April 10, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 15


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a young student in my district in his mathematic achievements. Andrew Critch of Hillview, who is a Grade 9 student at Clarenville High, is now completing advanced math 2201 and 3201 and is also taking part in all math competitions at Level III honour student level. Recently, Andrew wrote the W.J. Blundon Contest sponsored by the mathematics department at Memorial University. This, by invitation only, contest is usually reserved for elite honour students who are in Level III. I am proud to say that Andrew placed second in the Province's competition, an outstanding achievement considering he is only in Grade 9, and because of this accomplishment Andrew has received an invitation to attend MUN's annual math seminar in May.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Andrew on this outstanding achievement and wish him well in his continued studies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to offer congratulations to a young lady from my district by the name of Rhiannon Morgan. Rhiannon is a fifteen year old student who attends Queen Elizabeth Regional High School and over the last several days Rhiannon has been chosen to try out for Canada's National Ladies Volleyball Team this summer in Waterloo, Ontario. I think it is a tremendous thing for her. It is a tremendous thing for her coach, Mr. Terry Mosher, and all the people who are involved in Queen Elizabeth. Who knows, maybe by this fall we will have a lady who has made one of Canada's national teams to compete for Canada in world junior women's volleyball.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 18 and 19 pilots in Labrador West will, for the second year, be hosting Young Eagles day. This program is designed to introduce young people between the ages of eight and seventeen to aviation. It is also intended to encourage young people to become interested in flying, raise awareness of aviation career possibilities and provide them an opportunity to gain new perspectives on their community, their lives, and the world in which we live. The Honorary Chairperson of Young Eagles is Brigadier General, Chuck Yeager.

Local pilots will use their private aircraft taking young people on short flights over Labrador West and the surrounding area and answering any questions they may have concerning aviation.

Following their flight, they will receive an official Eagle Flight Certificate signed by their pilot and have their name entered into the worlds largest logbook which is on permanent display at the Air Adventure Museum, located in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, George Pardy, Bill Cornick, and Gerry Holloway, the pilots who are participating in this event are to be commended for providing experiences to our young people that they otherwise would not be able to acquire.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to send congratulations to a resident of my district who has been appointed to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Trial Division. Judge Garrett A. Handrigan is a resident of Marystown.

After being called to the Bar in 1978, and working as a lawyer with a local firm and later his own practice, in May, 1989, Judge Handrigan was appointed to the Provincial Court Judge in Grand Bank and has served there ever since. His new appointment, as Supreme Court Judge, will see Judge Handrigan serving at the Judicial Centre in Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Judge Handrigan on this achievement and I send my best wishes to him and his family as he faces the challenges of his new position.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise this House, on behalf of the Minister of Health and Community Services, that government will continue its commitment to assist regional health boards in encouraging graduate nurses to work in the health system throughout our Province.

For the second consecutive year government is setting aside funding, totalling $600,000, to offer a $3,000 bursary to graduating nurses in return for one year of service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: This spring 160 nurses will graduate from the Bachelor of Nursing Program offered at our three nursing schools. These bursaries will be an effective recruitment incentive to keep these professionals at home.

Last year the bursary program was very successful and our health boards recruited 148 graduates. Feedback from nursing students indicate a high interest in this program and they identify it as a key incentive to work in the Province.

In conjunction with the reclassification of the nursing profession last year, which resulted in nurses receiving an increase in their salaries, the nurse bursary program will assist the health organizations across this Province to improve their efforts in recruitment and retention. Some health boards have already started to recruit nurse graduates and are using the $3,000 bursary as a recruitment tool.

With government's investment of $600,000, this ensures that the regional health boards do not have to use their operating funds for this program, and further demonstrates our commitment to the continued high quality of health services to the residents of the Province. I invite all graduate nurses to seriously consider the invitation to work in their home Province.

Mr. Speaker, fundamental to a quality health care system is the availability of trained professionals. This nurse bursary program is one of several currently offered by government to attract professionals, such as: occupational therapists, physicians, physiotherapists, speech language pathologists, and audiologists. The funding for this bursary program is in addition to the $1.7 million we will spend on our various bursary programs. By making strategic investments to support recruitment in the health sector, this government is clearly demonstrating that one of the keys to stabilizing our health and community service program rests with the availability of our health professionals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased that these programs are continued this year, but there are many other issues related to retaining nurses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, the working conditions of the nurses in the Province is a major factor. The burn out factor is prevalent within the nursing profession in Newfoundland and Labrador. Nurses are required to work shift after shift after shift when they should not be. They are required to give up their holidays.

I had a phone call, just before I left, from a nurse in this system. She was talking about holidays and the problems related to holidays.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can't do any planning. They cannot plan.

MR. J. BYRNE: No planning, that is right.

They are pressured to work too many hours. As a matter of fact, it is getting to the point where they are afraid to answer their phones, afraid they will be ordered back to work. This government has to start showing a bit of respect for the nurses and the nursing profession in Newfoundland and Labrador. An example of the lack of respect, of course, was last year when they legislated the nurses back to work. That is an example of the lack of respect this government has, and the people on that side of the House.

Also, this government has a long way to go to address the concerns of nurses in this Province and health care in itself within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem of retaining nurses in this Province and recruiting nurses was amply demonstrated by the nurses who went on strike two years ago. This government, instead of dealing with that problem through collective bargaining, ordered them back to work and now are trying time to fix the problem with too little too late.

The real problem with nurses leaving this Province is the high cost of post-secondary education. The debts they have are so high that they feel they have to leave the Province in order to pay off those debts. The incentive that is being offered here in not enough to make up the difference of what is being offered in other provinces and other countries. Something has to be done on that front if we are going to properly retain and recruit the nurses that we train in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The federal government finally decided last year to remove bracket creep from the income tax. I ask the minister: Why didn't this Province make provision in their legislation last December to remove bracket creep in our provincial income tax?

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

MR. J. BYRNE: What is bracket creep?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I can give the definition of creep, but I will hold back on the bracket creep.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

As the member knows, we have changed our taxes into tax on income system. While we did not move to the bracket creep or creep bracket, what we did do is allow a flow through of about an extra $12 million back to the people of the Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, and they did it on January 1 so the effects of a reduced increase would not come in. Because the federal government fully -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because the federal government fully indexes their tax brackets to reflect the CPI increase, there is now a difference of $1,164 between the lowest federal income tax bracket and the lowest provincial income tax bracket, and that amount is going to increase every single year. That means that the lowest income Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to pay close to an extra 6 per cent more on their taxes on that income difference. I ask the minister: Why are you taking money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it?

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

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

Obviously, as the member stood up and asked the question, he was aware that his cousins in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick clawed the $12 million back. We are not into Tory policies in that regard, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We are not going there!

Mr. Speaker, what we have done is implemented a three-year tax reduction program, not only allowing the flow through of the $12 million, but $40 million from the Province itself, $60 million this year and a further $75 million next year.

MR. MATTHEWS: How much, $187 million?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, $187 million altogether.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a good strategy, to avoid the question and try to portray something else.

At least we have a little advantage on the minister. You don't have any cousins in provincial governments in this country, not one! You don't have a cousin, not one cousin!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: They have a few up in Ottawa.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, B.C., I guess.

The federal government provided an income tax benefit to all Canadians, and our Province is now clawing back a significant portion of that amount. I ask the minister: Why are you providing an income tax break through the front door, then going through the back door and clawing back a significant part of that income?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, every day they get up in the House and talk about the front door and the back door. They are obsessed with the doors over there, I can tell you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yours is revolving.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, no. You will soon have the whole front row full of ex-leaders over there. We are not revolving; you are revolving, for God's sake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, whether you are talking about the front door or the back door, it is not accurate what he is saying. It is $12 million flowing through, plus $40 million, Mr. Speaker, that this Province initiated with the tax back system, plus $60 million this year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the question, but it is the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Premier. Premier, the people of Grand Falls, Windsor, Bishop's Falls, Botwood, and all the Central Newfoundland area, are concerned that Abitibi Consolidated may be preparing to shut down number seven machine at the Grand Falls-Windsor mill. The mill unions brought those concerns to the current Premier and the current Minister of Labour last August, but they have not yet received a response.

What assurances can the Premier give that number seven machine will remain in operation at the Grand Falls-Windsor mill? A very serious issue, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, with regard to number seven machine, I don't know where the member is coming from there. The last week-and-a-half or so, number seven machine is down because some seventeen or eighteen gears went on number seven. They didn't think at the time they would be able to repair it, but as of today it looks like they can repair that machine. There is a substantial amount of newsprint, there is some 70,000 tons per year, which is one-third the production in that particular mill in Grand Falls. Abitibi has given their approval for that number seven to be repaired, and as of today, Mr. Speaker, unless something has happened since a few minutes ago, they were going to repair number seven in Grand Falls to the best of their ability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods doesn't know what is happening. I just got off the phone with the manager of Abitibi Consolidated.

I will ask the question to the Minister of Labour. Minister, what assurances can you give that number seven paper machine will remain in operation in the Grand Falls-Windsor mill?

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the member opposite, I would like to inform this House that I have been in contact with both the management of the mill and the unions and the community at large. I am very concerned about the situation in Grand Falls-Windsor. If it escalates to the point where the Department of Labour is required I will be facilitating, by way of conciliator, to come to a resolve in that situation. I am closely monitoring it. There is a meeting scheduled for next Wednesday with the unions, the Premier, myself, and the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. We are in daily contact with that situation and the result that we are trying to achieve is one that both parties can work with. I am in close contact with both parties and we hope to have a resolve that we can all work with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I must say it again. The Minster of Labour does not know what is going on at that mill today; two different opinions. I have a letter here from a representative of the union that said they asked for a meeting back in August of last year, minister. You have not responded to that letter yet. So if you are on a daily contact, I do not know who it is with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: I spoke to the manager of the mill today and if they do not resolve this situation then by the end of the week number seven will be shut down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What guarantees have you had and discussions with the unions and with the company to assure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: This is a serious concern. We are talking about 300 to 750 jobs that could be affected in the Premier's district.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't care about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: The port of Botwood could be closed down. Hundreds of people could be out of jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: I will ask this question to the Premier: The Abitibi mill in Grands Falls-Windsor ran four paper machines a few years ago. They have already shut down two machines and the third machine is being threatened, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: The mill unions and the people of Central Newfoundland have asked for an industrial inquiry -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.

MR. HUNTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

They have asked for an industrial inquiry. What is your response to them, Premier?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised an issue in this House that is out in the general public today, and it has been for a few days. The meeting that you are referring to was an information session. In recent days, as the issue has been brought to the attention of this government, myself, and both the Premier and Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods have been involved -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I think what is very important at this very moment, for all of us here in this House, is to look at the issue and see what we can do as a government and as a House of Assembly to resolve it, not pitting one party against the other. That is not the intention. What we are looking for is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what we are looking for is stability both in Central Newfoundland and the Province in general. We all know how the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor affects the economy of Central Newfoundland and the Province, and we will be doing everything as a government to ensure that we can resolve this situation to the best of our ability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what the minister has been doing in the past year but I cannot find anybody who said that they were consulting with the government, the Premier, or the minister on this situation. It is a very serious -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it is pretty obvious, I guess, this government has a history of doing little too late. After the cow leaves the barn they shut the door.

Is the Premier going to let Abitibi gradually dismantle the Grand Falls-Windsor mill and then advocate civil disobedience? Is civil disobedience his only solution for the people of Central Newfoundland as it appears to be for the people of Marystown on the Burin Peninsula? Is that what you are going to do, Premier, wait until it is too late?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that this is a time for civil heads, cool heads, to prevail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Labour.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I view this issue as a very serious one and one that we should all look at with a great deal of commonsense. What we are about to do now is - I know that management has met with the union group today. I already spoke to both groups today and I want to hear the outcome of that. They, in turn, will be meeting with us, as a government, next week, and we will be working through the situation. We will do everything within our power to try and resolve it to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, the community-at-large and the entire Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. He is aware, I know, that women's hockey is the fastest growing sport in the Province and across the nation. Canada's women's hockey team just won their seventh world title. Although women's hockey players are among the most skilled athletes in this Province their sport is not included in the Provincial Winter Games in Gander. Will the minister explain why?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

My colleague from Gander, the minister responsible for women's policy, has already come to see me about this issue and there is no final decision on that. There is a review underway. I just want to say that we are very proud of the fact that the Winter Games are going ahead in Central Newfoundland, in Gander, and that issue is going to be addressed in short order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland Minor Hockey has tried to get the sport included in the Winter Games. When told that ice time was a problem, they even offered to give up half the ice time scheduled for boys hockey. Will the minister intervene and make sure that women's hockey is included in the showcase event?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

As I said, the Member for Gander and the minister responsible for women's issues have been doing a tremendous job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: As a matter of fact, less than two weeks ago we were in Gander and announced $100,000 worth of funding, $200,000 actually, for two different departments for the Winter Games. We are working on the issue and we will address the issue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, why won't you intervene today to make sure this happens?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members to let the minister answer the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the weekend concert is over, and we are working on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I say to the minister, two years ago this House passed a unanimous resolution to change the name of the Province from the Province of Newfoundland, to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Two years have passed and we have had no word from the federal government who must introduce legislation through the House of Commons for confirmation, and the Senate. I ask the minister if he can provide an update to the House on the status of the name change for the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow townsman for that very intelligent question and inform him that, as he knows, to bring about this name change requires an amendment to the 1949 Terms of Union. We have worked on this issue to bring around this very important and significant name change for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, the federal government have not assigned it the importance and the significance that we assign to it at this particular point in time, but we have contacted all of the key people, been in touch with all of the key personnel, both the Premier and I, and other officials, to impress upon Ottawa the importance of getting this matter resolved as quickly as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, it may not be on the top priority of the list in Ottawa but it certainly should be a priority for the people of this Province. I ask the minister if he has heard, as I have heard in my travels through Labrador, people suggesting that the reason the federal government is not dealing with this issue is simply because they do not want to offend Quebec, whose maps today show Labrador as part of their territory? Mail that comes to Labrador from Quebec many times has Labrador City-Wabush-Quebec on the envelope. I ask the minister if he thinks that is a possible reason why this has not come forward in the House? Would he pressure the federal government to make sure that this is a priority, and change Term I to include the official name of the Province as Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all of the effort that we can put together will be put into trying to expedite this matter. We have, over the past month-and-a-half, both the Premier and I, contacted, as I have said, all of the key people. We plan to do it in the weeks ahead of us to ensure that this item is moved forward, that it is moved ahead, so that the people of Labrador will be given the opportunity to feel included in this Province. That has been our initiative, Mr. Speaker. That has been the initiative on this side of the House and we plan to leave no stone unturned until this initiative is achieved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: One quick question, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

If this is of paramount importance to the Province, I ask the minister, or the Premier: Why was that not on his list of items when he went to see the Prime Minister recently?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, in every effort that either IGA has made, the minister, or the Premier, we have brought up this issue, this important issue, this most significant issue, of a name change of Newfoundland and Labrador. If the hon. member had checked the press release he would have seen that the Premier did indeed mention that item to the Prime Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation also. Last year, as part of the Viking Celebrations on the Northern Peninsula there was a substantial amount of money spent by both the federal and provincial governments. A large portion of that was spent on the construction of Norstead, a facility that would provide long-term employment for about forty people in the area. The Viking Trail Tourism Association has contracts signed with promotional companies, tour groups, cruise ship companies, and in excess of 3,000 people are booked to visit this facility this summer.

In December of 2000, the Viking Trail Tourism Association submitted a proposal to the minister and his department to continue operation of this facility. My question is, Mr. Minister: Why have you not answered them on this proposal, and what is your plan for continued funding of Norstead?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, let me say this to you: first off, the Viking celebrations were a great success for this Province, and excellent success for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Millions of dollars, federal-provincial dollars, were put on the Northern Peninsula to promote and develop tourism. As a matter of fact, the Viking exhibit is still traveling the world and is going to open in Ottawa in the next couple of weeks promoting this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: On the Norstead proposal, this minister and the deputy minister went to the annual meeting last week of the Viking Trail Tourism Association because we considered it a priority to attend that meeting because this was one of the issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We have met with the executive of the VTTA. We are working on the proposal between the federal-provincial governments. We will have more to report in due course, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: I was hoping the minister was going to tell me something I did not know, because I know that there was $1.8 million spent on the construction of Norstead last year, as well as the other millions of dollars that were spent on the Vikings celebrations. Why are we now, at the eleventh hour, when the Viking Trail Tourism Association has to make critical decisions in the next couple of days about whether they are going to continue with the operation of this facility this year or not, and they have no answer from this minister since December of 2000, when their initial proposal was submitted for approval?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if I was to talk about what the member does not know, I would be here all day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated that we are working -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to remind hon. members that interjection of this sort is not acceptable in the House. If members continue to do this, the Chair will have to take further action and probably name a member. Members ought to let the questions be asked and answers be given.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An answer will happen in due course. We are working with the federal government. Our officials are working on this to try to resolve it. It is an issue that is going to require a substantial financial contribution for the long term, and we want to do it right. For whatever is going to happen, the solution needs to be the right one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why doesn't the minister just stand up and admit that this government's approach to tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador is to have a party one year with no follow-up the next year, no plan for the tourism industry, and that is why the people on the Northern Peninsula and the Viking Trail Tourism Association have to face making these decisions today. Why don't you admit that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The best tourism ads in the country, the best marketing campaign in years, we have had in the last three or four years, and we have the member over there - the area that most benefitted from it - and he will not even admit or give the government an opportunity to finalize a solution to this problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our tourism record in this government, and we have done a lot more -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Despite the criticism of the member from the area, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are working on solutions to the problem. Also, it is a key part of our promotion of the Province, the Gros Morne National Park and right up the Northern Peninsula.

Thank you.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Labour. Between 1996 and the year 2000, nearly 8,000 claims were processed by the workers' compensation commission for workers in the fifteen to twenty-four year age group. The recent task force recommended that the minister, together with other ministers in government, embark immediately upon consultations with the public and private post-secondary institutions to make health and safety education a mandatory program of the post-secondary program. What steps has the Minister of Labour and others taken to consult with her colleagues to make this recommendation an active part of our health and safety program?

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The task force for the workers' compensation commission recently presented their report to government, and that report was made public. I think what is important about that report was that it had the unanimous agreement of all of the stakeholders. There was a panel of five people who served on that task force review. The recommendations were forty-five in number and it was presented to government. That particular report is now before government and we are reviewing every one of those forty-five recommendations, and the results of that report will be made known very shortly.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, time for one quick supplementary.

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

The task force strongly recommends as well that far greater attention and priority needs to be paid to occupational health and safety matters. They recommend that a provincial accident prevention strategy be formulated on a priority basis. Has the minister taken action on this particular recommendation? What precisely has she done?

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think I would like to, at this time, congratulate the people who served on that panel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: They did an excellent job of reviewing the issues that the report itself faced. As you all know, members of this House, the workers' compensation commission is in serious financial difficulty. Part of that review, a good thrust of that review, was finding resolutions that would put them on stable footing. In the weeks ahead you will find out, we will make known, the recommendations of that report.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

Pursuant to section 28.(4).(b) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling three Orders-in-Council for the creation of three new activities of expenditure for the 2000-2001 fiscal year.

Pursuant to section 26.(a).(5) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two orders in council relating to the funding pre-commitments for the 2001-2002 fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Cost."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Municipal Elections." (Bill 7)

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce the following private member's motion:

WHEREAS the recently released Final Report on the Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth has identified knowledge based industries as a strategic growth opportunity; and

WHEREAS information technology is changing many aspects of society and it is being predicted that there may be continued change of both a technical nature and a structural nature; and

WHEREAS many government services can be provided online and the availability of information and communication technology are becoming important ingredients in economic development; and

WHEREAS the Department of Development and Rural Renewal and the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology have been combined to form the new Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development,

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the priority of ensuring all regions of the Province have access to modern telecommunications infrastructures to participate in the knowledge based economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

I rise again today, Mr. Speaker, the second day in a row I rise on a petition in this House on roads. Yes, I say to the minister, it is on roads again, and I am going to continue to present petitions from people in my district who have a complaint about roads. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that every member in this House - because I know they are also getting phone calls about the situation with the roads throughout the Island portion of the Province and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat the same thing I have been saying for three years: Simply put, we need a long-term plan to deal with roads; not every April month for every member to go scrounging to whoever the minister is; and I pity the minister. The former minister, who is just about to leave the House, knows it too, that the fact is -

MR. SULLIVAN: If he had to do some other roads, he might have more support.

MR. SHELLEY: The minister didn't do enough roads, I say to him.

Mr. Speaker, the fact still remains that there is a deplorable situation when it comes to roads in this Province. As we talk about this year after year, the problem has gotten worse. I said yesterday, it is like a bad credit card out of control. If you have a demand, as the minister has told me, of $198 million and you are going to stick $18 million into it this year, we don't need to be the Finance Minister or the Auditor General to realize that just doesn't work. The mathematics isn't there. You can't even keep up with it. That wouldn't even be considered a down payment, Mr. Speaker, on a debt of that size.

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the roads throughout the Province, this petition is on behalf of every single member in this House of Assembly who has people telling them - and they are driving over the roads themselves. When you get people who have paved roads complaining to you, telling you they are going to cut off a paved road and then there is a person connected to that paved road who has not seen their first bit of pavement yet, Mr. Speaker - we have a combined problem in this Province of over 900 kilometers of gravel road and on top of that hundreds, maybe even thousands, of kilometers of road that is twenty to twenty-five years old.

Mr. Speaker, in my particular district, I have the people on the La Scie Highway who have a twenty-five year old road that is as bad or worse than gravel roads. Then I have five communities off that road that still have gravel roads. Now, Mr. Speaker, they don't know if they should be joining together or if they should all be fighting on their own, whether they should get the old pavement replaced or gravel road done. That is how pathetic a situation we are facing today in Newfoundland and Labrador, all because, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a plan. You have to have a plan if you are going to address a problem of that magnitude.

What it does besides give you the common decency of a decent road to drive over for our school children, is it also entices industry. We have a gold mine in Nugget Pond on the Baie Verte Peninsula that almost didn't go ahead last year because of our road. Can you imagine! What else is going to be turned away, Mr. Speaker? Think about tourism that was talked about so much here today. I had it last year, and this particular petition is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - from the community of Harry's Harbour which turned away tourists last year because they didn't want to turn down a gravel road again.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is long overdue with regard to being addressed. We need to address it as a major plan, not something we deal with at the last minute every year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 3. I ask for first reading of a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, Bill 6.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 6)

On motion, Bill 6 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. LUSH: Order 5, Mr. Speaker, Bill 4.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Petroleum Products." (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure today to get up and open debate on Bill 4 again, "An Act Respecting Petroleum Products."

Where I left off yesterday was concerning the importance of prices to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When they want to do planning, planning for their budgeting, travelling and other functions that they do in their lives from day to day, it is important that some control will be on pricing. Hopefully, pricing can be decreased so that people can do more with the dollars they have to spend at the end of the day.

Yesterday I was referring to some of the effects that high prices have on people in their every day work, particularly when it comes to people depending on fuel and gasoline to get to the workplace to do the job that they have to do when they get there. As we know, a lot of our jobs in rural Newfoundland today center around equipment that they need, whether it is in a fishing boat, whether it is a chainsaw, whether it is a harvester, or a skidder, or some other piece of equipment. They need to know, on a regular basis, if there is going to be any increases in the cost of their fuels and gasolines. It is important that we have some consistency in the prices of gasoline, heating fuels, and any kind of fuels that we use in equipment. This does have a detrimental effect on the budgeting for ordinary individuals in our Province and also a detrimental effect on small businesses in our Province.

Most small businesses today depend on a very small margin of profit to get them through the year and to help them plan the next year. If gasoline prices are going to be up all the time, going up inconsistently, then there is cause to worry about small businesses not being able to budget and carry on their businesses throughout the year. It is important that we do have some type of regulation in place, or legislation, to keep the prices more consistent. Small businesses, I know, are really affected because if you have a small business with a couple of pieces of equipment then the increase in fuel or gasoline could make the difference of that business surviving the rest of the year or probably going out of business.

I see a great benefit in having a constant, consistent, tax legislation in place so that all of these small businesses - and even the larger businesses too - can do better budgeting and better planning to make their business more profitable at the end of the day and provide more benefits to their employees, which certainly is a big spinoff when it comes back to the government and to other different small businesses in our communities. We all know, what goes around comes around, with money, with spinoffs, the tax dollars that go back into the government, the government can do more work. It is important that we do have some consistency in prices of fuel oils and gasoline. Maybe a decrease in the price of gasoline, with respect to the taxes, might be a better way to make it even better again with respect to the people of our Province surviving and getting the best benefit out of that precious resource of fuel and oil products.

I think we probably should look at some mechanism in legislation that would guarantee or ensure that the prices of gasoline, heating fuel oils, and other products from petroleum be decreased. It would be a great benefit, particularly to people depending on home heating fuel. The last few weeks many members, I know several on our side, myself included, are getting many calls from seniors and fixed income people, complaining about the high cost of heating fuel. They have to make difficult decisions in what they are going to do with the limited amount of money they have to survive on to be sustainable in their family living.

Madam Speaker, the calls that I have gotten this week, with respect to heating fuels, is that a lot of people are running out of heating fuel and are now living in very uncomfortable conditions. They must still have enough money to provide food and other necessities in their daily living, but we are having a lot of people calling in saying: we do not have enough money to buy heating fuel. The price of heating fuel is so high. It is so different. It is higher this year than last year. It has certainly cut into their budgeting for their livelihoods in trying to live in their own homes and their own communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very important that we do everything we can, everything possible, to help our seniors, our fixed income people, and our less fortunate people, to live in their own homes in the outports, in the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador where it is very difficult to get the services that we all enjoy in bigger centres. We can jump aboard a car and in two minutes be at a hospital or a major chain store, or any services that government provides, when people have to get in their vehicles and drive for an hour, two hours, probably five hours to get the services they deserve and need with health care and other services that government provides. The cost of gasoline to them is very important. It could make the difference of people having to cancel appointments, cancel surgeries because they cannot afford to come to the bigger centres, particularly the St. John's area where the Health Sciences and other hospitals provide services that cannot be gotten anywhere else in the Province. Madam Speaker, that is very unfortunate and very unfair to the people of our Province. We have to make sure that there is a consistency with fuel oil and gasoline prices to make sure that people have a fair opportunity, an equal chance to avail of all the services that government provides and all the services that private industry provides so that they can make their lives better.

Madam Speaker, a very important part of the legislation that I see, which just bothers me a little bit, is on page 5 with respect to section "4.(2) The commissioner may divide the province into zones and may set a different maximum wholesale and retail price that a wholesaler and a retailer may charge for heating fuel and motor fuel for each zone."

The way I see it in this Province today, most people are on fixed incomes and the paycheques that they receive is the same on one end of the Island as it is on the other end of the Island. If we divide the Island up into zones where prices are higher in one part of the Island and lower in other parts of the Island, then I think that is very unfair. People should have equal opportunity and pay equal prices for fuels all across the Province; not penalize anybody because they either live in a built up area or a lesser remote rural area. I am not too pleased with that part of the legislation. I think we may have to look at that again, just to make sure that everybody in the Province is treated equally and fairly.

Madam Speaker, on the same page, with the basic fuel prices in section "6.(1) The commissioner shall establish a petroleum product base wholesale and retail price for each type of heating fuel and motor fuel sold by a wholesaler and a retailer using the criteria prescribed for that purpose by the regulations."

If the commissioner is going to be independent and responsible in how he regulates and increases, and allows this legislation to be enacted, then I hope it will be done in a responsible and equitable way so that everybody will be treated fairly and equally, no matter where they live, no matter what job, what profession they are in, or if they even do not work, or what type of incomes they receive.

On page 6, section 8, application for change in the price bothers me a little bit. Section "8.(1) A wholesaler or a retailer may apply to the commissioner for a change in the price of the type of heating fuels and motor fuels, setting out - and that could be in respect to the price last approved by the commissioner, the proposed new price, the date on which the proposed new price is to take effect, the reason for the proposed change in price, the other information that may be prescribed by the regulation. Madam Speaker, the commissioner does have the power to implement and to change the prices as he sees responsible and fit.

With the ability to appeal the decisions that are made by the commissioner in item 8.(a), it says that the commissioner does have the right to deny the application. If that is so, I have a big problem with item 8.(4). It says, "Only one application may be made by a wholesaler or a retailer in a 12 month period." So why do we need that part in that legislation, if the commissioner does have the right to deny an application and any application that comes forward can only be done once by any retailer or wholesaler. That part of the legislation bothers me.

MADAM SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that his time is up..

MR. HUNTER: Can I have leave, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

That does bother me a little bit, because if the commissioner does have the power to deny an application then we certainly should not have a restriction in there to only allow an applicant to apply once every twelve months. In some instances or circumstances where an applicant needs to apply more than that, then he is left out just by that part of the legislation only. I think if the responsibility is on the commissioner, and he is responsible and fair to the applicants and to the wholesalers and retailers, then he should make that decision on his own and not have to be included in the legislation which denies the right of any applicant to apply more than once for that twelve month period.

The commissioner does have the option, if he wants to make an interim order setting, which is a temporary price of heating fuels and motors fuels, so any change in prices that might appear or might need to be done, then the commissioner does have the power to do it and may be would not have to go into an appeal process on that.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, it is important that we do recognize that the legislation is important. This is a very serious problem, and it was a pleasure for me today to speak a few minutes and continue the debate on this legislation, Bill 4. I say to Madam Speaker, may we continue debating issues of such importance to the people of our Province, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something that affects their everyday life and the quality of life that they have.

Madam Speaker, I will just conclude by saying that we need all the debate we can get on this important piece of legislation. In rural Newfoundland today, this is so important that it could affect the lives of many people with respect to their heating and their ability to provide warm and comfortable homes. With seniors today, and people becoming seniors, we must really look at a way of decreasing the price and probably eliminating the tax on home heating fuels altogether, so that dollar could go a little farther and provide a little bit more comfort for the people of our Province, and also help people who do not have the ability to get out in our forests and cut firewood to bring home to have a better heating system in their homes, and more comfort. The price of gasoline could affect that, with respect to them in their vehicles to get to the area of cutting and back again, and gas and oil for their chainsaws, and all of that.

It is a very, very important topic, it is a very important issue, and I think everybody should be concerned and should find a way that we can do this as fair as possible and equitable to everybody concerned. I hope that everybody does consider this legislation as probably a step in the right direction.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

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

I had waited for some time before I stood, because the tradition in the House is that when someone speaks from the Opposition side then someone from the government side would normally get up and speak. Obviously, that is not the case. Perhaps that will improve a little bit when we get cameras in the House in the fall. Maybe when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see that it is the Opposition in the House that carries the debate day after day after day, that someone from the government's side might be encouraged to get up, other than in those members' statements, to have some participation in the debate. Maybe when the cameras come in, as I said, that might change a bit, because surely the members on the government side would not want it to be known that we have been carrying this debate now for several days and not once, other than the minister when the bill was introduced, have they said anything relative to supporting this particular piece of legislation.

An Act Respecting Petroleum Products, Bill 4, came as a bit of a surprise to us. We were not surprised in the spring sitting; we were a bit surprised in the Liberal leadership, because as the Liberal leadership began to unfold we came to realize that many of the policies that were contained in the Progressive Conservative Party platform, the Blue Book, last time were indeed finding themselves into the Liberal leadership. Things like the Child Advocate, for example, the Ombudsman, that all found itself as part of the Liberal Party platform being put forward by several candidates who were running for the leadership of that party.

One of the ones that I want to draw reference to is the fact that the current Premier, the winner at the Glacier by fourteen votes, all of fourteen votes, just more than enough to have a card game, by the very narrowest of margins, the winner there, the current Premier, he used to be, a few short months ago, the Minister of Mines and Energy. On January 6, 1999, two years ago, after Dennis Browne had submitted his report, the minister reacted to the calls for gasoline price regulation. What did the minister say? I am reading from a press release put out by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, dated January 6, 1999, put out by the minister which says, "Mines and Energy Minister Roger Grimes has reacted to a new round of calls for gasoline price regulation. The issue of price regulation was reviewed in detail during the latter half of 1997, when, in response to consumer concerns government appointed Dennis Browne to investigate and report on gasoline prices in the province..." says the then current minister.

The minister, in 1999, was reacting to the 1997 report by the commissioner appointed to look at gasoline prices, Dennis Browne. In his press release the minister says: "In particular, Mr. Browne was directed to determine whether regulation of gasoline prices would be in the public interest. The study was completed following extensive consultation with consumer groups, town councils, the oil industry and various provincial and federal government departments."

Madam Speaker, in January of 1999 the minister, who is now the Premier, said, "Government generally agreed with the consumer advocate's report and accepted its two main recommendations; that there be no price regulation and that government monitoring of gasoline prices be improved. A monitoring and publication program has been established within the Department of Mines and Energy to keep the general public informed of gasoline prices and the issues related to gasoline pricing."

The minister said in his press release, "While several provinces have investigated price regulation, Prince Edward Island remains the only province where regulation is implemented. One argument against price regulation is that prices would normally be higher in a regulated market."

Madam Speaker, why would we bring in price regulations if it is going to cause the price of fuel to go up? What the minister said on January 6, 1999, now the current Premier, was, "One argument against price regulation is that prices would normally be higher in a regulated market. Tracking of gasoline prices in this province confirms that this would be the case here."

Tracking done by commissioner Dennis Browne shows, in his report, that if we are to regulate gasoline prices in this Province, indeed the prices of gasoline and other fuels would actually increase. The minister confirms that would happen. In other words, in a regulated market prices tend to increase rather than decrease. Mr. Grimes also said at the time, and I am quoting again, "It's important to note that the Consumers Association of Canada is also on record as being opposed to price regulation."

Madam Speaker, why then did we have in the Liberal leadership leading up to the great contest that took place at the Glacier on that snowy day in early February, why did we have several candidates coming out and saying they were going to go and they were going to adopt a program that would lead to the very thing that one candidate, namely the current Premier, had said approximately two years before that, that would cause the prices to go up. It baffles logic, in particular in the sense that there is some evidence to suggest - I am reading again here - that the Consumers Association of Canada is on record as being opposed to price regulation. Only one Province has it in Canada, that is Prince Edward Island. Also, that prices in a regulated market tend to be higher than they are in a market that is operating on the free market principles of supply and demand. Mr. Speaker, this seems to defy logic. Certainly all members on that side, as they lined up at the Glacier, with some rare exceptions, find themselves having to support this particular proposal.

We on this side are certainly not against having some public knowledge of pricing. In fact, our critic for mines and energy has at various times made various statements on that particular issue. For example, a statement made by Opposition mines and energy critic John Ottenheimer, the Member for St. John's East, on April 27, 2000, almost a year ago, said he wanted the breakdown of gas prices displayed prominently at the pumps so consumers can see for themselves why the prices are what they are.

Mr. Speaker, let's examine why prices in Newfoundland are really what they are. There are four elements in the price that is established for gasoline and other fuels. One is, of course, the price of crude. The price of crude, we cannot control that. That is controlled in an international marketplace with various cartels. The price several years ago was down to $11 or $12 a barrel and it has been up to more than $30 a barrel. It is currently in the $28-$29 a barrel range. We cannot control that. Item number one, factor number one, in the price that you pay for gasoline and other fuels is the price of crude.

The second factor is the costs added because of refining. That will vary somewhat, but in the international marketplace there is some consistency in the general cost of refining.

The third factor is the costs added by the retailer; in other words, the amount of margin that is between the cost that the retailer is paying at the wholesale level and the amount that he charges at the retail level. The other factor is the taxes that have to be paid.

Mr. Speaker, when we examine these particular factors in various locations between Newfoundland and other places, we found that the biggest factor in high prices in Newfoundland is not factors numbered one, two or three. The biggest factor is the pump taxes.

Consumers can see for themselves that half the price of a litre of gasoline in Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed taxes. They will understand why, then, the cost of fuel is so high in this Province. It is the highest taxed jurisdiction in the entire country. So, you are in the highest taxed jurisdiction in all the country; you can fully expect ,when it comes to gasoline and other fuels, to pay the highest price.

Now, there are various studies that have been done on this particular topic. For example, if you were to look at a comparison between Newfoundland and other parts of the world - and I have one study here that was quoted by our critic for mines and energy, the Member for St. John's East, John Ottenheimer, he says that the contrast here is between what is paid in St. John's with what is paid in Bangor, Maine. So, the crude content component of the price was the same in both centres. In both centres, in Bangor, Maine and in St. John's, Newfoundland, the cost of a litre - and this was in April, 2000 - was 23.4 cents a litre. That is what it cost, the crude price for the people who were buying the fuel, the crude to be refined in Newfoundland or ending up in Newfoundland, and what was going to Bangor, Maine, 23.4 cents a litre.

The refiner's margin - that is the cost added because of refining - in the two centres was almost the same. In other words, it cost 12.8 cents a litre in St. John's to refine it, and it cost 12.1 cents a litre in Bangor, Maine. So, Madam Speaker, we haven't had much variation at this stage in factor number one or in factor number two. Look at factor number three. That is the marketer's margin. That was also very comparable. In St. John's, it was 9.0 cents a litre and in Bangor, Maine it was 7.4 cents a litre. In other words, the profit margin was slightly higher in St. John's than it was in Bangor, Maine.

Look at the pump taxes. If you looked at the first three factors, you would say that the price of gasoline in April, 2000, in St. John's or in Corner Brook or anywhere in Newfoundland should be comparable to Bangor, Maine or other places in the New England States, but the pump taxes were not the same at all. In Newfoundland a year ago, in April, 2000, we were paying 37.2 cents a litre in St. John's as compared with just 14.5 cents a litre in Bangor. That is a difference there.

Now, if you looked at all of these factors and put them on to the prices, then when you go and you see that factor number one, the price of crude, is exactly the same, 23.4 cents a litre; when you look at factor number two, the cost added because of refining, we find out that it was 12.8 cents a litre in St. John's and 12.1 cents a litre in Bangor, Maine, and the markup was somewhat comparable although a little higher in St. John's at 9.0 cents a litre compared to 7.4 cents.

Then, of course, we come to the taxes. So the real reason we have higher fuel prices in Newfoundland as compared to other parts of Canada or other parts of the United States is because of taxes.

That is why we on this side of the House - we are not saying there should be no taxes on gasoline, not at all. We are not saying that. We are not even saying that we can afford the tax regime that is imposed in places like Bangor, Maine, or in some other places. What we are saying, though, is that for certain groups of people we should look at, because it is an essential product, our tax regime. We should look at, for example, the HST that is added, and other taxes are comparable - they are not comparable to Maine but they are comparable to some other parts of Atlantic Canada.

When we look at the whole package, the only bit of flexibility we might have is on HST. Yet, we find ourselves in this Province locked into an agreement with other Atlantic Provinces - Nova Scotia and New Brunswick - whereby we do not even have the flexibility of doing that. It is one thing for the Premier to say he is going to bring in an oil and gas regulatory regime. The truth of the matter is that there is not much that person can do if we are not going to give them some tools to work with.

What we are saying basically is that until this government comes to realize that ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to have lower taxes on their gasoline and home heating fuels, that will make a big difference to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; however, we also have said, on this side of the House - again I quote from a press release dated January 7, 1999, of what we would do if we were there. You will recall that we also had said that we would look at the issues of taxation on essential products like home heating fuels. That was part of our platform. We are surprised at the other side. They are taking everything else that the PCs put forward in our election, and they are adopting it. We would have been so happy if we would have seen it because we applaud them. We say that when you have run out of your own ideas - and obviously this government has run out of its own ideas, it is on its last leg - now there are going and saying we do not have any ideas of our own so we are going to look to the PCs Blue Book and we are going to take some of their ideas. They should be charged with robbery, but I do not know whether that is defined adequately under the various codes. They have run out of their own ideas and they certainly have not fulfilled all of their ideas.

I took a chance the other day when I had a few moments and was going through my files up there and I came across the Blue Book for the 1996 election. A lot of that is not even touched yet, but they have run out of some of their own ideas and now they are coming to the Blue Book. One of the ones they did not take, one of the ones we wish they would have taken, is the idea that we have to look at the taxation that is charged to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly when it comes to home heating fuels. We would have been standing in our places and applauding them.

I am delighted they are going to bring in things like a Child Advocate. I helped write the report that brought that forward. I have done a fair bit of research and perhaps more than most members of this House on that particular topic - myself, together with other members, including the Member for Port au Port. I am hoping that the person will be directly responsible to the House of Assembly, and that would be consistent with what you recommended, rather than answerable to some line department, but we will have to see what happens in the consultations that are now ongoing.

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the PCs. We said two years ago, we will create a petroleum products monitor to ensure monitoring and disclosure of gas and oil pricing for consumers. I have had many conversations with people in the department over there, particularly one individual. I do not like to name civil servants in the House, so I will not name the individual that I talked to a regular basis on the issue of what constitutes the various components in the establishment of the prices on gasoline in this Province or home heating fuels in this Province.

We need to have more public knowledge. In fact, I have heard people say that when you go up to the gasoline pump you should be able to look at the gasoline pump and see what you are paying for the four components I mentioned earlier. In other words, when you go up to the pump you should have a little scale there and it would show you exactly what the cost of the crude is, tell you what the cost of refining is, tell you what the margin of profit is, and tell you what the taxes are. If we had that showing, then people would be able to see clearly what it is they are paying when they go to pay for their gasoline or their home heating fuel.

When the Premier talked about having transparency, I thought perhaps he would have agreed that every gas station should be forced to post at the pumps, all the components that make up the price that they are paying, or when you call for your home-heating fuel, someone should have to say: Break it down. It can be done. For example, I just referred to - if you were getting your municipal tax bill in Halifax, it would break it down for you, exactly what you are paying for, every single component. You could see it all broken down. Nowadays, in the age of computerization, that can be done quite easily. Therefore, we should be able to see exactly - when you go in to pay for your fuel (inaudible) do it very simple, right the program. Do it right when you are paying for your gasoline. You do not have to show it at the pumps. You can go in, you can break it right down and say: Here is what it is costing for crude. Here is the cost of the refining processes. Here is the margin we are paying in profits, the retailers cost, and here is what you are paying in taxes. Break it right down. Now that would have the effect of being totally transparent, and people would see exactly what they are paying for all of the component parts.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is now up.

MR. H. HODDER: My time is up, and I am reminded as well that there are some other hon. members, including my colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's, who want to join in the debate.

In conclusion, I will not go on very much longer because we, on this side, are saying to -

MR. BARRETT: No leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Let the record show that the Member for Bellevue is so miserable this afternoon. He is so hurt by how he got scolded so badly because of all the storms and his failure to take effective action quickly, that now he is miserable and mean and is denying the hon. member leave to continue and participate in this great debate.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. BARRETT: Now we are going to hear a good speech.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I really accept and thank him for his vote of confidence in myself and my speech. As usual, I am sure that he - in most of my speeches that I gave here in this House at any time, I have always managed to have the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation involved in that speech. I guess that is why he is so pleased and excited to hear what I have to say. He may, in the course of the next twenty minutes, find his way into my few remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know what happened to him (inaudible) Placentia Bay West.

MR. MANNING: And his roots are in Placentia Bay.

I am pleased today to make a few remarks on Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products, and to talk about the concerns that people have with the high petroleum costs in our Province, whether it is home heating fuel or gas that we put in our cars, trucks, bikes, chainsaws, and everything else that we use here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly, after this winter a lot of people use Ski-Doos. The high cost of gas concerns everybody in regard to any way, shape or form, that you may be using that product.

This is an opportunity to say a few words on behalf of the people in the Province, but indeed on behalf of the people in my district of Placentia & St. Mary's. We are like all districts. We use these products. We use them on a daily basis. While many people, especially elderly people on fixed incomes, people who have their families moved away to other parts of the country, other parts of the world, and people who use their vehicles to make a living, whether it is a small business operator, whether it is a fish buyer, whether it is anybody who is involved in construction industry in our Province, or whatever the case may be, fuel prices are a major concern to the many people in the Province.

The supply of product to different communities around the Province, especially those that are trucked in, is a great concern for a lot of people. We use a massive majority of the product that is consumed in the Province, that is used in the Province, is trucked around. We seen last year, in the matter of a couple of days, when the truckers of this Province brought the supply of food and products to a stop because of the fuel prices, because of their opportunity to voice their concerns. We seen what happened in the matter of a couple of days, Madam Speaker, when she came to a screeching halt in regards to the truckers of the Province.

I can remember growing up and talking about what you were going to be when you grew up, you talked about your lawyers and your doctors. Everybody attained to be something. If you mentioned that you were going to be a truck driver or something like that, someone may have turned down their nose at you. But, how important the truck driver was last year when it came to putting food on the table; how important the truck driver was last year when it came to putting gas in our vehicles; and how important the truck driver was last year with regards to the movement of goods around the Province and Labrador. How important it was that we had the truck drivers here to do that for us. How important an industry it is, and how important it is that we protect that industry and assist that industry in whatever way we can.

I guess the fact that we are bringing forward a bill in this hon. House to question and concern, and to raise some of these issues is something that, I think, concerns us all. Is what we are proposing here in the House today the right direction? I guess that is what we are questioning here today. We are very concerned, here on this side of the House, of what we believe to be sort of a ‘flip-flop' government. A ‘flip-flop' government that is flipping and flopping on many different issues and certainly vital issues to this Province.

When we look back at January 6, 1999, a news release came out from the Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, who is now the Premier of the Province, the heading on the news release was: "Minister reacts to calls for gasoline price regulation." I am not going to read out all the details, but Minister Grimes, at the time, said: "Government generally agreed with the consumer advocate's report and accepted its two main recommendations; that there be no price regulation and that government monitoring of gasoline prices be improved." He went on to say, a little bit further down in that news release: "It's important to note that the Consumers Association of Canada is also on record as being opposed to price regulation."

At the time - which is not that long ago, a little over one year ago - the minister of the day, who is now the Premier of the day, was against price regulation. While the concern is there and the issue is there, at that time he was against it. We are not against doing something to help the people of this Province, to help them with the cost of operating, but is what we are proposing here today the right answer? Is what we are proposing here today the answer to the problems that face many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? That is why we think a monitor may be a better opportunity, certainly a better chance, to do something in relation to gas prices in the Province.

We propose, and we have proposed - I go back to last October when our critic for Mines and Energy, the Member for St. John's East, Mr. Ottenheimer, put forward a news release at that time, October 27, 2000, which called for an independent monitor of gas prices; and not a government mouthpiece. An independent monitor of gas prices who would travel around the Province on a daily basis and monitor the price in gas, monitor the different companies, monitor the different issues that are out there, and then bring back the concerns to us here in the House of Assembly, and to the minister of the day; raise those issues with him and let us know on a daily basis what is happening in regards to the price of gas and the effect that it is having on individuals and businesses throughout the Province. That is why we believe that without an independent from government, the department spokesperson has the ability to ask tough questions about the root causes of gas prices, fluctuations and whether consumers are getting a fair break. It is further proof the interests of consumers in the Province are not being protected. This is why we believe an independent monitor of gas prices would address the concerns that are here in the Province, would raise the issues with the government so that we would be able to know what is happening in Port aux Basques today, what is happening in St. Anthony today, what is happening in Labrador City today, what is happening right here in the City of St. John's, and what is happening out in Conception Bay South, and so on and so forth. We believe unless we have an independent monitor, unless we have somebody within the Province who is not dependent, is not shoveled to and told what to do by the government - that we have somebody within the Province who can address this concern.

I talked to people in my district, Madam Speaker. I talked to people throughout the district who are in business and use their vehicles for their businesses. Last year, because of the increase in gas prices, their bottom line on their business at the end of the fiscal year is much different because it increased the cost of operating the business so much. I talked to people throughout my district who burn stove oil for heating purposes in their home; furnace oil and stove oil. The increase last year, versus the year before that, in some cases was as much as $1,000 and $1,200. For those elderly people in our districts, the senior citizens and people who are on fixed incomes in our districts, who have seen that increase this year: What does government do to somebody who has seen an increase of $1,100 to $1,200? They come out with a fuel tax rebate of $100.

I was talking to a senior citizen down in St. Mary's Bay one day this winter and the tax on her oil fill-up alone was $118, and they are going to give $100 fuel rebate to that senior citizen. We have to look at the situation where we have a litre of gas here in the Province and over 50 per cent of that litre of gas is tax. We have to ask ourselves then, if we really - if the Liberal government of today really wants to do something for the people who are out there suffering from the high fuel prices, who are suffering from the increased fuel prices that we have, why don't we look at the tax structure that we have and look at reducing some of that tax structure to give people an opportunity to put dollars back in their pockets for the other services we have here and the other needs that people have out in the Province? This is why we believe that if we had an independent monitor, a person who is not answerable to government, to address some of these concerns, that we would then be able to look at the independent issues around the Province and have them brought here before the House for proper debate.

Madam Speaker, in this Province taxes make up between 50 per cent to 55 per cent of the pump prices for gasoline, and over half the tax is provincial. With every $20 fill up over $12 goes directly to federal and provincial coffers for taxes. Over $12 goes to taxes for $20 a fill up. We all know how much gas we get in our cars for $20; very little. But when you have almost $12 of that $20 going for taxes, it raises a lot of concerns. We are the most taxed people in the country. If the provincial government really wanted to do something for the people of the Province, they would address the concern over the high amount of taxes that we pay on our gasoline.

Madam Speaker, in the Browne report they recommended no price regulation. The studies that they did, and they talked to people throughout the Province, they talked to individuals, they talked to people who are in industry, they talked to people in government circles, and the report said that they found no evidence to support price regulation. Here we are today debating a bill that will give us a chance to address the concerns under price regulation, but we have to ask ourselves: Is this exactly what we want to do, or do we want to put money in the pockets of the consumers of this Province, to give the consumers of this Province, the small businesses of this Province, the people involved in the trucking industry in this Province an opportunity to save some dollars? Therefore, that is why we are looking on this side of the House for an independent petroleum products monitor. We believe by doing that, when motorists have all the appropriate information at their disposal, they can make choices as consumers which can help keep prices in check. Competition is what keeps prices down. Competition is healthy, Madam Speaker. It is what keeps prices down in other parts of the retail sector and it can work for petroleum products as well, once consumers have the basic facts in their hands. What would be wrong with bringing your car into the local gas station and printed up on the side of the gas pump was the price of the gas, how much federal tax is on the gas, how much provincial tax is on the gas, and the total amount of the litre of gas that you are putting in your car or truck at the time? What would be wrong with bringing your vehicle in and knowing exactly what you are paying for, knowing the exact amount you are paying for the litre of gas you are purchasing?

We believe that an independent petroleum products monitor would be able to maybe bring that forward as the recommendation and then we would have an opportunity to say to government that there is going to be no hidden factors, no hidden prices, no hidden agenda here with regard to the oil companies, and that when I stop at the gas pump, I know exactly what one oil company is charging for a litre of gas, I know exactly what the federal government tax is, I know exactly what the provincial government tax is. As I said before, over half the price for a litre of gas, we are paying between 50 per cent and 55 per cent - it fluctuates, I guess, with the overall price - over half the price is tax. Therefore, that is the concern that we have to look at. Whether we can address that concern or not, the overall picture of government , I understand, has to be looked at, but at the same time we are heavily taxed and therefore we would look at that opportunity, Madam Speaker.

The recommendation of consumer advocate, Dennis Browne, in his December 1997 report on gasoline prices which was entitled, Gasoline Prices and the Public Interest, was that there would a lot more monitoring and disclosure with respect to pricing. That is the recommendation that we on this side of the House of Assembly support. The report that was put out at the time was looking for ways to address that concern.

We, Madam Speaker, as I said, are calling upon an independent petroleum products monitor - a consumer watchdog - an impartial consumer watchdog that will go out into the Province, have the power, be empowered by this House, be empowered by the government, to operate an open office where the public could express their concerns and frustrations regarding oil and gas prices, and where they could look for facts and make their reports disclosing publicly the results of thorough monitoring of the industry. Without the thorough monitoring of the industry, without that person who would keep a daily watch on what is happening in the industry, we can never address the overall concerns that we have. We believe, as a party on this side of the House, that by having an independent monitor throughout the Province some of these concerns would be addressed.

Madam Speaker, if I could go back to the Dennis Browne report in December of 1997, the first recommendation of that report, I would like to read it into Hansard today if I could. The first recommendation was: No Price Regulation. "If Government seeks to enhance wholesale and retail price competition in the Newfoundland and Labrador gasoline market, it should attempt to do so in the most cost effective manner possible. We believe the most cost effective public policies are those designed to utilize market forces instead of using Government's legislative powers to regulate price. Direct Government intervention in the market is generally the least desirable approach and should only be pursued as a final recourse where there is no indication that the market will behave correctly. We have found no evidence to support price regulation."

I repeat, "We have found no evidence to support price regulation." That comes straight from a report that was paid for by the people of this Province, that was put forward by the minister of the day. I think the minister of the day, I believe, is now the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, if I am correct. Madam Speaker, the minister was presented with that report in December, 1997.

It puzzles me. Now, it does not puzzle me altogether, because there are a lot of things after coming to this government over the past number of years, recommendations that have come to this government that have been ignored, that have been cast aside, that have been put on the shelf, and I am not surprised that the former minister, who is now the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, decided to put this report on the shelf. It is only keeping up with his record of not acting on behalf of the people, not following the recommendations of that report.

I am pleased that the minister is here in the House, and maybe he can get up on his feet today. Maybe the minister can get up on his feet today and tell us why he didn't act on the report by the consumer advocate, Dennis Browne, in 1997, why he didn't follow recommendation number one in that report. He sits down so non-chalant, sitting back. Take it easy, Minister, that is what he should be called, the minister of take it easy. Here he is, he did not even comment. He did not even stand up, he has not stood up in the House. He was the minister of the day when this report was financed by the people here, by the people of the Province. He accepted the report from Dennis Browne and he did not do anything. He did nothing in regards to the report.

As I said, the first recommendation here was no price regulation. I just read it into Hansard. The minister of the day, who did nothing, had this report in his hand. I would like to know, Madam Speaker - I don't see it anywhere in my research papers here, I don't see it anywhere - how much this report cost the people of this Province. I would like to ask the minister today - maybe he can help us out with that - does he remember? Does the minister have a memory of how much this report cost the people of this Province?

There were several references here to provinces all across the country. Every province here is referenced. Therefore, this report must have cost a fair bit of money. It must have cost the taxpayers of this Province a fair bit of money.

I say to the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, are you looking for a copy of the report? I have an extra one here if you need one. I would like to know why the number one recommendation in this report, why you, as minister, did not take that recommendation and do something about it? The recommendation of a person who traveled across the Province, traveled across the country seeking information - there you go, he has the report. Good, I say to the minister.

Can you get up on your feet and tell us, number one, how much that report cost? Number two: how come the government here today is not even following the number one recommendation of that report? If the first recommendation of that report says no price regulation, the people who did the report, Dennis Browne and company, must feel that was a very important recommendation. They made it the number one recommendation in the report, so they must feel that, after their consultation with the industry, after their consultation with people throughout the Province, after their consultation with people throughout the country, the number one recommendation of no price regulation is very important.

I ask the minister why he is not on his feet today telling us, telling the people of the House, telling the people of the Province, how come we are here today discussing, how come we are here today with a recommendation, how come we are here today with a piece of legislation before the House talking about price regulation when a government funded, a government paid for by the taxpayers of the Province, calls for no price regulation and we are here today discussing price regulation? It would all make you wonder, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Madam Speaker, to make a few closing comments, if I could?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, it is a major concern for a lot of people in the Province. It is a major concern for people in my District of Placentia & St. Mary's, that price regulation, the cost of gas, the cost of fuel, the cost of home heat, is a major concern for a lot of people in the Province. They are looking to government for an answer. They are looking to government for some relief. They are looking to government to some way come forward to east that burden.

Here we have an act that we are bringing forward in this House, and because the other side of the House has the majority of members in the House, ten chances to one it is going to be passed. We said here in the House before, when the Member for Virginia Waters was independent, maybe sometimes he would get on his feet and vote against the government, maybe sometimes his conviction that he used to talk about in those other days, he would stand up in the House and vote against the government, but conviction went out the window when he got appointed to Cabinet. We understand that. We understand the Member for Virginia Waters now, that his convictions have to stay behind and he has to do what he is told to do. We understand that, Madam Speaker. Therefore, we ask how come a study that was paid for by the people of this Province, that the number one recommendation by that report was no price regulation, and we are here today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, we take issues as they come here. We deal with them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the former Minister of Fisheries, now the Member for Port de Grave -

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I understood that the member wanted leave to clue up his remarks. This hon. member would like to speak in this debate, but it appears that he is keeping the debate going longer and longer. I would be inclined to continue with leave to allow the member to clue up his remarks, but if he plans to continue for another lengthy period of time, I withdraw leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) be reasonable.

MR. MANNING: Reasonable does not come from down there, so you had better hang on.

All I am saying is that the people in my district and the people of this Province are very concerned about the issue here of price regulation for the simple reason that, while we can maintain a price for three or four months under this piece of legislation, while we cannot see it increased, we also cannot see it decreased. All I was referring to was the fact that, if we had enough members in the House, of conviction, who believed in what they want, that we could stand up in the House and defeat this motion, but we cannot do that because the numbers do not allow us to do that, Madam Speaker.

Price regulation is a concern for a lot of people out there. The issue of high gas prices and high fuel prices is a concern for a lot of people in our Province. The issue of high gas prices and high fuel prices is a issue of concern for a lot of people in my district, but whether this is the way, whether this is the avenue to address that concern, is still questionable because of the fact that we had a consumers report that said that the price regulation was not an opportunity; that price regulation was not the way to go; that they could find no evidence to support price regulation. Therefore, we are asking ourselves, is this the route to take, or would an independent petroleum products monitor be a better way to address this situation?

We put forward that issue several times, and we would ask the government of the day to address that concern and maybe if you really want to do something for the people of the Province, if you really want to address the high gas prices and the high fuel prices in this Province, that we would put a petroleum products monitor in place. Price regulation is not the way to go.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak at second reading today on Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products. The issue of prices of petroleum products in the Province, or rather the cost of fuels and gasoline in the Province, is one which affects far too many people in this Province, particularly those who are on a low or fixed income, who cannot respond to the fluctuations in the price. We have seen some significant fluctuations over the last year-and-a-half and more in the price of heating fuels in particular and in gasoline as well. The costs have been passed on to consumers through the trucking industry as well, and have reflected in prices in our stores and supermarkets.

We are trying to figure out a way of dealing with the problem. It was proposed two years ago by the New Democratic Party that there be a three-pronged approach to relieving the cost of heating fuel in particular in this Province by introducing, first of all, a substantive rebate to the consumer on the cost of fuel that would be equivalent to 15 per cent, not the $100 rebate that this government introduced, or the $250 rebate the Government of Canada introduced as a one-time, one-shot deal, that would only have a very minor effect, Madam Speaker, but a 15 per cent across-the-board permanent rebate to the consumers on the price of home heat, whether it be through petroleum products or through the use of electricity or propane. Madam Speaker, that would have been something significant that would have had an actual impact on people's ability to heat their homes and avoid the terrible choices that people are having to make, to choose between heating their homes and having adequate food and nutrition for themselves and their families. That was point number one of our three point plan.

The second point, Madam Speaker, was to introduce some regulation on the changes in the price of fuel. That would be, not the wholesale regulation but an opportunity for an individual consumer or a consumers group to go to the Public Utilities Board and challenge a price increase. If the price of fuel increased - and the big concern around this Province has always been that the retailers and wholesalers always follow the prices up the ladder when they go up, but they do not follow them down the ladder when they go down, or they do not follow it fast enough. As a result, the consumers are feeling that they are gouged.

We do not have a lot of control over the world price of fuel. Pierre Trudeau found that out, back in the 1970s and the 1980s, that we do not have a lot of control over the world price of fuel, and we have a lot of trouble with, in this country, establishing a Canadian price for fuel. The National Energy Program of the Trudeau government was a disaster politically, particularly out west, and they still talk about it. So we have not got a lot of control over that. However, when consumers are feeling gouged, Madam Speaker, we do have the ability for someone to have a remedy. If they can go to the Public Utilities Board and challenge a price increase and ask the Public Utilities Board to determine whether a particular price increase is fair and reasonable, that would give the PUB powers to role back prices that did not meet that criteria.

The third of our three-prong program, Madam Speaker, was to reinstate a winter heat supplement of $50 a month for those in receipt of social assistance. That was there for many years. Probably the minister may well tell us it is still there, but it has been spread out over the entire year. Well, our response to that is that this was in fact just a disguised minor increase in the rate of social assistance which has been already too low and not kept pace with the Consumer Price Index. So, we would reinstate the winter heat supplement to provide additional relief above and beyond the rebate to all consumers of 15 per cent. We would see a winter heat rebate for those on social assistance with special attention paid to the needs and costs of people on the Labrador Coast.

What this government did in response to that: First of all, they refused to engage in the 15 per cent rebate. They refused to engage in that, and instead they got a $100 one-shot rebate. They had a commission to study the regulation of gas prices, and that commission turned it down and said it would cost money. In fact, the former minister of Mines and Energy, while still in that position in December, issued a chart - and I do not happen to have it with me - but it was a chart prepared by his department, not just by him. I believe the Deputy Minister prepared it. That chart showed the prices in PEI for the last two years, in Charlottetown compared to St. John's, showed the level of fluctuations, showed that overall the prices in St. John's were lower than in Charlottetown, and said, as part of that, that is why he believes, as Minister of Mines and Energy, that the regulation of prices was not a good thing.

I believe the current Minister of Mines and Energy had a press conference today in which he admitted that, in fact, gasoline, for example, may even cost more under this plan than without any regulation at all. He has admitted that may be the case. I would like to know why the change of heart on an issue of that nature, why the change of heart and why not have a simpler system which allows consumers to play a role. I do not see any role in this bill for consumers. In fact, the whole notion of having public hearings seem to be rather difficult to have. In fact, we wonder whether the hearings are public at all. There is some provision for a complaint hearing under section 15. (2)which says: "In a hearing under this section, the wholesaler or retailer and the complainant shall be entitled to be heard and witnesses shall be permitted to attend to give evidence on their behalf." Well, what about the public? Is this a public hearing or is there somewhere witnesses can go and give evidence if it is decided by the commissioner? That is only on a complaint hearing.

Madam Speaker, the role here seems to be to set up a commissioner to whom someone can apply who can make a decision in the absence of holding a hearing so that the wholesaler writes a letter to the commissioner, answers certain questions on criteria yet to be decided and then the commissioner can set the prices; no necessity of having a public hearing at all, no real role for the consumers, no special provisions of giving notice to the public of applications being made, a a lot of uncertainty here as to what exactly is going to go on.

So, we have the three criteria, the three proposals that we had on a fair redistribution of 15 per cent of the cost of fuel throughout the Province. That was turned down in favour of a $100 one-time rebate. A reasonable proposal for controlling price increases, or an opportunity to challenge price increases, was turned down in favour of this here, and the winter heat rebate for social assistance recipients, of course, has not been dealt with.

What do we have instead, Madam Speaker? What we have is a response to the necessity, I guess, of the new Premier feeling he has to do two or three or four things to make it look like something is actually happening. One of these was to reverse the government's position on the regulation of petroleum products, reverse the recommendations of a report from a commission set up by the government and using, not somebody who is regarded as pro-industry but, in fact, using the Consumer Advocate. The Consumer Advocate who, one would assume, has a genuine interest in achieving what is best for the consumers would have been happy to propose regulations if he believed that this type of regulation would, in fact, work. He recommended against it.

Now, there are some interesting aspects to the bill and I wonder, if it was done properly, whether, in fact, it might actually help independent retailers. If there is a proper spread here and if it is done properly, it well may be that independent retailers will have access to gasoline at wholesale prices that are not subject to various prices from one - you know, if you happen to be a major player in the Province, whether it is Irving Oil or Esso or somebody, they have one price for their own stations and another price for the independent. This may, in fact, be an opportunity for independents to get some fairness in the system, but I am not sure if that is going to be an effect. That might be one of the effects of it, so I am interested in that. I would be interested in what the minister thinks about that, whether he thinks it would have that effect, and perhaps his officials would be able to advise him of that. We might deal with that at third reading or in Committee.

I did a have look at the PEI act, and there are some interesting differences between the approach taken in the Province of Prince Edward Island and the approach taken here. One wonders how is the commissioner going to set a prices. It just says that the commissioner has the power to set prices, but what are the criteria?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, what are the criteria? On what basis will the commissioner set prices for petroleum? What will he use to determine -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: But what will he do? How will set the base for fuel prices? Well, the answer is found in clause 6. (1): "The commissioner shall establish a petroleum product base wholesale and retail price for each type of heating fuel and motor fuel sold by a wholesaler and a retailer using the criteria prescribed for that purpose by the regulations." But what does that mean? That means that cabinet can write rules as to how the price is established but we do not know what those rules are. We are being asked to pass a piece of legislation that says: Well, the commissioner will decide what the prices are but the criteria that are going to be used are unknown. The criteria are not know to the Legislature which is being asked to pass this bill. We do not know on what basis the commissioner will be asked to set prices or on what basis he will given that power.

That is also the case for the price adjustment mechanism. The price adjustment mechanism set by the commissioner under clause seven will also be applying the criteria prescribed by the regulations. What that means to the layman or layperson, Madam Speaker, is whatever the Cabinet puts in the regulations, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. We do not know what those criteria are. We are being asked to pass legislation for that purpose.

In Prince Edward Island, the Commission is being given, the Commission that is being asked to make these decisions is actually the equivalent of our Public Utilities Board but the Public Utilities Board equivalent in P.E.I. is given the power under section 31 of their Petroleum Products Act which says, "In determining the price or a change in the price of heating fuel or motor fuel, the Commission shall apply such criteria as it may from time to time consider advisable." Maybe the criteria is even more general.

On the other hand, it allows for people to make arguments to the Commission as to what the reasonable criteria are. Transportation costs maybe one, variable prices may be another. In our Province, other market factors that affect that, anything that may be relevant from time to time, and the Commission is given the power to deal with that, not a narrow set of criteria provided by regulations. What ultimately the Commission in Prince Edward Island is entitled to do is to reject those prices proposed if they are not considered to be fair and reasonable. If the prices are not reasonable then they will be turned down.

Madam Speaker, in Prince Edward Island the consumer has a role in these hearings, in helping to argue whether or not the prices or price changes are just and reasonable. That is the terminology used, just and reasonable. Not only that, in Prince Edward Island the onus is placed on the wholesaler or retailer to prove that the price in effect or the price change requested is fair and reasonable. So, there is a mechanism there to say: Okay, just because you are selling gasoline, fuel oil or furnace oil, at this price you have to prove that it is just. If you fail to prove that your price increase is just and reasonable then it will not get passed, and the onus is on you. If it is fifty-fifty, iffy-iffy, it does not go through.

Madam Speaker, there seems to be, in the Prince Edward Island legislation, some teeth, some actual bias in favor of the consumer, if you will, bias saying: Okay, the prices are not going to be taken for granted just because they are proposed by the wholesaler or retailer. The onus is on the wholesaler or retailer to actually prove that the prices they are charging or the price increases requested is just and reasonable. We have no such criteria. We do not even know what the criteria are, and there is no onus in the legislation. It seems to be wide open.

We have a significant difference to the procedures here. The Commission in Prince Edward Island is permitted to prescribe it's own procedures to be followed in terms of how to conduct the hearings and how to authorize people to appear or be an intervener, to permit evidence to be taken in various ways. They are given general powers with respect to evidence.

Our commission is given the same powers that a commissioner would have under the Public Inquires Act. The guidelines in terms of the procedures, in terms of how to hold hearings, will be found in the regulations, not given to the commissioner to actually do this job. There are quite a few significant differences in the legislation and the approach taken here and it seems the approach that is being provided by the minister in this particular legislation, it appears to be rather hastily drawn. If they are proposing, as has been suggested, to have this in effect by May, then we would have to see some regulations pretty quickly. I would expect that they are probably already written.

What we have here appears to be a hastily drawn power to say that they have accomplished what the Premier told the public and told the Liberal Party in his speech to the convention and leading up to the convention, that he would, in fact, bring in price regulation. So, he wants to show that he is meeting his promise. On the other hand, what we have here appears to be something that is less than the kind of just and reasonable criteria that is offered in the Province of Prince Edward Island, at the same time not giving the level of transparency that the public of this Province would demand, no provision for notice of applications to be given to the public, no provision for an automatic participation by consumers, interest groups or consumers themselves, and, it appears, very little in the way of the public able to initiate the process.

This Bill 4 appears to be very inadequate. It seems to be flawed in many respects, because it does not provide the kind of protection that one would expect. The criteria are not spelled out in terms of what would be required to trigger a price increase, or what criteria would be considered by the commissioner in dealing with these issues. Neither has it been adequately explained, Madam Speaker, as to why we need yet another commissioner appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council with another level of bureaucracy when we already have a perfectly good Public Utilities Board in place that has its own staff all ready. They have a number of different responsibilities under legislation for public utilities, for the regulation of automobile insurance, various other roles that they play, and to attach this responsibility to them should not be terribly onerous. They have the facilities, they have the setup, they have the infrastructure in place to provide for hearings, and to give the Public Utilities Board this power would seem to me to be a much more publicly acceptable and credible response than to set up another commission with a whole new mandate, a whole new commission, a whole new corporate philosophy, the power to have an investigation team, to hire staff and all that is required, all to be passed on to the oil companies, but not to the oil companies ultimately. Ultimately, they will be passed on to the consumer.

This does not seem to me to be a very efficient way to deal with the issue here. If you want to protect the consumer by providing an opportunity to review prices, then that could be done under the existing mechanisms of the Public Utilities Commission. I think that this government has failed to recognize that. Instead, what the minister has said this morning may well come true. It may well come true that the costs, the regulatory costs as it were, are going to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices and the end result may not be beneficial to the consumer. If what the former minister, the former Member for Humber West, told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when he was Minister of Mines and Energy is correct, that in fact the Prince Edward Island experience has been negative with respect to the prices of petroleum products in the Province of Prince Edward Island when a comparison is made between that province and this Province.

All of these things need to be explained to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to have answers to these questions before we can vote on this legislation. The concept of trying to provide some protection to consumers is a good one, but we have not been shown how, in fact, this bill will do that. What we have been shown so far by the former Minister of Mines and Energy is that it wouldn't do it if it was like the kind of regulation in P.E.I. We have expenses here that are over and above the expenses that are already being incurred by the Public Utilities Board, for example. Why are we having a new commissioner with a new big plum appointment for the Cabinet to hand out to someone to do this job, a whole new set of staff, investigators, economists, and other people to advise them? We already have a Public Utilities Commission with existing staff who are used to regulating the insurance industry to some extent today and would be well suited, in my view, to regulating petroleum products as well.

I understand my time is just about up. I see the Speaker nodding. I thank members for their kind attention during my remarks. I hope that the minister will respond to the concerns raised on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I am glad to speak in second reading on this bill regarding the regulation of gasoline prices. I was interested today in the press conference that two ministers of government had. I would like to read from their statement. It says, "Minister Matthews said: ‘Our intention with the introduction of this Bill is to restore consumer confidence.'" Then he goes on to say - oh yes, this is very important, "The main elements of the bill include the establishment of an independent Petroleum Products Price Commissioner with the ability to set maximum retail and wholesale prices."

In the event of restoring consumer confidence, here is the line that puzzled me; and it speaks to the heart of this piece of legislation. "While this process will provide greater consumer confidence and less fluctuation, it is important for consumers to realize that it will not guarantee lower prices." So, on the one hand, the intention of the bill is to restore consumer confidence and, on the other hand, the process, while it will provide greater confidence and less fluctuation, it is important for consumers to realize that it will not guarantee lower prices.

What has been the heart of debate from people in this Province on gasoline prices? They have no confidence, there is no question about that, but ultimately it is about the price we are paying at the pump. Ultimately that is what people are talking about when it comes to a litre of gasoline. The price is enormous. The price is outrageous. Everybody in this Legislature understands that and I am convinced that everybody sitting in this Legislature admits that. Now, how do we deal with it? How do we deal with ensuring that what consumers want, that government, in its role - because we have a limited role in this debate, in my view. So, how do we use the legislative levers at our disposal to the extent that we can to provide to the average person within the Province some relief? Because, that is what people want.

What kind of debate is going to take place here next year, I ask everybody in the House today? Let's say this piece of legislation passes. There is no reason it shouldn't, government has the numbers, and they seem to be committed. I will speak to the issue in terms of where government has been and where government is now on it. What happens next year when we are in the Legislature at this time, after a full year of price regulation, and we all come to the conclusion, as Minister Matthews has indicated here, that it will not guarantee lower prices? Because it can't, can it, Minister? Impossible! You would think, you would hope, that regulation would go towards lowering the price of gas. That is what people in Port de Grave want, the same as they want in Kilbride. They want to know that - here is where confidence comes into it. Here is where consumer confidence is at question. They want to know that when they are in Holyrood and they paid for a price of a litre of gas and they are their way to Trinity for the weekend, why it is 10 cents more down there on the same weekend. The consumers want to know why in Grand Falls it is one price and in Windsor it is another price. They want to know why, in Conception Bay South, on one highway, within two miles of each other, the price is dramatically different. Now does this legislation, in any way, shape or form, go to correct that? No, it does not.

I think if we were to go to recommendations made to government in the Dennis Browne report, I think it would go a long way to stabilizing prices. It would go a long way to ensure that people are involved and consumers are involved in the process and explanations are given at the appropriate times. I think if those recommendations had been implemented, those huge fluctuations at different places and at same points in time on the Island, that we would not see such a dramatic different. Obviously, you cannot.

What we are trying to provide - we are talking about consumer confidence. We are talking about providing to consumers the confidence in understanding why there are fluctuations. Now, in the absence of it right now we have no way of knowing. The government does not, we do not, nobody in this Province has any way of knowing for sure if they are being gouged or not. They do not know if they are not. We do not have access to the information. In Dennis Browne's report, if you, government - how much did the report cost? Can government tell me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: How much did that report cost? I heard $250,000 or $300,000 and I am reluctant to even say it because I do not know. I am just saying what I have heard. I do not want to stick to that, but the question is - we did, not so very long ago, take an action, as government did take an action, saw that the issue was of such importance, I say to my colleagues, that we did expend a serious amount of public money to produce a report with some very serious and, in my view - we said it at the time, we are not just saying it now - our view of this has been consistent across the board on price regulation, but we did not. It was yet another report that government adopted in a political sort of time and environment. It was seen as doing something, whatever that something was. We saw what it was at the end of the day; it was a report. What did the government do when they got the report? What did they do with its recommendations? What did they do with its findings? I mean, it is a fairly detailed report, I say to my colleagues. They would know; they have read it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thought they said they agreed with it first (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, they did. I thought they said they agreed with the findings. No, price regulation was one of the recommendations.

The government monitoring system - I would think that is a recommendation that would go a long way to restoring consumer confidence. Government should institute an efficient, adequate monitoring system which will produce a reliable data base of price information for government and consumers.

Let me ask the minister this: Will this bill provide that too? Will this bill right here, to the heart of consumer confidence, provide an efficient and adequate monitoring system that will produce a reliable data base for government and consumers again to give them some insight and understanding on what the price of gasoline is in the Province? No, it will not, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, it will not provide that reliable data base.

MR. NOEL: You do not think it provides the commissioner the opportunity to (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: What we are talking about, minister, is providing the consumer with the information and to government and through government, the consumer. I do not think it will go -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not think it will go as far as that, no.

"The Department of Mines and Energy should be designated as the lead Department of Government for all issues involving the oil industry, including consumer issues pertaining to the retail sector."

"Government should commit sufficient resources to the Department of Mines and Energy to fulfil its role of gathering data concerning the industry."

Again, information is the tool that provides people either competence or the lack of it, it provides non-competence. That is what is at stake here. Listen to this: "The Department of Mines and Energy should publish once yearly, in newspapers having a general circulation in the Province, a report on the gasoline retail industry in the Province, including year by year information concerning the number of operating outlets, crude oil costs, wholesale prices at New York, Montreal, St. John's, and pump prices (weighted average) for selected municipalities in the Province."

That is the type of information that we require because, frankly, after this bill passes and an appropriate amount of time passes after it, we are going to be in this Legislature next year and members over here are going to get the same calls as we are going to get about the price of gas at the pumps, and we are not going to be able to give them any more answer than we can right now because we do not have the information. Government in this legislation, in terms of regulated gas prices, all they will be able to say is: Well, we told you a year ago that it would not necessarily guarantee lower prices. We told you that. People want more than that. People want more information than that, and the recommendations contained in a report generated by government would have provided more than that.

"Disclosure and provision of the data required by the Department of Mines and Energy for fulfillment of its mandate should be required of industry participants under regulation." Now, therein lies a recommendation with some teeth. Just think about it. Requirement by government through its Crown department, Mines and Energy. In order to fulfil its mandate should be required of industry participants under regulation. A very important recommendation.

"Under regulation Industry should provide to the monitor full and timely reasons following any price increase."

Encouragement of Competition: "The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should re-introduce Petroleum Price Posting Regulations under the Department of Mines and Energy Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. D-17, so that all retailers are required to prominently display the pump price for gasoline products." Again, it comes down to information, Mr. Speaker.

It goes on to say: "It is recommended that Government develop a strategy to encourage the construction of an independently owned and operated terminal storage facility that would be accessible to Independents operating in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador." Now, there is a recommendation that might singlehandedly bring down the price at the pumps in many different parts of the Province. Why aren't we acting upon that?

"The Whiffen Head Storage Terminal, or the existing terminal located at Long Pond, Conception Bay, could be used for this purpose." So, it is not as if we have to go out and spend huge sums of money to create infrastructure because it already exists. Why hasn't government moved in that direction?

Minister of Government Services, do you care to answer that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he is too busy reading the paper.

MR. E. BYRNE: What do you think of this recommendation? "It is recommended that Government develop a strategy to encourage the construction of an independently owned and operated terminal storage facility that would be accessible to Independents operating in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Whiffen Head Storage Terminal, or the existing terminal located at Long Pond, Conception Bay, could be used for this purpose." Not a bad recommendation. Why hasn't government moved on it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: But, it is not being done, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not being done, Mr. Speaker, and it begs the question, why isn't it? What was this report about in the first place?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand that. It goes to the question of why you are on the right side of this issue today, and left of it a year-and-a-half later?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No. What I am saying is why didn't you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That recommendation alone is a solid recommendation. It would not require much infusion of monies whatsoever from government's point of view. The infrastructure currently exists in the Province in two locations, not necessarily that far away from each other, but certainly two locations where the majority of the population reside in the Province where these locations are. It begs the question: Why hasn't government moved in that direction?

Mr. Speaker, if you would not mind, I would like to move a motion to adjourn the House please.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. LUSH: Division, Mr. Speaker.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion was put that we do now adjourn. It was not put by the Chair, so no vote has been taken. Technically, there should not have been a division called. I now put the question.

All those in favour of adjourning the House?

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

We have called Division and rang the bells, which means we must have moved past the voice vote to do that. Therefore, we should not have called for Division unless a vote had been taken because there would not be a point. I ask, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider. If there was no vote - there was a request to adjourn and if the Speaker failed to move on it, he could not have called Division.

MR. E. BYRNE: That's right. That's exactly right. It cannot be both ways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question was - the motion was put, the Chair did not call the vote, and the Chair did in error call the chimes. Sorry.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if it is the Chair that enacted the action to have a Division and rang the bells, and the Chair would not have precipitated that action unless there was a vote previous and Division called on that vote. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you did not call the question, you should not have called for Division and rang the bells on that basis.

I cannot say exactly if the Speaker called for the vote, but I do know that we all responded in the affirmative on the vote, and whether you did actually - I guess Hansard will have to show that. I cannot say for sure you did.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My recollection is that you called for those in favour of the vote. Those on this side said yes. Perhaps the Speaker may have better recollection or may want to listen to the tape, but I distinctly heard the Speaker call for the vote and the people on this side voted. I believe the Government House Leader voted as well. Did he?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) called Division.

MR. HARRIS: He called Division.

I would urge Your Honour to listen to the tape before you make your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will take a moment to recess to review Hansard.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

(Inaudible) review of Hansard, it is clear that there was a motion put to adjourn. The Speaker did put the motion and we called for those in favour. There was no call for those against.

The Speaker apologizes for acting too hastily on the Government House Leader's request for a Division, because at that point in time there was no Division that could have been called. The voice vote had not been completed.

The motion before the floor is that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, §293 of Beauchesne states, "When the supporters and opponents of the question have given their voices for and against, the Speaker says: "In my opinion, the yeas (or nays) have it." Then members would rise. In this case, every person who voted was a ‘yea'. There were no ‘nays', and no request for ‘nays', and on many occasions, then, it should not have been precipitated. At the time there were ten members in the House, and fourteen. If we are going to revert to that, technically you should have reverted when there were fourteen on this side and ten on that side. If we are going to move beyond that point, and Division is into effect, then they have every right to come in - everybody, except the two who came in really after the Bar initially went up at the end, and that was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Two people came in after, I know, the Bar was removed. There was no choice to remove the Bar. Once the Speaker said there was no Division, it was appropriate to remove it, but if there was Division called it should not have been removed and people not allowed to come in until the House proceeded and the Bar was removed. There were two extra members who came in. If we are going to revert to the original decision, when there were fourteen and ten, we have to go back to the point in time where the members were in the House at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we cannot permit a Division and people come in the House and ring the bells and allow people, after a Division, to participate in a vote that did not require Division in the first place. Therefore, he should revert to the numbers that were in the House prior to that particular point.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker has made the ruling that there wasn't a completed vote. There was an incomplete vote. Point number one: the ‘against' was not called. There was only one side that voted, and the Speaker indicates that he did not call. I made an error by asking for Division at the time, but I heard the Division. The Speaker made the mistake by not asking for, and he has indicated that.

With respect to the Division, the Division should have gone the full ten minutes. The Division did not go the ten minutes. The Division went about four minutes. The hon. members are just grasping for straws, that is all. The Speaker has made the decision and the House should abide by it.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader stood and requested Division, he was certainly under the assumption that they had lost the vote and wanted Division. And, the Speaker moved to call Division by ringing the bells. We did not. If every decision that is made in this House we only take a part vote, then we ring the bells for Division to allow everybody to come in and vote on it, it would break down the purpose of the parliamentary system. The parliamentary system works on a voice vote, and if that is not acceptable then we go to Division, but we allowed the government side to get members back in the House on Division when there should not have been Division, and therefore allowed them now on Division to carry a vote that would have been defeated on a voice vote.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation from what you have said, and as I understand it from what has gone on in this House, the Speaker went so far to say: All in favor of this motion, ‘aye', and at that point stop, so there was not a voice vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't here.

MR. TULK: I happen to believe what the Speaker said, and I happen to believe what I trust the Speaker says is in Hansard, and I believe him. I think in this House, that is something that we all do. If the Speaker comes in and says: I made a mistake -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am trying to.

If the Speaker comes in, I say to the hon. gentleman, and says: I did not complete the voice vote, then obviously Division cannot be called. That is what the Speaker has said.

Now, if the Speaker called Division, if he made that mistake, if somebody made that mistake in calling Division of this House, the bells have to ring for ten minutes. They did not ring. They did not ring four. The Speaker has said that he made a mistake, he should have called, and that is acceptable in this House. The Speaker rules this place. If he makes a mistake, and he says he made a mistake - if the hon. gentleman wants to pursue the question further and go along and say: Oh, well, we won the vote. No, you cannot win a vote that is not properly called. That is so silly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Well, that is what the hon. gentleman is saying there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pointing.

MR. TULK: This finger is not loaded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman, if that is the question he is putting forward then he is wrong again. He is wrong on all accounts. The Speaker has said there was a mistake made in the House. There was a mistake made, and I now call upon you to put the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

I rise merely to point out that this whole point of order that is now under discussion is taking place after the Speaker, just since he came back, asked for the ‘ayes', and there were some ‘ayes' here and there were fewer nays over there. The Speaker has yet to rule whether, in his opinion, the ayes over here, or the fewer nays over here, were in the majority. I say that because the member who last spoke is asking for you to put the question. The question has already been put for a second time, and the vote has taken place, and Your Honour has yet to rule on them.

MR. TULK: The question was never put.

MR. HARRIS: It was put a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, since you have returned, you asked for the ‘ayes', and there were ‘ayes' over here. You asked for ‘nays' and there were fewer ‘nays'. Then the Opposition House Leader got on his feet and raised the point of order and we have been discussing the point of order ever since. After Your Honor rules on that point of order, I think we also have to have a ruling on whether or not the ‘ayes' over here, or the fewer ‘nays' over there were in the majority.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has allowed the point of order in the middle of a vote, which is unparliamentary, perhaps; I am not sure. The vote has not yet been finalized and I will now call those against the motion.

All those against the motion, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion fails.

We are now calling for Division.

Division

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favor of the motion to adjourn, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms. Sheila Osborne; Mr. Manning; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Hunter; Mr. French; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Young; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion to adjourn, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minster of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Joyce; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Labour; the hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Environment; Ms. Hodder; Ms. Jones; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Ross Wiseman.

Mr. Speaker, 17 ayes and 23 nays.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion fails.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, now. You are going to question the Speaker now are you? He just recognized me, Minister. Now that we have the undivided attention of the government and the minister on this particular -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the hon. gentleman say across the House that the Minister of Finance was about to question the Speaker. The Minister of Finance did not question the Speaker. I only know a couple of people in this House who interject and question the Speaker. I have to tell you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that they are not on this side of the House, they are on that side, and one of them is the gentleman who just spoke.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, as we were saying before with respect to Bill 4 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Ross, make sure too many of them don't leave. Count them.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, they said Steve Neary could bring back the crowds in the House. I don't know if he brought them back like we did today, did he? No, by God!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let it be said here that when the motion to adjourn was put in place, it was done for a reason. For the last two weeks we have sat here and watched most of the ministers leave, most of the backbenchers sat in their place, there were fourteen Opposition members in their seats, while there were ten of you. If it had not been for our move to adjourn the House none of you would have been sitting in the seats only eight or nine. That is what is going on, I say to the former Government House Leader! Absolutely!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this bill on price regulation, I am going to sit down now and give my colleague for St. John's West the opportunity to have some say in this debate as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It is my pleasure today to get up and speak on Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I just heard the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation say to this House, in a threatening way, that this minister and that minister said: You can forget about bringing constituents to meet with me! Now why don't you stand up and put yourself on the record if you are going to act so childishly in that behaviour in this House. Stand up and say it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentlemen what he heard me say was this, and I will go on the record as saying this: I have no -

AN HON. MEMBER:(Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Are you listening?

AN HON. MEMBER: I am listening to you.

MR. TULK: Listen, because I am telling you that this is the way it will be for me. I meet, as you know, with anybody in this House who wants to meet me. But, I also know that if I have to stay in this House, to keep this House open, there will be no meetings for anybody who tries to close it when I am outside meeting with one of their colleagues. I am saying to you that while this House is open I will not meet with people from the other side who carry on those kinds of shenanigans.

MR. BARRETT: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said he wanted me to go on the public record, and I have no problem. I was out of this House. I was meeting with all of the mayors from Torbay, Logy Bay, all the leaders in that section of the Province represented by the Member for Cape St. Francis. They had some important issues they wanted to debate with me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: - but I can tell you one thing, I will not be meeting with any more -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: These mayors considered to be important, I left the House, but if you are going to start playing your silly games there will be no meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) what he was going to say. You said I will not be (inaudible) your constituents. Why don't you stand up and say that, I say to the minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) point of order you have on the floor now (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: To the original point of order, there is no point of order.

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

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

It is my pleasure to stand today and speak on Bill 4 on behalf of the people who elected me in St. John's West, and indeed on behalf of all the people.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. TULK: I believe that I just heard the Leader of the Opposition look at the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in this House - and I think Hansard will record it because I believe it was loud enough for Hansard to be able to record it. I believe I just heard him stand in this House and look at another member of this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he stand?

MR. TULK: No, he did not stand. He was sitting in his seat, but it doesn't matter. He was sitting in his seat and looked across the House at the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and said: You don't have the guts to say what you said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: He did, did he?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of occasions when guts have been ruled - I say to the hon. gentleman, the word guts has been ruled to be unparliamentary. There has also been a number of occasions maybe where it has been ruled not to be unparliamentary. I would say to the hon. gentleman that if the Speaker does find these words: no guts, not to be unparliamentary, then I would say to the hon. gentleman that in the interest of decorum in this House - it is a word, by the way, that signifies you are a coward. I can say to you that the word coward has been defined many times to be unparliamentary and members have been asked to withdraw it.

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaking to the point of order.

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

Those who live in glass houses should be very, very careful because this member, on many occasions, in my eight years in this House has said the exact same thing.

I will make you a promise, that when I come back to this House tomorrow I will have Hansard researched from the time you came in this House, from 1979 to present, and I will give you every occasion when you pointed your finger or said to some member opposite about no guts or impugn a coward. How is that? And we will see if you can stand and offer an apology too, because there was no reference whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh yes, I will.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair did not hear the hon. member say what the hon. minister has attributed to him. But, I must say that in order to preserve decorum, dignity and respect in this House hon. members ought to use language that is tempered, that is not offensive, that in no way reflects on any other member of this House. I ask hon. members, again, to show some restraint and some respect for the order and decorum in this Chamber.

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

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

As I said I am glad to be standing in this House today to speak - on behalf of the people of St. John's West who elected me, and in fact, on behalf of all of the people in the Province - on this act respecting petroleum products.

It is interesting that this act should be brought in now. I question the reasons that this bill is being brought in now. On January 6, 1999, the present Premier, who was at that time the Minister of Mines and Resources, indicated that he was opposed to the regulation of the prices of petroleum products. He said: "Government generally agreed with the consumer advocate's report and accepted its two main recommendations; that there be no price regulation and that government monitoring of gasoline prices be improved."

"A monitoring and publication program has been established within the Department of Mines and Energy to keep the general public informed of gasoline prices and the issues related to gasoline pricing."

"It's important to note that the Consumers Association of Canada is also on record as being opposed to price regulation."

Yet, at this time, we see a bill to regulate petroleum products being introduced here in this House of Assembly. It is important legislation and it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: - is certainly an about-face in the policy of this government. I am wondering what has caused the shift? Because when the Premier was seeking election as Leader of the Liberal Party and as Premier of the Province, he said that the very first item to be implemented under the Roger Grimes' work plan, if I am elected leader of the Party and Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, would be fuel price regulation. So I am wondering, what is the cause for the shift in this policy? Is it that government wants to be perceived as doing something for the people of the Province or do they want to shift the focus for the real cause of the high prices on petroleum products? What is really causing the high prices on petroleum products?

If one were to refer to Fuel Facts, the March 22, 2001 edition, it states: In St. John, New Brunswick a litre of gas is 69.8 cents; in Halifax, Nova Scotia a litre of gas is 75.1 cents; in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island a litre of gas is 70.6 cents; and in St. John's, Newfoundland a litre of gas is 80.9 cents. Now, let's break down the costs. Why does Newfoundland face the highest costs?

We have compared prices at the pumps. Now let's compare the taxes. In St. John, New Brunswick, where a litre of gas is 69.8 cents, the combination of federal and provincial taxes are 29.8 cents. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, where a litre of gas is 75.1 cents, the federal and provincial taxes are 33.7 cents. In Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, where a litre of gas is 70.6 cents, the federal and provincial taxes are 27.6 cents, and in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where the price of gas is 80.9 cents, the federal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: In the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where a litre of gas is 80.9 cents, the cost of taxes is 37.1 cents. That is 50 per cent of the total cost of a litre of gas in tax.

I am wondering if this bill, respecting petroleum products, is an effort by the government of this Province to defect from the fact that the greatest contributor to the problem - and they are trying to present themselves as trying to do something about it, to try to be working on behalf of the people by bringing in gas regulations. On numerous times this side of the House has indicated to them and asked them to review and study the taxes that are on gasoline. As prices in gasoline rise the government gets more in HST. Many Newfoundlanders this year, winter meant the choice between food and fuel. The government reaps a windfall at the expense of the overtaxed consumers, our pensioners, our seniors, and our children.

On this side of the House, as I said, we have been consistent in suggesting that the government review the reduction of taxation. A break in the HST component, not only on gasoline but as well on home heating fuel and essentials to all the residents of our Province, irregardless of their economic situation. It is sad to say though, and the fact remains, that this Province still has done nothing. They have not heeded our suggestions. Our suggestions have fallen on deaf ears. Our people are left paying the highest percentage of taxes when we apply the full tax amount. If this government really cared about its people, especially its seniors and its poor - and sadly, in many cases and many instances, seniors are our poor; and our children. Statistics show that 27,000 children in Newfoundland and Labrador live below the poverty line. In single parent families the rate of child poverty is 72.1 per cent, the highest in the country, putting them in a position to be marginalized and discriminated against. How often have we heard over the past couple of years that our seniors have had to go to food banks because they spent their income on fuel to keep themselves heated? They spend so much out of their meager income to keep themselves from freezing to death; not to keep themselves warm, to keep themselves from freezing.

The Canadian Fact Book on Poverty 2000, released less than a year ago by the Canadian Council on Social Development, shows that household poverty has increased, average household incomes have declined, many seniors remain poor, young families are more likely to be poor, and disabled have the highest poverty rates.

That is not only true across Canada but it especially applies to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador which still continues to shamefully have the highest poverty rates in the country. As I have said, 27,000 of our children are poor; 72.1 per cent of children in single parent families live in poverty.

The same Canadian Council on Social Development shows as well, in statistics updated in October past, that this Province had the lowest minimum wage rates. We combine the highest prices for petroleum products and the lowest minimum wage and what we have is a combination of the highest poverty in this country. It is a demonstration that this government really does not care.

It has been constant by those on this side of the House that we can do something about it by looking hard at the taxation on these commodities that are essential to our residents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for St. John's West and the Chair is having difficulty hearing her speak.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: As I have said, both in this House of Assembly and through press releases, we have constantly asked that the government study the taxation regime that is applied to the petroleum products in our Province.

My hon. colleague, Mr. John Ottenheimer from St. John's East, yesterday laid before this hon. House a suggestion that we create an agency to monitor all activities relating to the refining and supplying of petroleum products; an ombudsman, so to speak, who would oversee the petroleum industry on behalf of all of the consumers.

Not only are the people affected who have to put oil in their tanks, but the same people who have to buy oil and have to buy gas also have to buy food products and clothing and things. Businesses are affected while prices rise. Everything from small local contractors to big businesses are affected by the high and rising - continuing to rise - price of gasoline. Higher costs affect local sales, exports and jobs in this Province, and our economy is not really in a position to be able to understand that.

The concept of having a monitor would ensure that our people are being well served. Members on the other side, since this debate on this legislation has started, have asked if we were going to vote for this bill. At this point, that is really irrelevant.

Our purpose is to put the focus on what is happening in this bill, to focus on the two sides. So today as we debate this, it is irrelevant as to what the vote will be tomorrow or when the House adjourns after the Easter break. Then it will be determined, after everything on both sides of the House has been laid before the people of the House, whether the concept of regulation as opposed to the concept of studying, whether the high prices of gas imposed by that side of the House is really the main problem, or whether this bringing in of legislation so we can capture headlines by saying that the government has brought in legislation to regulate gas, or the government plans to study the high, the exorbitantly high, cost of taxes that they impose on people at the pumps, and then the blended HST at the pumps, as well as the HST, when our seniors and our poor people are putting oil into their furnaces or stoves to heat their children. We will look at all of the sides and decide which is the better before we determine how we will vote. Our mandate is not to capture a headline by saying that we are imposing fuel regulations. Our mandate is to work on behalf of the residents of this Province who shamefully, shamefully, have the highest poverty rate in Canada.

When statistics, not our statistics but the statistics from the Canadian Council on Social Development, show that 27,000 of our children live in poverty -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

I would like to close debate, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible). Your time was up.

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I cannot? Okay.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. If he speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member has another few comments that she wants to make, I am prepared to give leave for a minute or two. That is not a problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will do it in Committee.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, that is fine, you can do it in Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The debate on Bill 4 has been vigorous, it has been interesting, it has been interruptive and it has been interrupted. It has been one of the more interesting moments in the House over the last couple of weeks, but I don't think it has anything in particular to do with the bill.

As I said yesterday to all members of the House who have spoken to the bill, we have identified by way of voice record every question that has been asked, and a response will be appropriately afforded at the Committee stage. I move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Petroleum Products," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 4)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do now adjourn.

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