The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to ask all members in the Legislature to acknowledge and congratulate the new leader of our party, officially, who is sitting in the gallery with us today, Mr. Danny Williams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for everybody, including the Premier, when I say that we are looking forward to when he takes his time and sits amongst - to use his own words - the club of forty-eight.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if I could, by leave, just join with the Leader of the Opposition in sincerely congratulating Mr. Williams upon taking on a very important role in the Province as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. At some point, if a group of people do vote for him in a particular district, as has happened with the group of forty-eight, we would certainly welcome him into your seat as the Leader of the Opposition, should that occur.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By leave, I would also like to congratulate Mr. Williams, my former law partner, on his assumption of the reins of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. I, too, look forward to seeing him join us in this House and continue the debates that we have been having over public policy. I hope that he manages to get here very soon, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for leave to present a member's statement.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Deer Lake Red Wings hockey team -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I was biting my nails Sunday evening, wondering who was going to get up today to do this statement, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis or me.

- from the great District of Humber Valley for winning the Herder Memorial Trophy, the most prestigious hockey prize in the Province. The Deer Lake Red Wings won a best three-out-of-five final series against the Flatrock Flyers in a 5-4 overtime win on Sunday. Both Deer Lake and Flatrock must be congratulated for their fine hockey and sportsmanship. Three of the five games in the series were won in overtime, giving fans nail-biting action and suspense.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to thank the Deer Lake fans who supported their team all year and also came out in sold-out crowds for the playoffs. To quote Kevin Fagan, head coach of the Flatrock Flyers, as reported in The Western Star today: We were amazed by the people up here. They came out in droves to support their team, but they never gave us a bit of trouble. It was a truly classy performance by the Deer Lake fans.

I ask my colleagues to join me in a round of applause for the Red Wings whose win is a great victory for Deer Lake, for Humber Valley, and indeed the entire West Coast hockey league.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I, too, Mr. Speaker, would certainly congratulate the Deer Lake Red Wings on their win of the Herder. Of course, the Flatrock Flyers put up a great fight; a couple of overtime periods in both games, by the way. I would just like to go on record that it is the first time for Deer Lake - great news for them - but I think the Flatrock Flyers, what? Three times in a row, maybe, back to back, so, good stuff.

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

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

I would like to pay tribute today to a hockey player, Harold Druken. Last week, while playing with his team, the Vancouver Canucks, Harold scored not only the tying goal but also the winning goal in a critical game -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: - that put Vancouver in the Stanley Cup Playoffs for the first time in five years; and it is interesting to note that it was in overtime, during sudden death, with only about a minute left. Without that goal, they would not have made the playoffs.

While they were cheering wildly throughout Vancouver, nowhere, Mr. Speaker, could the cheers be heard more loudly than in Shea Heights, which is in my District of St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that Harold grew up and went to school and learned to play hockey right here in St. John's, in the community of Shea Heights, and he has become not only a hero but an example to all the young people of the Shea Heights area who can see positive proof in Harold that the sky is the limit when you put your heart and soul into something.

Harold is a stellar hockey player and has a career ahead of him, a bright career, I say, and we are all cheering for him here. I would like to recognize Harold's uncle, Ed Druken, who is in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a young student from my district, heading to a national essay competition sponsored by the Canadian Parents for French. Jeffrey Quilty, a Grade 6 student from Sacred Heart Elementary in Marystown, won the provincial competition of the La Dictee Paul Gerin LaJoie. He will now represent Newfoundland and Labrador at the national PGL competition in Montreal on May 20. The event will be broadcast on CBC and SRC in Quebec. The winner of the national competition wins a two-week trip to a French speaking country in Africa. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Jeffrey on his achievements and I wish him well at this national competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to officially report to the House of Assembly today that government, the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, have reached an historic tentative agreement with the Province's 19,000 public service workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: This agreement was forged together, and ushers in a new era of collective bargaining between the Province and its public service employees. The agreement provides an excellent package of wage increases and benefits for public service employees and at the same time allows the Province to maintain its financial and fiscal integrity.

Mr. Speaker, although this tentative deal will double the Province's current account deficit this year from $30 million to$60 million, we believe it is manageable fiscally and will not negatively impact on the Province's credit rating.

Details of the tentative agreement with NAPE and CUPE will be made public following the union's ratification process which is expected to be completed within three to four weeks.

In the spirit of cooperation, our negotiating teams have worked together in the best interests of the Province and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians generally to make this agreement a reality.

I want to thank the people of the Province for their patience and understanding during the period of service interruption, and I want to acknowledge the valuable contribution all our public service employees make every day in providing essential services to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the exceptional work of the President of Treasury Board and her staff, as well as the Minister of Labour and her conciliation staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Congratulations as well to President Hanlon of NAPE, President Lucas of CUPE and their negotiators for demonstrating the necessary flexibility to enable a mutually agreed outcome to be reached.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to say congratulations to the public servants of the Province for laying out a position in the face of attempts to divide the union, of attempts to put it in one direction. The question that people are asking, asked on Friday, and are asking again today: Why were we out in the first place? Why were we out for a week in the first place? We asked questions in this Legislature on Monday that said this: It seems to us, and it seems to me, that we were too close for this strike not to be avoided. It has reached a successful conclusion. I applaud people who have been involved in that to ensure that the delivery of public services are ensured, but also, and most importantly, that the public servants of the Province have been recognized and rewarded with the respect and dignity that has so long avoided them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that the settlement does usher in a new era of collective bargaining in the Province. It does restore faith in collective bargaining. Although the strike may not have been necessary, certainly the result of it is very positive for, not only the public sector workers in this Province who did an excellent job in making their case to the Province and to the people of the Province, but also for the people generally, because the changes that will be made in the pension system, in the funding of the underfunded liability of the pension system and the bringing of our Province inline with the rest of Canada in having an indexed pension for public sector workers are very positive steps for all of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 1901, Guglielmo Marconi received the first wireless transatlantic signal at Signal Hill, St. John's. The three dots representing the letter S was the beginning of a breakthrough in communications that altered how we communicate with each other and the world.

I would like to report on the status of the celebrations the government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are planning to commemorate the unparalleled achievement of Marconi and celebrate our Province's remarkable history and its own achievements in wireless technology.

Receiving the World is a celebration of the 100^th anniversary of Guglielmo Marconi's transatlantic signal from Poldhu, England to St. John's, Newfoundland in 1901. Events and activities are planned across the Province throughout 2001 to appeal to citizens of all ages with a variety of interests.

Marconi raised a kite high above Signal Hill and the aerial wire attached to it received the famous signal. Kites will be a primary focus in the educational and festive components of some of our events.

Before the end of the school year, schools in every region of the Province can become involved in a Kite Program through curriculum-based activities. One hundred communities in Newfoundland and Labrador will participate in related events held throughout the summer and a major Kite Festival will be held in St. John's on the Canada Day weekend. In addition, there will be Marconi awards at Science Fairs and Heritage Fairs for participants who excel in communications projects. We have also implemented a Marconi program in libraries across the Province.

There will more than twenty Marconi affiliated events held this summer in various areas of the Province. These community-based projects will tell the Marconi story or a communication story to residents and visitors. There will be theater and arts programs, film, radio, and publishing projects and special technology-based initiatives. As a part of the Receiving the World celebration, the popular Soirees & Times program will enter its third season in 2001 with twenty weekly events in Newfoundland and Labrador. This initiative presents evenings of traditional Newfoundland and Labrador food and entertainment to visitors so that they may experience the "time" which has been such a significant part of our culture and heritage.

There are many communities in the Province that played important roles in our remarkable communications history both as Marconi wireless stations and as Cable telegraph stations. In 2001, we will assist nine communities in the development of exhibits to tell their communications story. These includes sites in St. John's, Mount Pearl, Cape Race, Heart's Content, Bay Roberts, Harbour Grace, Fogo, Cape Ray, and Battle Harbour. As well, Living Interpretation projects and marketing initiatives are being developed in relation to this program.

One of the highlights of this anniversary year is The Wireless Vision Congress. This international conference is to be held on September 26 to September 28 in St. John's. Speakers and delegates from around the world will discuss and debate the future of wireless technology that had its birth in this city 100 years ago. This conference will address issues such as the affects of wireless communication on health, education, and the economy. This forum will not only recognize our Province's role in communications history but more importantly it will help establish Newfoundland and Labrador as a key player in the future of wireless and communications. This conference is planned with the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

Our department has been successful in securing an exhibit of artifacts and documents relating to December 12, 1901. For the first time in 100 years the original equipment used by Marconi on Signal Hill will return to St. John's. This equipment and other items of interest will be on display at the Colonial Building throughout the summer and early fall.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to keeping my colleagues informed as these and other events unfold during this anniversary year.

The Marconi anniversary celebrations present new opportunities for the Province, but they are of course just one component of the overall tourism marketing initiatives undertaken by the Province. The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation continues with its core destination marketing efforts, and the tourism division of my department continues to produce very innovative advertising campaigns which focus on our established icons. The special celebrations, as part of the overall marketing program, provide a broader penetration in our core markets.

The Receiving the World Celebrations observe another significant first for this Province, Mr. Speaker, and highlight, once again for the world our diverse, intriguing and proud history.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Marconi anniversary celebrations do present new opportunities for the Province. We have seen this with other special events such as Cabot 500 and the Viking celebrations. However, we do need more than special events to develop our tourism potential. Many communities, particularly on the Northern Peninsula, got a small taste of the tremendous opportunities and benefits a thriving tourism industry can bring, but a one-time taste of these benefits is not good enough to provide stable employment and secure funding for sustainable growth over the long term.

What our town so desperately needs is long-term employment alternatives, and the tourism industry has so much to offer. It is appalling that the provincial government has let this opportunity slip through its fingers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: I guess this is an opportunity where we get to tell the minister to go fly a kite some time this year.

Saying that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the impact that this event has had on communications around the world and in our Province, in particular, a significant impact on the safety, particularly as it related to Maritime transport back in the early days. It is the focal point of what, hopefully, will be another successful tourism season in our Province. I think it also points, Mr. Speaker, to the need for more infrastructure for tourism, particularly in the Labrador portion of our Province which is becoming increasingly more busy with tourism as the years progress and people are taking advantage of one of the fastest growing aspects of tourism, ecotourism.

So I say to the minister, that under his stewardship and his department, I would like to see more attention paid to developing the tourism industry in Labrador; and have lots of fun when you are flying your kite.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, on March 15 of this year, in this House, the Premier stood in his place, in response to questions from me in referencing the new leader of the party, and said: He is not in this Legislature, does not want to come into this Legislature, has no interest in coming into this Legislature.

I would like to ask the Premier today, in view of the fact that Humber West is now open as of midday today: Are you going to provide an opportunity today for our leader to come into the House and debate you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that some members opposite are not only tired, I suppose, but still a little bit excited after the concert on the weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, on March 15, I think members opposite would absolutely acknowledge that the statement that I made was true, because there had already been - and let the record show - two opportunities for by-elections in Newfoundland and Labrador prior to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Do members want to proceed with Question Period?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, let's get to it.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try not to say something that provokes any kind of an outburst, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that, at the time, there had been two opportunities for which the gentleman who is now the leader - let me finish the answer - on the public record said he was not interested in running for a seat at the time, that his priority was to organize the Progressive Conservative Party, and he gave a reason.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: He gave a reason why he was not interested at the time in seeking a nomination. When there is a by-election called in Humber West, because there will be at some point in the future, we will see who the candidates are at that point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, well, well, well, well.

On March 13, this Premier stood in this House, during the Throne Speech, and said: I can only, through you - talking to me - encourage him to join the club of forty-eight. What is it you are afraid of, Premier? Call the by-election. Let him get on and come face you, face to face.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we take the issue of representation in the House of Assembly very seriously. Two things: We will not, and I will not, do as was done in 1987, when a Liberal member resigned in Windsor-Buchans and the Premier of the day waited five full months.

AN HON. MEMBER: The law (inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: We are not talking about the law, Mr. Speaker. He waited five, full months. We will not see that repeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: He used the full extent of the law. I was here. He used the full extent of the law. That is why we changed it.

PREMIER GRIMES: It's okay, Tom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was seen at the time to be such an abuse of the legislative rules that, when we formed the government in 1989, we changed the law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We changed the law to make sure that kind of abuse could never happen in Newfoundland and Labrador again, unless some group like yourselves, in fifteen years, twenty years, or thirty years, were to get elected and change it back to the way you used to like to have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: There is one other thing, Mr. Speaker, to be remembered. There is one other thing that members opposite obviously are forgetting, and their new leader knows nothing about: that representation in the House of Assembly is not about the right of the person to stand here, but the right of the people to vote in the person of their choice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue that is for the convenience of a candidate. A by-election is the opportunity for the people of a district to state their preference, and there will be an opportunity for that some time soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What the people of the Province realize is that for two-and-a-half months this man has been mocking somebody because they won't come here. He has the opportunity to call it, to let him get here, and he is scared to do it. Let the people of the Province know about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what they know, and you know it. You cannot have it both ways, I say to the Premier. You cannot have it coming on one end and going on the other, because that is what you have been trying to do since you have become Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I have this question for the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I say to the Minister of Industry. Would you like me to ask you a question too? Because I can do that when I am finished with him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to get to his question.

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

Everybody knows that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has every right not to have somebody from Corner Brook sit in his Cabinet, but what he does not have the right to do is to deny representation to the people of Humber West. I ask you again, Premier: Will you call the by-election today to give an opportunity - to use your words - to the Leader of the Tory Party to put his name on the ballot up against your Liberal candidate, and we will see who is going to be sitting in there after that by-election is over?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do recognize that they are still feeling some of the effects, ill or otherwise, of the weekend. I didn't see it myself, because I was busy doing other things; however, it was reported that the music was that good at the concert that even the Member for Waterford Valley tried to dance, which was absolutely amazing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I guess there is a first for everything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do take the issue of representation in the House very seriously. The constituents of Humber West will continue to have a voice in the Legislature following a by-election, and we will recognize that it is their choice to make. After consultation with the group in Humber West, no one need ask me when there will be a by-election in the Legislature. I know they are all excited after the weekend. I will convene - after checking with the Lieutenant-Governor - a press conference and call a by-election when we are ready, within the law of the land.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is obvious to the people of the Province is the only one who needs dancing lessons, and certainly political dancing lessons, is the Premier.

Premier, you can stand up and pretend as if this just happened but you, above all people, have known for at least two-and-a-half months that the Member for Humber West - who announced at your leadership convention - was moving on. Are you trying to tell us that you have not anticipated that he was going to move, or that you have not known for a while that a by-election would occur? Why is it, Premier, that you will not call the by-election today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we all appreciate that the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party for Newfoundland and Labrador has finally -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that is the kind of questioning and interrupting that the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is so proud of, that kind of questioning is what he appreciates. Very proud of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we respect the process. We respect the people of Humber West in their right to have a representative, and we do respect and appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who has been too busy up to now doing other things that are more important to him than to seek a seat in the Legislature, has now finally decided that it is time for him to tell the people of the Province: I might be ready now. I may now be ready to think about serving some constituents in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Well that's great to know that the king, himself, has decided that he might now dirty his hands by thinking about representing some people in Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is very clear is that on March 15 he wanted it, he got it, and now he does not know what to do with it. That is what is very clear! That is exactly what is clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: He reminds me of when I was growing up in Riverhead of the small dog chasing the car.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I often wondered what would happen if he caught it. Now I am going to find out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I will ask the question again because he will not answer it. I will try, from the Government House Leader's point of view, not to use harsh, unparliamentary body language while I am at it. Let me ask you, Premier, answer the question: Why will you not call the by-election today? You have known it was coming for over two-and-a-half months. You wanted it in March. Why don't you want it today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate the Leader of the Opposition asking the question as vigorously and in an animated way, as he was instructed to do by the king from the gallery, and I hope he is appreciating the performance.

The fact is we take the issue of representation, as I have said before, in the Legislature very seriously. It is a matter to be decided not for the convenience of the candidate, but because it is the right of the people in a particular district. It is refreshing to know - I think I may have mis-spoken, it is not the king. I think it is the president, I believe, because he was sworn in with an oath that was dreamed up just for the occasion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible). I guess somebody wrote that for you too! Someone must have written that for you too! Dream up an oath, and all of the quotes happened to come from American presidents and so on, Mr. Speaker. So maybe it is the President who has now decided that he has gotten his other things done that are important to him and he might, actually, soil his hands by thinking about whether or not some people are going to vote for him in a district. He suggests he is ready to go in Humber West. There will be a by-election in Humber West, and I will let the people of the Province know when it is in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to call for order and decorum one more time. If we do not get it I will have to recess the House.

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

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

Minister, when the environmental legislation to ban bulk water export was passed in this House we were told that a Cabinet committee would be put in place, to put a royalty regime in place in this Province and report back within ninety days. Has that committee put in place a royalty regime and policy on our water resources? If so, what is that royalty regime and when will it be tabled in this House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to advise the House that no royalty regime has been put in place with regard to royalties on water. I want to advise the House that that particular member over there, for some time through the media, through the airwaves, and through the Open Line show, has told people about all the royalties that could be received from bottled water. Through my investigation, in the Province of British Columbia there are forty bottling plants. The total revenue from these bottling plants, total in royalties, is $28,000.

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

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

That is why we are after the jobs, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, my second question is for the Premier. Mr. Premier, you stated that you are hoping to get between $70 million and $80 million a year royalty from the export of water. Without a royalty regime in place what are you basing your numbers on? How can you tell us that these numbers are thoughtful when there isn't even a comprehensive royalty regime put in place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the hon. Member for St. John's South would like to have a continuing debate about the export of water now, minus the information. What we have said is that when we get the full information with respect to free trade implications, the national water bans, royalty possibilities and all the other considerations, we will present it publicly to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and if we decide to do so, we will come back to this Legislature and a have a full debate here, but today, despite the questions and protestations of the Member for St. John's South, we will not be entering into a debate about the possible export of water with a lack of information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Premier, you are the one who gave the information of $70 million to $80 million. Where did you get that information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Premier, there is no categorization for bulk water under the federal clawback scheme. You know that. I know that. How can you say that you are going to get $70 million to $80 million royalty for this Province when you do not even know what the clawbacks are yet? Isn't it true that when there is a category put in place on water exports through the federal clawback and transfer scheme that, more than likely, it will be upwards of 100 per cent? That is what the federal government is telling us. Can you confirm that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the member to exhibit some patience. We will get an opportunity to debate all of these aspects fully and completely in the public in the Province, in this Legislature.

Just for the record, in case the Member for St. John's South is really interested in an answer with respect to the money, the numbers that I quoted were how much it costs for tuition, and he can check that out. I did not say that all of that was going to come from water. That is how much tuition costs in Newfoundland and Labrador this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a brief question for the Minister of Fisheries. The minister knows that the shrimp plant of Black Duck Cove could close down this spring if the owner, R.H.K, is unable to find a new operator for the plant. Closure of the plant will put eighty people out of work. Has the minister been engaged in this issue, and will he do what he can to make sure the plant reopens this spring and the people can return to work?

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we have had discussions at least with one group that is involved with the Black Duck Cove plant. I plan to meet with you and the council next week to discuss that issue; but, having talked about Black Duck Cove, you might also want to talk to your seat mate right there; because, if he were to have his way and we opened up 4R shrimp to every other processor in the Province, it might not be a question of getting the plant in Black Duck Cove open. It might be a case of where the other two in the area might close as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question if for the Premier. The people of Marystown and the Burin Peninsula are wondering today, as a result of financial statements last week of Friede Goldman Halter, and the Premier's comments about civil disobedience as a remedy for the problems of the assets of the Cow Head facility and the Marystown shipyard. Now that the Premier has had time to relax after the tension of the public sector strike and consider this issue, can he tell the people of Marystown and the Burin Peninsula today what concrete steps his government is prepared to do to ensure, first of all, that jobs continue in the Marystown shipyard and Cow Head facility; and, secondly, that the assets of this facility will not be lost to creditors and broken up and sold as scrap?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that we have been meeting with the union in Marystown. As a matter fact, the two members and myself met with them on Saturday -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I don't think they said that to you at all.

We have had some very good meeting with them. Of course we are all concerned about what happens in Marystown in terms of jobs. We are looking at a number of issues, as we discussed this morning in committee with the Member for Bonavista South - who, I might say, took a much more practical and pragmatic approach to it than the hon. gentlemen is doing, and did not show any sign that he wanted to get into politics for once in his life.

We are working with the people of Marystown, and we are working with the union. We all have the sincere hope, after what happened last week with Pegasus, which is a venture capital company, that Friede Goldman Halter will be able to float the $100 million that they are looking for in terms of a loan and get their cash flow where it should be in order to see that some of the things we are trying to negotiate for Marystown are carried on.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious the government is still trying to sell hope instead of actual jobs in Marystown. Would the Premier advise the Legislature whether or not he is prepared to use the power of the Province to pass legislation to ensure the integrity of the assets of the Marystown shipyard and the Cow Head facility are not lost to the creditors of Friede Goldman Halter, and that they remain in tact for another operator if something drastic happens to Friede Goldman Halter?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that we, on this side, would much sooner work with the people of Marystown in hope than we would in despair, as he is obviously trying to portray on that side of the House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that we will do whatever it is possible for this government to do, short of getting back into the shipbuilding industry. I think everybody recognizes that is not for us. Even the people who we work with in the union will go that far with you. We will do whatever it takes to attract industry, to attract jobs, to attract investment into Marystown, and we will not sow the NDP philosophy of despair and destruction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

Minister, farmers in this Province share the concern of their colleagues across North America about the spread of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain and throughout Europe, and the risk of the disease coming to this Province.

Minister, can you tell us what the Province is doing to protect the local livestock from contracting the disease, or is the minister and his department waiting for the federal government, and depending on the federal government, to make sure that we are protected in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right in regard to the regulations and the policing of this type of problem that they have in the United Kingdom, the federal government takes a lead on this, and there is no question, as far as I am concerned, that they are doing an excellent job. As I have said before, one of the most important industries in Canada today is our Agrifoods industry, and we have the top regulations in North America, if not in the world, with regard to food safety and otherwise.

Having said that, we didn't take any chances. We made sure that our chief veterinarian in the Province is monitoring the situation. We have questionnaires put out to every farmer in the Province asking for the point of origin. In fact, some of them have checked out already with regard to livestock. Whether it be beef, whether it be dairy cattle, whether it be sheep, we have the point of origin of all that, as questionnaires are put out. We are also in the process - it has probably already been done - of doing up a pamphlet, probably even a householder for everybody in the Province, to make them aware of what the conditions are and of how important it is to adhere to the principles and regulations pertaining to this very serious disease. It is a serious disease and it cannot be taken lightly.

For instance, we have four flights a week coming in from the United Kingdom right here in St. John's alone. We have all the ship entries in the Province with regard to the paper companies and so on. Some people may think it is funny; it is not, it is a very serious situation. If it ever get out anywhere in North America - this is why the point of origin of everything in the Province has been checked and our officials are doing a good job with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I say, we know this is a serious issue and we know that international flights are coming into this Province every day. A lot of questions arise around those flights and other entrants into our ports in the Province. We know today also that there is a lot of garbage and other things that come from international flights and ships coming into the harbour, so we need protection against that, Minister. I heard one story, that at two o'clock in the morning garbage is coming off international flights and being dumped in our local dump sites without any inspections, any protection. So, Minister, we cannot take a chance on just saying that the federal government has things in place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: We need more than that, Minister.

The question, Minister: Foot-and-mouth disease can affect wildlife, particularly the deer family. Minister, has this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Has this Province checked to determine if moose or other wildlife in this Province are susceptible to the disease, and what steps are you taking to prevent the spread of the disease to the Province's wildlife population?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how far behind the member thinks that our officials in this Province or the rest of North America are. I mean, to see if they are susceptible! Any cloven hoof animal is susceptible, Mr. Speaker. That goes back to the beginning of time. Mr. Speaker, we have the rules and regulations in place. The hon. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!.

MR. WOODFORD: The hon. member is talking about garbage. He heard a rumor that garbage was coming off flights. Naturally garbage has to come off flights. That is one of the reasons why we are checking the point of entry, the shipping terminals of this Province, wondering whether they are taking off garbage. If they are - there are even people coming off the four international flights with garbage in their pockets, in their handbags and everything else. There are all kinds of concerns that have to be checked. All those precautions are being checked and hopefully, at the end of the day, the proper rules and regulations will be in place to look after it so that nothing like that can happen in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, the Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the Department of Mines and Energy; the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, as well as the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members of the Committee, including the ministers and their officials who willingly gave the information as required by the members. The members of the Committee were: of course, myself, as well as the Member for St. John's East, the Member for Kilbride, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Member for The Straits and White Bay North.

Again, on behalf of the Committee, I want to thank each member for their participation. I want to thank the ministers and their officials for attending and bringing forward their points of view.

Also, we had a little change. We had some of the critics for the various departments attend our Committee meetings as well. Of course, although they did not have a vote on Committee, they were more than welcome to come and present their views.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, report to be received on tomorrow.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the Social Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: the Department of Education; the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; the Department of Human Resources and Employment; the Department of Labour; the Department of Health and Community Services; and the Department of Justice.

I, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to thank all those involved in the Estimates process for their due diligence and cooperation.

Thank you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, report to be received on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 6)

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

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

I am pleased to rise today to again present another petition to this House of Assembly, like many of my colleagues have done, on road conditions in this Province. This particular petition is from the people of Burlington, Smiths Harbour and Middle Arm, as I do get petitions from around this Province, I say to the minister here today. We have spoken a few times now to the new minister in his new portfolio. He certainly understands, like his predecessors, the problem that we have in this Province today when it comes to road construction, and the simple fact that we still have 900 kilometers of gravel road on the Island portion of this Province again this year. The truth is that we have a lot of old pavement. The minister knows exactly what I am talking about, when we talk about twenty-five to thirty-year-old pavement. Now we have a combination problem of old pavement in the Province that is breaking up in all the members' districts, because I hear from the members right around this Province, and also 900 kilometers of gravel roads still undone.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is the same again this year. It is as simple as this: there is no plan. Again this year, yes, the minister can stand and say there is an extra $6 million to put in roads, and I have commended the minister for that, that we move in the right direction.

The minister knows, and we all know in this House, year after year, come on April month, and somewhere between the middle of April and the last of April, we start to get a little bit of money shoveled around, when we in fact know - and the minister has told me again this year - that to address the problem this year alone is $200 million; I think $198 million to be exact. Again, we have $18 million to throw at the situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. SHELLEY: That is exactly true, I say to the minister. He can talk to the Finance Minister and she can tell him very quickly, that it just does not work. The $18 million to fit $200 million again this year - it was the same last year; it was the same the year before. It is like a bad credit card out of control. We are not addressing the real long-term problem. We need a long-term plan. He also needs to talk to his federal cousins in Ottawa to put something in place as with the Roads for Rail Agreement which is really, when we hear the Budget every year, some $100-odd million. We know the truth is that the Province itself is putting a paltry $12 million to $18 million into road construction and it is just not going to work.

I know it is not just the members on this side of the House. Members on both side of the House are getting the same problems, even the minister's own district. I understand when he talks about his own district, that people are calling. I am getting calls from around the Province, school children on buses, every day with longer distances to travel to school. They have to get on the back of those yellow buses. I done it myself, with them, gotten on the bus, twenty-five to forty-five minutes on a gravel road to go to school and come back every day. It is an embarrassment. I do not want to hear about what was the plan seventeen years ago or before that. The bottom line is that, after fifty-one years of Confederation with this country, we are still driving over 900 kilometers of gravel roads. We should all be ashamed of that. The only way to really address the problem is for this government to put in place a long-term plan to partner with the federal government and try to get it done. To think that last year, an example I have used here before -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, by leave, to just to finish off a point?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: The truth is that last year, an example I used in this House, a gold mine on the Baie Verte Peninsula was almost not started because the company could not use the road to get back and forth on the La Scie highway; it was that deplorable. Imagine deterring industry in this Province because we do not have basic infrastructure. It is time to address the problem, and I hope that we can get a long-term plan from this government soon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have a petition from the residents of Shea Heights regarding housing in the area. I have spoken with the minister responsible for housing, and I know that he is working on the issue. We have spoken on it already, but I continue to receive petitions and I will continue to present them. I have presented a number of petitions on this particular issue to date. The prayer of the petition reads:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area. We are asking the government to consider the fact that people with disabilities and their families need to be able to utilize the support of family and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced to lived in units outside the community, it compromises the help and support families so vitally need. We are asking that serious consideration be given to the construction of wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area, so that families with physical disabilities may avail of the essential support networks provided by family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. Shea Heights is a very large community. It is larger than many of the town that are in and throughout the Province. While it is a part of St. John's and while the families in the Shea Heights area have been referred by housing to other areas of St. John's to avail of wheelchair accessible housing units, that should not happen, because Shea Heights is a community unto itself. It is a very close knit community. The families of Shea Heights rely on each other. It is a very, very close community and the support network that is in place by family and friends within the community is very essential to these families, especially families with disabilities, or children with disabilities. It is unfair to remove those families from their community, a community that they had grown up in, and that they have lived in for many years. It is unfortunate to remove that family from their own community and ask them to move to a different neighborhood where they do not have the network of family and friends to rely on, just because they have a disability.

I ask again that the minister continue to work on this, continue to consider the importance of this issue, and put in place wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker, first reading of a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act." (Bill 5)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act," carried. (Bill 5)

On motion, Bill 5 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Petroleum Products."

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today with some pleasure to introduce and to speak to Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products. I apologize to all who have to listen to me today that my voice, while never very good to have to listen to, will today be more of a challenge for you and for me, so I will attempt to keep my remarks concise and -

MR. MANNING: Were you down at the Stadium (inaudible) on the weekend?

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, I was home in my house on the weekend, wrapped up in my housecoat, watching selected channels.

MR. MANNING: No, Sir, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, I am a sucker for punishment at times but not to the extent that he has expressed.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are dealing with today is an important piece of legislation because it is a bill that has been long sought after, particularly by the consumers of the Province. I suppose there has never been a time in our history that compares with the last couple of years in terms of the fluctuations that the consumers have had to endure with respect to petroleum product pricing in the Province. That includes, of course, fuel for our cars, diesel for our vehicles, propane to the extent that we use it in those forms, and also furnace heating oil for our homes.

The bill that I am introducing today and speaking to is designed to do a number of things. First of all, it is clear to all of us that the consumers of the Province have lost confidence, in their judgement, in the ability of the industry to provide satisfactory answers as to why and to what extent increases and decreases in petroleum products take place. So, the intent of the bill today that we are introducing is to provide some level of comfort and some support to the consumers of the Province in terms of them having three things accomplished by virtue of this piece of legislation.

We want to ensure, first of all, that there is a level of transparency apparent in the issue of when prices rise and fall in terms of petroleum products. Secondly, we want to ensure that people of the Province have the certainty that there will be a prescribed time, and only a prescribed number of times, when there will be price increases or decreases in petroleum products. Thirdly, the people of the Province will have the assurance of knowing that the time over which price increases and decreases will occur will be predictable. So, Mr. Speaker, today this bill accomplishes those three things.

I would say at the outset that one of the things that this bill will not necessarily accomplish is to ensure that there will be lower prices consistently than there were heretofore with respect to petroleum products. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the only way that prices can be controlled in terms of whether or not it is the very best price, is the extent to which the free market economy works and the extent to which there is a competitive element remaining in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to, while on the one hand encourage competition and ensure that there is a fair and equitable process that sees increases and decreases occur, on the other hand it is designed to give a level of comfort to people who are users of these petroleum products. The bill is designed to regulate petroleum products both at the wholesale and retail level. The regulations will result in transparent and regular price changes and it will ensure that the price changes, which are charged, are justified.

The bill will establish a petroleum products pricing commissioner. The commissioner will have the ability to set maximum retail and wholesale prices, provide for implementation of a binding and automatic market based price adjustment mechanism and it also provides, on an annual basis, for a once a year nonmarket related adjustment. If prices were only regulated at the retail level then wholesale prices could still be increased, putting an undo burden on retailers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the bill will ensure that there are maximum prices set but it will also have the capacity through the commissioner, to ensure where it is necessary, to also deal with the setting of a minimum price as well. The pricing mechanism will have a direct and varying impact on several different groups within the Province. Including, of course: consumers, retailers, wholesalers, and independent operators. Each of these groups, obviously, will have conflicting objectives in terms of their business operation. In establishing the detailed pricing mechanism these conflicting objectives need to be balanced.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, this Province covers an extremely large geographically area. As a result, there cannot be a uniform price throughout the Province. Many times we hear reference made to the regulatory regime in PEI, which in effect has set one price at the wholesale level and one price at the retail level for the whole Province. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, one price for all of Newfoundland and Labrador would not work, simply because of factors such as transportation costs that have to be taken into consideration. The price of petroleum products, obviously, in Nain, Labrador - which today I believe is at $1.06 per litre - would not be a very desirable price to have as the maximum price being allowed to charge in the rest of the Province. Therefore, we intend to establish somewhere between five and ten zones in the Province, and within those zones the commissioner will have the ability to regulate prices on a zonal basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No.

Mr. Speaker, I might also say that the legislation will give the commissioner - where there are extraordinary circumstances existent - be able to control or set specific outlet prices even within those zones. Prices may also differ, of course, due to characteristics that are peculiar to specific operators. Low volume, isolated operators, even within a zone, may not be able to live within the zonal price, and in those circumstances we may have to, through the commissioner, have consideration given to those extraordinary circumstances for those extraordinary outlets.

The frequency, as I have said earlier, of the adjustments is also a key to the effectiveness of this petroleum products pricing commissioner's activity. So, Mr. Speaker, consistent with what happens in PEI, because this is one area where we believe we can be consistent, we intend to regulate petroleum products on a monthly basis. That will mean that there will be a maximum of twelve price changes per year in the Province.

We intend in this legislation, or through the regulations, to also use the New York harbour commodities price as a market indicator. Obviously, there has to be some reference point to which the commissioner can refer in terms of establishing what the price should be at the wholesale and retail level provincially. It is our judgement that because the New York harbour rack commodity price is, by all accounts, the most competitive wholesale market probably in the world, we believe that it is the appropriate reference point for us to use in setting prices through the commissioner's office.

Another important issue, of course, for us to consider is the Province's independent operators. Some have already expressed concern as to the possible impact of regulation on small independent operators who have difference economic circumstances than those who are probably associated with major refineries and distributors.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) put them out of business.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is not our intention, I say to the hon. Member for Ferryland, to put any private or any independent operator out of business. On the contrary, it is our intention to ensure that such operators are not adversely affected.

MR. SULLIVAN: How will you do that?

MR. MATTHEWS: We are going to do that, as I said a minute ago, primarily, by having somewhere between five and ten zones in the Province that will give us zonal pricing and by further giving the commissioner flexibility to deal with extraordinary circumstances within a particular zone where he deems it appropriate to give extraordinary consideration to a small independent isolated, maybe low volume, high cost operator -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Independent.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, is it fair for the people of Bonavista today to be paying ten cents more for a litre of fuel oil than people in St. John's? Is that fair?

MR. MATTHEWS: I say that the issue of fairness, in terms of who pays what for the petroleum products, is the essence of the bill that we are introducing today, to ensure that whatever price is being paid by whatever consumer in the Province, at whatever point of outlet, it is an appropriate price for that location, in that geographical area, for that particular product that is being purchased. Prior to establishing the detailed pricing mechanism, obviously, we need to do a fair bit of further research on these and other issues. This will include consultations with all affected parties. The additional research in consultation will be undertaken over the next several months.

I want to assure the hon. members of the House that governments is committed to addressing consumer concerns with respect to all of the issues that they might want to bring forward. As a result, even though it will be necessary to engage a consultation process, we intend to effectively have regulation of petroleum products in place not later than the third weekend of the month of May. At that point, the commissioner will have the ability to do a number of things leading into an interim period while we do the consultation and before we set the final regulations. Those include the possibility of freezing wholesale and/or retail prices at that point, and making adjustments to wholesale and/or retail prices at some future date beyond that point. Eventually, once we have done the full consultation, once we have brought into place the full level of regulations, then that will be the mechanism and that will be the reference point used for adjustment in prices. The pricing changes will be based on a formula that will be automatically adjusted on a monthly basis as opposed to a month-over-month application process. We believe that will be considerably more accommodating for the wholesalers as well as the retailers.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation provides the ability to set the minimum margins if deemed necessary. However, it is not the intent at the outset, let me say, to set minimum petroleum product prices. We intend to set maximum petroleum product prices on a zonal basis. We believe it will only be necessary for us to get involved in setting minimum product prices if there is a sufficiently adverse effect of this regulatory process upon, particularly, small independent operators. It is also not our intention, by the third week in May, to bring in a full regulatory regime for furnace heating oil. As you -

MR. SULLIVAN: What is the annual cost of (inaudible)?

MR. MATTHEWS: I will deal with that.

As you would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the issues surrounding furnace heating oil are significantly different than the issues around gasoline or diesel at the pump. Let me illustrate by way of example: When you pull up to a pump to buy your product, you have a choice, you go in and the process is the same no matter what service station you pull into. You go to the pump, you fill up your tank, and you pay your price. With respect to furnace oil, the people who sell and deliver furnace oil, of course, are in a much different circumstance. There is all the way from the furnace oil dealer, who is a cash basis only operator who provides no services other than delivering oil and getting paid for it, to the furnace heating oil distributors who provide an array of other services along with the delivery. Things such as automatic delivery, things such as burner service, things such as credit accommodations for a monthly or sometimes on a yearly basis. These are all features that are different with respect to furnace oil as opposed to gasoline at the pumps. So, Mr. Speaker, because the furnace oil heating season is generally from October to April or May, when the most severe impact is felt by people who burn furnace oil and is not such a big issue in a relative sense between May and October, we believe it is appropriate to take some additional time to work through the nuances of that particular product that is going to be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not only a bill that is the representation of a commitment that we have made as government, it is also representative of the wishes and aspirations of the people of the Province. While the people who produce, people who sell at the wholesale level, and the people who distribute petroleum products have said, rhetorically, that competition is working fine and well in the market place, the reality is that the consumers of the Province are not convinced that they are being afforded the benefit of decreased prices on a timely basis, and they are not convinced that they are being held off against increases in petroleum products as long as it could possibly be. So, on the basis of the lack of confidence on a consumer basis by the people of the Province, and on the basis of the many representations we have had from formal advocacy groups on this issue, and on the basis of individual representations that all of us have had from the general public, as constituents, we believe, at this time, it is appropriate to bring in a petroleum products regulatory regime that will deal with the issue of confidence, that will deal with the issue of fairness, and that will deal with the issue of transparency in setting petroleum products prices.

Mr. Speaker, I do anticipate that there will be a fair number of questions raised in debate with respect to the functioning of this bill, and how it will work. To the extent that questions may arise in debate, I can inform the House that I will be taking note of them and hopefully, I will be able to be prepared to answer any and all questions that might arise that would be of interest as a result of the debate that we will have on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his introductory comments with respect to this particular Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products. As the minister just indicated in his conclusion, this is important legislation, and it is important that we debate fully this legislation, both during second reading and during Committee stages, so that members on both sides of the House may, in exchange, have a complete and full understanding of the implications of Bill 4, what it will truly mean and really mean for the consumers of the Province.

What is perhaps even noteworthy and interesting at this stage is the fact that the bill that we have before us represents a very noticeable shift in government policy, because it was certainly the position of this government, and obviously a position that was shared by Cabinet ministers on government's side, that regulation was something that was not of great interest to members opposite. In fact, as recently as December, 1999, the then Minister of Mines and Energy, today's Premier, in a press release, indicated quite strongly that government oppose any regulatory regime with respect to the regulation of the prices of petroleum products.

It is noteworthy, interesting and important, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we explore what is before us fully, that we debate the implications of this legislation fully, simply from the point of view that it is important legislation to begin with, but, secondly, it represents a shift in government policy. We have to explore fully, and debate fully, exactly what has caused such a shift, and I am pleased that the minister has entertained the suggestion that he will be prepared to answer questions that we raise on this very important issue.

There is document that is prepared in Western Canada - I am sure the Minister of Mines and Energy is familiar with it - called Fuel Facts. I am sure his office receives it on a regular basis. It is my understanding that it is produced every second week, it is produced by M.J. Irvin and Associates and Purvin & Gertz Inc. The purpose of this information is to allow the public of Canada - there is an analysis done of gas prices in each province, and usually in the capital city of each province, and it is consumer information which allows the public of the country to have a full understanding and an ability to do a comparison of gasoline and petroleum prices throughout. The one, of course, that we receive is the Atlantic edition. It is interesting to note that when we do an analysis of the cost of a litre of gasoline throughout Atlantic Canada, that once again, as in many cases, and as in many examples, Newfoundland heads the list; but it is interesting, upon review, when we review the documentation, it is an interesting observation to note why.

If I may refer very briefly to the most recent edition of Fuel Facts - in fact it is dated March 27, 2001 - there is a selection of cities, primarily in Atlantic Canada, where the price of a litre of gasoline is analyzed. For example, on March 27, 2001, approximately two weeks ago, the price of a litre of gasoline in St. John, New Brunswick, was 69.8 cents per litre. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, the price of a litre of gasoline was 75.1 cents per litre. In Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, the price of a litre of gas was 70.6 cents. In St. John's, Newfoundland, it was 80.9 cents, and I believe that is the price, as we speak, in this city. In Bangor, Maine - for information purposes, the publication provides the cost of a litre of gasoline in a neighboring state - the price there is 60.0 cents. The Canadian average is 68.1 cents and the American average is 62.7 cents.

Again, it is interesting to note that when this comparison and analysis is done, with particular emphasis and attention given to Atlantic Canadian cities, we see that St. John's, Newfoundland, heads the list. Of course, as we all know, in rural parts of our Province, particularly where my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, resides, in his district, I am sure it is significantly higher than that. Just using St. John's as the one example in this Province, we see it tops all those cities that are recorded and analyzed in the last edition of Fuel Facts; and, as I have indicated, the edition is dated March 27, 2001.

There is an interesting analysis, in addition to simply giving consumers and citizens information with respect to the cost of a litre of gasoline, there is a further breakdown of that cost. This, I would suggest, is important and it perhaps gives a clear understanding as to why consumers in this Province are faced with some of the highest costs of petroleum products in the country, and that is because the pump taxes are also given some attention. In other words, the federal and provincial, and federal excise taxes, are spelled out exactly so that consumers have a full understanding of when, for example, in this city, consumers go to the pump and pay 80.9 cents per litre, this document will allow consumers to know exactly what the breakdown is in terms of gasoline taxes.

I would like to do a very short comparison at this time. In St. John, New Brunswick, 29.8 cents represents the combined provincial and federal taxation when taking into account the full cost of a litre of gas in that city; as I have indicated, 69.8 cents. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, tax prices on their litre of gasoline, 33.7 cents; in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 27.6 cents; in Bangor, Main, 15.2 cents; in St. John's, Newfoundland - and, in fact, obviously this will apply for the whole Province - 37.1 cents of the cost of a litre of gasoline is in the form of taxation.

What we see is that on a fluctuating basis, because obviously the appropriate tax cost to the consumer will vary when the price of a liter of gas varies because of the HST component, we see approximately 50 per cent of the total cost of a liter of gasoline in the form of taxation, either provincial or federal or federal excise taxes - approximately 15 per cent.

What this publication does is, it breaks down for consumers the exact cost of a liter of gasoline in their respective cities; but it also goes further: it shows what the breakdown is in terms of taxation.

Members on this side of the House have repeatedly suggested to members opposite that one way government can serve as an aide and a real help to the people of the Province is to simply give further review and study to the concept of the reduction of taxation. This could be done in one of two ways, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker: One, to allow some break in terms of the HST component, because we would all agree that when it comes to home heating fuel, for example, and I would even suggest gasoline for transportation, that these are essentials. The question has to be asked: Why is it that the consumers in this Province have to be further burdened with the HST component, when we are talking about the cost of gasoline in our Province?

Secondly, if government and members opposite wanted to seriously give consumers a break, there could be a break in the provincial tax, in the provincial road tax. No, Mr. Speaker, these suggestions have gone on deaf ears and the consumers of this Province are left with paying the highest cost of gasoline in this country

Again, it is important to note that it is the highest cost of gasoline per liter, but incorporated with that notion is the fact that we, the consumers in this Province, pay the highest percentage of taxes when we apply the full tax amount.

Mr. Speaker, there is an area where government could seriously review exactly how consumers are being impacted and if government members truly wanted to assist the consumers of this Province, this is something that could have been done at any time in the past. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for consumers, this was not an option.

It is interesting to note, as well, that attached to the March 27 addition of fuel facts are a couple of essays with respect to the need for consumer protectionism and the need of a consumer watchdog in dealing with petroleum products as it relates to either home heating fuel or gasoline. This is very similar to a position that this party has adopted. Namely, the need for what we have termed a petroleum products monitor which would be the establishment of an independent individual who would take into account the needs and concerns of consumers, would report on a constant basis to the public of the Province in terms of what information is available, would have a true accounting with respect to the cost of crude prices, a true accounting of pump prices, the impact of taxation and it would also be in a position, I would suggest, to receive complaints from consumers. This independent products monitor could then analyze and investigate, and have some powers of investigation to fully review what a particular consumer may be saying, investigate further and report back. Mr. Speaker, obviously, that is not the nature of the regulatory regime that is being envisaged by this bill but at least there would be some accountability to the public; and the consumers in this Province, I would suggest, would have received far greater protection than they have received to date.

The essay that I referred to is an essay written by Frédéric Quintal, representing the organization: Gasoline is Essential; in French, L'essence c'est essential, and will call on the federal government to oversee the petroleum industry to assure that the interests of consumers are protected. It would take the form of an Ombudsman, a citizen's protection organization, or a watchdog agency. Very similar, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to what was being proposed by members on this side of the House.

In another essay written by Bill Simpkins, who is the vice president of the Canadian Petroleum Institute, he discusses two interesting and different concepts whereby he states: the creation of an agency that would monitor refining and supply activities in Canada, and a consumer Ombudsman. Again, he incorporates the same concept. He suggests that with the implementation of these two concepts such implementation could fulfill a need to ensure Canadians are being served.

I just point that out to members on both sides of the House, that this type of suggestion, this type of provision of an independent petroleum products monitor is not only being suggested by members of this side of the House but certainly individuals in this country who are influential in this area and who recognize the need for the protection of consumers as it relates to the controlling of the prices of either home fuel or petroleum products.

I will give the minister some indication perhaps as to the types of questions that we will be addressing, Mr. Minister, so that as we proceed into the committee stages he may be in a position to provide some answers when these questions arise.

I had an opportunity to review Bill 4 and some of the points that I would like for the minister to give some consideration to. One, for example, in section "3.(1) There is established the Office of the Commissioner of Petroleum Products Pricing." We see in subsection "(4) The person appointed as commissioner may be removed before the expiration of his or her term of office by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for cause." I think it is important, minister, that perhaps the legislation give some consideration to spelling out exactly what is meant by that. For cause; is a very general and sweeping statement. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the minister may want to, during committee stage, address that particular point.

It is interesting to note that in section 4 it sets out the maximum prices that the commissioner has

authority to deal with. For example, it states in section "4.(1) The commissioner has the authority (a) to set, and shall set the maximum wholesale and retail prices that a wholesaler and a retailer may charge for heating fuel and motor fuel; and (b) to determine the minimum and maximum mark up between the wholesale price to the retailer and the retail price to the consumer of heating fuel and motor fuel." This relates, I guess, to the point that the minister made in his opening comments where there is a distinction obviously being given to how the regulatory regime will affect either home heating fuel or our gasoline fuel, and both. I think the timing of the implementation, for example, in the setting of these maximum prices and how there is going to be a difference in that timing is important. I would be interested in the minister's comments, again, when this area is debated further.

On page 7 of the bill, in particular section 8.(4), it states: Only one application may be made by a wholesale or a retailer in a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am sorry, do you want me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Section "8.(4) Only one application may be made by a wholesaler or a retailer in a 12 month period." Mr. Minster, it is important to ask why this sort of restriction and limitation is being placed on either a wholesaler or a retailer, only that one opportunity is given in a calendar year for such application.

MR. MATTHEWS: It has to do with costs other than (inaudible) to deal with things like once a year costs of things; buy once a year for adjustments based on things like advertising, promotional (inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That may be, Mr. Minister, but it does not specify that in the bill. Although it may be found in the heading, there is no reference to an earlier subsection or a reference to any earlier section. Maybe the bill could be tightened simply from the point of view of clarification.

Perhaps the most significant provisions, I would suggest to the minister, are found in section 23 under the - what we have here is the regulatory regime, Mr. Minister, of the regulatory regime, where it states that: "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations (a) respecting the criteria to be employed by the commissioner in establishing the petroleum product base wholesale and retail prices under section 6; (b) respecting the procedure to be applied and the criteria to be considered by the commissioner for determining changes to the petroleum product base wholesale and retail prices under section 7; (c) respecting the conduct of an investigation or the holding of a hearing by the commissioner; (d) respecting the manner of informing wholesalers and retailers for the purpose of section 7." Subsection (e) with respects to costs; "(f) respecting the information required to be provided to the commissioner by a wholesaler or a retailer." What we see here, I would suggest Mr. Minister and, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps the most significant section of the whole bill, because really what the regulatory regime under section 23 of the bill is essentially setting out all of the criteria, all of the details, all of the information that will be required for the applicability of this particular statute. The regulatory regime, I would suggest, is information that ought to be brought forward to this House, and should this bill, in fact, receive final reading and receive passage through this Chamber, it would be important to see exactly what the specific regulations have to say, how thorough they are, how all-inclusive they are, and what impact they will have upon the consumers of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I began my few comments by speaking briefly about the fact that this legislation represents a total shift in government policy with respect to the regulation of gas prices. It is interesting to note, as well, that in the past, particularly when today's Premier, the former Mines and Energy Minister, responded to questions by members on this side as to what could be done to help the consumers of the Province, he opposed so strongly the concept and notion of regulation. In part, the basis of his opposition to the concept of further control or regulation was provided in the report of the Consumer Advocate, just over two years ago, I believe released in December of 1997 by Consumer Advocate at that time, Dennis Browne, when he summarized and made recommendations as to what he felt would be most appropriate as Consumer Advocate. Keep in mind, he was speaking as Consumer Advocate. He summarized and recommended what he felt would be most appropriate for the consumers of the Province in protecting their interests.

His very first recommendation states, and it is in bold letters: No Price Regulation. "If Government seeks to enhance wholesale and retail price competition in the Newfoundland and Labrador gasoline market, it should attempt to do so in the most cost effective manner possible. We believe the most cost effective public policies are those designed to utilize market forces instead of using Government's legislative powers to regulate prices. 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." Again, in bold print, the Consumer Advocate goes on to state, "We have found no evidence to support price regulation."

This is the government's own appointed Consumer Advocate who analyzed the industry thoroughly, worked on a report that in the final analysis was quite substantive, makes a number of recommendations, and the very first recommendation - just over two years ago, some twenty-six or twenty-seven months ago - given by the Province's own Consumer Advocate upon a complete study and review of this very question was to say, "We have found no evidence to support price regulation."

What is interesting is the Consumer Advocate's second recommendation, and it is with respect to a monitoring system, again much akin to what has been suggested by members of this side. The Consumer Advocate states on Page 3 of his recommendations, "With the production of crude oil from Hibernia, Newfoundland and Labrador joins a select group of provinces that sustain all segments of the oil industry. Government should view the retail of gasoline as part of the Province's increasingly strategic fully integrated oil industry. Accordingly, Government should maintain an independent and up to date source of reliable data concerning the gasoline retail industry in this Province, and those jurisdictions where oil produced from this Province is sold."

What we have here is the Consumer Advocate essentially advocating what members on this side have advocated in terms of what is in the best interests of consumers. It was a position that was held by members opposite until at least just prior to the leadership convention, I believe. It is consistent with what many of the top analysts and writers are saying, as was evidenced in the short report that was given in Fuel Facts of March 27 of this year, particularly the same recommendation being made by Bill Simpkins, the Vice-President of the Canadian Petroleum Institute.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) personal friend of mine.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Do you agree with him?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Do you agree with him?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I just said, I actually don't.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that what a top-notch authority in this country is saying is consistent with what government's own appointed Consumer Advocate has also said. Let's keep in mind the Consumer Advocate studied this issue and studied this question thoroughly.

What are some of the details in terms of those recommendations? I will just illustrate a few of them, if I may. The Consumer Advocate, in the December, 1997 report, as his second recommendation, states as follows: "Government should institute an efficient and adequate monitoring system which will produce a reliable data base of price information for government and consumers". This recommendation is being made, which follows the recommendation that price regulation is something which is not recommended.

The Consumer Advocate continues, "The Department of Mines and Energy should be designated as the lead Department of Government for all issues involving the oil industry...." That makes sense. "Government should commit sufficient resources to the Department of Mines and Energy to fulfil its role of gathering data concerning the industry".

"The Department of Mines and Energy should publish monthly, in newspapers having a general circulation in the Province, price data for the sale of gasoline in selected municipalities in the Province."

The Consumer Advocate continues, "The Department of Mines and Energy should publish once yearly, in newspapers having a general circulation in the Province, a report on the gasoline retail industry, including year by year information concerning the number of operating outlets, crude oil costs, wholesale prices at New York, Montreal and St. John's, and pump prices (weighted average) for selected municipalities in the Province."

Again, what this is doing, as the advocate is suggesting, is providing information to the public, monitoring what is being done at the pumps, providing to the consumers of the Province a rationale as to why prices are what they are and, perhaps equally important, reminding consumers on a repeated basis that a large significant of the amount of the price of a litre of gasoline is in the form of taxation. It is a reporting mechanism. It is an independent office that will be true and honest to the consumers of the Province. That is why such a recommendation was so highly recommended by the Consumer Advocate some two-and-a-half years ago.

Also, the Consumer Advocate continues, the notion of, "Disclosure and provision of the data required by the Department of Mines and Energy for fulfilment of its mandate should be required of industry participants under regulation."

Finally, "Under regulation Industry should provide to the monitor full and timely reasons following any price increase." Essentially what we have is, if we listen to what the Consumer Advocate is saying, if we listen to what some of the top analysts in the country are saying, and if we take into account what used to be the policy of government members only until a few months ago, we are saying that in using this recommendation we have regulation without regulation. We have a watchdog in place, a consumer watchdog, that can do essentially much of what is being recommended in this bill without actual interference, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker and to the minister who has just arrived - is regulation without regulation and, as the St. John's Board of Trade, I believe, has said, without interfering in the free market system.

One has to question, and we will see. This is an issue that will be fully debated, I am sure, for a number of days, as members opposite will debate perhaps the disadvantages and the advantages of such legislation, regulating the price of petroleum products in our Province. We will have to see exactly why the government has now chosen to go this route as opposed to what was being recommended in the Consumer Advocate's report of December, 1997.

I say to the minister that it is important to have a full understanding, a rationale as to why now this change, and why now is the shift so noticeable and so immediate upon the consumers of this Province when only a little while ago it was a no-no, it was not the route to go, it was not what was consistent that the Consumer Advocate had indicated, and it was not what was consistent with what many of the top writers and authorities in this country are now saying in terms of what is in the best interests of consumers of the land.

Mr. Speaker, there will obviously be a number of questions that will have to be asked, and in days to come we obviously will be looking forward to the minister's response, particularly as it relates to certain issues or certain references in the legislation itself.

I just mentioned a moment ago, we have the Consumer Advocate saying one thing, many authorities saying one thing, but it is also interesting to note that the present Premier, as recently as - if I can find the date, Mr. Speaker - January 6, 1999, just over a year ago, reacted to the call. Today's Premier, the then Minister of Mines and Energy, reacted to the call for gasoline price regulation. If I could quote from the news release of the Department of Mines and Energy, issued by the hon. Mr. Roger Grimes just over a year ago, when he was asked a question on the point directly, what would he do, or what were his views with respect to the regulations of gas prices: Mines and Energy Minister, Roger Grimes, has reacted to a new round of calls for gasoline price regulation. The issue of price regulation was reviewed in detail during the latter half of 1997 when, in response to consumer concerns, the government appointed Dennis Browne to investigate and report on gasoline prices in the Province. In particular, Mr. Browne was directed to determine whether regulation of gasoline prices would be in the public interest. The study was completed following extensive consultation with consumer groups, town councils, the oil industry, and various provincial and federal government departments.

Now the quote, the interesting 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, said Mr. Grimes. 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. While several provinces have investigated price regulation, P.E.I. remains the only Province where regulation is implemented.

That is the situation today. The only province, other than this Province, which is now considering gasoline price regulation, is the Province of Prince Edward Island.

One argument against price regulation is that prices would normally be higher in a regulated market. This is the Minister of Mines and Energy, just over a year ago, today sitting in the Premier's seat, saying in a press release in response to this very issue being raised by consumers of the Province: One argument against price regulation is that prices would normally be higher in a regulated market. Tracking of gasoline prices in this Province confirms that this would be the case here.

The minister went on to say: It is important to note that consumers associations of Canada are also on record as being opposed to price regulations. Meanwhile recent statistics clearly indicate that falling world crude oil prices are showing up at the pump. Then there is a list or an analysis in the same release to give an example of that earlier quote.

The question has to be asked: What has changed? It is a question that I feel the Minister of Mines and Energy is going to have to stand in his place in the next several days and account to the people of the Province a full understanding as to why there is a change in this very important policy. Why the shift? It is not as if the argument were equal on both sides and there was discussion on both sides of this argument, and it was a debate that was fully fleshed out so that all arguments could be presented and there was, perhaps, legitimate bonafide reasons as to why price regulation may be an option. From what the consumers of this Province appear to see, Mr. Speaker, and certainly from information that has been provided, even at government's request, I would add, when we consider the appointment of the Consumer Advocate to conduct a study precisely on this point, it seems that all of the information and all of the evidence up until a few months ago - and it is only the present Premier who appears to have deviated from all of the evidence and all of the recommendations - the question has to be asked: What has changed? Why is there such a shift in such a very important and vital policy that affects almost all consumers? Because in one way or another, everybody, every citizen of this Province is affected directly, certainly indirectly, and in almost all cases directly, with respect to the cost of gasoline, home heating fuel, or indeed any petroleum product.

It is interesting to note that the Consumer Advocate has come down on the issue. Writers and those in the industry who obviously have a knowledge in this area, have come down on this issue. The Minister of Mines and Energy, a year ago - who is the same man who is the Premier today - came down on the issue. We, as a party, formed a policy and a position. In fact, it was a position that we have maintained throughout. We came down on this issue, but there was a change. There was a shift and I, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, do not understand why. It is an interesting question, and we look forward to the minister affording the public of this Province - that in view of all of the evidence which appears to counter the concept of the regulation of gas prices, why it is now the position of this government, this Premier, the former Mines and Energy Minister, why it is now a collective position of members opposite to change the course and subject the people of this Province to the concept of gas price regulation?

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, in days to come members on this side will be looking forward to join in this debate. There are a few other references, I say to the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in days to come we will have an opportunity to question directly some of the provisions of the draft wording of the bill. I look forward to the minister providing some answers but perhaps even more important, and to the overall issue of regulation generally, we look forward to the rationale, the sudden change of heart, and an explanation to the public of this Province, why it is now in the best interest of the people of this Province to be subjected to gas price regulation.

I thank the minister for the opportunity, and we will again participate. I know other members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, will want an opportunity at this stage of the proceedings, then in second reading, to participate in this important debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible) interesting today that we are going to debate a bill that at the end of the day will determine gas and oil prices, home heating and gasoline prices in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, just as an aside to all of this, I believe we should be looking at more than the price of home heating oil and the price of gas in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We should be looking at what ways these oil companies have of making their money. I spent ten years in the business. I have done numerous interviews concerning gasoline prices in Newfoundland and Labrador and there is more to gasoline prices in Newfoundland and Labrador than the cost of a litre of gas, the cost of a litre of home heating fuel, and a cost of a litre of oil that you might need to put in your car engine. Let me tell you that most of these prices are dictated to by the oil companies within this Province. When you are sitting in your station at 4:00 in the afternoon and your phone rings: Bob, at 6:00 this afternoon the price of the gasoline has to go up by 2 cents or 3 cents a litre. No such answer as to why we have to put the price of gasoline up 2 cents or 3 cents a litre. That is done at the whim of the oil company.

You see other oil companies in the Province who advertise today: there will be nobody in this business who will beat us in the pricing of our gas. Again, Madam Speaker, to suggest that there is no collusion among oil companies - even though federally we have always had a report that said, there is no collusion among oil companies anywhere in Canada, I believe that is utter and complete nonsense. I believe there is collusion among the gas and oil companies in this Province. I believe, Madam Speaker, that they set out to make money which everybody, of course, who is in business - and I am not against these companies making money in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but they make money on more than their gas and oil. If this legislation does not give a commissioner the right to go into a business to examine the books, the costs, what they are charging for a litre of oil or a litre of home heating fuel, or a litre of oil, as I said before, that you may wish to put into your car, if we are not going to do that, Madam Speaker, then at the end of the day I believe we are going to come up with absolutely nothing. Because at the end of the day there will be no way to know how much an oil company in this Province actually spends in oil.

Madam Speaker, I will just quote you one incidence. I operated two such businesses in this Province, one in Long Pond and one in Kelligrews. I remember one year going back to look over, and I said to myself: My goodness, how much money am I paying to this oil company, year in, year out, week in, week out, for rent.

Just let me relate a little story to you. I believe these are all things that we should be looking at. We paid $1,000 a month - I don't mind giving you the figures - to rent the store. We paid $2,500 a month to rent the car wash, and on the gasoline figures we paid .0075, what in the industry is called pins, for every litre of gasoline that was sold. So, after spending $2,500 a month - $2,700, I am sorry. It was $1,700 a month, not $2,500, for the rental of the car wash, $1,000 a month rental for the convenience store, and .0075 pins for every litre of gasoline that we sold. That had to be paid to the oil company every month. The price of gasoline had to be paid every week. If you sold 1,000, 2,000, 20,000 or 30,000 litres, the .0075 pins had to be added on to the price that you, in other words, were paying to the oil company. You had absolutely no say in how much you could charge for gasoline. You had absolutely no say in how much you could charge for oil. Indeed, in one of our stations you had absolutely no say in what you paid for diesel fuel in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, Madam Speaker, if we are not going to allow this commissioner the right to examine the total value or the total books of oil companies in this Province, then, at the end of the day, where are we going to be?

I never realized that people in the oil industry in this Province had as much interest in me until after I did an interview with CBC radio to talk about gasoline and oil prices in this Province. I really lined up some of these companies, because I knew the difference. I always remember a time when an agent, not an agent, one of their people, came in to see me who was, what I would call, my sales rep, dropped into the store. He left and went home and later on that day he called me and said: Bob, boy, all the milk prices in Conception Bay South seem to be different. Everybody seems to sell two litres of 2 per cent milk at a different price. The comment made to me, Madam Speaker, was: Tomorrow morning, I will have to call my buddy - and he named an oil company - and see if we can't get together on the price of milk. Later on that night, I got a call: Bob, as of tomorrow morning at eight o'clock, all the 2 per cent milk in your district, or the Town of Conception Bay South, will be sold for $2.69 a two litre. It did not matter what you paid for it, did not matter what deal you had made with the company where you bought the milk on the back end, as of tomorrow morning all the milk in your area will be sold for $2.69.

Again, the oil companies are making a profit because with the company that I work for at the end of the day now, the company is told, you are told, as an agent, where to buy - or as a lessee, which I was - you are told where to buy your insurance, you are told where to buy all of your grocery products, and if you do not buy them, if you do not insure with ABC, or you do not buy your groceries from XYZ, they will cancel your lease on the businesses.

Over the past ten years, I do not know how many businesses in this Province, people who were working but who were all lessees, I do not know how much money was paid to these gas and oil companies, but at the end of the day if we are not going to give a commissioner the power and the strength to go in and see exactly where they make their monies.... I can tell you of one incident one year where I personally, in one business, paid an oil company $78,000 a year in rent - $78,000 a year - which is $78,000 a year that they made off me and the people who were involved in my business. If a pump breaks, you pay to fix it. If a hose breaks, you pay to fix it. At the end of the day, how much money in the name of goodness are these people raking in and making?

I do not believe for one minute that regulation of gasoline prices in this Province is going to be of that big a benefit to us. The biggest benefit to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador or to the men and women of this Province who travel and who drive will be if the taxes that we pay federally and provincially, that we pay when we buy a litre of gasoline, if those taxes are not reduced then for my money the regulation of gas and oil prices in this Province will go absolutely, positively nowhere. There will be nothing happen whatsoever. It will be of no benefit to the taxpayers of this Province because the biggest thing added on to the litre of gas in this Province, I believe it is somewhere over 51 cents of what is charged now for a litre of oil is taxation. A lot of these oil companies will jump and dance. If you want to send them a copy of what I say today, they will call you and say that is utter nonsense, we do not do this, we do not do that, we do not do something else.

At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, that is what they do. I can give you a list longer than your arm or mine of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who some of these major oil companies have put out of business; how they have gone into people who had their own spirit to operate their own business, their own spirit to go out and negotiate contracts with all - not with all companies, but who had the ability to go out with soft drink companies, or milk companies, or ice cream companies, and negotiate their own deals. All of a sudden, overnight, bang-o, those deals are all cancelled. Why? Does anybody think for one minute, when you are told to buy a bag of chips to sell in your store at the end of the day, do you mean to tell me that the oil company on the back end of this is not getting a profit? If you believe that, I have land on Kellys Island that I will sell you.

They are making money hand over fist, left, right, and centre, in every direction that you turn. They make it in rent, they make it in telling you where to go to buy your products, and at the end of the day legislation such as this, if we do not reduce the taxation both federally and provincially on a litre of gasoline, I do not know of any way that we can see the price drop. I am sure you can think back, and I can think back , and everybody in this House on both sides can think back - when was the last time that Irving Oil or Ultramar Canada or Petro Canada or some of these places went bankrupt? They never have; they never will. When there are stations in this Province, when again they get together - somebody wants that corner over there and the corner over there is owned by Irving Oil, and Ultramar wants the corner 500 feet up the road or three miles up the road, the phone calls are made: We will exchange our site on such and such a place but for that you must close up your store up here and give the land to us and we will give you the land down here.

If somebody thinks at the end of the day that does not happen, Madam Speaker, they are wrong, because it does happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I cannot remember exactly where, but I know of several sites in the Province of Newfoundland where I know and I heard in my dealings with the oil companies that such deals were made. They will deny that, of course; they will deny it forever and a day, but at the end of the day, Madam Speaker, what I am saying here is the truth, the absolute truth.

As I said, 1996 was the year I got elected to this hon. House of Assembly. In 1996, I had a representative from the company that I represent come into my office about three days after I was elected and say: Bobby, boy, can you be gone by the end of February? I said: I have certain responsibilities in business, my family has certain responsibilities in business, give me a chance to straighten some of this out. Two days later he came back: All right, boy, you have until the end of September.

I came in here shortly after the election, February 22, 1996.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I know a little bit about the oil business, Tom, yes.

I came in here and on September 30 or September 29, I closed. What I mean by closed, I went out of business and on the thirtieth day of that month, the company moved in their own people. They laid off - I had Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working for me, to whom I paid more than the minimum wage. I believe the minimum wage at the time was $5.25 or $5.75 an hour. I was paying these people $6.75 and some more of them $7.25 an hour. They were called in by the oil company and said: Listen here, if you want a job with us, we will pay you minimum wage and if you don't there is the door. Most of the people who worked for me took the door and went, which meant that again we forced Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to become unemployed. That is fact, Madam Speaker, because I know, I was in the industry, and I would like to think that I know a little bit about the industry that I was in.

I can often remember sitting in my office getting phone calls from the oil company on certain things that we would be selling in our store. We would get calls wanting to know what I paid for it. I never would tell them because I had some side deals made on my own with various companies whereby we got a rebate, but once the oil companies decided, bang-o, overnight, that they wanted all of that profit in their pocket, whatever deals myself or anybody else who worked for the company I did, they went out the door.

I know people who would earn $100,000 a year because they were good businessmen and business women, could earn as much as $100,000, almost overnight, bang-o, they were down to - we will give you a salary of $35,000 a year, take it or leave it. If you did not take it, you were out the door.

This is the way the oil companies are working in this Province. I don't think it is right and I am sure there will be people in the oil industry in this Province today who, if they hear what I have said in here, they will again be very upset with me and so be it. They can be as upset with me as they like, because what I am saying today is what I know and it is what I know first-hand.

To say that we are going to give somebody a right to regulate the price of gas and oil in Newfoundland and Labrador, I do not think it is going to benefit us, I do not think it is going to benefit the people of this Province. If we are not going to go in and examine the books of these companies to see how much they are making - I realize that they have to get money, their capital money back, but there comes a point in time when they make more than the capital money they have invested into some of these businesses.

When these companies can go out and rent a piece of land and pay people - I think one license I knew of was something over $250,000, just to rent the land so they could get the site to put up a gas station. After fifteen or twenty years that land reverts to the owner, whatever is on the land reverts to the owner, providing the oil company does not want to go and negotiate another deal. These are things that are happening in the oil industry in this Province. Unless we go in and examine that, and if we are going to set a limit on how much we are going to allow this crowd to make, don't any of us in this House of Assembly be fooled or even tricked into thinking the only way this crowd has of making money is because of what they charge for gasoline and oil, because that is not true. That is one of the biggest lies that these fellows could ever tell you. Yet, they are regulating the price of milk, they are regulating the price of a bag of chips, and whatever profits are into that, you are told that you must go to ABC limited, and that is where you must buy everything that comes into your store to sell. If they come in and find other items on your shelf that came from somewhere else, at the end of the day there will be a ruckus.

I will just tell you another story of a good friend of mine, who I did a lot of business with, a good local Newfoundland company, whom my two businesses did a tremendous amount of business with, year in and year out, was in Corner Brook one time putting off his show on behalf of their company. Up turns my representative from the gas and oil company, walks in and says to the owner of this company: You know, everybody is not playing the game with us. The guy said: What do you mean? He said: Everybody is not playing the game with us, because there are two people we have who have stations, who are still buying their products off you. They should not be buying their products off you; they should be buying them off somebody else.

The reason we were told that we should have been buying it off somebody else was because the oil company where we were dealing was making no money, but if we went to where they told us we had to go, they again made money.

If we do not see the books of these companies, of where they are making their money and exactly how much money they are making, to me, it is frightening. It is frightening how much money this crowd can make. It is frightening, at the end of the day, what they can do with their money.

I have been through that and I have been there, Madam Speaker. I know how quickly they can walk out your door and leave you high and dry. They will leave you with bank loans or lines of credit at your bank, where you needed those credits to pay off - you had to use them while you were in business. They will leave you with that. They will give you absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, you are dirt under the oil companies feet. If we do not really get in there and we do not really examine what transpires with a gas and oil company in this Province. Bring down the price of gasoline - what a joke. At the end of the day, we will never do it.

It is very interesting to look at - you know, we have Dennis Browne appointed as Consumer Advocate. I can remember several years ago when he went around this Province doing the thing, and I am sure he spoke to the caucus on the other side of the House, and he came in and he spoke to our caucus. Mr. Browne and I had a pretty good chat about the gas and oil business in the Province of Newfoundland. Madam Speaker, we sold a lot of gasoline in the business that I was in. I had a good chat with Dennis Browne and he said: You are the kind of fellow who I want to talk to. We will be back to you later.

Well, the next time Dennis Browne calls me and asks me for an opinion on gas and oil business in this Province, it will be the first time. So, how complete, I wonder, was his study? Maybe the question that I should be asking here today is: How much did this government pay Dennis Browne to be a Consumer Advocate. I am sure the answer to that question would be very amazing. How much did Dennis Browne charge us to be a Consumer Advocate for the people of this Province? How much did he charge us, Madam Speaker. I believe the amounts would be frightening.

Where are we going with this legislation? A year ago we had the now Premier of this Province saying: Couldn't work, wouldn't work, never worked. The only place in Canada we have this is in Prince Edward Island. Forget about it, it is useless. We are not going to have it. All of a sudden, he gets into a leadership convention and I believe that all we are doing is relaying false hopes to the people of this Province, because where are we going? How much are we going to reduce the price of a litre of gasoline, or the price of a one litre can of oil, which you have to put in your car from time to time?

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: Pardon?

MADAM SPEAKER: Your time is up.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words on Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products.

There is nobody here, I am sure, either on that side of the House or this side of the House, who is going to be against a piece of legislation if it reaches out and helps those in Newfoundland and Labrador who are experiencing hardship because of the price of gasoline and the price of heating fuel. Speaking of the two, I guess, heating fuel versus gasoline, I think the one that I would be most concerned about would be the cost of heating fuel. A few years ago, when the price of gasoline wasn't near what it is now, we had the cars at that time with the big motors, that were real gas guzzlers, and it was a big issue no matter who you talked to or where you went. It wasn't how fast you got there but how much it cost you. Every time somebody asked for a recommendation of what they should buy when they go to buy a car it was always about: What kind of gas mileage do I get. That is important today, because I know in the district that I live in, in order to make a trip in and to the capital city, whether it be to come as a visit to go shopping or whether it be to come as a necessity, to go and visit the hospital or a doctor for a medical appointment, just for transportation alone you are talking about at least $100. Not everybody today can reach into their pocket and find $100 anytime that they see fit they want to be able to make the trip from Bonavista, say, to St. John's.

The complaints that I hear, the people who I talk with, 85 per cent of them talk about the cost in the price of heating fuel. Eighty-five per cent of the people who talk to me about petroleum products, talk about the cost of heating their homes. Many homes in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are not insulated up to the R-20 standard or built out of 2 x 6 with six inches of Styrofoam in the walls and eight and twelve inches in the ceiling. A lot of our older homes, Madam Speaker, are not insulated.

I had a chat with the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods today about some concerns with forestry because a lot of people, in rural Newfoundland especially, depend on wood, depend on the extraction of firewood, whether they buy it or they go into the woods themselves to harvest it, to not only heat their homes but for cooking purposes as well. It is not uncommon for people to use wood to provide themselves with a source of heat and with a source of fuel for cooking. That is why I have some concerns when we think that maybe we might see a reduction or they may make it a little bit harder to get firewood, or the fear that the quota may be cut, such that there may be a lesser amount. The minister confirmed that is not the intention of the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. He is fully aware, himself, having traveled around the Province, how important a domestic cutting permit is.

Madam Speaker, the thing that most concerns me, I guess, is the people who live on a fixed income and with no disposable income to be able to react to the price of fuel, especially again heating fuel, when it takes a jump of 10 cents, 15 cents, 20 cents a litre. This past winter, I do not know how people, especially people on social services, people who are living on fixed income - and I think of seniors, some of them living below the poverty level. Some senior citizens in this Province today have to go and access food banks in order to support themselves, living on an income of less than $11,000 a year, Madam Speaker. I do not know how or what is happening in their homes, where they can reach into their pockets and come up with the extra amount of money in order to pay their fuel bill. I do not know how they do it. In fact, some of them, I am sure, are not doing it.

I raised this issue here before. It bothers me sometimes when you go out and you see people having to revert to other ways and other means to provide heat to their families. It is not uncommon today to go out and see a home with funnels coming out through the basement and going up along by the exterior of the house. Somebody with a wood stove in their basement has gone and paid their $20, I think it is, for a cutting permit and because of the price of fuel have rigged up - because a lot of it is rigged up - a source of heat in their basement in order to provide some source of comfort to their family, because they cannot go and turn up the thermostat. They do not have the resources, they do not have the financial income that would allow them to turn up their furnaces and be able to enjoy heat from that particular source.

If we are going to bring about price regulation, and if we are going to say that it is a wonderful thing, then we over here on this side, have to be shown where it is going to be of some benefit to the consumer out there. We over here on this side, Madam Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Call him and ask him for it, if you want to.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, we never did ask for it. No wonder the Member for the Bay of Islands is not sitting in the front benches, because I haven't heard him make a correct statement in this House since he has been here. The only thing I did hear him say - in fact, I am going to refer back to an article that was printed in the paper some time ago, if I can put my hand on it, what the Member of the Bay of Islands said and how he responded to the fact that he was not put in Cabinet, how he was going to be vocal, he was going to be boisterous, he was going to raise questions in the House, and I haven't heard a squeak from him since he was put there.

Hang on. I have that here somewhere. Madam Speaker, I thought for sure he would be on his feet speaking about this to represent his constituents, but he sees fit instead to just shout across the floor and talk about something that he knows absolutely nothing about.

MR. COLLINS: He learned that from you, Roger.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, he did not learn that from me, I say to the Member for Labrador. That is one thing he did not learn from me, because when I stand in this House I talk about what I hear from my constituents. Madam Speaker, when I speak in this House I raise issues that are of concern to people in my district.

I don't seem to be able to find it here now, but I have it here, I say to the member, I cut it out of the paper. He indicated that because he was not selected, he was now going to stand in his place in this House, raise questions to the government, hold the government accountable, and raise every issue as he saw being provided to him. He has not raised an issue since he has been here. I have not seen that member stand on his feet and raise an issue since he has been in the House, but that is beside the point. I say to the minister: I am glad you are back.

The issue that we are talking about, I say to the Member for the Bay of Islands, wasn't even supported by your Premier. This was an election ply that he tossed out there in order to have a leverage on the Member for Port de Grave, to give him some assurances that the people would come to him because he was going to bring about certain pieces of legislation that were positive in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me read to you what you present Premier said, then you can ask yourself whether he believes in this piece of legislation. The Premier said: Minister reacts to calls for gasoline price regulation. Government generally agreed with the Consumer Advocate's Report and accepted its two main recommendations, that there is no price regulation and that the government monitoring of gasoline prices be improved, said Mr. Grimes. A monitoring 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. While several provinces have investigated price regulation, Prince Edward Island remains the only province where regulation is implemented.

I say to people out there, here is what your Premier said: One argument against price regulation is that prices would normally be higher in a regulated market. This is what he said and I want you to listen to this. I have to read it again, because I couldn't believe what I was reading here: One argument against price regulation is that prices would normally be higher in a regulated market. Tracking of gasoline prices in this Province confirms that this would be the case here. So what the Premier is saying is that gasoline regulation does not always bring about lower prices. In fact, he goes on to say, that gasoline price regulation would not be the way that this Province should go because it would generally relate and transform into higher prices at the pumps right here in this Province.

Madam Speaker, I would think that this particular piece of legislation was not given a lot of thought. Maybe when the minister rises to close debate he can tell us what new information has been brought forward since the Premier made that particular statement. I am not convinced myself that if we bring about price regulation - and I heard the minister talk about regional prices, that is what concerns me - if we implement a price regulation regime, that we still might have higher prices in certain areas of the Province.

I called the oil companies many times, when I looked at the price of gasoline in Bonavista versus the price of gasoline halfway down the peninsula, sometimes as much as 6 and 7 cents a litre. I have always been told it is the cost of getting the gasoline there, it is the volume of gasoline that we sell. Madam Speaker, if we are going to use that concept, then I say to you: Would it be fair for the people in Bonavista to be paying a higher price per kilowatt hour to heat their homes than the people in St. John's? Would that be fair? It is not fair with Newfoundland Power. If it is not fair with other regimes or other businesses in this Province - and I am certain it cost more to do and service outlying areas - then how can we support oil companies for using that argument as well?

Today, in Bonavista -

MR. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is not really a point of order, maybe a point of personal privilege. I apologize to the hon. member for having to leave the House at this point. I have a medical appointment and you can see I am half dead. I know you do not wish me any harm and you would prefer my survival as opposed to my obituary, or I am assuming you would. So I am not leaving the House out of any intent other than to attend to a medical appointment.

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. members who are debating this bill that every word they are speaking is being listened to and recorded. All of the points that you asked for clarification on, as you debate the bill, are being identified. Hopefully, it will put me in a position of being able to answer any questions that might arise when we close debate on the bill, which I understand probably will not occur today. I would risk missing my medical appointment if I thought you were going to give me the bill today, but on the off chance that probably will not happen I think I will go and see if I can protect my health and sustain my longevity as best I can.

Thank you very much. I hope you understand.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to indicate to the minister that we would not want to see debate closed in his absence. I will do what I can to ensure that this will still be debated when the minister can get back here tomorrow, and any further questions. I am sure we will do that without great difficulty. We would not want him to miss anything at all. We would like him to be informed and be able to explain to us tomorrow and give us some thought on the basic contradiction of statements here.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, even with his medical problem, at least he stood here today and made a noble effort to explain the bill. I have seen other bills of much more importance, I say to the minister, as important as this bill is, where ministers have stood and did not use up one minute in explaining the bill - bills that have been introduced here that we brought closure in, I say to the minister. We have introduced closure on bills here in this House when the now Minister of Labour probably stood in her place - I remember one bill, was it the Kodak bill? Did you introduce the Kodak bill at one time? It was a bill that you had introduced.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it was passed in a flash.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it was not passed in a flash. It was debated here for hours and hours and there was less than two minutes used in introducing the bill. It is very important to have a clear understanding. Many times when the minister takes his time to introduce a bill, many of the issues to be raised and debated on are answered in that introduction of the bill. So I say to the minister, you made a noble effort in putting forward the bill.

Madam Speaker, some of the things that concern me - and it is related to this bill. I know the now Minister of Mines and Energy was the Minister of Finance when they introduced and tried to follow suite with the federal government when they heard from so many people and knew there was so much hurt bestowed on the common person out there, living below the poverty line, and wages, with no disposal income, with no extra income in order to respond to the extra cost of gasoline and heating fuel, where the minister made a feeble attempt to the people of this Province in order to respond to that need. The feeble attempt was introducing a $100 rebate to people of this Province if you met certain criteria.

First when it was introduced, it was only on furnace oil. You could not access it if you burned stove oil, I say to you, Madam Speaker. You could not access it if you burned electricity, I say to you, Madam Speaker. You could not access it if you burned propane, I say to you, Madam Speaker. Now, how much thought was put into that announcement by that Minister of Finance when he went out and said: We are going to response now to the hurt and hardship that we created by not taking the HST off fuel oil. We are going to response now to the need whereby we, as a government, decided that we are going to charge 15 per cent HST on fuel oil. We are going to respond to that, and we are going to give you and allow you a $100 rebate.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: My colleague made reference to closure of the Kodak bill. I think he would like to know that from the period 1949 to 1989, closure was used five times. From 1989 to 1996, it was used twenty-three times. Nineteen of these twenty-three were used under former Premier Wells, and four times under Premier Tobin. In July of 1996 on the Kodak bill; December 17 on HST -

MR. FITZGERALD: Who introduced the Kodak bill?

MR. SULLIVAN: The House was called back in July of 1996, I believe. It was called back under the guise of a bill on education reform with the Senate, but they introduced the Kodak bill. That was all they were interested in, calling it back under the guise of that. The Kodak bill was rammed through the House under closure motions on July 25, 1996.

AN HON. MEMBER: The reason the Peckford regime didn't bring in closure very often was because they were never open to bring in closure (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We can also provide statistics on the amount of time the House was open, I might add. In my memory, the lowest amount of time it was ever open - in the year 2000, the House was open for the lowest amount of time it was ever open - not even close - just over thirty-two times. Thirty-two days it was open in the year 2000. Under Premier Wells, the average days were as high as seventy and eighty. I think one year it was ninety-some days. If you want to look at it being opened, your record, since you came in this House, is worst than any previous one in the number of days the House is open.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, whether it is a point of order or not, I will get back again to the cost of heating fuel in this Province, because that is what concerns everybody. That is what concerns people today. While gasoline is important, sometimes we can do things to keep the cost of gasoline down, or as much as we consume. We can arrange car pools; we can look at doing things and only going to certain places when we have to. The price of gasoline, while we would like to see it lower, and it is by far too high today, I do know if we can include it or if it should be included in the same debate as the price of fuel oil, the price of heating oil.

I refer back to before the point of order was raised when the Minister of Finance, now the Minister of Mines and Energy, made the feeble attempt to respond to the problem in this Province by saying to the people out there that we, as a Province, now are going to be responsible and we are going to allow a $100 rebate; a $100 rebate if you meet certain criteria. I do not know what the criteria was, but I know there are not a lot of people who can reach out and access the $100 rebate; and even if they could, $100, what does it mean. It is a help. If he said, we are going to introduce a $100 a month rebate for the six months of the year that you use heating fuel, then it would probably be a little bit more meaningful; but a $100 rebate and it was only for furnace oil. So I made a few phone calls, in fact, to the minister's office and talked to some of the minister's staff there, because I had gotten calls about somebody using propane. They said: We use propane to heat our house, it is a source of fuel, and we feel that type of heating fuel should be included.

The minister relented a little bit and I think at the end he included stove oil and he included propane. Now, how about the person who heats their house with electricity? I am heating my house with electricity, I am on social services. I do not have an option of going back to the Department of Human Resources and Employment and saying: Now, Mr. Minister, because the price of fuel has gone so high that I cannot afford to go out and pay for electricity, and because the $100 rebate does not allow me to even use that to help cover the cost of electricity, now I want to go out and I want to put in another source of heat. I want to put a wood stove in my basement. They cannot do it. The Department of Human Resources and Employment -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Just by leave, to make this point, and then I will sit down.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the people on the lowest income in this Province today. Because that person is using electricity, they cannot go and apply - they can apply but they will not receive a $100 rebate. That is how well thought through this regulation or this policy of government was put forward. If you are going to be sincere in what you do, and if you are going to reach out and help those who are in need, then for God's sake - sure, there should be a limit. Sure, there should be a maximum amount of money that you can make before you can access government help - there is nothing wrong with that - but set it at a reasonable level and allow everybody, whether you have to go in the woods and get firewood, there is a cost of buying gasoline for your truck or for your ski-doo, or for you chainsaw. There is nobody I know today who heats their home for free. Nobody but nobody. There is a cost involved. While some sources may be a little bit cheaper than others, there is a cost involved. If government was sincere about this, and if they wanted to act responsibly, then they would respond to some of those points that I have made here today.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, we have great concerns over here. In fact, it was only a couple of days ago that I was called in by a distributor, by a local oil distributor, and he said to me: I understand that the government of the day is planning on introducing some regime to introduce control of the heating fuel and gasoline. He said: I have a real problem with that because I am scared that I am going to be caught in the middle. I am the distributor. I am the person who goes out and purchases oil from the oil company. I am the fellow who takes it out and puts it in the tank. I am the fellow who assumes responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of furnaces. I know what I need is a bottom line in order for me to continue to have a viable operation. I am not making any millions of dollars here.

I say to the minister, the Member from Terra Nova, the gentleman who delivers oil to many of your constituents said: I have a great problem with this. The problem and fear that I have, I fear that when we bring about legislation to control the price of fuel that I am going to be the one who is caught in the middle. I fear that the oil companies are still going to get what they say they need in order to maintain a viable operation. I fear that when the price is brought about that I am the one who is going to have to take the loss. That is not the way that it should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You fellows asked for a regulation, so what do you want?

MR. FITZGERALD: What we asked for was a monitor of gasoline prices, I say to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: We never did ask for a price regulation because price regulations have been shown in other parts of this country - and your own Premier has made the statement that it does not work. We have advocated a gas monitor.

MR. SULLIVAN: If you could (inaudible). Did you plan on doing that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. FITZGERALD: I might support you on that one. That is what you should do, I say to the minister opposite. If we are sincere about helping people, maybe it will.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe it will, but if nowhere else in this country shows that gas regulation is an advantage to consumers then I do not know what hope we have of achieving that right here. If somebody can show me another place or give us reasons and show us that this will be of some benefit to the people who live out in Spillars Cove, Bonavista, Terra Nova, and everywhere else, there is nobody but nobody who would be against it on this side of the House, and I am sure on that side as well.

So we have some concerns about it. We want to raise those concerns here in debate. I think and I would hope that people over there - I say to the Member for Terra Nova, who represents many people that I know, some people that I know in his district have great concerns about this as well. I say to the Member for Terra Nova, that if he has concerns about it - and there is nothing wrong with raising them in this forum and being on record - if the price of fuel goes up and if the price of fuel is not there next year to be within reach of the common person out there who lives on minimum income then we failed them. We failed them by bringing about a regime whereby we control the price of gasoline.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. member that he is not on leave and has had amble time now to conclude.

MR. FITZGERALD: That it has not worked anywhere else. I say to the minister -

You can take my leave for one second.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You can take my leave any time you want.

It is an area where we have some concern. I feel where government could make a difference, if they wanted to be serious about this, is to take away some of the taxes that are put on this particular product. I know the calls are going to come and say: Well, you want your roads paved and you want your hospital beds open, you want your long-term care beds open, then how can we take away all the taxes that you want taken away and still achieve that? I know it is a problem, I say to the people opposite. Maybe we ought to look at doing things a little bit different in other ways but I fear that the right direction is not to tax something that is just as important as clothing, just as important as food in this Province. Nobody in this Province today can live without having heat in their homes. Whether you perish from being cold or whether you starve from being hungry, what is the difference?

Madam Speaker, as I said today, I raise the issue again, when you see some of the ways that people in this Province today are heating their homes in response to the high cost of fuel, I fear that one of those days we are going to see a tragedy. We all use those twelve-hour wood burners today, Madam Speaker. You go out and you have to get good, dry wood in order to not have a real problem with creosote and everything else. You know what creosote is. I do not have to explain to anybody here what that is. You see some of the makeshift stoves, makeshift pieces of pipe going up along by the side of the house in order for people to heat their homes. I fear that we may have a calamity. It is all being brought about, not by you, but by the cost of fuel, and it lies within your authority to make it a little cheaper than what it already is.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that I had a visit from a social worker who lives and works out of the Bonavista office. Madam Speaker, it was only a few weeks ago - it might be a little bit longer than that, the beginning of the heating season - I had a visit from a social worker. I think she was a financial assistance officer working in the department of social services, the Department of Human Resources and Employment. The Member for Port au Port, the new minister, knows exactly what I am talking about, I can assure you. He knows exactly what I am talking about. She came and sat down, and said: I have to have somebody to listen to me. I want you to listen because this is what I am scared of: when I go out and make house visits what I am seeing today scares me. What she was seeing was exactly what I am saying to you today. That is what she was seeing. She was seeing those makeshift wood stoves. She was going in and seeing those pieces of stove pipes going up along by people's houses. She had a great concern that something might happen, because you know what you do when you go to bed. You know what you do if you have a wood stove. It is your only source of heat. You go in and pile it up. You pile it up, you turn it off, and you go to bed. That is what happens in order to maintain the heat in that particular house. You know what you do.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what you do when you go to bed, is it?

MR. FITZGERALD: It is no joke, I say to people here. It is very serious. When you see what is happening in rural areas today and you see that happening, I say it is very serious, Madam Speaker, and it is all about the cost of fuel.

I know many houses today, I say to members opposite, that do not have a car parked in front of them. I know many houses in this Province today who would take their car back to the dealership and say: Here, Mr. Dealer, here is my car; if it meant them having some money to be able to heat their homes. A car is not a luxury either, by the way. Most people today, maybe if they have a car, maybe they have a job. There are a lot of people today without a car and without a job but that does not help them heat their house and that does not help them pay the oil company when they come and stick the nozzle in their tank.

I burn oil. I have two sources of heat in my house. I burnt wood up until about eight months ago. I had a wood stove in the basement. I used to buy wood and I used it as an extra source of heat. My uncle would light the wood stove. When I went home on Friday he would have the wood stove fired up. It would be a different house altogether. There is nothing better, I say. I had a choice. I did not have to do it. I could have turned up the thermostat. I am not going to make people believe here that I could not, but there are a lot of people out there who cannot turn up the thermostat. They can turn it up for one month, but I tell you what, the next month they will not be able to turn it up. What does somebody on social services get today as a heating oil allowance?

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-six dollars a month. That is it!

MR. FITZGERALD: Twenty-six dollars a month. No, every two weeks.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sorry.

MR. FITZGERALD: Fifty-two dollars a month is what they get as a fuel rebate. That is what they get. They get that for a certain number of weeks or months a year. Madam Speaker, it is expensive. One way we can react to it is to lower taxes. The government's problem and the government's argument has always been that we are not going to lower taxes because our fear is that if we lower taxes then the oil companies are going to respond and maintain the price of fuel and the price of gasoline as it is today and there will be no reduction to the consumer. Maybe that is true - I don't know - we have not seen it unfold. If the government is willing to work in tandem with this piece of legislation, if the government is willing to step up and say that this is a bill now that will bring about some form of relief to people who use petroleum products, once we implement this piece of legislation, then we are going to seriously look at either allowing a rebate to happen or allow lower prices as it relates to heating fuel. If governments decide they are going to do that, and that they need this piece of legislation in order to stop the bad oil companies - the demons that we might refer to them as - coming out and reaching out and taking every dollar that we have in our pockets, then this can work. If that is what is needed, then this can work. If it is not used in tandem with the government of the day, reducing taxes and responding to the need out there, then once again we shortchange the people of this Province.

It is a big concern, and that is why we over here are taking it seriously. That is why we over here want to raise the points. That is why we over here want to be responsible and tell the government of the day what we have heard. That is why that social worker from Bonavista came to talk with me and to say that I have to talk with somebody in order to bring this concern to the government of the day with what I have seen out there.

I say to the minister, and I say to the Minister of Finance, that if we are going to allow the $100 rebate, then for God's sake let's be serious about it. Let's set a level whereby we say that a family of two or a family of four living on less than $25,000 -

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) propane heat.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is covered now, I say to the Member for Waterford Valley.

Twenty-five thousand dollars a year for a family of four and say: Look, here is a $100 rebate for you. If they are serious, they would do that, because there is a cost of heating your house whether it be with wood, whether it be with oil, or whether it be with propane. It is unheard of for the people in Bonavista today - a lot them heat their homes with stove oil - to be paying ten cents a litre more than the people on the Avalon Peninsula. Ten cents a litre, that is a lot of money.

It is unfair for the people of the Bonavista Peninsula, and I say the Bonavista Peninsula because that is the area I know best. I am sure there are other areas here as well. I am sure the member for Labrador can get up and talk about how she feels about the prices being charged in her area, whether she agrees that it needs to be charged or they need extra money because of where they live. It is unfair. If the people in St. John's are paying thirty-five cents or sixty cents for a litre of stove oil, then the people down in Bonavista should not be paying ten cents more. Maybe we can justify two cents, I don't know. Maybe we can justify a little difference, but I don't think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, what the minister said, if I heard him correctly, was that even with the price regime control, with the price regulation, there would still be zones. When he talked about zones, I am sure it is zones as far as pricing is concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) based on real costs, not on some arbitrary figure that someone pulled out of the air (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, that is the way it should be. That is the way it should work. What scares me is if we are going to go and say, because the volume of distributing fuel oil, the volume of the fuel oil that we sell on the Bonavista Peninsula, or the volume of gasoline that we sell on the Bonavista Peninsula, is X number of litres compared to what we sell to serve the same customers in St. John's or Corner Brook or Clarenville, or some other part of Bonavista Bay - it doesn't matter - we are going to allow and justify the oil companies charging an extra ten cents a litre, then that is wrong. That should not be expected.

I would hope and I would plead with the Minister of Finance to take another look at the people who are getting their $100 rebate back, and to make sure that other people are included. While it is not the answer, and while it is not what will provide people with an opportunity to heat their houses to the levels that they might want to, it is a help; and people feel a little bit peeved because they were not included.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for leave and I thank you for allowing me to make those points. Other people have many other points to make here as it relates to what they have heard. I would welcome somebody from the other side to refute some of the things that I have made, if I have not put forward my concerns as I see this piece of legislation being passed here, and what I see as the benefits or the doubts with it being implemented as a law with this House.

Thank you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to speak on Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products, and enter into the debate because it is very important that, I guess, all members participate in this particular debate because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered with regard to this particular debate.

What is a little bit worrisome is the bringing forth of this particular bill at this time really goes against what this government, I think somewhere around January of 1999, certainly reacted to a report by Mr. Browne, and the Mines and Energy Minister at the time was none other than our present Premier Grimes. In January of 1999, after much consultation - Mr. Browne did a lot of consultation throughout, it says with consumer groups, with town councils, the oil industry, various provincial and federal government departments - there was extensive consultation by Mr. Browne to determine whether regulation of gasoline prices would be in the public interest. The response of the then Minister of Mines and Energy, Minister Grimes, after this report was put into his hands, said that government generally agreed with the Consumer Advocate's report and accepted its two main recommendations. There were two recommendations. Number one, that there be no price regulations; and, two: that the government monitoring of gasoline prices be improved.

He goes on to say that 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 prices.

It goes on to say that one argument against price regulation is that prices would normally be higher in a regulated market. Tracking of gasoline prices in this Province confirms that this would be the case here. Mr. Grimes said it is important to note that the Consumers' Association of Canada is also on record as being opposed to price regulation.

Here you had a report - this was a couple of years ago, in 1999 -

MR. SULLIVAN: The provincial election, right on the eve of the election in 1999.

MR. HEDDERSON: It certainly was. I know it well because it was in January, 1999, that I put my name forward to come in as a candidate. I am very much aware of what was happening.

MR. SULLIVAN: You knew their policy at that time.

MR. HEDDERSON: I knew their policy at that time.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you confused now with (inaudible)?

MR. HEDDERSON: This is why I am on my feet today, I say to my colleague from Ferryland. I am on my feet today because, looking at a report coming in two years ago and now seeing another shift, definitely a shift, you have to wonder what conditions changed since 1999 to 2001. There had to be different conditions in order now to have a different approach or a different thought, or a different belief, that now before this House is a bill, Bill 4, An Act Respecting Petroleum Products, that now clearly will regulate the prices of petroleum products in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have to try and figure out, Madam Speaker, what conditions did change; because in the two years since this release was put out, there have been many cries from the consumers of this Province to somehow or another bring down the prices of gasoline and of home heating fuel - that being oil, propane, whatever - and these cries largely have gone, I guess, without good reaction from the minister responsible, and there have been in many cases now, I say to you, where consumers of this Province have suffered greatly because of the fluctuation of the prices of petroleum products in this Province.

Now, two years later, this report must be forgotten about because a new direction now has been taken by the government to bring in some sort of regulation. When you look at the reason why the prices need to be, I suppose, controlled, you have to look at the consumer.

Now if this bill - and again I haven't made up my mind yet, whether it is a good bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: No, I have to listen to the debate because it is very important that all the members in this House listen to the debate, that we certainly put forth what we believe in. Looking at this Bill 4, I am in doubt largely because of what I have already said with regard to this bill, that the Premier who is moving this bill right now was the same person who, as the Mines and Energy Minister, indicated that price regulation would not work in this Province. So, it is most important that we, as members in this House, certainly listen to the debate, participate in the debate, and then certainly make up our minds as to whether or not this bill adequately addresses the concerns that many of the, I guess, consumers, many of the groups in this Province have brought forth regarding petroleum products.

The thing about petroleum products is that we are tied into petroleum products in so many different ways that it just boggles the mind because everywhere that we turn, somehow or another we are dependent upon some form of petroleum product. If we are traveling around in the Province by automobile, we have to depend on propane or fuel to get from one place to another. Depending on where you live in the Province, sometimes this ability to move from one part to another is strictly dependent upon whether or not you have access to petroleum - and not only automobiles. I say to you that, you know, there is the dependence on petroleum for recreation; for, I guess, livelihood; for the different aspects of your life. As I have said, you are tied into petroleum. I venture to say that there is not really a person in Newfoundland and Labrador who is not affected in some way, be it great or small, with regard to the prices of petroleum.

Speaking as a rural member in this House, I have, this past winter, more so than a winter or so ago, experienced a lot of concerns. I received a good many inquiries into the cost of gasoline prices, the cost of home heating fuel. People are phoning and asking, and they are demanding to some degree, that something be done to give some stability to the marketplace with regard to the pricing of petroleum products. Hopefully, this particular bill will address those concerns of just about every person in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is most important, Madam Speaker, how ever that we scrutinize this bill, scrutinize every part of this bill, to make sure that it is intended as protection for consumers. That should be the prime concern, that our consumers - and this has been the loudest group. This has been the group most affected by fluctuating prices. It is the consumer that has to be protected in this particular circumstance.

When we look at petroleum products and protecting the consumer, to some degree, I would have to tell you that it is the heating fuel that is the most important petroleum product that we have to look at, because it is that product - when you talk about home heating oil or propane, you talk about people being tied into that as the only source of heating in their homes. If for some reason they cannot afford - because of fluctuating prices, maybe they are on fixed incomes - to put oil in their tank, propane in their tank, if they cannot afford this, they have very little control over it. If they were burning wood, in that particular instance, you can certainly go in the woods and cut your wood in anticipation of the winter or even during the winter. Although, I must say, in this particular winter it has been such a harsh winter that those people who depended on going in mid season to retrieve some wood in the various areas found that it was nigh impossible to retrieve any firewood during this particular heating season. They found themselves in an awkward position of not being able to get the firewood, not being able to afford to put oil in their tanks and therefore, finding themselves at the mercy of the cost of oil.

With regard to heating, it is most important that if we are regulating the prices of fuel oil, heating oil, or propane that we are doing it to make sure that the prices remain stable over a period of time. That the consumer is protected so that during mid-winter or mid heating season that you are not hit with a big increase, especially those on fixed income. No provision has been made for them. If we are looking at protection, they need to be protected for a period of time. Again, if this bill does it, so be it. Again, with regard to who the bill is trying to protect - I might say to you as well, that in some of the small businesses that we have - now these are small businesses sometimes in our rural districts that are providing the sale of heating fuel or maybe it is a service station supplying gas to a community - in talking to these small business people who set up a business - whether it is the purchase of a tanker truck to bring the heating fuel around or setting up a gas bar next to a convenience store or something of that nature - they often tell me what they make in profits from the sale of, for example, gasoline is not worth talking about. For the most part, if they depended upon the sale of gas their business would fail. The margin of profit in this business, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, is very, very narrow.

I would hate to think that this bill, that we are looking at, if it were to be passed - what affect would it have on the small businesses who are suppliers of gas, heating fuel, or propane in our particular areas? Would it eliminate a lot of these small businesses, especially in the more isolated areas? Would it force them out of business? That is important for us to look at. I know in a place like Corner Brook, St. John's, or Gander, you have a lot of customers going back and forth in front of your business, but if you are in a small community and you have a regulation of the price of petroleum products, and it is regulated to such a point that the profit margin is not enough to sustain a business, then we may get into some degree of difficulty in providing the service, especially in small communities. The rural businesses that are involved in supplying petroleum products to the consumers of these communities, we have to be very careful, I say to you, to make sure that we do not force them out of business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I am not sure, as yet, because it is pretty extensive.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: No, what I am saying to the minister is that it is a pretty substantial bill, as you can appreciate. The language, as we go back and forth, setting up a commissioner, setting maximum and minimum, and these sorts of things. It is not the sort of thing that you want to just jump right into.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Don't call God into it now. You should not be calling God into it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Like I said, when we are talking about gas and things, I would suggest that sometimes even political parties run out of gas. You have to be certainly very careful that you have enough gas left in you and that you are not too exhausted to go further.

To get back to the bill; again, it is a bill that has to be taken very seriously. I certainly take it very seriously and would scrutinize this particular bill. The one thing I would say is that the intent of this bill is to make sure that the citizens of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador can afford to heat their homes properly, be able to avail of transportation in and around this Province, and outside the Province if they are leaving, to make sure that the prices are certainly on the petroleum products which would allow them the freedom of having a warm home, transportation to wherever they want to go; and this is most important.

To look at the regulation of gas prices is certainly most important in light of the extremely difficult winter that we are currently experiencing. I will not say that we experienced, because we are still into April. It is most important that we realize that any time we could have a major storm. Now the regulation - and of course in weighing up the merits of this particular bill you have to look elsewhere as an example of whether or not regulation would be the order of the day. In looking at regulation, I have to say to you, that the only province we see regulating their gases is Prince Edward Island, which happens to be the smallest province in Canada. Now I do not know how well they are doing with it, but it is only one province. I would suggest to you, that if this was a very positive thing - are you ready to get up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just in cluing up, again I will continue to study this bill. I will continue to listen to the debate. I will once again stand, because it is not easy just to get up for twenty minutes, I suppose, and go through the merits or demerits of any particular bill. I will leave it at that point and pass along the opportunity for others in this House to stand and talk about Bill 4.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: You can talk all you like.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you very much, I say to the hon. minister. Someone wind me up so I can go for an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just crank him up enough for thirty or forty minutes.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on An Act Respecting Petroleum Products, Bill 4. The word respecting is a very important word. We not only respect legislation pertaining to the act, but we must respect the effects of any legislation with regard to the people of our Province.

The price of gasoline and heating fuels is very important to all of our people in this Province. It has such a detrimental affect on how this Province operates, how we survive, how we provide for our families and our communities. It is so important, that without proper legislation to control prices with heating fuels and gasoline, it will certainly make a lot of hardship for our people in the rural areas of the Province, because in rural Newfoundland today people really depend on the pricing of every commodity that they use in their daily lives, gasoline prices especially. Without a decent price on our gasoline products people in our communities cannot take advantage of our resources, take advantage of our services, if they cannot afford to put gasoline in their vehicles, particularly when it comes to people who live far away from our services who need doctor's appointments, and see specialists, who travel to St. John's for surgery and stuff like that. When we have high gasoline prices then these people have to take a second look sometimes at if they are going to get certain things done. I talked to several people who had appointments scheduled to see specialists here in St. John's and some farther away than Grand Falls-Windsor, who had to come into Grand Fall-Windsor, but had to cancel them because they could not afford to put gasoline in their vehicles.

If there is going to be a big price change in gasoline where people cannot afford to put gasoline in their vehicles, then we must have legislation, we must have regulations there to assure people that they have a chance in planning not only their future but in planning anything they want to do to make their lives better in their communities. If prices go up and down and up and down, as a company feels like doing, then it is going to come to a time when they are up that people would have to say: I cannot go. I cannot do this. I cannot go and get my wood because I do not have the money this week. I cannot go to a doctor's appointment because I do not have the money this week to pay an extra $2, $3, or $4 on a tank of gas. Even though it does not seem like a lot of money, there are a lot of people in this Province today to whom $10 makes a big difference in their weekly budget. They probably cannot find the extra $10 to put gas in their vehicles.

That is only one thing when it comes to petroleum products. Gasoline is very, very important to those surviving in rural Newfoundland, and it seems so unfair that people would have to struggle to come up with an extra $10. I have seen it firsthand, where people have called me and said: Can you find an extra $20 for me to make an appointment in St. John's or in Grand Falls-Windsor to the hospital, or to a specialist? And when we call the different departments looking for help, there is absolutely no help there for them. So, an extra $10 on a tank of gas would make a big difference to these people, and I think it is very unfair.

If we are going to respect any legislation that comes in place here, we have to keep in mind the respect that we have to have for the users of petroleum products, that would give people a chance to plan not only a trip to the services that they need but other people, too, in the Province who need to plan their daily lives, to plan their holidays, to plan their hunting trips, to make sure that they are getting treated fairly when it comes to petroleum product prices, particularly gasoline. People do spend a lot of money on gasoline on their vacations. They spent a lot of money on gasoline in the fall of the year, after hunting trips. They put a lot of money into that. I think it is important that we have legislation where it would control the prices of the gasoline so that people can plan their lives, plan their trips, and have a fair price, the lowest price possible, and a very competitive price comparing with other Provinces. That would put us on certainly an even footing for us planning other things in our economy, particularly when it comes to our industries in our Province, our farmers, our loggers and our fishermen. They all depend on gasoline and fuel prices to make their businesses work.

When a farmer depends on a certain margin of mark-up, a certain margin of profit, then an increase in gas prices that is not budgeted into his budget certainly could be detrimental to him at the end of the year when he looks at his facts and figures and does his books and figures out that he paid an extra $2,000 or $3,000 this year for gasoline and fuels. That could mean the difference in that farmer surviving, giving it up and just throwing in the towel and saying: Well, I just cannot survive. I cannot plan. I cannot budget for my business because it is too unpredictable with respect to the prices and it is too unpredictable with the services supplied by other businesses to him who still have to deal with the cost of gas increases.

No one is going to complain about a decrease in prices in gas and heating fuel, other fuels and petroleum products. We are certainly not going to complain, because any decreases will save us money and help us be more competitive, help us be more viable, and help us put more things into our homes to supply and to make lives better for our people and our families. I cannot see anybody complaining about lower prices, but when it comes to increases in prices, it certainly makes a big difference, a very, very big difference.

I can only congratulate any group who says we need some control over pricing, and I can congratulate any government that says we have to have it so that pricing increases do not appear on a whim, or appear because of some big company taking advantage of a certain time of the year, certain seasons when there is going to be a lot more product put on the market and they can see bigger profits. So, we need some control. We certainly do need a legislative policy and law to protect all of our residents of this Province and give us a better chance and a better opportunity to survive in a Province to provide better things for our family. It is certainly a big issue with the loggers who depend on gas prices and fuel prices. They have to go in the country, they have to get there by vehicle, and the cost of gas is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have another opportunity again tomorrow to speak and to bring some more views on Bill 4. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity this afternoon, and I would like to adjourn the debate for today.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.