some money. There are no savings, none whatsoever. They tried to say this will give it more credibility, it does not. They tried to suggest this makes it more arms length and independent, it will not. If anything, our prediction is, it will only make it more cumbersome, Mr. Speaker.

Then she said today - I wrote down this note as well: We want to utilize the experience and expertise that already exists within the Public Utilities Board. I think I said it a few minutes earlier, but let me say it again. They are on the public record, even Mr. Noseworthy, who is the Chair of the Public Utilities Board and now the Interim Commissioner of the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission, is on the public record, having stated publicly, that: I don't have any expertise in fuel price regulation. I have never done it before. We have never done it before. The processes that are in the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission are brand new to us, they are foreign to us, they are not something that we understand, we will have to learn about it just like anybody else. The only other place it is done is over in Prince Edward Island. If you wanted to give it someone who had expertise and experience, and you don't want to do it here with a separate commission, why didn't we fold ours up - it would make just as much sense - and let the Petroleum Products Commissioner in Prince Edward Island do it? That is the only organization anywhere in the country that has any experience or expertise with respect to setting and regulating fuel prices on any kind of a regular basis; in our Province, the regular basis being once a month.

Mr. Speaker, I think what I have pointed out is this: Each one of the three or four different rationale that the minister has tried to present, as to why this makes sense, why this is logical, why this is an outcome of a review that was done, while it gives some extra independence, while it saves some money, I believe all of them have been shown to have no substance to them. What we have is a government that, for some reason, probably just like they did with automobile insurance, Mr. Speaker, where the first question asked of the same minister - by the way, it happens to be the same minister - was, where did this deductible come from instead of the cap, and her answer was, a few of us sat around one day and had a chat about it. Then we said, well, would you mind telling us who was in the group, who were the few? Was it bureaucrats in the government, was it some representatives of the industry, was it some senior members of the Cabinet, was it some members of the caucus, was it representatives of the legal community. Here we are today, by the way, two months after that question was asked for the first time, with no answer. There has never been an answer as to who that group was.

I would suggest that: Where did this notion come from? She said there was a review and she said, we decided the best thing to do was to bring in this change, amend the Petroleum Products Act and give the function to the Public Utilities Board. I would like to ask her, and maybe will ask her in Question Period tomorrow: Who was in that meeting when that was decided? We will ask in the Legislature, and through Freedom of Information, for the criteria for the review and for the series of recommendations. When a review is done, there are usually at least two or three options or alternatives presented to the government, one of which is the status quo. There is no legitimate review of anything if you don't compare it to what is happening now, and say, okay, here is one choice, to carry on as you are, and here are three or four other options.

We will find out, I expect, sometime, because the minister will want us to know, and they want the people of the Province to know, so they will have confidence in his decision, who it is that suggested that this would be done better and will serve the people better, and will serve the consumers better, if it is given to the Public Utilities Board which knows nothing about it by their own admission; knows absolutely nothing about it. She admits now, I think, that it is not going to save any money. Now she is trying to say, we want to use the existing experience and expertise of the Public Utilities Board with respect to fuel price regulation, when they are out in public themselves saying: I do not know why they would ask us, really, because we do not know how to do this, we have never done it, and we will have to learn just like anybody else will.

Then, the question that was asked in Question Period today, that maybe we will get an answer to as well, as the minister closes debate: When is this change going to occur, because there is no proclamation date here? I do not thing anyone expects it is going to occur in time for next Monday when the prices are to be set again. It is not going to occur, so the Public Utilities Board will not do this by next Monday. I do not think they will, anyway, because they are out publicly saying they do not know how to do it. Will they do it by the time July 15 comes around, or will it be August 15 or will it be September 15? Maybe the minister might tell us when they are going to feel that this transition would have occurred, so that the consumers' interests will be protected and that we will have a seamless and smooth change. We certainly do not predict any of that, from what we see on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I conclude my remarks and, again, appreciate the opportunity to indicate at second reading that we have seen nothing and heard nothing that suggests that any of this is necessary, that any of it is to the advantage of consumers, and that any of it will do anything to improve the system of fuel price regulation that currently exists and, by the minister's own admission, is operating extremely well in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, it is a matter, in summary, of saying: You have a minister saying it is not broke, but somebody said, buddy, we are going to fix it, and the fix is the Public Utilities Board even though they do not know anything about it. The Public Utilities Board, by the way, does not really want it. They do not want it. They would rather not have anything to do with it, if they had their druthers. Somebody - and maybe the minister will tell us - sat around, a few of them had a chat one day and said: Let's give it to the Public Utilities Board. It seems to be a pretty common theme for this group. If they have something they want to change, give it to the Public Utilities Board, never mind if it makes any sense. It just sounds good, I guess, to them.

Mr. Speaker, I will have opportunities to ask a few more detailed questions at the Committee stage, and unless I hear something - now, I do have an open mind. I am willing to be proven wrong and convinced that everything that I just said makes no sense and that there is a really good rationale for going to the Public Utilities Board, that it does make some kind of sense, that there was a real review, that there were some options examined, that there will be some savings and that the consumer will be better served. If the minister can give us some information, then I will stand up and indicate that I will vote for it before the end of debate. I doubt that will occur, but I am willing to be convinced, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate in principle on Bill 32 at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker..

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 32, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, " An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act." (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has been now read a second time.

When shall the said bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House? Now? On Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill 32)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do not leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 26.

Is it the please of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR( Fitzgerald): The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairperson, I move motion 3 on your Order Paper, and that is the motion pursuant to Standing Order 47.

CHAIR: Motion 3, Standing Order 47, Bill 26.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Motion carried, was it? Did you say the motion carried?

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, we agree to go back and allow him to speak, even though the vote has been done. I think we moved kind of quickly, so we do not want to deny him that right, unless he wants to agree with it and let it go through, and then we move to the next item.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Standing Order 47 is clear, according to our Standing Orders, that there is no debate on that particular motion.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I thought that you called (inaudible).

CHAIR: The Committee will now hear debate on Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, can you pass the motion without even reading the motion out? Is that normal procedure, to pass motions without reading them out? I mean, are we avoiding reading out the closure motion? Is that the point of voting on it, without reading out the motion?

CHAIR: Order, please!

If the House would like the motion read, then the House can certainly read the motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader, to move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that debate on Bill 26 entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," standing in the name of the Honourable the Minister of Human Resources, Labour & Employment shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, Schedule or Schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to debate in Committee of the Whole House respecting Bill 26, "Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act."

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

The House is now ready for debate on Bill 26, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act", and, according to our Standing Order 47, each member will have the opportunity to speak once and only once for a total time limit of twenty minutes for each member.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am glad you are here to referee this afternoon, Mr. Chair, because the Acting House Leader was trying either to mislead the people or he does not know what he is doing; one of the two, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is not required - any of the motions on the Order Paper today. I called Motion 3, the same as I called different order numbers there. It is not required to read them out, but the member wanted it read, and I have no problem with that. All we have to do is call the order or the particular motion, and that always suffices. That is what I have done so far today on the previous ones.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Chair, pardon me if I am laughing, because every time I get up the Minister of Finance gets up on a point of order, and every time you invariably rule there is no point of order. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are here today to talk about Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. When this was introduced by the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, last week, and when the Minister of Fisheries rose to speak to it shortly thereafter, it was described as a very minor housekeeping bill. For that reason it did not warrant a lot of debate; but, if you look at the bill very closely, it is not a minor bill and it certainly has a traumatic impact on the fishing industry, and every man and woman who is involved in the fishing industry, whether they be aboard a vessel or they work in a fish plant, or they own a fish plant. That, Mr. Chairman, involves a lot of people in this Province. It practically impacts, in some way, every single community in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, at least those near the water.

Mr. Chairman, to say that it is a minor housekeeping act is not entirely true, because what this act will do will be to give the authority to the minister to change the way that we sell fish in this Province. When I say fish, I mean all species. That is another thing that the minister sort of misled us into believing last week, in that it was only a bill brought forward to deal with shrimp. If you look closely at the bill, it says fish; and, under the Fisheries Act, fish is all species.

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly not a minor bill because, as I said, it is going to impact how fish is sold in this Province, if the minister so desires. If we pass this bill this afternoon - and we will, because you just brought in closure. What that means, for those who are out there watching us today, closure means that the government, because they have thirty-four members and we only have fourteen over here in Opposition, what that means is that we are only permitted to speak once. At the end of the day they will call the vote and, because they have thirty-four and we only have fourteen, this bill will be passed, so it will become law in the next few days and the minister is then given the authority to change the whole system that we have operated under for the last thirty or forty or fifty years in the selling of fish in this Province. It could mean that he is going to bring in a new system that he calls an auction system.

Prior to this bill coming in, fish prices have always been negotiated. The Member for Bonavista North knows. They have always been negotiated between the union and the group representing the processors in the Province. Up until Christmas of last year, that group was known as FANL, the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. Each year, FANL and the fisheries union, or the FFAW, got together and negotiated the price for all species: shrimp, crab, whatever it was, and they negotiated a price collectively. They call it collective bargaining because they sit down and try to collectively negotiate a price for fish products or fish. What the minister wants to do with this, if he so desires, he could scrap all of that and move to an auction system.

When we brought him to task on that last week, he sort of backed away from it because he even said late last week, when we did the all-night sitting, around 3 o'clock in the morning, in his own words, he said even he was a bit apprehensive. Even he was a bit worried about what this bill might do. I am sure that others opposite, including you, Mr. Chairman, representing a fishing district, should have some concerns.

When we addressed these concerns with him, the problem we have with an auction system being forced upon, foisted upon, the people in the fishing industry - and I might add, there is no one out there who wants it. There is no one in the fishing industry who wants this piece of legislation, but the minister is foisting it upon us even though he is apprehensive about it. The reason that he said he is doing it is because he said that the systems we had in place before, collective bargaining, has not worked.

I have been involved, to some degree, with the Department of Fisheries for fifteen years now; fifteen years, one way or another, with the exception of a year or so, involved with the Department of Fisheries, and I think that even though we had some hiccups and in some cases major glitches in the collective bargaining in our Province - one in 1996, I think, in the summer of 1996 in particular, that the minister refers to as the pepper spray incident - it has gone pretty reasonable. Yes, we do have tie-ups from time to time, but we have always managed each year, certainly, to catch our quota of crab. We have always managed each year to catch our quota of cod and other species if they were available. We have not always caught the shrimp quota, but that is not because it could not be caught. It just so happens that the price offered for shrimp in the last few years was not high enough, such that fishermen and/or processors wanted to actually harvest or process it.

What I am trying to say, I guess, Mr. Chairman, is that we have always managed to come to an agreement at the end of the day. I know it got rough at times. Things happened, where plants have been shut down, boats have been tied up, fuel has been thrown on fish. We have had it rough, but, then again, in any collective bargaining that you find in the country, it gets rough sometimes. All we have to do is think back a month ago when the public servants in this Province, every single public servant involved in CUPE and NAPE in this Province, were on the street. They were out for twenty-eight days. They were out for twenty-eight days, but.... Oh no, that is not a good example because I was going to say they negotiated a collective agreement at the end of the day, but it was not. The government, unlike anybody else, could legislate an agreement upon them, and this is what the minister is trying to do now. He is trying to legislate something that nobody in the Province wants, an auction system for fish.

Now, some of them might say it makes no difference for some species, but others will tell you that they certainly do not want an auction system for crab. In fact, I have not met one single individual, outside the minister, who wants this auction system. So, I ask you, how many of you have received phone calls? How many of you have had visits from constituents, whether they be plant owners or harvesters, fishermen and fisherwomen of this Province? How many of you in this House have had calls or visits demanding that you put this auction system in place because it is best for the people, best for the fishing industry? Because I have not had one. I am sure the Member for Terra Nova, who has a crab plant in his district, has not had representation from either the plant owner or fishermen in the area. Maybe I am wrong, but they have not had representation whereby these individuals came forward and said: Yes, member. Get in there and make sure that this bill passes so that we get an auction system. Because nobody out there - and I challenge him to bring them forward. If they were out there, I would be standing supporting it rather than standing against this piece of legislation, because what I have been told is that the people in the industry, processors and harvesters, do not want it, and there are a number of reasons that they do not want it. One is because, under the auction system, harvesters now, men and women, will be out harvesting shrimp, like they are doing now, by the way, and on their way in they will have to call in and say, start your bidding, under an auction system, like an auction for anything. Start your bidding on my load of shrimp. There is no guaranteed minimum price in that. Therefore, they have to take the highest bidder. Whatever the highest bidder offers for the shrimp, crab, or any other species they are catching, they will have to take. Whether that highest price is higher than they expected, or far below it, whatever it is, they will have to either sell it to that person or dump it. I do not even think, under this legislation, that it would be legal to dump it, because I do not think you can tie up your boat and say we are not fishing. I think that is in the piece of legislation as well.

Mr. Chairman, when we brought these questions before the House last week, the minister rose when he knew he had a problem bringing it in and that we were not just going to accept it as a piece of housekeeping legislation, insignificant legislation that meant nothing to anybody. Once we realized what he was trying to do and questioned him, the minister, all of a sudden, changed his tune. Then, it did not become an insignificant piece of legislation so he decided to say then: Oh, no, don't worry about it, though. It is an important piece of legislation and we are going to bring in an auction system, but he put a caveat in there - a couple, actually. He said, instead of making it an auction system that the government could legislate, what he was going to do was bring in a voluntary pilot auction system for shrimp only. When the minister said it, I wrote his exact words down because I think words are very important, especially having studied linguistics. He received a masters degree in linguistics. I know when the minister speaks I have to pay particular attention, because sometimes he is rather coy with his words. He tries to give the impression that it is not important. Here is what he said: I want to bring in a voluntary pilot auction system for shrimp only.

The piece of legislation that is here before us in the House of Assembly does not mention voluntary. It says mandatory. It does not mention a pilot project because it is not a pilot project. In fact, when this bill is passed later on tonight, when this bill is rammed down the throats of the Opposition later on tonight, when this bill becomes law later on tonight, there will not be any voluntary project, there will not be any pilot auction, and it will not be for shrimp only, because it is not voluntary. What we have in this bill is that we are going to have a mandatory auction system for all species of fish. If the minister so decides next week that, instead of living with the collective agreement for the price for crab, he wants to bring in an auction system, well, then, the voluntary collective agreement for the price of crab is out the window and we revert immediately to an auction system. That is what we are doing today, giving the minister authority.

Therefore, all of those negotiations that took place this year for the negotiation of a minimum price for crab will be thrown out the window. Therefore, a fisherman who leaves the wharf, or a fisherwoman who now leaves the wharf, to haul their pots - and the minister always brags about his logbook. I do not have a logbook, no, but I do have some knowledge of the fishing industry. I know others out there who have a fair knowledge in the fishing industry, who do not have a logbook. I also know others out there who have far more experience in the fishery and their logbook is much greater than the minister's.

I have been talking to a lot of these individuals, a lot of individuals who have more experience than the gentleman opposite could ever hope to have in the fishing industry, especially when he is sitting here in the House of Assembly today grinning at me. He is not going to get that logbook. He is not going to increase the logbook by sitting here in the House of Assembly while harvesters who have been on the water for fifty years are certainly going to have theirs increased today.

What he is saying to these people is, if he brought in an auction system next week for crab, the minimum price for crab would be gone out the window, and the fellow who is going out to haul his pots would have to radio in and say, start your bidding. If the minimum price for crab is $2 a pound today - well, for some people it may be more than $2 a pound under the auction system. My fear is that the small boat fishermen, in particular, the bid price for their crab might be far less than $2 a pound. That is one of the problems that I have.

The other problem that I have with this auction system is, it doesn't do much to protect small plants in the Province, like the ones in my district and the ones in the Member for Cartwright's district, because under this system the person or the company that offered the highest price would receive all of the product, if they so desired. At least right now, where there is a minimum price guaranteed, a harvester can decide whether or not he is going to sell it to somebody down the road who is offering him a cent more, or whether or not he wants to remain loyal to the person he has been selling his fish to for the last five, ten, fifteen, or, in my own district, for thirty-five years. There are individuals who have been selling every fish they have caught, whether it be crab, shrimp, cod, caplin or lump roe - one individual, in particular, has been selling every piece of fish that he has landed to the Fogo Island Co-op for the last thirty-five years. Ever since the day of its inception, every since the day that it was first thought of, he has been selling his fish to the Fogo Island Co-op. No longer would he be permitted to do that under this piece of legislation, if somebody else offered him as little as one one-millionth of a cent more for his product; not $1 a pound more, not $.10 more, but just any fraction of a cent more. Under this legislation the harvester would have to, to under the law, sell his fish to the highest bidder.

That might not sound complicated, that might not sound like there is anything wrong with it, but the fear that I have, and it might not exist out there today, is if any one company is large enough to decide that, we want every single pound of crab that is in this Province, roughly 110 million pounds, I think, Mr. Minister. If one company wanted to purchase all of that for processing, all he would have to do is outbid his nearest competitor by one fraction of one cent. It could be one one-thousandth of one cent. Then, under the law, he would have to sell it to him.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, there are some companies out there that are very well off financially, and very large. We talked last week about protecting FPI in this House, because I certainly would want FPI protected. I would not want them to sell off their assets in the United States and destroy that company, but FPI had sales of $785 million of fish products the year before last. That is a sizeable company, Mr. Chairman, and if they so desired - and I do not think they would because they are a community-minded company - they could put a lot of pressure on these smaller plants in the Province to offer slightly more to fishermen than some of the smaller companies are able to afford to offer.

Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is that there are a number of problems associated with the auction system, and we have not had enough debate in this House of Assembly to make those who have no worries about it right now, or know little about it - we do not have enough time in this Legislature because the government just brought in closure and this bill is going to pass tonight. We are going to be silenced by a government that is going to be family friendly and new style, a new approach. What they are doing now, to say it in Newfoundland terms, they are going to shove this piece of legislation down our throats and, regardless of what we feel about it and regardless what fishermen out in the Province, fisherwomen, plant owners, plant employees think about it, you've got it. There is very little that we can do about it.

The new approach that the Premier talked about is becoming evident more and more and more every day in this House of Assembly, and the new approach is about a one-man rule. It is about one-man rule. It is not about democracy. It is not about governing, because the Premier says, himself, he is not interested in governing a Province where you have people participate in decision-making. It is about ruling. It is about ruling people. It is about control. The last people who really ruled democracies, I guess - not democracies - the last people who ever ruled, were the Kings and Queens of England, back in the 1400s and 1500s, before Parliament was invented. I guess that is where our Premier wants to go today, because power, I guess, when you have everything else, is very important. I guess power is important. When you have everything else in the world, I guess having that power is something you could never get your hands and your grasp on; but, once you get it, it must be some kind of an aphrodisiac for some, that they want the power. They want to be able to dictate. They want to be able to look at you and say: You are going to do it, not because what you say is right or wrong, because I do not want to listen to you. You are going to do it because I said it is good for you.

We find more and more evidence of this every day in the House of Assembly, where we see that this government is dictating, not asking. They are dictating solutions to problems that do not even exist, because I have still asked a question and I have not gotten an answer: Why are we bringing in this piece of legislation when the only individual in the entire fishing industry in the Province - and he is removed from it. He is not a participant in the fishing industry today. He is not catching fish. He is not filling up his logbook. He is not processing it. He is not on the butcher line today. He is not on the butcher line today, down in Valleyfield, where the plant is. He is not on the butcher line. He is not down there. He is not out packing crab. He is certainly not shoving it on the forklifts and piling it aboard a transport truck. He is sitting in the House of Assembly. He is totally removed from the fishing industry as we know it today. Yet, he is saying that we have to have this auction system because it is best for you, when no one else in the industry wants it.

If the Minister of Fisheries can get up and say, simply because he wants to make a name for himself, because every other system that we have operated under in this Province for the last 500 years does not work and he has the salvation, he has the answer that is going to make this all work perfectly, flow smoothly, and that we will never again have a pepper spray incident, we will never again have a boat tied to a wharf, or cut from a wharf, we will never again see fuel dumped down the hull of a boat over shrimp, so you will never again see a plant close its doors and be locked out by the processors, like they were last summer.... All of that having been said, this minister wants to bring in a piece of legislation that is going to solve all of that. The people out around the Province are saying: Yes, boy, I suppose he does. Dream on Dream on.

MR. DENINE: It is called vision.

MR. REID: It might be called vision, but it might also be called someone going around with a set of blinders on him, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, who knows a lot about the fishing industry.

MR. DENINE: I am supporting it.

MR. REID: Sure you are. Yes, the Member for Mount Pearl says that he is supporting him. He is supporting him blindly, because I cannot remember the last time I saw a crab processing plant in Mount Pearl, or a boat docked in there.

He is supporting him. Yes, Sir, he is supporting him blindly, just like he did when he supported the Premier blindly here three weeks ago when the Premier brought in legislation to force the civil servants back to work, and he stood in this House of Assembly, the Member for Mount Pearl, and said: I am delighted to vote in favour of this bill tonight. The bill was entitled - I will give you the laymen's terms. It was a bill to enact shoving civil servants back to work against their will, and stripping their collective agreement.

Yet, the Member for Mount Pearl stood in this Legislature and said: I am delighted to stand in front of you tonight. Now the same thing. The Minister of Fisheries today is ramming a bill down the throats of the fishing industry of this Province and the Member for Mount Pearl is saying: I am in support of it. I am in support of it.

Well, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, who was bragging about his logbook the other night, no one else in the Province knew anything about the fishery unless they had a logbook. What does the Member for Mount Pearl have? I would say he has one of those bars, maybe, a Carmel Log, that they used to have years ago, but he certainly does not have a logbook. I doubt if he even knew what it meant. Anyway, he is going to follow it blindly, I might add, like he has done with every other piece of legislation that was put before the House, but I can tell him right now, I can tell the Member for Mount Pearl and the zoo crew over there, that this side over here have open minds and is able to speak to what we want -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his time has expired.

MR. REID: - and we will not be supporting this bill, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to make a few more comments on Bill 26. I do not know what more can be said to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. I can only put it down to his Opposition and the stands that he has taken and the comments that he has made over the last number of days on this bill. He said that people on this side of the House are supporting me and the Minister of Labour in bringing in this Bill 26, they are supporting us blindly. I can only say that his Opposition is just as blind as he purports the support is over on this side.

His Opposition - he raises all kinds of issues here today that I answered last week on Thursday afternoon, Thursday night. On Tuesday afternoon, as I recall, we had some debate on this same bill. I went through all the issues that he raised. I met with the people from his district, the people that he talks about in the Fogo Island Co-op. I met with them on a number of occasions. I talked to the manager of the plant out there a couple of days ago, or the Executive Director of the organization, Mr. Ron Johnson, and told him what we were doing. He did not have a problem with it. He did not have a problem with what I was proposing to do with an auction here in the Province.

MR. REID: It's not true, sir.

MR. TAYLOR: It is so true, I say to the member. It is absolutely true. I will put my head on a chopping block to it here today.

MR. REID: It is absolutely false.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, you were not on the phone call, were you? You were not on the phone call and you did not listen to Mr. Johnson. You did not hear him when I talked to him about the voluntary auction that we are proposing to put in place. He said that he had no problem with it.

Even if there was a compulsory auction, there is nothing to stop the boats from Fogo landing back in Fogo. If they wanted - I would think that with a shrimp plant in Seldom, and if I had twenty boats landing in Seldom, I would manage to be able to get the shrimp off most of those boats simply because it would be cheaper for me to buy the shrimp off that boat than it would for somebody who has a plant in Old Perlican or St. Anthony or Twillingate or wherever, because I would not have the transportation costs associated with hauling it out of Seldom back to my plant. If a fisherman from Seldom wants to land in Seldom, the only thing that they have to do is say that my preferred port in hailing in - my preferred port is Seldom and say nothing else. Then all bids must be made based on the shrimp being landed in Seldom. Then, Mr. Chairman, one can only expect that the plant in Seldom would be able to compete, have a competitive advantage over any other plant in the Province for that shrimp because they do not have the transportation costs associated with it.

Mr. Chairman, those are the things - the member insists on fearmongering. I accept that there is a lot of opposition out there to an auction; a lot of uninformed opposition to an auction. There is a lot of opposition to an auction from people who have reasons to be opposed to an auction because of the control that they exert over the industry in its present form. That is why some people have an opposition to an auction. Some people, who I would suggest, are not very far and have made comments - not very far away from and I have had some serious conversations with the member.

Mr. Chairman, the member goes on about how we will not have anymore strikes, we will not have anymore tie ups, we will not have any more plants shut down, we will not have any more fuel dumped on shrimp and all of this foolishness that he gets on with. There is nobody here in this House, never once since I started talking about an auction back in January - since I officially started talking about an auction back in January - have I ever said that this would be the salvation for the fishing industry. Never once have I said this was going to solve all of our problems.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I have said consistently that there are significant challenges associated with an auction. Yes, I have concerns about what an auction might or might not do in the industry. No, I do not believe that it is going to solve all of the problems. As I said to the member on numerous occasions in this House and outside of this House and to people in the industry, both from this seat when I have been speaking to them and from my office down across the road, if you have another solution, if you have another idea, say it. Tell us what it is and we will gladly look at it. Mr. Chairman, I hear no more in the way of ideas and suggestions coming out of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo when he is sitting on that side of the House than I heard from him when he was on this side of the House and he was the minister for two years. No more, Mr. Chair, I hear no more now than I heard then. For two years he sat in the seat, and if anybody can point me to a significant step that minister made within the two years he was here, to advance the agenda of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would dearly love for them to show it to me; dearly love for them to show it to me. I would even suggest that they show me where he tried. Show me where he tried to do something innovative, tried to move the agenda along, tried to address the fundamental issues that were in the industry. He cannot show it to me.

The only one step that he started to make down that road was when he appointed David Vardy to review the shrimp peeling industry. He came back with a report and he did not even do anything with that. He did not even do anything with that when he got it.

Mr. Chair, you know, I might be criticized for what we are doing here, but I will not, after I walk away from this seat as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, be criticized like he was, criticized for what I did not do. I might be criticized for what I do, but I will not be criticized for what I did not do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I will not be criticized because I feared to take some action. I am not comfortable that this is going to solve all of our problems. No, I am not, not at all. But I am absolutely convinced that to do nothing, which is what he did when he was there, to do nothing to try and move the agenda forward in the shrimp industry is unforgivable, Mr. Chair. It only ensures continued chaos in the industry. This represents, from everything they I have seen, an opportunity and a way to move forward. Will it fix it? I do not know. Maybe it will.

We will, Mr. Chair, focus on shrimp. We will endeavour to put together a voluntary auction. We will endeavour to work with the industry to do this. Mr. Chair, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo stands here in the House and condemns us for what we are trying to do, talks about the processing sector and their opposition. Maybe if he wanted to talk to the processing sector and tell them to sit down to the table with us, then we could address some of their concerns. Maybe if we all sat down to the table together, a lot of these issues that they have could be addressed and we could move this forward. I accept that. I accept that I do not know everything about this industry. I never purported to have all the knowledge of the industry but I have had a pretty good background in it.

MR. JOYCE: When you were on this side, you had all the answers.

MR. TAYLOR: I say to the Member for the Bay of Islands, when I was over on that side I criticized your colleague for not trying to move the agenda forward in this industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I gave some suggestions, I say to the Member for the Bay of Islands, on what he could and should do.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible) all of the answers.

MR. TAYLOR: I gave him some of the answers, I say to him. I agree with you there. But, what did he do?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the wrong answers.

MR. TAYLOR: Oh yes, the wrong answers! What do you say here? I suggested this when I was on that side of the House, and I am trying to do it now that I am on this side of the House. I will say one thing, Mr. Chairman, what the members opposite - a couple of the members opposite, I should say, because I do not believe all of them share the same view on this. What some of the members opposite are suggesting, Mr. Chairman, basically what they are suggesting, is that we sit back and twiddle our thumbs. That is what you are saying: Don't bring in an auction. Do not bring in plant production quotas.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: That is what we are going to do, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: No, it is not in the act. It is not in the act, I agree, but in the act it enables us to go and we are going to do it in shrimp. It will take all of our time to make it work in shrimp.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that there is far too much shouting back and forth the House.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has been recognized and he should be heard.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The debate was going so much better before the Member for Bay of Islands came back in the House. It was much quieter, much more -

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabour this any longer. I know that I can stay here and I can talk until next Friday on this. I can go over and over and over the problems that are in the shrimp industry. I can go over and over and over the problems that are in our fishing industry in general. Mr.Chairman, I am trying to advance an agenda, trying to advance a proposal that might -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, could you quiet down the members opposite?

Mr. Chairman, we can sit back and do nothing. We can be confident that nothing is going to change. If we just sit back and do nothing, nothing is going to change in the industry. Tell me how, over the past seven years, the shrimp industry, on its own, has confronted the issues that were there and made progress in resolving them. Tell me. Seven years into the Northern Shrimp fishery, tell me how come 50 per cent of the shrimp that is being landed does not meet European Union standards? Eighty per cent of the shrimp that is being landed is being trucked. Then we wonder why we have problems with quality. We wonder why the cost of getting fish from the boat through the production plant is high. We wonder why we have a loss in yield, and they are trying all kinds of ways to get people to move their boats to landing at plants, to land in ports that are closer to where the plants are, and have not been able to convince them to do it, have not been able to put a system in place that rewards fishermen for quality.

Mr. Chairman, this is what this system should be able to do. Will it do it? Only time will tell; but, if we are not given the authority to bring an auction system into play in a shrimp industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will never know if it will work. We will be sitting down in five years' time looking back on this: Can we do this and can we do that? Would an auction system work? It has been talked about now since 1997, when David Vardy first raised it. Here it is, 2004, seven years later. It will soon be eight years since it was initially brought up in this industry. What has been done with it? Nothing. So we are going to try and do something about it now. We are going to try and see if this can work. If it does not work - there is an amendment going to come forward, I think, from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi a little later, on how we might limit this to a two-year pilot project, with this legislation expiring June 1, 2006. Once we do that, then that will be the end of it. If it works, it works; if it does not, it does not. We have until June 1, 2006, to do that.

Mr. Chairman, before I conclude here now, I am going to propose a slight amendment to Bill 26. I do not know if I have to read this into the record, or do I just table it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: It is, Mr. Chairman, "Clause 7 of the Bill is amended by deleting the proposed section 35.4 and substituting the following: 35.4 Notwithstanding sections 26, 27 and 28 or another section of this Act where the minister requires the sale of a fish species by auction, there shall be no strike, lockout or cessation of business dealings between fishers and processors with respect to the fish species that is the subject of the auction while the auction system is in effect."

That is the amendment that we propose, and that essentially clarifies matters so that we do not take away the right of fishermen to strike and processors to lock out, where an auction is in place that is voluntary and agreeable to the parties, that is not imposed by us.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I am going to read another amendment, if that is okay. I am going to read the other amendment that was proposed by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. That was, "1. Clause 7 of the Bill is amended by adding after the proposed section 35.5 the following: 35.6 Sections 35.1 to 35.5 shall cease to have effect on June 1, 2006."

Those are the two amendments. One was proposed by myself and seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works. I do not know if I am doing this right. The other one, Mr. Chairman, was put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I do not know what the appropriate way of doing that is, but if he is supporting that then I will second it. I guess that is the appropriate way of doing it.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I shall conclude.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has copies of both amendments as put forward by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The Table and the Chair deem both amendments to be in order.

Are there any other speakers in Committee on Bill 26?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: It is my understanding, Mr. Chairperson, that we were going to break for supper at this point and resume at 7:00 p.m. I did intend to speak to this particular bill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, that is an agreement that we would recess at Committee stage and come back to Committee stage at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR: The agreement is that the Committee will now recess until 7:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

This Committee stands recessed until 7 o'clock.

On motion, the House recessed until 7:00 p.m.