May 23, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 30


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) constituent.

MR. SWEENEY: That is the record. Today is the record.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Robert Lynch on being elected as the new Fire Chief of the Harbour Grace Fire Brigade.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Chief Lynch succeeds outgoing chief, Paul Ash, who conducted the election of officers on April 24.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lynch has been a volunteer firefighter for the last fourteen years and has held several executive positions on the brigade. He will also continue in his role as public relations spokesperson for the brigade.

I also want to congratulate the other positions elected. Former chief Paul Snow will be assistant chief; Keith Skinner; Ray Verge; Jim Barnes and Brian Dwyer were elected crew cheifs. The new treasurer is Pat Hearn. Sandy Carpenter will serve as the Brigade's representative on the board of directors and Gerard Quinlan will be the club manager.

In this year, the International Year of Volunteers, I want to congratulate the Harbour Grace Fire Brigade on their election of officers and their continuing efforts for promoting fire safety.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to bring to the House's attention today something of significant importance happening in this Province. Newfoundlanders, by our very nature, have been very curious people and we observe a lot of the happenings in order to predict what the weather will be like or what the following day will be. A red sunset, everybody knows that the following day will be a good day. A grey sunset, then be prepared, a dirty day. A ring around the moon means you are going to have change.

Mr. Speaker, three very important things have happened within the past couple of weeks. There has been three blue lobsters caught in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Two on the West Coast, which was a significant indication of what happened on the Northern Peninsula, and one now on the East Coast, which a lot of people see as a reminder and as an indication of what is going to happen in the District of Port de Grave when the Premier has the initiative to call the by-election there so we can get out and have a change in political climate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a citizen of Corner Brook who has been named one of seventeen recipients of the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award.

Jim Crocker has been involved for many years in helping the citizen's of Corner Brook. He has served as a volunteer chauffeur for seniors and the visually impaired. He has helped develop amateur sport through the West Side Sports Club, as well as through hockey and softball associations in the Corner Brook region.

Mr. Speaker, the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award is presented to individuals and groups whose unpaid, voluntary contributions provide extraordinary help to people in the community. There have been a total of 563 Caring Canadian Awards handed out since the program was implemented in 1996, and the award consists of a framed certificate as well as a lapel pin and is usually presented by Her Excellency, the Governor General.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Crocker on this award and congratulate all volunteers for the work that they are doing to better our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I just wonder if the Member for Bonavista South could inform the House whether or not these blue lobsters turn red when they get in hot water?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period I asked the Premier a number of questions about the need for a lobbyist act and in one of his responses he indicated that government had never been lobbied on behalf of Inco. Last night after the news and this morning I received a number of calls from people who have indicated otherwise. So, I would like to give the Premier the opportunity today to answer some questions regarding lobbyist activity in the Province and we will end it here, I say to the Premier. For example, a well-known lobbyist in the Province, Mr. Anstey, friend of the Premier, friend of the government, a high profile Liberal, fundraiser for the Premier and the Liberal Party. If you look at the registry in Ottawa of Industry Canada it indicates that Mr. Anstey is a lobbyist for the Voisey's Bay Nickle Company, which is a subsidiary of Inco.

I would like to ask the Premier this: Can you state categorically today that Mr. Anstey has never lobbied you, as Minister of Mines and Energy, or as a leadership candidate, or Premier, or any of your cabinet or officials on behalf of Inco or Voisey's Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would appreciate an opportunity to clarify the issue. I don't know exactly what a person who is a registered lobbyist in Ottawa does. I can tell you that in Newfoundland and Labrador nobody needs to lobby the government in the sense that is normally viewed in the public, where they come to the government instead of the proponents themselves and try to convince government officials, or members, to take a certain view. That has never happened.

I do not know what Mr. Anstey does on behalf of Inco or any other of his clients. I know he is very successful in his profession. I do know that. What he does in terms of arranging meetings, or doing other things, I do not know how he does his job. But, I do know one thing, nobody needs someone else to come to ministers or officials in Newfoundland and Labrador to try to lobby this government. They can call directly to myself, any minister, or any department, at any time. If they use the services of someone else, that is their choice. In the sense of someone lobbying, because the common term is that someone would come instead of the proponent and say: I would like to present this case on behalf of someone else and I hope you would be disposed to think, or act, in a certain way. That I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in my experience, has not happened, certainly not with me, and I don't think with any of the ministers in this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Categorically, the services of a close associate of yours has never been used to your knowledge. He has never made a call on behalf of somebody to set up a meeting with anybody. Has that ever taken place? You split the hair, so I will ask the other side of the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will say again, I do not know how people who are registered as lobbyists in Ottawa, or in other jurisdictions, where it might be required how they perform their duties on behalf of their clients. All I can tell you - and I do not know a case, in any case, who exactly would have called me or my office, for example, two years ago when I was the Minister of Mines and Energy, to arrange for meetings. I know that I had lots of meetings with Mr. Scott Hand, directly, who was leading the discussions on behalf of Inco and I did not need anybody else in the room suggesting what I should think or do on behalf of the government. I am sure that he did not need anybody else in the room suggesting what he should think or do on behalf of Inco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He has avoided the answer again, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask him this: In the registry, for example, it indicates that Mr. Anstey is a lobbyist for a company called Merck Frosst, which does significant business with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in pharmaceutical business. To your knowledge, has Mr. Anstey spoken to you, any of your Cabinet ministers, on behalf of Merck Frosst, set up any meetings on behalf of Merck Frosst, to discuss possible business opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador with government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say again, anyone who is registered as a lobbyist, because there is no such thing as a registered lobbyist in Newfoundland and Labrador, not even Frank Moores, not even John Crosbie, because those people have called me themselves directly because they wanted to talk to me about certain issues. They did not suggest they were representing anybody else, or a particular client; they wanted to speak to me.

I understand that they, too, may be registered lobbyists in other jurisdictions where it is required. I do not ask those questions of them. They have never come to say: I want to speak to you, to try to influence your mind and the government or anybody else about how you should think on a certain issue. They come forward because they are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have an interest, as I understand it, in what is happening in this Province. They want something to happen in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, and anyone who comes forward at any time who wants to make that representation to me, I will gladly listen to them any day of the week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The issue is not the individuals involved. The issue is, we do not have a lobbyist act. I would like to ask the Premier this. You said this yesterday: Never has this government or you, to your knowledge, been lobbied on behalf - by a lobbyist. I am not convinced that is the case. I would like to ask you this question: Until January of this year, Mr. Anstey was a registered lobbyist for Hibernia Management Development Corporation - again federal documents - which got important concessions - a statement, matter of fact, not opinion - from government with respect to the rate of production, the increase of production at Hibernia. I would like to ask you this: To your knowledge, did Mr. Anstey have any conversations with you, ministers or officials of government, or any other ministers on any matter related to HMDC operations in the Province and HMDC's request of government at the time to increase the rate of production at the Hibernia platform?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition suggest, because of the nature, the context, of the comment, that a concession was given to Hibernia Management Development Corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) say that.

PREMIER GRIMES: That was the language just used.

The suggestion inherent to that meaning that we gave something away to Hibernia that they should not have had. That is exactly the context in which you just asked that particular question.

The fact of the matter is that an agreement was reached between the Hibernia Management Development Corporation and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow for a couple of things: for increased production to occur because it was going to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador more so now while the price of oil is much higher than it was a year-and-a-half ago and, because they have the capability of doing so, they also increased the royalty take and the royalty provisions to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and agreed to schedule - that had the royalties at a certain level with rates of production - it was agreed by absolute agreement for the two parties because it was in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide more funding -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador rather than leave the old schedule in place.

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to see the Leader of the Opposition try to suggest that there was something wrong with that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - or that there was some kind of confession given that was disadvantageous to the people of this Province, because it did not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier again. I certainly did not try to intimate anything. I will ask him: Based upon what he said, based upon the agreement that was reached with HMDC for the increased rate in production, did Mr. Anstey contact you, any of your officials, any of your ministers, to lobby, to have a chat about, to set up a meeting with HMDC officials while this agreement was being negotiated, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That I do not know. I do not know exactly who made which phone calls to which people at what point in time to arrange the meetings. I know one thing for certain, Mr. Speaker. The meetings should have occurred. The meetings needed to occur. The meetings did occur. The right and proper decisions were taken as a result of those meetings because it was in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the record will clearly show that.

Now, if it is really important, which I absolutely fail to see why it is, who might have called who to make the first call to say: Will the Minister of Energy meet with the head of HMDC? Because, I can tell you, when I was there for the couple of years, nobody needed to call on behalf, because Harvey Smith, who was there at the time, would have a call placed directly to my office and we would meet. Now, what happened a year-and-a-half or two years ago, I do not know that because I was not there; but, I can tell you, the right meetings did occur. The right decision was taken, and something that was beneficial to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians happened as a result of it, and I am proud to have been a part of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Anstey, according to federal documents, is a registered lobbyist for Kruger in the Province. Kruger, as we all know, is dealing with government departments, and has dealt with government departments, on serious environmental issues, Main River, as well as availability of wood supply to operate at the mill in Corner Brook.

I would like to ask the Premier this question: To your knowledge, has Mr. Anstey or any other lobbyist met with any ministers in your government, any officials within your government, established any meetings, set up any meetings, talked to any officials, on behalf of Kruger?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know that, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you this: If, in fact, these particular companies, all reputable companies, important economic players in Newfoundland and Labrador, good corporate citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador, contributors to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, if they have found it fit to take Mr. Anstey or anyone else as a consultant or a lobbyist, or whatever they use them for, I hope he is doing something on their behalf. If he has been charging them any money, I hope they are getting some service from him. They are the only ones to judge whether or not the service they are receiving from a person that they hire out in the private sector for their own purposes is worth any money that they might be paying to him.

I can only tell you, again with respect to Kruger, Joseph Kruger himself, as the president of the company, knows today, because he has done it in the past, that he does not need anyone to place a call or set up a meeting with me or any of the ministers. He has called me personally in the past when I was Chair of the Economic Policy Committee of the Cabinet and asked to have meetings about certain issues on behalf of the whole of the committee of government. Mr. Kruger made the call, not anybody else on his behalf. So I don't know if they used anyone else to make other calls or not. I can only tell you again, that important meetings were held, important decisions were taken, and we are pleased to be able to work cooperatively with those kinds of corporate citizens who have a long track record and history of being good citizens in a corporate sense, in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can only echo the Premier's commentary on the corporate citizens that we have talked about. There is no question. Their reputation is not as stake. Mr. Anstey's reputation is not at stake. Government's dealings with lobbyists and the right of the public to know who is influencing what decision and whom they are asking for, that is what we are talking about. We are not trying to take apart anything else.

I would like to ask the Premier one final question with respect to a company, FPI. Recently, you know, with the situation that occurred with FPI, certainly back during the NEOS proposal, Mr. Anstey was a consultant. I understand he was a consultant for the dissident board of directors. Did he make any representations to you or to government to set up any meetings on behalf of the

dissident board, or any minister, or any official in government, with respect to that issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear, I guess, that while it may be important to the Leader of the Opposition and the person who is suggesting he should be asking these questions - the same person who would suggest and told him last week that there were great flaws with the legislation for the Citizens' Representative and that we had taken upon ourselves the ability to fire the Ombudsman, which, in fact, it is now known, a few days later, not at all true; that somebody either did not read the legislation or had no idea of what they had read. There are no amendments yet; we understand that. We understand if there are some inconsequential minor amendments that will make the bill a little bit better, we certainly may very well agree to them later today.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot go out and totally misrepresent any particular issue. What the people of the Province are more concerned about is this: The people of the Province are more concerned about the decisions that are taken. Let's talk about FPI, recently, because the Leader of the Opposition and the President of the PC Party - the Leader, not the President - the Leader of the PC Party came out and said in the public that there was no place for a government. They agreed one day that there was no place for a government to try to determine who the board of directors would be. Then, because they did not think that was playing properly politically, they suggested a few days later that maybe the government should do something about who the board of directors would be. It is the decision that is taken at the end. I do not believe it matters at all who made the phone call, who set up the meeting, or even who went to the meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: The reality is, we will be judged, and proudly so, based on the decisions that we take as a result of the meetings and intervention; not who set them up or who went to the meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

All of this coming from a man who, frankly, was not interested enough to ask one question about how the impact of FPI - unbelievable!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The same attitude is being exemplified here. The Premier has gone from splitting hairs on a definition of who called who, to saying: I don't care who called who. Now we are talking about the right decisions.

Premier, the reality is - and you know it, the ministers over there know it - that there is lobbying activity occurring in the Province. All we are asking is for you to keep in step with your commitment to be open and transparent, to strike a committee of the House this summer, to recommend back to the government ways and means by which we can regulate it under a lobbyist registration act. Won't you stand up and agree with that, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The questions were asked yesterday. We will, as the government, look at the issue of whether or not, at this point in time, it is important to have lobbyist registration legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, having been in the government for twelve years, dealing with all kinds of issues in all kinds of departments, I can tell you this, and I will say it again for the public record: Companies in Newfoundland and Labrador may be using consultants and lobbyists on their behalf. Just like Imperial Tobacco used Leo Power, who organized Progressive Conservative campaigns, to come into the tobacco hearings because they thought they needed someone else to help them understand the Newfoundland environment and so on. Just like some other companies have used Frank Moores. Just like some other companies have used John Crosbie to maybe make some contacts and so on. So there are some people who companies decide, for their own reason, that they might employ and use. I can tell you for the record, they don't need anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador to place a call to this Premier, to these ministers, to this government, on their behalf. All they have to do is call themselves and come in and discuss any issue with us at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Because the issue has been raised, we will look at it through the summer and we will decide whether or not we will bring forward legislation next fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions today are for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, the hiring practice of the Terra Nova project at Bull Arm still leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to hiring workers from Newfoundland and Labrador. The Opposition have made an issue of their hiring practices at the Terra Nova project over the past number of years. Mr. Speaker, why are workers from outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, and even outside of Canada, still given preferential treatment when it comes to hiring people for the project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the real thrust of the hon. member's question is. The facts of the matter, I think, speak for themselves. In terms of the amount of local labour content that has gone into both the Hibernia project at Bull Arm and the Terra Nova project, and in terms of the amount of business that has accrued to the Canadian business community and the Newfoundland business community, it is clear that we have been, on both accounts, the major beneficiaries of that economic activity. To the extent that the hon. member might suggest that there is some need of changing labour practices or laws by way of legislation or regulation, I would be happy to hear what his thoughts are but I can tell you that in those two projects there has been significant economic benefits on employment and on procurement to this Province, and we intend to see that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - that is built on and added to in any future projects that go forward in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The thrust of the question is this: that there are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians leaving this Province when they should be working at that site, and we have foreigners working at the site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in 1999 this Province lost some 350 engineering and design jobs to Leatherhead, England and government refused to enforce the many development conditions of the Atlantic Accord and the Terra Nova Development Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, why is government still allowing skilled Newfoundland and Labrador workers such as divers, electricians and others, to be discriminated against in employment on the Terra Nova project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member in response, that if he can demonstrate one circumstance or if he can demonstrate a dozen circumstances where people in the context of legislation and regulations that we are responsible to enforce and administer is being discriminated against in this Province against those regulations, let him bring forward the circumstance and we will be the first to take significant interest in reviewing that circumstance and bringing redress to it if in fact there is something we can do. We do not want to see, Mr. Speaker, one Newfoundlander or one Labradorian have to leave this Province for purposes of employment. We acknowledge that people do have to leave sometimes. We acknowledge that people from the outside have to come in and work sometimes. We are in a free market economy. We are in a big country where we have great ability and great mobility but let him lay on the Table of the House or bring to my attention situations where there is discrimination and where we have failed to act in the best interest of the industry and we will be happy to look at and bring redress if it is appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should learn what the Atlantic Accord is all about. If he wants a few names maybe he should make a trip to the airport and ask a few people up there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, when is this government going to insist that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board strictly enforce the benefit requirements of the Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland workers and Newfoundland businesses? When?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we regretfully in this Province, even today - even with all of the best efforts of all of us in the Province, collectively, both in the government circle and in the private enterprise and the private sector, despite all our best efforts we still - we acknowledge that we have too high an unemployment rate in the Province. We acknowledge that the issue of employment opportunities in the Province is important to the people of the Province and I say to the hon. member, it is an issue of such seriousness that it is really too important an issue to be trying to make small, political points by making comments such as he just made about going to the airport and asking the people about their employment, or lack of employment opportunities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I have to say to the hon. member that I hope in fifty years' time, if he is alive, and if per chance he ever gets to sit on this side of the House, that he takes those issues more seriously than he is taking them today because we consider them to be a very serious issues on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying this: despite debate that the cheap shot questions might wish to put to this side of the House we will take our obligations and our responsibilities with respect to employment opportunities in the Province, seriously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) that people in the Province have maximum opportunities for jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the President of the United States made a direct offer of participation regarding energy sources and supply, and an invitation to both, Canada and Mexico, to make it easier for buyers and sellers of energy to do business with one another. My question is to the Premier: Has your government, or any department within your government, Mr. Premier, given consideration to what is being considered, proposed, and put out there by the Americans? Have you given consideration? If so, can you please share with the people of the Province the nature of those deliberations and possible future discussions and proposals which your government is prepared to make?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report that about a year before the President of the United States made his commentary and talked about the need for a North American energy plan we had engaged in discussions with potential buyers and traders in energy in the United States of America so that we could find possibilities to deal with the issue of having power exported from Newfoundland and Labrador - most likely from Labrador with the Lower Churchill development - into the marketplace in the United States. We have had many discussions spanning a little over a year. As a matter of fact, we had many discussion leading up to the signing of the renewal for another three year period of the recall of 130 megawatts, which we resigned afterwards with Hydro Quebec, but only after full examination of whether or not we could have gotten a better deal by selling to some possible buyer or marketer in the United States of America.

When the Minister of Mines and Energy gives a further update as to prospects with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill Falls - which I am sure the Opposition would love to find and support us in getting a way to do for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I am not sure every day, because I am sure that if we came forward with a very good proposal they would probably have their fingers crossed hoping that it would not happen, or would not work. That seems to be their mood and tone these days.

We have had discussions for over a year now, Mr. Speaker, and we will seek out an opportunity actually, in the not too distant future, to have the Minister of Mines and Energy give a full report on those discussions and on possibilities for development of the Lower Churchill to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

We have been told - in fact, the Minister of Mines and Energy in the past indicated the fact that one of the impediments, with respect to any serious negotiations and successful negotiations between our Province and the American market, is the absorbent rate, fees, and rents that would be charged by the Province of Quebec with respect to what are known as wheeling rights.

My question would be to the minister, or perhaps who is Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: Has this notion been taken seriously by your government and have you, in fact, addressed this issue with your federal counterparts? Because it appears, Mr. Premier, that this government is condoning what appears to be condoned by the federal government in the fact that the federal government appears to support what Quebec is doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is: Have you taken this issue seriously and have you taken up this issue with your federal counterparts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I must say again, I am disappointed in the very tone of the question.

The suggestion, from the Official Opposition, to ask a question: Has the government taken this issue seriously? Mr. Speaker, the government takes issues of importance to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians very seriously, every single hour of every single day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The kind of language again that the Opposition critic would use -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Maybe he does not understand, or again they are trying to put a particular spin out into the public of Newfoundland and Labrador to cast an important debate in a certain light. He should know, being the critic, that the rules in the marketplace today in North America through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States and with the Canadian rules as well, prohibit anybody, including Quebec, from charging any rate that would be seen to be exorbitant or outlandish or anything else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the question is this, and fact is this -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) in the U.S., both Lloyd Matthews, Minister of Mines and Energy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition blurting things out across the House as he wants to do, talked about the Minister of Mines and Energy talking about a marketing fee which has absolutely nothing to do -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask the Premier now to conclude quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - with wheeling and transmission. So again, he does not know what he is talking about. He does not know the difference, Mr. Speaker. He does not know the difference!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West. You have time for one quick question.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and involves a quote in today's paper where he states that in the future, because of the road improvements in Labrador today, that passenger service may not be required to accommodate more than fifty passengers. I ask the minister if he is aware that currently the Sir Robert Bond, providing passenger service from Goose Bay to Lewisporte, only pulls into Cartwright once a week on a trip. The capacity of that boat right now is 240 passengers with sleeping accommodations up to 144.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. member has asked his question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) no, a preamble.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I am pretty certain that I heard a question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Will the minister commit that there will be no reduction to ferry service from Labrador to the Island portion of the Province until the complete Labrador highway system is finished from Labrador West to The Straits?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think yesterday the Opposition critic went out on a tangent in la la land and started dreaming about boats that were going to Labrador, and dreamt up all kinds of things that were going to happen in Labrador. I can assure you that nothing will happen in Labrador until there is full consultation with the people of the Northern Coast, and the boat that will be going into Labrador will have sufficient capacity to carry freight and passengers. Our intention is to improve the service to Labrador, not reduce the service to Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will make another try at getting this petition on since I could not get it presented a couple of weeks ago. I will read the prayer of the petition. Because the petition was not done up in the proper format we will just (inaudible) one:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer: As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is on behalf of the people of Conche. I brought it up from time to time in the past couple of months about the condition of the roads in Conche. The 26 kilometres of deplorable gravel road that was constructed, not by the Department of Transportation, but actually by logging contractors probably about thirty years ago. Mr. Speaker, it is one of the worst roads in the Province. The people of Conche, who we all know well here in this House, have to commute over this road everyday, on a daily basis, just to pick up the basic necessities of life: groceries, fuel, gas, medical services in Roddickton. Everything basically that they need in Conche they have to travel over 26 kilometres of ridiculously, terrible gravel roads.

Mr. Speaker, during the by-election this past winter a number of members of government were in Conche and made a commitment to the people of Conche, at that time, that their road would be done within two years. The people of Conche are wondering if the commitment that was made last winter is going to be honoured. The people of Conche had this commitment made to them on numerous occasions before by different members and different government ministers and it is about time for the government, Mr. Speaker, to get on with doing something with this road so that the people of Conche can have some kind of future there in their community.

I ask the government how they expect to ever develop any kind of a tourism industry in an area like this when you have 26 kilometres of dirt road. In 2004, as I understand, the French Shore festival is going to be taking place, and certainly Conche is an important community on the French Shore of Newfoundland and Labrador and expects to participate in this celebration. It would make it much easier for the people of Conche to gain some benefits from the tourism trade that is gradually developing in our Province by having an upgraded road with an asphalt top. There are 300 people in this community, roughly, and they deserve to have something done with their road just as other people in the Province.

We heard the minister in the Budget announce $18 million for road work and a million for his district just last week -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask leave of the House to revert, just for a moment, to Presenting Reports if I may?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking for leave to revert to Presenting Reports. Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

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

Pursuant to statutory requirement, I am pleased to table the Report of Mining Leases and Mineral Licences issued for the period April 1, 2000-March 31, 2001.

I apologize for missing the opportunity earlier.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that sometimes I make light of it but I am standing today to present a petition on behalf of people in my district again today on road conditions. It was just received this morning. It is from the residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula. I will read the petition:

WHEREAS eleven communities are accessed by Route 414, commonly known as the La Scie Highway; and

WHEREAS the highway is in deplorable condition, large potholes, ruts and very bad road conditions; and

WHEREAS this road is used by trucks from the La Scie fish plant - which was a very productive fish plant in its best days - heavy trucks also transporting ore to the Nugget Pond Gold Mine, school children commuting by bus, and the general safety of the public;

THEREFORE we the undersigned hereby ask the government to place the La Scie Highway, Route 414, on the Roads Program this year and undertake the upgrading and paving of that particular highway.

Mr. Speaker, I have done this on many occasions in this House. It is no joy in presenting petitions about road conditions. To take that a little bit further, there was no joy in standing with people last year in my district, when you seen the sun come up, and you had people making up posters and signs, including school children, to block off a road. Don't anybody in this House ever believe that those people had nothing better to do at 6:00 o'clock in the morning than to go up to block off a road. It is degrading. It is embarrassing. They feel like they have been slighted.

Mr. Speaker, as we hear from other members right around this House about road conditions - and I have been in some member's districts on the opposite side, as of late, and seen some pretty bad road conditions. People in this Province are basically saying that the basic infrastructure of road transportation has gone far beyond now. It has gone to such a state now that it has to be addressed as an urgent situation. The government's idea and plan for it is just not there.

Simply put, the community of La Scie and eleven other communities on Route 414 - I just mentioned in the petition, the fact that they have a fish plant there which uses heavy trucks to go back and forth. Last year when this road was blocked - this is how serious it is getting - the gold mine on the Baie Verte Peninsula, Nugget Pond, is transporting ore now from the Kings Point area, from a find they had in that area, and we would actually have to close down the mine in Nugget Pond because of the lack of a basic infrastructure of a road. That is what it almost got to last year, and that is a sad statement for this Province when we have an industry, like a goldmine, ready to be closed down because we do not have a road to travel over. That is how bad it has gotten.

I have talked to the minister on many occasions. I have presented petitions here day after day, and I don't want to do it any more. I don't want road protests; I don't agree with them. We shouldn't have to do it. The people don't want to do it. I don't want to stand with them next week, or the week after, to try to state their case again. Basically, they are getting sick and tired of it, and so am I, in presenting these petitions. The government has to address this problem once and for all. It has to be done. I say it again: When you ask for solutions, we will give them to you. You have to have a plan, you have to involve the federal government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - because simply put, Mr. Speaker, this government has failed when it comes to basic infrastructure in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition again today on the bulk export of water from the Province.

The prayer of the petition reads: We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province.

Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province.

It is time that we demand our full and fair share!

With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spin-off from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by people from Main Brook as well as from Pilley's Island, Beaumont, Brighton and so on. There are some 140 signatures on this particular petition today. The people of the Province have spoken very clearly on this in 1999. The people of the Province are speaking clearly again today. The people of this Province want our resources to be processed in a manner that will benefit the people of this Province, in a manner that will give maximum benefit to the people of this Province in terms of jobs and spin-offs, as well as royalties.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province want to work. They do not want to be leaving for Alberta, British Columbia, the States, or elsewhere. They want to stay in this Province, and they want to work in this Province.

We have enough resources in this Province that we should be able to make that happen. We have enough resources in this Province that everybody who wants to work should be able to work, but we have not done it because we have given our resources away. We have allowed our resources to go outside the Province for processing elsewhere. It is time that the people of this Province - and they are doing that and they are doing it very loudly and clearly - send a message to this government that the resources of this Province must stay in this Province to benefit the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I stand by that. I am saying, as a Member of the House of Assembly, that I want the people of this Province to be the main beneficiaries of the resources of this Province. I want the people of this Province, the owners of our resources, to be the ones to benefit from the jobs that are created from our resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to do it while the hon. member was presenting his petition, but I would like to ask the Chair as to - seeing as how we are into the last day or two of this particular session, I want to be at least on record for the fall. My understanding, having been here for some twelve years now, is that a petition given to a member is to be presented in a timely fashion, as quickly as possible when the House of Assembly is open, and presented on behalf of the individuals who have signed the petition.

Over the last number of weeks, I have heard petition after petition on this one subject. Mr. Speaker, again, my point of order is based on whether or not this is one petition that may have been received some time ago and is now being presented in, what we call in Newfoundland, dribs and drabs, a piece here and a piece there and a piece there. If the petition had been presented to the member in a bulk form, to be presented -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALSH: Yes, and I use the word bulk - are the rules of this Chamber being abused by presenting petitions in pieces?

If the hon. member is willing to stand and advise me that in the last ten days or two weeks he has received a sheet of paper as a petition every day, that is fine; but, if the member has received all those petitions in one bulk form then the petition should be presented that way and not come in, in dribs and drabs, or a sheet every day.

I ask for the Chair's direction as to whether or not this should be permitted and the House should be abused in this way.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that particular proposed point of order: There is a time limit given of three minutes to that, and that went through our Standing Orders, a revision of the committee on which I sat. I believe I was vice-chair, if I remember correctly.

There is no way that what the hon. member indicated can be enforced. There is no reference in fact to that particular thing. If so, we would have to have this House monitoring the incoming mail of every member of the House. We would have to monitor every courier service that sends them in. We have had petitions that came in for two weeks. It took me almost a month to get petitions in, hundreds of them, that come in dribs and drabs from different stores and different areas. It is not enforceable. It is not in the rules of the House, except time limits and maintaining it to the contents of the petition, as clearly spelled out in Beauchesne, and our Standing Orders specify time. That is something that is not stated in our Standing Orders or in Beauchesne and it is not even something that can be enforceable by this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, to the point of order.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, today in the mail I received petitions from two communities. They are clearly presented today. There are some twenty sheets with some 140 signatures. For the academics of it, if the member would like for me to count the number of sheets I would be happy to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point that the hon. member has raised under advisement but, as all hon. members know, before any petition is presented in the House we have asked members to clear it with the Table. I would assume that has been done on each and every petition that has been presented here. I will take the point that the hon. member has raised under advisement.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 18, Mr. Speaker, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products.

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

 

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Walsh): Order, please!

A bill, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products. (Bill 4)

Clause 1.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At this time, at Committee stage, it is an opportunity for us to debate back and forth the various provisions of the act. I ask the Government House Leader if the Minister of Mines and Energy expects to be present, because I have a couple of questions for the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I will just raise to the Government House Leader: Is the Minister of Mines and Energy present? We are at Committee stage, I say to the member, and therefore -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Mines and Energy may be able to respond to a few questions.

MR. MATTHEWS: When I heard you were on your feet, (inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I realize that. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, we have had an opportunity now to discuss this bill at length and there are a few points I wish to make, but my first question - and we will do this while we are debating clause 1 of Bill 4 - my first question of the minister is: Members on this side of the Legislature are curious to know, Minister, what, in fact, was the change that motivated members opposite to, in fact, present Bill 4 to the House of Assembly and subject to the people of the Province the consequences of regulation of petroleum products?

We have seen many examples, both by the present Premier, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and the Consumer Advocate who was independently appointed to address this issue, all of whom, at a particular point and not that long ago, Mr. Minister, spoke against the concept of regulation. So my question, I guess, at the beginning is a very general one in nature. What has prompted the minister, in particular, the sponsor of this particular legislation, to in fact now find that it is appropriate to introduce the concept of regulation to the people of the Province?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The reason why we have brought forward this piece of legislation at this time, Mr. Chairman, I think has been explained in the last month or so, both by myself when we introduced the bill and in public comments that the Premier and I have made regarding the bill since that time. Simply put, the reason why we have brought the bill is because we have been sufficiently convinced that the people of the Province, notwithstanding the commentary and previous positions on regulation as an exercise, we are sufficiently convinced that the people of the Province wish to have some sort of a mechanism in place that provides for the orderly conduct of raising prices on petroleum products at certain times, and reducing the prices on petroleum products at certain times.

The people of the Province have, over and over, told us, by many standards of measurement - when I say by many standards of measurement, I mean by virtue of polling that has been done, by virtue of representation that we get directly from which we get a sense of the public's mood, by virtue of communications through the media that consumers have put forward. We have been convinced that the people of the Province want some sort of a regularized regime that oversees increases and decreases in petroleum product prices.

We have said, Mr. Chairman, from day one, that this bill and regulations generally do not necessarily guarantee lower prices for petroleum products. We cannot control what happens at the OPEC level. We cannot control what happens at any level in the chain between wellhead and the wholesaling of the product, but we can have some sort of regulation that deals with wholesale prices and retails prices. This is the concept, these are the principles, on which P.E.I.'s legislation is based and on which Quebec's legislation is based, to the extent that they have regulation, and they do have some regulation in this regard in their industry.

Mr. Chairman, the motivation is nothing more than a clear-cut belief that people in the Province want somebody overseeing the pricing of petroleum products, and that whether or not it means a lower price or a higher price at the end of the piece, if you took it on average over a year or two, they still believe that if they have regulation, at least the process will be transparent, at least the process will be fair in terms of being objective, and people will have some level of predictability and some level of stability in petroleum product pricing. Predictability in that it will happen on a regularized basis, about every thirty days, and stability in that they will know for sure what the price is going to be for at least that thirty day period. It is in response to the public's essential request that we move in this direction. That is a fair question for the hon. the Member for St. John's East to ask.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) want an election and you are not going to have one, so you don't listen to them all of the time. You have to be consistent.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member that I personally - I do not know about him; I cannot speak for him, obviously. He would not wish to have me speak for him. I can say personally that I have not seen a poll that suggests that 87 per cent of the people of the Province want an election. I have seen a poll that suggest that 87 per cent of the people want petroleum products pricing regulation. So, on the basis on my not having seen a poll that suggests what he suggests the public wants, but on the basis of having a poll that tells me they do want regulation, we have moved to bring in Bill 4.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister uses words such as predictability, stability, and this being the great panacea for what the public is in fact looking for. Again, it does not address the very sound conclusions that were reached just over two years ago when, for example, the present Premier stated quite strongly that it is important to note that the Consumers Association of Canada is also on record as being opposed to price regulation - using his direct quotes and his research to oppose the concept of gas pricing regulation.

In that same commentary, the then Minister of Mines and Energy, our present Premier, reacted by simply saying that he supports the views that were also concluded and formulated by the then appointed Consumer Advocate, Mr. Dennis Browne, when he embarked upon a fairly lengthy and detailed study to examine this very issue. In fact, the recommendation is quite brief and I will just refresh the members present of exactly what our appointed Consumer Advocate had to say with respect to price regulation.

He begins his recommendation by saying: No Price Regulation. He states, "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." He says, quite emphatically, at the conclusion of recommendation number one, "We have found no evidence to support price regulation."

This is the conclusion of a very in-depth study that was done at the request of government, an in-depth review. In fact, the Consumer Advocate, who obviously prepares a report on behalf of consumers of the Province - that is his job, that is his mandate, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman - his first regulation is to say no to the concept of price regulation.

As I indicated earlier, and it has even been supported by the Minister of Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, he, too, at that time, was against the concept of price regulation as it relates to the setting of prices of petroleum products.

Mr. Chairman, I have to ask the minister once again. I need further clarification on this point. The consumers of the Province, I would suggest, were as concerned in 1997 and 1998 and 1999 with respect to what was happening with gasoline prices as they are today, in May, 2001. What, in fact, has changed? If the same individuals were listening to the same consumers, and if the position of consumers, as a result of a very detailed and in-depth study being undertaken by the Consumer Advocate, reflected the same opinions and the same conclusions, the consumers have not changed and the position of the public has not changed, but nevertheless the position of the government has changed. So I have to ask the question once again, and I ask the Minister of Mines and Energy, could he perhaps distinguish between the public position of consumers in the Province in the late 1990s when this study and analysis was undertaken, and compare for us how that had differed, and how consumers of the Province have had a difference of opinion and a different view with respect to their position on gasoline prices in the Province. What has changed in some eighteen to twenty-four months?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When the hon. member speaks about the position of consumers in the Province, I guess it is a matter of whom you are referring to in your own mind as being those who represent consumers in the Province. There are a couple of groups in the Province - I can think of three groups - who have been dealing with the issue in the name of the consumers of the Province. How the organizations came about I am not certain. There was a group in Grand Falls called NAGG; that was one advocacy group. There was another group in St. John's headed by George Murphy. There was another group headed by Dennis O'Keefe. They all claim to be consumer advocates. Regardless of whether they are self appointed, whether they are elected, or whether they came about by mass grassroots support, I am not certain, because I am not really too familiar how they came about and how they operate.

I can say to the hon. member that the groups such as these, that we have heard from, that the public has been hearing from regularly, are groups that have been singularly supporting the position of regulation.

To be fair to them, Mr. Chair, I would think that they have had some influence upon the view of the public generally with respect to regulation of gas prices. That is why I believe you have seen substantially high numbers in terms of favoring regularization when polling and that sort of thing has been done.

To the question of the position of consumer groups, the only groups I am most familiar with are groups that roundly support regulation.

While I am on my feet, if I may, I want to take this opportunity to move two amendments to the bill that I have not yet moved. They are amendments to clause 2. The first amendment is to do with section 2(1)(b). This amendment is to clarify the definition of consumers, or the term consumer, to exclude persons who purchase petroleum products at prices that have previously been agreed upon between wholesalers and retailers.

This particular amendment is being introduced at this time as a result of some representation we have had from the industry subsequent to the introduction of the legislation, and it is merely designed to ensure that suppliers and purchasers of petroleum products, who have entered into fixed price contracts for a period of time at either the wholesale or retail level or both, are not impacted by the intent of this bill to regulate gas prices and fuel product prices on a month-over-month basis.

I have already had a brief discussion with the hon. the Member of St. John's East on this. An example of that would be where a company like North Atlantic who refines and wholesales product and has fixed price contracts with, for example, the airline industry in Gander for a period of time, is not captured because these types of arrangements were never intended to be captured or to be affected by regulation of petroleum product pricing. So, I move that amendment.

There is one other amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to move at this time. It is an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. This amendment would provide that the commissioner may order a change in price for a petroleum product applied to other retailers or wholesalers in addition to the retailer or wholesaler who applies for that change.

Mr. Chairman, the bill - as I think I mentioned when we introduced this bill - will provide for price regulations on a regional or on a zonal basis in the Province. This is necessary of course, because of our large geography and the difference of cost of getting products to certain remote areas of the Province as opposed to certain more heavily populated areas. It also is as a result of the fact that in certain smaller situations we have retailers who have low volumes and could not otherwise work or operate on the same basis as somebody with a higher volume in retail. Pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you think the (inaudible) is going to work?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, we think it will work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, we think it will because we think we have done a fairly good job at analyzing what other jurisdictions have done, and we think we have improved upon that. In any event, Mr. Chairman -

MR. SULLIVAN: What other jurisdictions?

MR. MATTHEWS: P.E.I. and Quebec, in particular.

This amendment will allow the commissioner, in addition to addressing a particular circumstance of a particular retailer in a zone if he feels that he should make a different price ruling for that one dealer, he may at that time while changing the price, if he feels like doing that, for one dealer in a zone he could also make that, if he so chooses, generally applicable to all retailers in that particular zone even though they have not asked for consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I move these two amendments, to Bill 4, that is currently before us.

CHAIR: Before recognizing the Member for St. John's East, the Chair had an opportunity to review the amendments to clause 2 and clause 8 and the amendments are in order.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister just referred to other jurisdictions in the country, and throughout this whole debate the question has certainly crossed my mind, I would say to the minister, and I would be interested in his views: Why is it that it is only Prince Edward Island? I know the minister refers to Quebec but it is really Prince Edward Island's legislation that resembles mostly what is being presented in Bill 4. Why is it only the Province of Prince Edward Island, with the exception of some variation of that in Quebec, as the only jurisdictions in our country that has accepted the notion of regulation? I guess the question is, to put it simply: If it is that good, minister, why is it other Canadian jurisdictions have not entertained the concept of regulation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the hon. member, it is not a bad question that he asked. I think it is a very reasonable question because in fact, if regulation were the answer to lower prices consistently I am sure other jurisdictions, other than Quebec, P.E.I., and New Brunswick - I think which have legislation on their books but which have not enacted it - would probably be regulating.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you regulate lumber prices as well?

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, his question is a very good one and it is a very valid one. That is why I have said consistently from day one that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: My mike was not on, I may have a comment on that.

MR. H. HODDER: Are we regulating lumber now as well?

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, if he wants to proposition government with respect to the regulation of lumber, he should bring forward his thoughts.

The question is a good one, and I suggest that other jurisdictions have not regulated for two basic reasons. Number one, it does not automatically guarantee better pricing at the pumps or better fuel pricing for people who burn oil. Secondly, there is obviously severe resistance to regulation by the wholesale industry in terms of those who sell petroleum products to the retailer. With respect to other jurisdictions, the marketplace has still been the determining factor as to how pricing takes place.

The other thing I would say to the hon. member, in fairness, is that the larger the urban or the larger the metropolitan centre where products are sold, to that degree there is a better chance that market forces work in favour of consumers. In larger urban centres the marketplace, basically, is the better regulator of prices. But, in a Province like ours, and I guess a Province like P.E.I. where you have sparse population, there is more ability for those, if they would want to do so, to take advantage of the marketplace. I am not suggesting that wholesalers or retailers are doing that, but there is more opportunity for them to do that. Hence, there is more of a perception that regulation works best on behalf of consumers.

I take his point, and I accept the concept that everybody does not support regulating petroleum products. As a matter of fact, while the consumers generally, as in the general public, overwhelming support it there is a great divergence of you when it comes to the industry itself and, in fact, to some retailers who sell the product. We are trying to capture in this bill - a piece of legislation we are trying to capture in this bill, a circumstance where everybody's interest has been recognized to the extent that we could accommodate it. We have tried to address concerns that the industry has brought forward at the wholesale and retail level, and also address the concerns that the consumer groups have brought forward.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not convinced, I say to the minister, in his explanation or rationale for trying to give an account as to why other provinces have not jumped onboard on this very exciting concept that the minister and this government feels is now appropriate to be presented to the consumers of this Province.

I do have a question for the minister, and it is with respect to Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island being the only other provincial jurisdiction that has implemented the notion of gas price regulation. It is my understanding, minister, that from January 1999 to December 2000 - we are talking approximately two years - the tax excluded average annual price of self serve regular unleaded gasoline in Charlottetown increased by 16.1 cents per litre, compared to 14.6 cents per litre in St. John's, in our capital city. I guess the question is, number one: Is the minister aware of that? If so, number two, how can he rationalize - again, for the betterment and the protection of consumers in our Province - that regulation is the be-all and end-all when, in fact, we have this type of statistic facing us when we compare our jurisdiction, which was unregulated obviously at that time, compared with the only jurisdiction, I might add, that is regulated?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is interesting that the hon. member would make a point that suggests that not only does regulation not keep the price necessarily lower in one jurisdiction than another, but that the people of this Province - contrary to the perception that they have been putting forward for a long time - are being hard done by on pricing of petroleum products. Actually, we are getting a better deal in St. John's since 1999 than they are in Charlottetown.

I would say, first of all, that St. John's is probably the most competitive market in Newfoundland; without a doubt it is. I think we would all acknowledge that. Even as compared to Charlottetown, it is a much bigger marketplace. I am not sure that these figures - because I do not have them in front of me - are the same for the rest of the Province. We do have good tracking of how prices are impacted. I would say only this to the hon. member: Again, that we have never said that petroleum product pricing regulation will guarantee lower prices, but it will guarantee stability. It will guarantee predictability. It will allow people to know how often prices will change and how long they will be in place.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Chairman, the brute reality is this, if everybody said and acknowledged, which is not the case, that regulation will cause prices to be higher, the fact of the matter is that the consumers of the Province would probably say: Well, we are prepared to pay a small premium for having somebody looking out to our interests in this thing, month over month and year over year. I don't think it can be argued that, notwithstanding what happens in the movement of prices year over year, there have been circumstances where increases of petroleum products have taken place before they would otherwise have taken place under regulation, and decreases have been slower to be put in place as a result of the marketplace or the industry being left on its own.

So, we want to make sure that prices, as I have said publicly, are held off until the latest possible moment, and that price decreases are put in place at the earliest possible moment. That is the objective we are trying to achieve here, together with the issue of some stability and some transparency in how pricing is occurring.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

A noble effort, I say to the minister, but I am not convinced and our position has not changed. There are some fundamental issues, issues that have been presented by a number of authorities and commentators, including those appointed by members opposite, who have brought forward and presented to the public of this Province independent and informed decisions and conclusions with respect to what is in the best interest of consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador, as it relates to the regulation of petroleum products.

I realize that there are a number of my colleagues who want to speak on this issue for a number of moments, Mr. Chairman, and I will now defer to my colleagues.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. MATTHEWS: Former gas retailer.

MR. FRENCH: I am glad you said former, minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: There is nothing wrong with that profession, I say to the hon. member.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, there wasn't while I was at it, I say back to you, Sir.

Minister, I guess we have all watched this legislation and we have certainly all watched, in recent weeks, the fluctuation in gas prices; up and down, up and down, up and down. I said this a while ago, when I spoke on this particular bill, that the section of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador where I come from, I do believe has the lowest gas prices in the Province. Yet again, the question begs to be asked, Minister: Why every day, when one company increases their price, within half an hour, every particular service station in that division automatically, bang-o, raise their price, and up the price goes? Most of the time, Mr. Minister, when we are buying our gasoline, we are probably all buying the same gasoline as well. I have watched on a number of occasions when oil tankers from one company are certainly buying their gasoline from a competitor. It is coming out of the same tank, it is going into the same tanks in the ground, and the only thing different, I say to the minister, is that when it comes out of the pump at the island at the gas station it may have a different name. In actual fact, Minister, it is all the same gasoline brought in here by the same tankers, stored in the same tanks, and then, later on in the day, shipped out by one company over another.

We see service stations in Newfoundland and Labrador now who advertise: We will not be undersold by gasoline. So, if the guy across the street drops three cents a litre, we will drop three cents a litre. If the guy across the street goes up ten cents a litre, we have to chase him and go up ten cents a litre. I have to wonder, at the end of the day, Minister, where exactly are we going with this legislation? If we do not think that one oil company communicates with another, we are crazy, we are stupid; because I, for one, do not believe that there is no conversation back and forth between oil companies. The problem in this Province, outside of our taxation on gasoline, is that the oil companies have now become greedy. The oil companies have now said to people in this Province: Take a back seat. You no more have the right to be a business person, man or woman, on your own any more. We are now going to dictate everything that you do in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The company that I worked for, Minister, for ten years, that is exactly what they have done. They have set the price of milk. The have set the price of chocolate bars. The only thing they really could not set the price on was beer. The reason they could not set the price on beer, Minister, is because the price of beer in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as you know, being the former Minister of Finance, is regulated by the government and by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission. If that wasn't so, then would I suggest, Minister, that they would even try to regulate that. They set prices on just about everything in this Province that they sell within their stores. If you go to one, it is the same price in one as it is in the other one next door.

I will always remember one time in one of the stations that I had leased, I sold diesel fuel. After awhile I would get calls, you know: Bob, how much do you sell your diesel for? I would give them a report. Then, a little while later, I would get a call back: Say, Bob, how much is Johnny Jones' diesel fuel three miles down the road? You would go down and you would check. You would come back and your would report that. Within a day or so, Minister, you would be told to increase your price of gasoline to exactly what it was that your competitor had.

I also remember on another occasion I had a call from the company again that I represented, wanting to know the price of gasoline, every single price of gasoline that another station sold in the vicinity of Manuels Bridge. It was an Irving Oil station. I sent an employee down, parked on Irving Oil's lot, got out with paper and pencil and wrote down every price of gasoline that Irving Oil sold. They brought it back to me. Again, of course, as I was instructed to do, I called it into the company. As that day later went by, I got a call back again from the same company: Bob, as of 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, I want your price for unleaded gasoline to be so much, your super to be so much, and on and on. At the end of the day, I had the same price for gasoline as every oil company in my area; because, while I may have had a one cent or two cent difference, or 2.1 cent difference than somebody else, I was instructed, Minister, to increase my prices to a price that was above board - not above board but was equal to every other service station in the particular area where I lived. By the way, Minister, I operated two stations and I might say, until the company that I represented became extremely greedy, we were doing a fair volume of gasoline.

When I spoke the other day, I remember, I think it was the Minister of Labour saying that we had a Consumer Advocate, I believe, in the name of Mr. Dennis Browne, do consultation on oil prices and gasoline prices in this Province. I remember, Minister, Mr. Browne coming in and meeting with our caucus. I pointed out to Mr. Browne exactly how much gasoline we sold in our two locations. At the end of our meeting, he looked at me and said: Mr. French, you are the kind of fella I want to talk to. You will hear back from me before my report is complete.

I am still waiting today, Minister, for that phone call from Mr. Browne, because he never called me back after and asked me my thoughts or my contribution to the report that he was going to submit to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Believe you me, Mr. Minister, at that particular time I could have given him some great stories; because in our two businesses, as we went on, although we were not paid a lot of money for this, we had absolutely no say in the setting of gasoline prices. Once a week we filled out a report and wrote a cheque. After awhile, the oil companies got a little bit greedier. They introduced a new form, and when we were doing our reports, which had to be done weekly to the oil companies, on your report, you had to indicate the total amount you sold that week. There was a spot on the form where you filled out the price of the gasoline, and when they came in to pick up what was called my remittances, they were paid for their gasoline almost overnight. You probably had three or four days in which to pay for that gasoline, that was right.

If you went in one part of Kelligrews to buy a litre of engine oil, which was a certain price, and you came a little bit further down the road, next door to me was a Petro Canada station. If you went into the Petro Canada station, they sold the same litre of oil as the same station did in Kelligrews. When you came to mine, you paid the same price as Petro Canada and you paid the same price as Irving Oil.

All of this stuff, Minister, was regulated. It was not regulated by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was regulated by the oil companies themselves. Again, when the company that I represented moved into where we all had to go to a certain company to buy all of our products, as time went on and time moved on, the particular company that we had to go buy a can of soup from or a package of cigarettes from, or a box of matches from, now became the seller for this company's oil. So, in actual fact, we could buy the oil cheaper from this company than we could from our home company which manufactured and put the liter of oil in a plastic bottle. We could buy it cheaper of them than we could from the home company which we represented. I do not know how that became.

If we are going to bring in gasoline regulations - and I am really amazed that the government has moved in this direction. I am all for gasoline reductions. I would roll them all back tomorrow. There would not be one in this Province that I would not touch. I told a fellow one time: Heaven forbid that I should ever become the Minister of Environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the regulator.

MR. FRENCH: Or the regulator. That is one job I would not want. I think I would keep the government very busy bailing me out, because I would be a very obstructionist individual.

When the company that you represent goes across this Island and goes into a trade show in the City of Corner Brook, a company that I did a great amount of business for, and the representative from the company that I was in went up to this owner and said: Everybody in the area that I represent are not playing the game. The guy said: What do you mean? He said: Bob French and his son, Terry, run two stations. They are told they are not buying everything from the individuals we were suppose to buy from. The guy looked at him, smiled and said: I do not much about that. He said: Don't worry about it, because when I go back to Kelligrews, the first two people I will see will be Bob French and Terry French. They will be instructed and told by me that they must - must - buy their products from this other company; which, by the way, was not a Newfoundland owned company. They had head offices outside of this Province altogether.

The local Newfoundlander, his family and his brothers were involved in this business, and at the end of the day we were not allowed to buy our products from this particular individual, which meant quite a loss to that man's business. Every station that represented the same oil company in the Province that I did, had to cease buying from this Newfoundland company, owned by Newfoundlanders, started by Newfoundlanders, had increased the growth, and they employed Newfoundlanders. All of a sudden, overnight, my business could not longer spend money with them. I could name you a dozen fellows today who could no longer spend money with the company that they represented.

Now, why did we want to go and do business with a particular Newfoundland company? The reason we wanted to do business with a particular Newfoundland company was that we felt we were smart enough business people to go to these individuals once a year, sit down and negotiate prices and deals, so that at the end of the year we were entitled to a rebate and that rebate, of course, at the end of the day went back to the oil company.

As I have said, Minister, the oil companies have become very greedy. Nobody will ever convince me that the price of gasoline in this Province should be as high as it is today because of world prices. That, to me, Mr. Minister, is absolute rubbish.

I spoke to a fellow who worked with the company that I was with for years, in the commercial sales end of it, and he talked to me about the prices of everything. When you buy gasoline it is based on the dock price on the sale of gasoline in New York. The price of a barrel of gasoline in New York is the price that all of these oil companies are buying oil, which of course, some of them refine and turn into gasoline. Yet, for whatever reason, that is where we seem to be, minister, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. While I would be in favour of a reduction in gasoline prices I do not think that this bill is going to actually do that for us, because it is more than the price of gasoline that they set in this Province.

I have attended some of these meetings where people wanted to stop the sale of gasoline. I have sat there and listened to fellows: Well, maybe we shouldn't go in there anymore to buy a bottle of Pepsi or a can of soft drink. We shouldn't go in there anymore and buy a dozen beer.

At the end of the day, Mr. Minister, we do not reduce the prices of gasoline if we don't have greater control over the oil companies in this Province. I remember one day doing an interview for CBC radio and talking about the gasoline prices in this Province. The phones in our office later on that day, Minister, almost jumped off the desk. People were calling in and wanted to know if it was our Party's position - the comments that I had made on a local radio station - as it came to the cost of gasoline.

I have watched Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I have watched major oil companies walk into a station and say: Everyone of you people here can have job but - at the time that I finished in 1996 - you must all go to work for $5 an hour; and at the end of the day we are going pay your manager $500 a week. If you do not want a job at $5 an hour, get out the door, we don't need you anymore. That is what happened, minister. I had people who I paid as much as $6.25 an hour, to work in pumping gasoline and selling gasoline. At the end of the day, all of these people became unemployed, almost overnight.

If we do not put something in gasoline prices besides reducing the tax - which is what we have to do, and I think you know that and I know that. If we don't reduce the taxes on gasoline I really and truly don't know what else we are going to do. We are going to roll back. How far are we going to roll back? In my company's case, if Petro Canada's gasoline, next door to me, dropped two cents, I would phone the company and say: Listen boys, I cannot compete. Petro Canada next door dropped two cents. Five minutes later my phone would ring back: Bob, drop all your prices two cents. Where was the regulation? Don't tell me, Minister, that the gas companies and oil companies were not making money because I know the difference. I know how many million litres of gasoline we sold a year. Because we were fortunate enough to have two locations, I can tell you, Minister, that we sold in the millions of liters of gasoline a year. That was year in, year out.

These oil companies and gasoline companies also come in and you have no say in this. You pay a price to rent their convenience store, you pay a price to rent their care wash, you pay a price to represent their gas pumps and if one of the pumps breaks down, you are responsible. If a hose gets run over by a car or some fellow takes off with a nozzle still in his tank and rips the hose off, you are responsible, at the end of the day, for paying for that. All of those things changed, because first when we got in the business there was none of that. Your company was there to assist you. Last going off, everybody in Canada - the company that I was with - had to wear the same uniform. They had to wear the same uniform in the summer and they had to wear the same uniform in the winter. We went to shows. The guy put all of these things on demonstration, but we were told you had to have these items. If somebody was going to pump gasoline at your station -

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: I thank the hon. members for giving me a couple of minutes.

Again, I would just like to say to the minister that we have to get into more than just saying: Hey, we are going to create another arm which says somebody may or may not be able to roll back the prices of gasoline. Minister, if we do not take a look at taxation and we do not take a look at what a lot of these people do, if they are all in business and if it is a free and open market how in the name of goodness does every gasoline station in a particular area in this Province have the same prices? Now I could spend the next two hours talking about gasoline because, as I said, I spent ten years selling it.

One of the big things that the government is going to have to be aware of is that these companies have become greedy. What they collect in rents in a year is amazing. At the end of the day minister, as you know from being in private industry yourself, it all goes back to your bottom line; and believe me, sir, there is not an oil company in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that has to sell at prices today as high as they are. There is no reason why any oil company in this Province today cannot drop the prices of their gasoline.

Most of the people on my side - and I just say this to finish up - get a great kick out of me because they are afraid that when I get up to speak I might get into some name calling with the company that I represented. As you noticed, minister, I have not mentioned their name. I told my colleagues today that I would not mention their name and I will not. But let me tell you, they are one of the greediest crowds that I ever worked for in my life. As a matter of fact, if they had the right they would take the milk out of your tea.

I thank the hon. members for their time and with that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to have a few words to say on Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products. I would like to say to the minister that the people of this Province have been looking forward to some mechanism to reduce the price of petroleum products. We are looking forward to an act or a bill such as this to do exactly that because in parts of this Province today, Mr. Minister, it is very hard to live. The cost of petroleum products, heating fuels, et cetera, certainly can make a big difference in where they live in the Province today. The public is looking forward to and expecting good legislation to help correct the problem of high heating prices and gasoline prices, I say to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out a fact that the prices of gasoline in the Province today does have a detrimental affect on tourism. If we have inconsistency in prices of gasoline from one part of the Province to the other than that is going to create an uneven playing field for different small businesses that depend on attracting tourists to their part of the Province. If we see things happen pertaining to some of this legislation then some parts of the Province could be played off against other parts of the Province, particularly when a commissioner can divide the Province into zones. If these zones boundary certain parts of the Province and the commissioner decides to have different prices bordering these zones - Minister, I can see a problem arising in the tourist industry in the coming years where small businesses will be competing against each other in communities, trying to attract that tourist trade. Minister, it is not only in tourism, it is in small businesses too. We see small businesses today that are only barely surviving. A difference in gasoline prices and heating fuel prices could make enough difference to allow that business to either survive or not to survive. If the zoning is going to affect the prices in a large amount then we could see businesses having to decide on what part of the Province the business wants to carry on. That could have a real detrimental affect in rural parts of Newfoundland where businesses can survive in any part of the Province - any part of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter how remote it is, then they could probably survive. But, if there is going to be a big difference in the prices of petroleum products then some of these businesses may have to think again and decide that they may have to relocate to other areas where the prices are more favourable for their businesses.

I can see a lot of problems arising from that. I can see a problem with respect to clause 8.(4) where the wholesaler/retailer can only apply within one twelve-month period. With the amendment, I see a problem that could arise there where the commissioner can dedicate to other wholesalers or retailers a change in prices even though they may have applied within that one twelve-month period for a change and was approved, but if competition within that zone also applied for a change in the pricing then, minister, I could see that retailer/wholesaler having the two changes within the same twelve-month period; which certainly is different from section 4 when it says they can only apply for one twelve month period but they could have two, three or more changes depending on how many people apply within that zone to have changes. The commissioner could make that determination regardless if that same person who had applied before wants to change or not. So I can see that being a problem down the road, I say to the minister. It does not seem fair that we could have one section dedicating to the other section of how many times changes could be made because the commissioner says yes or no, or if the commissioner wants to entertain more than one application from a wholesaler or retailer. If it is in that zone there could be many retailers. It is possible that every retailer in that zone could apply for a change within that twelve-month period. You could see a problem arising within that zone reflecting the number of applications that the commissioner gets. I think that would be very unfair to other retailers and wholesalers in that zone who did not want the change and needed another price in order to be competitive, in order to survive within that area of the zone.

If we divide the Province up into many zones - it does not say how many - we could see a fluctuation of different prices from one end of the Province to the other. That certainly could make a big difference to the small business industry in Newfoundland and the tourism industry. We could see small companies competing more vigorously, competing on a scale where it could make the difference of these businesses staying in that community and staying in that part of the Province. Minister, I really do not see the point where we can have that amendment and still abide by the following rule, number 4.

Minister, from what I see in the Province today with respect to gasoline prices and the affect that it does have on businesses - particularly with the farming industry. Some of the farming industries depend on these lower fuel prices and marked gas to keep their farms operating and to keep them going, but when they move out into other parts of the Province where they have to buy fuel from other retailers then they will be paying the full price for that product. I don't know if there is a mechanism in place where they can get reimbursed for taxes or anything at the year-end when they do their taxes, but businesses like farming and fishing, that depend on a set lower price for fuel, need to be protected. They need a chance to make sure that set prices and lower prices are available from one end of the Province to the other. If we change this legislation to make a commissioner responsible for setting prices then we are going to end up with a lot of inconsistent prices, varying from low scale to a high scale, which is going to dictate how people travel, dictate where people live and where businesses are established. It worries me to see that we could further put another nail in the coffin of rural Newfoundland and Labrador today. I think we have to be careful when we put legislation in place that could do that type of thing, that could set the precedent for different prices throughout the Province.

I say to the minister that this zoning certainly sounds like it might be a good idea when it comes to keeping prices lower or higher in certain parts of the Province, but it can make a big difference in rural Newfoundland where a lot of people depend on staying in their community and needing a lower price of fuels, heating fuels and gasoline prices. If we do not be careful of what we are doing, then we are going to do exactly that. We are going to destroy even further the competition in rural Newfoundland and create an uneven playing field for small businesses.

Mr. Chairman, I have talked to people who came into the Province in the last little while and the biggest complaint that you will hear is that the gasoline prices are so high that a lot of people just will not do the traveling they would like to do around the Province, the sightseeing and getting into every nook and cranny in this Province that has so much to offer, so much beauty for tourists to look at, and could create so many memories in tourists' minds for a long time, and when they go back to their home in their own provinces they could tell other people of the beauty of this Province. But the message as I see it, and what they say when they go back to their homes, is that Newfoundland and Labrador is a beautiful place, we know, but it is the not the place to go because of the high fuel prices; and if you are going to come here in this Province you need to do a lot of driving. There are a lot of places to see. There are a lot of little communities that are beautiful and tourists just love them, but when it comes to the dollar, Mr. Chairman, then they look at that aspect. Then they decide what part of the Province they are going to go to get the best bang for their buck when they come here as a tourist. So, they end up going into the bigger centres where they can spend more time and look at more things; but in the smaller areas, in the rural parts of the Province, the remote part of the Province where we do have the beauty of this Province, then our tourists are not getting there. They are not getting into all these nooks and crannies where the scenery is so beautiful, it is just breathtaking.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: I just want to make that point, Mr. Chairman. I really did see something that could be wrong with the twelve-month period of applying for a change -

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. HUNTER: I will just finish up, Mr. Chairman. Just give me a second.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: I did see a change with the amendment there that certainly could create a conflict when it comes to zoning and different applications being applied for by retailers and wholesalers.

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just had a few comments. I haven't spoken on this before, and I think it is a major piece of legislation that we have. Government took a direction on this and they had a person appointed, who went out and did a review and recommended. The then minister of the day, I think, the now Premier, indicated that - I think it was the Premier at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mines and Energy Minister. On January 6, 1999, actually, "Minister reacts to calls for gas price regulation." The Premier of the Province indicated on January 6 that he "...has reacted to a new round of calls for gasoline price regulation." He went on to say, and this is a quote, "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." End of quote.

Basically, he went on to say then, "It's important to note that the Consumers Association of Canada is also on record as being opposed to price regulation."

So this government, in fact, went out and promoted anti-regulation, basically, of gas prices, and indicated that it is not going to solve the problem. He went on to say, "In fact, statistics just made available to government show over the past couple of weeks, the Canadian average had decreased by 0.9 cents per litre, while prices in most communities in Newfoundland had decreased by one cent per litre." This is a 1999 statement. This is indicating, on regulation, government said it is not the answer. The Consumer Advocate said it is not the answer, and now we have a government saying we are going to bring in gas and price regulations. That has to be a total flip-flop. I think, as my colleague for Harbour Main-Whitbourne thought the Minister of Education, from two articles compared in The Telegram, it was a complete flip-flop.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Main River?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know if he flip-flopped on Main River. Did the minister flip-flop on Main River? I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am saying that I cannot really see why, so strongly for the last two years, have the same basic members, the former minister, who is now the Premier of the Province, brought in legislation that he said is not the answer and is not going to work.

MR. MATTHEWS: There go my people; I must follow them.

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

Robert Frost described, and I think I said this before: A Liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.

Well, in this quarrel they have taken both sides. We cannot regulate gas prices and now we can regulate them. A year ago you could not do it, and now you can. I cannot see what has changed since. Why, today, is legislation going to do what this government said, and the now Premier of the Province said, as minister, is not going to solve the problem?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can keep my voice down, if it is bothering you.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, the voice is wonderful.

I just think it is appropriate, in the vein of quotes, that we should quote one from Winston Churchill, who said: Hurry, for the people are ahead of us; so we shall catch up to them, for we are their leaders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell the minister that it is no trouble to catch up to their leaders because they are going around in circles. Just stay where you are and you will catch up, I would say.

What is more efficient, a clock that loses a second every hour or one that does not work? They say that the one that does not work tells the time twice a day. The one that loses seconds, it is every so many billion years before it tells the right time.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It depends how good your math is.

MR. SULLIVAN: It sure does. That was my favorite subject in school, I might add.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: Math.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not very good at it.

MR. SULLIVAN: I might not be, but I taught it for a while, too, over the years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is one area that I will compare marks, in math. I will not speak for all areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, I hear an interesting quote the other day that might be applicable to you.

MR. SULLIVAN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: It said that you were like a broken clock., that twice a day you even tell the right time.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just said that. You must be stopped on that circle, are you, or are you still moving?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: He is good at math.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is good at math. I do not doubt that. I do not challenge his ability at math. I never questioned that. He questioned mine. I will give him a transcribe of my math marks if he wants it. If that is any indication, I do not mind doing that. I might not be as proud to give some of the others, now, but I will certainly do it in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about history, Loyola? How are you in history?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not an historian. I will admit that. I did some history at university, actually. I was more interested in economic history. I did economic Canadian history, actually, two courses. One was from a very interesting gentleman. I think he died at the age of about forty at Memorial University. I do know if you remember David Alexander.

MR. H. HODDER: At thirty-seven.

MR. SULLIVAN: At thirty-seven years of age, he died a young man. That was a few years after he taught me, I hope. Actually, it was a very interesting course in history.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am just saying that everybody who dies does not fall down. I have seen evidence of that out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What is it saying? It is brought to the attention of management that employees who are dying on the job are failing to fall down. Would you please try to enforce that regulation? If you die, fall down.

He was very interesting. He did a very good job in Canadian economic history.

There are interesting things they have said. I have a whole series of quotes, and I am not going to spend too long on this because we do have to get to other bills here today. Let's see what this one is now. February 13, 2001 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, just over a year or more. A few years after the previous Mines and Energy Minister, the now Premier, in a statement said: Premier Grimes said Cabinet discussed the regulation of fuel prices and Mines and Energy Minister, Lloyd Matthews, has been directed to develop a framework for the regulation of fuel prices and Cabinet is asked to bring forward a proposal which will become effective within ninety days.

Well, the ninety days are up. We missed the boat on that one by just a few weeks. The very same person who said no, instructed his Mines and Energy Minister to come forward and develop regulations to regulate the price of fuel.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is another topic. I am not going to go into that depth.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down now and let Harvey (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Harvey will get his turn.

I see so many releases here by government, contradictions.

MR. MATTHEWS: Loyola, forget the rest of the releases. You have made your point. Are you going to vote for the bill or against it? That is what I want to know.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am.

AN HON. MEMBER: Alright, good enough, sit down.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was in Nova Scotia recently, and at the gas tank there it shows the cost per litre of gasoline, the amount of taxes there, provincial taxes, the cost and so on. It breaks that down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, do you know what gas is in Alberta today?

MR. SULLIVAN: Most of it is a lot of hot air, because natural -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How much?

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy-two cents a litre. Unheard of.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

AN HON. MEMBER: Edmonton.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do they have gas regulation?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: No regulation. That supports our side of the argument.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, your party has been asking for regulation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Where? I don't see that anywhere. I don't see that in all the releases we have done. I can go through all of these releases by government and all of these releases by our party and it says contrary to what you are saying, actually.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? Someone else will get up, and I will get up again, after a minute. Could I have leave?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. the member, by leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: Loyola, are you voting for this bill or against it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am for or against everything.

MR. MATTHEWS: You are for and against everything?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am for or against everything.

MR. MATTHEWS: That confirms, in my mind, that you fit the definition of a Liberal.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is it. The facts demonstrate clearly what we have been saying, that the gas taxes are primarily responsible for the extremely high price consumers in this Province pay for gasoline. That is the reason for high gas prices.

The release is here. He talked about a party, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to get the money (inaudible) promised the last five years.

MR. SULLIVAN: This is not about money and taxation. This is about regulating the price of gasoline. I am going through tons of releases here put out by the leader, by our critic, by the Member for St. John's South, government releases, all dealing here with the prices, with this particular issue. I am seeing no contradictions in any that come from our party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who reconciles your bank account at the end of the month?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do it myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do it myself. I want to make sure it is somebody who got a good mark in math.

MR. H. HODDER: He reconciles that (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I reconcile that. Sometimes I am not reconciled when I look at it, but I reconcile it.

I told him that by the time the Member for Waterford Valley gets around to reconciling my account, if I give it to him, the next month is going to be here. I cannot do that.

MR. MATTHEWS: There are not enough days and hours in the month to count Harvey's money.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to get my hands on the bank account of the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Here is another one look, Mines and Energy, gas regulation. I had a few interesting government quotes. There are a whole variety of issues. I know the purpose, I guess, behind it is probably to provide more consistency in gasoline prices. I think that would be safe to say, to provide consistency, not to give lower gasoline prices. In fact, the prices may very well be higher by regulation. Isn't there a minimum price set here?

MR. MATTHEWS: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: A minimum price. Other provinces - does Prince Edward Island set a minimum price in their legislation?

MR. MATTHEWS: No. Quebec sets a minimum price.

MR. SULLIVAN: Prince Edward Island does not. The one that you are patterned and talking in support of, Prince Edward Island, it does not set a minimum price on gasoline. It sets a maximum price, does it, for gasoline?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, this does, but Quebec -

MR. SULLIVAN: But Quebec's policy is more restrictive and narrow legislation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Quebec's legislation is designed to protect the independents, so they set a minimum price.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right. Does the minister feel that it is going to keep prices down and make it cheaper? Why would you go through the process of legislation and regulating people to death if it is not going to achieve the number one goal we would like to see: less money coming out of consumer pockets going for gasoline? Wouldn't that be the ultimate goal? If we are going to pay less because of this regulation, then regulate it. If you are not and you cannot guarantee that, and it could be higher at times - it could be up, it could be down - why do it? Does the consumer -

MR. MATTHEWS: It could be, Loyola. It could be.

MR. SULLIVAN: And it could not be, and it could be lower because it is not regulated. It could be lower because it is not regulated. Why do you encumber consumers in this Province with regulation after regulation if it is not going to accomplish the number one purpose, what the minister said is what eighty-some per cent of the people of the Province want. They do not want gas regulations controlled for the sake of control. They want it because they believe that it is going to keep the price of gasoline down, it is going to be cheaper on the consumer, and they are going to spend less money a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: It might (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We cannot go on might. Might does not cut it in legislation. We cannot have legislation that might. Legislation is definitive; it has to be to the point. It is not a might.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the law.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, it is the law. The law must be definitive, I say to the Minister of Environment. It must be definitive. It must tell you what you can and cannot do. There are no fences to sit on. In case there is doubt, interpretations may be challenged and decisions rendered in due course, challenges to it.

Basically, I cannot see how this is going to accomplish something. I just hope it does, but what is it going to cost? I want to ask the minister: What is the projected cost of this legislation to the department and to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? What is the projected annual cost to carry out this regulation? How much?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty cents a person.

MR. SULLIVAN: Fifty cents a person? You are saying a little over $250 million - $269,500 taking our population - is going to be the cost? Would that be right, Minister? It would be over $250 million, the cost of this legislation, on an annual basis.

MR. MATTHEWS: It may not cost the consumer anything because it might be cost recovery (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not talking about the consumer. The taxpayers of the Province, by instituting those mechanisms in this legislation to regulate this, the cost of having salaries or staff and people to make sure the act is followed, how much is it costing?

MR. MATTHEWS: It may not cost them anything, the taxpayers, because they may refund it from the industry. There is provision or will be provision for that possibility.

MR. SULLIVAN: It might not, and what might it cost? It might be nothing on one end of the continuum. What might be the cost on the other end?

MR. MATTHEWS: I think the minister said, fifty cents a person.

MR. SULLIVAN: Fifty cents a person. That is over $250 million per year on an annual basis. In the next ten years, not factoring in inflation, we will spend between $2.5 million and $3 million of taxpayers' money by bringing in this legislation over and above what it would if we did not bring it in. That is $3 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I am going on the minister's figures now. I am simply doing the math, based on the minister's figures. If they are wrong, if that are on the low side, it is going to cost far more. It is going to cost several million dollars to bring in. So why would you regulate something that is going to cost millions of dollars? Who is going to pay for it? Who pays for this regulation?

Here is who pays for it: If we need to get revenues - unless we are going to borrow, and that costs money and interest on borrowing, that erodes our dollars we have to spend on other services, that taxation is going to come out of gasoline tax in the future, or it is going to come out of liquor tax, gambling revenue, income tax, HST, or some other tax. The money is going to come to pay for this out of some other taxes, so the consumer is paying for a regulation that is not going to give them a cheaper gas price in the final analysis.

We have tried to reinvent the wheel on this one. I am not convinced. If someone could stand up and convince me how this is going to do the job, I will jump up and support it. I have read it, I have followed it. We drew our conclusions that it is not going to do it. Over a year ago, the now Premier of the Province said, it is not going to do it. Dennis Browne said, it is not going to do. The Consumers Association of Canada said, it is not going to do. The department that the minister is in said, it is not going to do it. Who knew? All of a sudden, the manna fell from heaven, we are enlightened now and we all now know that this is going to do it. So we are enlightened now that this is going to do the job that it could do over a year or two years ago. Now here we have it.

When the consumers go to a gas tank, they don't see - I think the minister used 87 per cent. Was it 87 per cent of the people, the minister said, who support it, I ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, he is getting Government Services and Lands to give him some more figures. Are they going to be from the figures he just gave me a few minutes ago?

It is going to cost $2.5 million to $3 million of the taxpayers' money in the next ten years just to pay for the staff and to regulate this.

Did the minister say 87 per cent of the people support it in a poll? Did they say they supported it because they believe it is not going to give lower prices, or because they think it may give them lower prices?

MR. E. BYRNE: What poll was that? Lloyd, was that The Telegram poll where you had about 1,400 clicks yourself; you had your index finger worn off.

MR. MATTHEWS: I never clicked a clicker in my life.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he called The Telegram and he told them, I do not have a click. He did not have a click at all. I will agree. I believe the minister, in The Telegram poll, when he told them he did not have a click. The 1,400 clicks came from somebody else. It was not the minister.

I made the point: Why would the Province spend in the next ten years close to $3 million, based on a Government Services and Lands figure that he told me it is going to cost? Based on the figure that I was told across the House, why are we going to spend nearly $3 million to do something, and the taxpayers expect regulation to lower the price.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it could.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is only one guaranteed way the price is going to be lowered. That is if the Minister of Finance jumps up, and next year in her budget, or makes an announcement, or the Premier instructs her, or the Premier announces -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You are not too optimistic on next year. Is that what she said?

- or the Premier stands up and says we are going to drop the tax. That is one guaranteed way. Obviously, we are not too naive to think that we will eliminate all taxes. You have to get revenues.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us, where are you going to get the money? You must have some money (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You did not hear what I said? I said: We are not naive enough to think that you are going to drop all taxes. We have to have money to operate the Province. There are two sides to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $900 million now in health care alone for this year.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, indeed I am not. I am well up in that savings category in efficient use of money in the system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where, in health?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nine hundred million?

MR. SULLIVAN: Let's get on to this. Do you want to talk about comparative spending to this bill? I do not want to get wayward too far in this bill, but I cannot understand why they were going to put a facility - now that he has touched on health care - and we will tie it into this bill here on a general title on dollars to accomplish something. I cannot see how we were told $70 million was going to do the restructuring here in St. John's, and they had to get a bill through this House to look after handling the debt management on $130 million loan the corporation took out, when you talk about health care. In the process, we closed 1,200 beds over that period of time. The waiting list got longer. They are growing so long people can't see the end of the line. They stopped putting people on the list. Then they give you a figure and say, it takes so long to get an MRI. Do you know when they start putting you on the list? When a doctor recommends an MRI, they call you three months later and say: We are going to put you on a list for ten months time. They don't count the waiting time, from the time the doctor recommends it until they call you and put you on a list. So we are getting false waiting list figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, welcome to planet Earth. Now, he tells me, we are against the bill. What convinced him? What was the main comment, I say, that convinced him I'm against this bill?

With that, I think enough said. It is falling on deaf ears, is what I am saying. I will just sit down now and conclude my comments on the bill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words also on Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that anything that is possible to control, regulate, lower or stabilize the cost of fuel in this Province, is certainly something that is much needed. If we look at the P.E.I. experience, while it may not have been lower prices generated through the application of legislation such as this, it is certainly a more controllable environment in which people know what they will be spending on fuel over a period of time.

I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, that when we look at the number of people in this Province who have to use fuel as a necessity in order to travel back and forth to work at great cost and increasing cost to them, it certainly does not take much of a mathematician or a genius to figure out that any increase in the price of fuel, fluctuated increase, certainly plays havoc with them trying to plan their budget, pay their bills, and make allowances for other things they need in their life. Certainly, over the last couple of years, the fluctuation, mainly upwards, has been dramatic enough to have a lasting effect and a negative effect on most people who work in this Province and have to use a vehicle in order to do so.

Then, Mr. Chairman, if we look at the taxi industry and people in the trucking industry, whose requirement of fuel certainly is greater than the average worker, ultimately - and one of the previous speakers spoke about the business environment as a result of the high cost of fuel. One of the things, I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that most of the business community, when hit with an increase either in fuel or in other areas, has the ability, to a large degree, to pass that additional cost off to the consumer, and the consumer is finally, at the end of the day, stuck with any increases that are caused, no matter what their origin, in what they pay for the products when they purchase them.

If we look at the transportation industry, the trucking industry, which came close to being devastated in this Province, Mr. Chairman, during the past year, with the high cost of fuel, at the same time as they were frozen into contracts which dictated what they would receive for hauling freight throughout the Province - meantime, when they bid on these contracts or when they entered into these agreements with the people who they were hauling freight for, it was based upon the cost of fuel at that time with maybe some moderate increase reflected, but certainly not the increases that we have seen throughout the past couple of years. That has had a dramatic effect upon the trucking industry and the taxi industry to a large degree in this Province.

If we look, Mr. Chairman, at the cost of home heating oil, and we see the many people in this Province who are living on low wages, seniors who are living on fixed incomes, and other people who are less fortunate than to have a high paying job, and they are using oil to heat their homes in the winter, then again we can very easily look at and understand what these people are going through and what costs they have to absorb in order to try to keep their houses warm. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that in this Province, over the past winter, in particular, there are many people who have made the decision of having to provide either the right and proper nutrients and food to buy or staying warm. That is not a choice, Mr. Chairman, that people in this Province should have to make in the year 2001.

Mr. Chairman, again this may not provide lower fuel prices, but I think it will provide a more stable environment. When I look at clause 8 and read through, "A wholesaler or retailer may apply to the commissioner for a change in the price of a type of heating fuel..." they have to set out certain criteria in order to have that increase granted. One of the criteria is the reasons for the proposed change in price. So, automatically, Mr. Chairman, that puts the onus on the people who are seeking an increase in the price of fuel. They have to now justify why that increase should be granted. If nothing else, there was no justification required before on the part of any person who wanted to raise fuel prices in this Province, because we have all woken up in the morning and heard about fuel increasing three cents a litre, four cents a litre, eight cents a litre; but we very seldom hear about the price of fuel going down. One of the things that bothered me over the years is that even in areas where the fuel is bought and paid for months in advance at the price that was current at that time, whenever there is a price increase after that, then their price automatically went up. So, the cost of buying fuel in comparison to the price that it was sold at greatly fluctuated many times and put a negative impact upon the consumer and a positive impact at times to people who stored the fuel, who had bought it at a time when prices were lower.

I know around Labrador, Mr. Chairman, that the cost of fuel, particularly on the Coast of Labrador, is well above any of the costs that are being paid for on the Island portion of the Province. This is really having a negative affect upon people who live in remote areas and paying as high as $1.10 or $1.15 for a litre of fuel. I would just like to say that I can remember not that many years ago when John Crosbie was the Minister of Finance, I mean, they lost the government by saying that they were going to increase gasoline by eighteen cents a gallon. That brought down a federal government in this country. Since that time, there have been many increases that have been the equivalent of that and I chalk it up, to some degree, as saying that we have a mental block when we talk about fuel prices going up two and three cents a litre and we are still thinking in the imperial measure, in terms of gallons. If we translate three cents a litre into gallons, we are talking about fourteen cents a gallon. If we were still dealing in gallons and someone said the price was going up fourteen cents, or sixteen cents or twenty cents, then I think there would be probably riots in the streets around this Province and in other communities around this country, but since it is in litres and it is two cents, three cents and four cents, I do not think that we identify mentally with that to the same degree that we identified with the price going up as the cost per gallon of gas or oil. But I do know, Mr. Chairman, that there are many people in this Province today who are experiencing severe financial hardship because of what the price of fuel has done to them and their lives during the past number of years.

As I said earlier, if this bill does not decrease the price of fuel - hopefully it may, but if does not at least it will lead to more stable fuel prices. It will provide a mechanism whereby people who are seeking increases will have to come up with some justification in order to have that granted. If this bill does not serve any purpose other than that, then I think that it is serving something that has been long overdue in this Province and long overdue in this country. I think that the people of the Province should know that this bill in itself may not perform magic to the sense that prices will decrease but it will lead to better planning. It will be more beneficial to the trucking industry, that if every year - then they know, Mr. Chairman, that when they are negotiating rates for hauling freight, that they negotiate based on the fuel costs they are going to have to pay for a particular year, and then they can renegotiate. If there are increases, they can renegotiate the price that they charge on a yearly basis with the employers that they are working for.

All in all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the government could also have taken another measure of course, one that we have advocated over the past couple of years, and that is reduce the taxes they collect on gasoline and home heating fuel in this Province. I think they could have done better, Mr. Chairman, much better, with the rebate that was offered to the people on low and fixed incomes in the Province during the last winter.

Mr. Chairman, with these remarks I conclude and say that while I am not optimistic that this may do much to lower the price of fuel, it will lead to more stability in the lives of people who use fuel and home heating oil in this Province.

Thank you.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Petroleum Products." (Bill 4)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

There is an amendment which has been circulated.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 3 through 7 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 8 as amended carry?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 8, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 9 through 27 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

MR. LUSH: Division, Mr. Chairman.

Division

CHAIR: All those in favour of Bill 4, as amended, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Mr. Walsh; 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 & Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Environment; Ms. Jones; Mr. Anderson; Mr. Sweeney; Mr. Ross Wiseman; Mr. Collins;

CHAIR: All those against Bill 4, as amended, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Harvey Hodder; Mr. Manning; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Hunter; Mr. French; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Young;

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Chair, twenty-two ayes and eleven nays.

CHAIR: I declare Bill 4, as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: An Act Respecting Municipal Elections, Bill 7

CHAIR: Order 19, Bill 7, An Act Respecting Municipal Elections.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

Perhaps others would like to hear others speak in this House. If others do not wish to hear others, maybe they would like to go outside.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair

I will not take very long today. I have already had conversation with the minister, and, as I told him earlier, on the first day that we debated this particular piece of legislation, we on this side of the House were going to support it. Nothing has changed. We have talked to municipalities about the mail-in ballots, and all the municipalities that we have talked to seem to want this particular piece of legislation.

So, I just say to the minister: Minister, from this side of the House, you have our full support on this particular piece of legislation as amended and so on. We are fully in favour of this particular piece of legislation.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I will thank you and I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to support this particular bill, Bill 7, An Act Respecting Municipal Elections. I thank the minister for making the amendments that I think will certainly add strength to this bill. I think it is very important that we change to a system that will allow the greater participation of the greatest number of people possible in our municipal elections.

I know, speaking for my riding, Mr. Chairman, at any one point in time through the year there are about 10 per cent of the people gone on vacation and out of the area for the main part. So this legislation will go a long way to accommodating people who would normally not have had the opportunity to cast their ballot in municipal elections in a democratic process.

Again, I will not take much more time other than to say that we support the bill and we will certainly be voting in favour of it.

Thank you.

On motion, clauses 1 through 30 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 31 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: I want to make an amendment to 31(4). What 31 (4) says is the municipal councils will be able to use the voters lists of the provincial and federal governments. We want, in consultation with the electoral officer, Mr. Green, to take out clause 31(4) so that it would not inhibit the municipal councils from using the voters list from the provincial and federal electoral offices. So in that particular one we are asking to have clause 31(4) deleted from the bill and the others, 5, 6, and 7, to become numbers 4, 5, and 6.

CHAIR: It is moved that clause 31(4) of the bill be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 31, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 32 through 53 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 54 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Clause 54(4), Mr. Chairman. We are amending that particular part of the legislation by deleting the number 30 and substituting the number 60, which basically means that there should be notification and procedure 60 days before the election to give everybody, whether an incumbent or not, equal right to have access to the council, and the new way of doing the ballot by mail.

I have already talked to the Opposition and to the NDP, and we have concurrence on that.

CHAIR: It is moved that clause 54(4) be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 54, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 55 through 96 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 97 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Chair, subclause 97(2) of the bill is repealed and the following substituted - and that is, regulation made under subsection (1), and procedures and forms established under subsection 54(4), shall not come into force or be considered to be established without the prior written approval of the minister. So the regulations and the procedures must be approved by the minister in order for any municipalities to be able to have the mail-in ballot. So it really strengths and gives people, who are not incumbents, the right to be able to have a more equal playing field if the council so decided to adopt that mail-in ballot.

CHAIR: It is moved that clause 97(2) be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 97, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 98 through 106 carried.

On motion, clause 54, as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 20, Bill 10, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Motion 20, Bill 10, An Act Respecting The Appointment Of A Citizens' Representative For The Province Who Shall Have the Powers Traditionally Conferred On An Ombudsman.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I would propose an amendment to clause 6 of Bill 10 at this time, which would immediately after the word `may', in clause 6, add the words `for cause'.

The Leader of the Opposition has been provided with a copy of same.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Clause 6 of the bill dealing with the Citizens' Representative: The Minister of Justice and I have spoken on this particular amendment and we are in full agreement on the proposed amendment by the minister. Essentially, adding the words `for just cause', I guess, qualifies that section of the bill for our purposes that are self evident.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 6, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Again, I would like to propose an amendment to clause 7 dealing with the suspension when the House of Assembly is not sitting. Again I guess there is agreement on the proposed clause. I will read it for the Order Paper here, that clause 7(1) and 7(2) be deleted and be replaced with the following: Where the House of Assembly is not in session, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Internal Economy Commission, may suspend the Citizens' Representative for incapacity, neglect of duty or misconduct, but the suspension shall not continue in force beyond the end of the next ensuing session of the House of Assembly.

Clause 7(2) would read then: Where the Citizens' Representative is suspended under subsection (1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Internal Economy Commission, shall appoint an acting Citizens' Representative to hold office until the suspension has been dealt with in the Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the Minister of Justice, and government generally, on accepting this amendment, because, in my view, while some may consider it an inconsequential clause, or an unimportant one, I believe it is, from simply this perspective: The House of Assembly is required, by a vote of the House, to hire or to endorse the appointment by government. What this does is, should a situation like this arise, it ensures, at least, that the House, through the Internal Economy Commission, which has members on it, and on the recommendation of the Internal Economy Commission, that all members of the House, through their representatives on the IEC, have a say in dealing with this situation should it ever arise. I want to compliment the minister on agreeing to this amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that the Leader of the Opposition is going to put forth the three amendments that you have at one time, or did you want to do it in sequence?

MR. E. BYRNE: I just want to have a couple of comments on the clause. We can go through it fairly quickly.

MR. PARSONS: I wanted to have a few comments on it as well. I did not know if we would do it broken or do it at the end of the (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Can we do it brokenly? Would that be okay? Can we do it one at a time, because there are some other clauses I just want to make a couple of points on?

MR. PARSONS: Okay. I just wanted to make some general comments about the overall -

MR. E. BYRNE: Certainly, when you close the bill you can.

On motion, amendments carried.

On motion, clause 7, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 8 carry?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am standing, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask a question on clause 8, because it was raised with me this morning. It is on salary and pension. Just a quick explanation on section 8(2) which states, "The salary of the Citizens' Representative shall not be reduced except on a resolution of the House of Assembly carried by a majority vote of the members of the House of Assembly actually voting." I wonder if you could just provide an explanation of why that clause there, in particular, would be seen as necessary. It seems to me that - and I am not trying to be problematic - in other legislation I have not seen such a clause. I am just looking for a brief explanation from the minister, if I could.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The purpose of that section, of course, is the Ombudsman or Citizens' Representative being duly appointed by the House. The purpose, of course, is to have as little infringement upon his powers and authorities, once appointed, or to do anything that might fetter his authority. To suggest that his salary or remuneration for performing his task might, in some way, be arbitrarily affected would cause a problem. Hence, having this provision in here assures that you will not tamper with the Ombudsman's salary so as to make him act one way or the other. Again, it must come back to the House for clarification or reduction.

On motion, 8 through 15 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 16 carry?.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Again, this is an amendment put forward, I guess, from both perspectives, from both the Opposition and the Minister of Justice in agreement on this particular amendment, and I would like to propose to retain clause 16 but add a new clause as follows: 16.1: The House of Assembly may refer to the Citizens' Representative for investigation and report by him or her any petition that is presented to it for consideration or any matter to which the petition relates, and, in that case, the Citizens' representative shall: (a) subject to the special directions of the House of Assembly investigate the matters referred to him or her as far as is within his or her jurisdiction; and (b) make a report to the House of Assembly that he or she considers appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, finally: but nothing in section 23, 24 or 38 applies in respect of an investigation or report made under this section.

What we are saying is that we retain 16 and then add a new clause which we have just outlined.

On motion, clause 16 carried.

On motion, new clause 16.1 carried.

On motion, clauses 17 through 19, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 20 through 30 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: If I may have a moment, Mr. Chairman. Again, I am not trying to be problematic. There was an issue raised today with me by the Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission on clause 21. Again, this is something that came late in the day and I just want to bring it to the attention of the House.

Section 21 outlines, "Every complaint to the Citizens' Representative shall be made in writing." The issue that was raised with me is that there are many individuals in our Province, given the literacy rate and the statistics put forward by the Department of Education, that should we not have considered - again, this is something for consideration - should we not have considered probably some wording that said: Any complaint to the Citizens' Representative shall be either made in writing or verbally?

It is a question that I put towards the Minister of Justice, more than a proposed clause. Maybe it is something that a commitment could be made to look at this, to propose possibly an amendment, understanding and being sensitive to the realities that parts of our population and people face. I wonder if you could make a comment on that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: With all due respect to disabled or handicapped persons, it is certainly not the intention of this provision to disenfranchise anybody to the benefits of the law. The purpose of it is so that you do not have verbal accusations being made to the Ombudsman. It should be in writing. If the complainant wants somebody to write it for them, or ask the Ombudsman for assistance in doing it, by all means, of course, that would have to be accommodated under our laws in any case. The intent is to differentiate between people who are serious and people who make verbal accusations and do not intend to follow through. That is why the Ombudsman wants it in writing.

I would also point out that in section 13 it deals with the secrecy of it, so the person does not have to be disclosed. The Ombudsman can keep any reports, whether they be verbal or whether they be in writing, secret if he wishes.

AN HON. MEMBER: It can be marked with an x if (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I think it was an issue that was raised, and I accept the minister's rationale and explanation. I suspect and I would hope that whoever the Citizens' Representative is, should any particular set of circumstances present itself where somebody feels they are aggrieved, that the Citizens' Representative would make every effort to facilitate the writing of a document, and the explanation of such a document, to any individual who would find themselves in those circumstances, so as to ensure that the complaint, if it has merit and foundation, that it could be investigated according to the act. I accept the minister's rationale. All I can say is that we will follow it. Should any circumstance arise where we need to have a second look at this, then we will have a second look at it, I am sure.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just for further clarification. There is provision in our Interpretation Act as it currently stands, so that if anybody cannot put it in writing, of course, that phrase could be interpreted to mean any kind of reasonable communication. So it is already covered off in our legislation.

On motion, clauses 20 through 30, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 31 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

This is another amendment to the bill that has been agreed upon by the minister and myself - both sides - restrictions on disclosure section. The amendment we propose reads as follows:

Section 31 would now read: where the Minister of Justice certifies that the giving of any information or the answering of any questions or the production of any document, paper or thing might involve the disclosure of (a) the deliberations of the Executive Council or committee of the Executive Council; (b) proceedings of the Executive Council or committee of the Executive Council relating to matters of a secret or confidential nature and would be injurious to the public interest; or (c) interfere with or impede the investigation or detection of an offence, the Citizens' Representative shall not require the information or answer to be given or the document, paper or thing to be produced but shall report the giving of the certificate to the Legislature.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 31, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 32 through 48, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: If I could, by leave, just make a couple of closing remarks. Could I have leave of the House?

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Then the Minister of Justice can clue up, if that is okay?

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I appreciate, we had some difficulties with this piece of legislation last week. We did put forward some amendments to the minister for consideration. There was consensus achieved. I want, for the record, to say: The one issue that we want to reserve any judgement on in this section of the bill deals with the exclusion of Freedom of Information. Any analysis across every provincial jurisdiction shows that this exclusion of refusals under the Freedom of Information does not exist in any other piece of legislation across the country.

The minister has indicated, and I trust he is going to indicate when he gets to his feet, that the commitment that government has made dealing with this is: the reason, the only reason and the sole reason, that this clause is in this bill is because it is government's intention to put in place under the new Freedom of Information Act, or the changes they are contemplating making, introducing a Freedom of Information Commissioner that would have broad sweeping powers similar to this.

We reserve judgement on it. I accept the minister at his word, at this point but we do, Mr. Chairman, reserve judgement. Until we actually see the legislation and the provisions contained in the legislation, the various sections contained in the legislation dealing with a revamped and updated and more accessible Freedom of Information Act - we will have a look then, at that time. The minister has indicated that this legislative change will occur this fall. We will have a look, at that time, with respect to what powers this Freedom of Information commissioner has and judge it against what we have passed in terms of the Citizens' Representative Act.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude my remarks by saying that we certainly support this bill as amended right now, and that we will be voting for it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, by leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased at this time to have a few remarks in closing the debate on this bill. I had some preliminary comments at the time of second reading in response to some questions in the media and from the Leader of the Opposition, but I would like to conclude probably and summarize where we have come from with this. Obviously, this is a very important piece of legislation in this Province and it is, in fact, monumental, I would say. We had it, it was taken away, and I am very pleased to say that this Administration has put it back. Let there be no mistake about it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Let there be absolutely no mistake in the media, whoever might be listening on the airwaves or in the printed press; let there be no mistake about whose agenda is being put forward here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: This is this government; this is Premier Roger Grimes fulfilling his commitment that he made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Let there be no mistake about who crafted this piece of legislation. This was crafted by this Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Let there be no mistake about who introduced it. Let there be no mistake about the pith and substance of this piece of legislation. It is the culmination of many hours of diligent thought and work, reviewing all the Ombudsman legislation across this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Some people are used to saying: the devil is in the detail. Well, I would have them know -

MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, not some people; me.

MR. PARSONS: Correction. The Leader of the Opposition says: the devil is in the detail. Well, I am very pleased to say that on sober second thought, after reading this, after second reading last week in his comments, that he found out there is no devil in the detail here. None whatsoever!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Let there be no mistake, there are no satanic motivations as to why this was entered. None whatsoever!

We heard some comments from the Leader of the Opposition last week about the teeth of this legislation. I would like all parties to know in this House, and the public ought to know, because two or three years from now we do not need anybody in this House who did not put forward this bill taking credit for something they did not do. We want to know, when we get on the podiums, whether it be tomorrow, two years from now, or ten years from now, who brought this piece of legislation forward. It was the Grimes Administration!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We talk about teeth; there are no teeth pulled here. There were accusations or comments made that there might have been no teeth in this bill. We have taken the teeth from the bill. Well, there were no extractions here and there are no false teeth. This is nothing but pure, strong, good legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I would also like to allude - because we have had many comments in the media about what this piece of legislation did not do, but I would like to take a proactive stance for a minute and comment on a lot of the pros that are in this piece of legislation; good, solid, creative thought that has gone into this.

First of all, I heard no reference in the last seven days to Schedule A; not a bit. Not a bit of reference in the last seven days to the effect of Schedule A. If anybody were to go back and review the parliamentary commissioner's bill that used to exist, you would find out -

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, clue up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: He can't take the heat.

MR. E. BYRNE: We are giving you leave to clue up. That's what I am saying; go ahead.

MR. PARSONS: Schedule A is very important to this piece of legislation. It has not been commented on publicly, but unlike the old bill that did not suggest or did not outline what could be looked at, this Schedule A outlines what agencies of government, and departments, can actually be the subject of an investigation. It is very crucial, if anybody pays detail, because there is virtually no administrative decision of a government that can in future not be subject to review and investigation; and that is very crucial here.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is now 5:00 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) motion to stop the clock?

CHAIR: It is moved and seconded that the clock do now stop.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: The reporting mechanisms have been strengthened, and as the accountability. Let me conclude by saying one thing. The Leader of the Opposition made a comment last week that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. My concluding remark would be: This is not a coat of many colours we are dealing with here. It may not be silk but it certainly is a fabric that is solid, strong, well stitched, well woven, durable, endurable fabric, and it will fashion a garment that any citizen of this Province will be proud to wear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Appointment Of A Citizens' Representative For The Province Who Shall Have The Powers Traditionally Conferred On An Ombudsman." (Bill 10)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have asked me to report having passed with amendments, Bills 4, 7, and 10, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

It being Wednesday, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.