June 7, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 42

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before we begin our regular proceedings today, the hon. the Premier has asked

that he make a statement to the House. I believe there has been consent granted

by all parties for him to do that at this particular time.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to all hon.

members opposite for granting me leave to make this statement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Newfoundlander and

Labradorian, Dr. Harry Roberts, father of Lieutenant-Governor, His Honour,

Edward Roberts.

He was a devoted father and husband who actively served his community

throughout his life. Dr. Roberts was a very generous, compassionate and

empathetic man. Providing the best care for his patients and ensuring their

comfort was of utmost importance to him. He was motivated by a desire to treat

and care for all people, regardless of their ability to pay in times before

Medicare existed. He will be fondly remembered for his unwaivering commitment to

his patients.

Mr. Speaker, throughout his medical career, Dr. Roberts held many prestigious

positions, including President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association, and he was the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian to serve as

President of the Canadian Medical Association. A firm believer in the importance

of education, Dr. Roberts worked diligently on behalf of Memorial University to

bring the Faculty of Medicine to that University. He also served on the school

boards of the United Church and Prince of Wales College.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Roberts' career was not limited to the medical field. He

also explored many business opportunities and established a number of

enterprises, some of which are still in operation today.

In 1994, Dr. Roberts was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Business

Hall of Fame. I actually had the distinct pleasure of serving with him as a

shareholder and a fellow director of Avalon Cable in the late 1970s, and I

learned a great deal from his business acumen and his experience.

In an evolving Newfoundland and Labrador, Dr. Roberts recognized the need for

opportunities for youth in our Province, regardless of their socio-economic

status. He was instrumental in bringing Sea Cadets to the Province, and once

again he proudly represented Newfoundland and Labrador as President of the Navy

League of Canada, another first for a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Dr.

Roberts' involvement in his community also extended to the Gower Street United

Church where he was a lifelong member.

Mr. Speaker, as Premier of this Province, I am appreciative that a person as

well-rounded, devoted and genuine as Dr. Roberts has represented Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians at home and abroad. His commitment to serving others in an

effort to improving lives is inspiring. There is no doubt that he is loved and

he will be missed tremendously.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Harry, as he was affectionately known, was frank, and he was

blunt, and he was brutally honest, and I can say with absolute certainly that

Dr. Roberts' community and his Province were very positively impacted by his

presence and his considerable contributions.

I ask this hon. House to join with me in expressing sympathy to the Roberts

family and also to pay tribute to a great man and indeed a great family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure for me, on behalf of the Official Opposition, to join

with the Premier in the most appropriate comments that he just made with respect

to Dr. Harry Roberts.

I can tell you, having known Dr. Roberts from some years ago, personally, and

the family, there is no question that his personal success, both in the medical

field and in business in particular, and the other contributions to the

communities, will be known for a long, long time, and recognized into the

future, and that there are contributions that continue to be made by the whole

family - it seems to have rubbed off - in Newfoundland and Labrador today that

will continue for some time into the future.

It is true, I think, that a person of this stature comes along very rarely,

and that the contributions are immense, and that the person will be missed, very

much so, not only by the family but by the community generally and by all the

people of the Province who came to know him over the years.

We do join with the Premier in recognition and in sending condolences to the

family at this time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition

in commending the contribution of Dr. Harry Roberts to this Province, to the

medical profession, to the business community, to the young people through

activities of the Sea Cadets and the Gower Youth Band. He also, of course, is

recognized by the Business Hall of Fame, and I understand the only doctor to be

so recognized, so it is quite a considerably broad-based contribution that Dr.

Roberts has made to the Province. He deserves the commendation of members of

this House, and I would like to join in offering condolences to the family: to

his sons Peter and Douglas, and, of course, our former colleague and current

Lieutenant-Governor, the hon. Edward Roberts.

I would hope that Your Honour would send a message of condolence to the

family on behalf of all Members of the hon. House of Assembly on this occasion

to first of all commend the contribution of Dr. Roberts and, secondly, to offer

our condolences to the family of the late Dr. Harry Roberts.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by members.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Under statements by members, the Chair has notice of two

statements: the hon. the Member for Port de Grave and the hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

This past weekend, I attended the Newfoundland Historical Society Symposium,

titled, "Down on the Labrador."

The Symposium was sponsored by the Bay Roberts Heritage Society and held in

that community. The two-day event saw such presenters as Anita Best, Bert Riggs,

Shannon Ryan, Sean Cadigan and Maudie Whelan.

A panel discussion involving locals like Mrs. Greta Hussey of Port de Grave,

Mr. Agustus Menchions of Bay Roberts, and Mr. David Hiscock of Brigus, explained

the yearly voyage by hundreds of people who left Conception Bay each spring to

fish on the Coast of Labrador.

This Symposium provided the opportunity to examine the experience of those

who sailed "Down to the Labrador" and how the profits from the fishery

allowed communities in Conception Bay to grow larger and be more prosperous.

Hats off the Newfoundland Historical Society and the Bay Roberts Heritage

Society for this symposium, and also to the Baccalieu Trail Heritage Corporation

on winning an award for their tremendous work on the Baccalieu Trail.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Maurice

Lewis, a resident of Bonavista South, who was recently selected as the

provincial Principal of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lewis is the Principal at St. Mark's All Grade School in

King's Cove, and this award recognizes him as the best in the Province. Mr.

Lewis was nominated for this award by the staff at St. Mark's who wanted to

acknowledge his dedication to the school and to the community. Mr. Lewis has

introduced many initiatives at St. Mark's, including bi-weekly meetings to

examine curriculum, a recycling program, and a scholarship program for students.

In the community, Mr. Lewis is an active member of the local fire department,

the parish finance committee, the Knights of Columbus Council, and he is

vice-chair of the Cross Memorial Health Care Foundation Board.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lewis credits the staff, students and parents of St. Mark's

School for his success, but I am sure all will agree that Mr. Lewis, himself,

has a lot to do with this award.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Maurice Lewis

on this very prestigious award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Members?

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to stand today and inform members of this

honourable House of a significant event that occurred this weekend. On Saturday

morning, an injustice which has plagued this Province for decades was rectified

when the Prime Minister accepted our proposal to receive 100 per cent of our

provincial oil and gas revenues under the Atlantic Accord.

Mr. Speaker, I have been working extremely hard since entering office to

represent the issues of Newfoundland and Labrador to the federal government and

I have done so with a co-operative and collaborative approach.

Federal-provincial relations had certainly hit an all-time low in the past

several years to the detriment of our Province. I committed to the people of

this Province that I would renew and rebuild this relationship, so that we could

finally see our issues addressed in a positive and productive manner. Saturday's

commitment by the Prime Minister was evidence that our new approach is indeed

working. The result has been action on 5 Wing Goose Bay, foreign overfishing and

now offshore revenues.

In my first meeting with the Prime Minister late last year, I made it clear

that getting more revenues from our offshore resources was a priority for me and

for my government. Since then, I have discussed this issue with him and his

federal Cabinet Ministers and presented a proposal which will see us receive 100

per cent of our offshore oil and gas revenues. This will result in approximately

$700 million additional dollars in provincial coffers over the next four years.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I went around the country and garnered the support

of eleven of twelve premiers, and we have received commitments on this issue

from Mr. Stephen Harper and Mr. Jack Layton.

The result is that Newfoundland and Labrador has never been more ideally

positioned heading into a federal election. Regardless of which party is elected

on June 28, Newfoundland and Labrador will finally start to reap some real

benefits from our offshore resources. I am, quite frankly, delighted that this

issue has made it to the national stage and is finally getting the recognition

and the support it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, as a Premier of the Province, I am satisfied with the

commitments of all three leaders and their individual assurances to me that we

will start to receive 100 per cent of our provincial offshore revenues. I would

now encourage Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take a serious look at the

platforms, the policies and the commitments of all parties and choose for

themselves who they will vote for in the upcoming election.

Mr. Speaker, I have been saying for quite some time that we have a serious

fiscal situation facing this Province. Though we are clearly delighted that we

will finally start getting some substantial revenues from our offshore

resources, we must also be realistic and recognize that this will not be the

answer to all of our fiscal problems. The Prime Minister personally recognized

this when I spoke to him over the weekend. However, this is a significant step

on our road to fiscal health.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work to restore our fiscal integrity, while

also focusing on growing our economy, creating jobs, revitalizing our rural

communities and finally realizing our true Province's potential. We will also

continue to foster this new and very positive relationship with the federal

government, no matter what party is in power, in our efforts to deliver the best

possible results for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from joining in the standing ovation just yet,

but to say that we, on this side of the House, have always supported exactly

what has been stated in a hasty telephone conversation early in the morning on

the weekend. We supported it when we were in the government and we support it

now in Opposition, and our greatest hope is that it is real. We will ask him

questions about that in the coming days because I think Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians need to know a little bit more about the actual commitment and what

we are dealing with than we do as of today. We have certainly lobbied hard for

these kinds of changes for several years and I am glad to see the Premier and

the government making some progress, albeit in the very dicey atmosphere of a

highly charged political campaign.

Not to be negative, Mr. Speaker, but just as a caution to all of us so we don't

get too carried away, prior to the last federal election there were some

commitments in writing from a Prime Minister of the country to change the

equalization program - in writing, I say to the members opposite. Maybe they

have forgotten, but they were given by a Prime Minister, on the eve of an

election, in writing. The current Prime Minister, who has given this verbal

commitment, was the one who came down a couple of months later and said, we

cannot do it, and has not agreed to do it since and has now deferred

equalization for another five years, which is also an issue very important to

Newfoundland and Labrador. So, I don't tend to get too excited too quickly.

I think it is a very good statement, I think it is a very good sign, and we

will, on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, ask some very serious and

much needed questions in the next few days about exactly what the commitment is

and exactly what it is we can expect for the betterment of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians over the next several years.

Mr. Speaker, if it is the kind of overstatements that the Premier makes about

what happened in Goose Bay, which is nothing - the government was going to pull

out early and they decided not to pull out early, no commitment beyond 2006,

talking about an industrial complex instead of military training. The

overfishing results: What are the overfishing results that he is bragging about

in this particular statement?

Not to be negative, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time as expired.

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

sure it is a real commitment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to what some people have said in the past, and what certain Cabinet

Ministers have said this time, election time is, in fact, a good time to get

commitments, particularly on issues as important as our offshore oil and gas

revenues. I look forward to the Premier being able to table, in this House, a

written commitment from the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Liberal Party, as

to what exactly he is prepared to commit to.

I am proud to say that our Party, and our Leader, Jack Layton, has committed,

in writing, not only to 100 per cent of our resources coming to Newfoundland and

Labrador on our offshore revenues, but also to a ten-province standard on

equalization, and also to the transfer of the 8.5 per cent Hibernia equity share

nominal fee, the only party to have done so.

We have worked together with our national party to ensure that the best

possible deal for Newfoundland and Labrador can be obtained with the election of

our members to the House of Commons. I commend other members of the different

parties to do the same thing and to get even better commitments -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time has expired.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past weekend the Prime Minister apparently committed to giving the

Province more of our offshore resource revenues, and this commitment was given

to the Premier during a telephone conversation. The Prime Minister is quoted in

the media as saying: I believe the proposal that the Premier has put forth

certainly provides the basis of an agreement between the two of us.

I ask the Premier: Would he commit to table the proposal he put forth to the

Prime Minister so all the people of the Province can see the details of exactly

what was proposed and then we all can determine whether or not the Prime

Minister lives up to his commitment after the election? Would he commit to table

the proposal that he put forth that was agreed to in a telephone conversation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have stated publicly exactly what that proposal was, what the offer was

and what the details were. We submitted that proposal to the federal Minister of

Natural Resources. I believe it was on February 27, but I would have to check

the exact date. We have been very public about it, very open about it, and very

transparent about it. Of course, we would have absolutely no objection

whatsoever to providing the details of the proposal. Quite simply, the proposal

is that there would be a new offset mechanism that would, in fact, guarantee 100

per cent of the net provincial revenues to the Province as opposed to a

declining balance which would have basically whittled away to virtually nothing

over a period of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

We have heard that description of it before and look forward to seeing the

details so we can examine it further, now that it looks like we may have some

very good news in terms of it actually occurring.

Mr. Speaker, there is, though, still a significant amount of uncertainty in

the Province relating to the exact commitment given by the Prime Minister. Will

the Premier put the weekend proposal that he discussed with the Prime Minister

in writing and ask the Prime Minister to sign it, to give a written commitment,

so that, in fact, there is no confusion as to what the Prime Minister's

commitment is with respect to this critically important issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Prime Minister is

presently overseas. I think he is still, actually, overseas. I was over for the

D-Day ceremonies. I do not know when he is actually returning. The proposal is

actually in writing to the Minister of Natural Resources. So the federal

government has it. I, and the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury,

as well, provided a copy to Minister Ralph Goodale, the Minister of Finance for

the federal government. The Prime Minister's office also has a copy of it. So

they are in receipt of full copies of the proposal. All the relevant people in

authority who are party to this decision have copies of the proposal. I will,

sort of, allow the Prime Minister the courtesy, when he gets back, to following

up to see whether he intends to present it to us in writing, but we will

certainly do a follow-up to the Prime Minister's office to cement the

commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that a follow-up will be there because as I

have mentioned earlier, we have had written commitments from Prime Ministers on

the eves of elections in the past that were then changed, even though they were

in writing. So I can only encourage you to try to take the next step before June

28 and make sure there is a written commitment with respect to this.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Layton, has

committed to giving the Province the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia. The

Conservative Leader, Mr. Harper, has stated in writing that he will not transfer

these shares to the Province.

I ask the Premier: Did you ask the Prime Minister to commit to the transfer

of the Hibernia shares this past weekend, and is that part of the overall

commitment to the offshore?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, of course, and the copies have been made

available to all members of the House, that the Leader of the New Democratic

Party, Mr. Layton, has committed to a transfer of the 8.5 per cent interest. At

this point in time, the other two leaders of both other parties, despite our

requests, have not committed to transfer the 8.5 per cent Hibernia interest at

this point in time. It is a matter of ongoing negotiation. It is a matter that

we will continue to pursue. It is a matter that is personally important to

myself and to all the members of our government, and we will continue to keep

that on the front burner, so to speak. However, this weekend there was no

commitment from the Prime Minister with regard to a transfer of the 8.5 per cent

Hibernia interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been reference in the past and acknowledgment that the Premier has

sent a letter to the Prime Minister last week asking for a commitment on

fourteen issues of importance to Newfoundland and Labrador, and the leaders of

the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party have responded in writing

with their positions.

I ask the Premier: The 8.5 per cent was not part of the discussion on the

weekend. Were any of the other fourteen items, such as defence spending in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay at 5 Wing, offshore jurisdiction issues for the fishery,

assistance with the hydro development in Labrador, were any of those discussed

at all on the weekend or was it just an issue solely with the 100 per cent of

the offshore revenues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the context of this discussion. It was at

7:22 a..m. on Saturday morning when the Prime Minister phoned me. I realized

that he was in town, of course, for other business because he had other

functions in the Province on that particular morning. When he called me he

called to discuss the Atlantic Accord and that is exactly what we discussed. As

a result of the agreement that was reached between us in the early hours of the

morning, or, I suppose, the mid hours of the morning, on Saturday morning, it

was a $700 million commitment for the next four years with ongoing additional

monies available as this goes on into the future and as new fields come on.

This was a huge concession and a huge commitment from the Prime Minister of

Canada. It would have been totally inappropriate, totally improper, foolhardy

for me to start to try and deal with other issues when I had him coming to the

table on a minimum $700 million commitment for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. These other issues I have put in writing to him, and in all fairness

to him, that was very recently. So he will have an opportunity to respond. These

are issues that I put to him back in December of last year when I had a meeting

with him in his office, and he has now indicated that he is prepared to act on

at least three of those issues. He has also indicated that he has an expressed

interest in the development of the Lower Churchill, which was item number 4.

Item number 5 is the Hibernia interest, which is still outstanding.

I can only suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that it would have been

very, very inappropriate for me to take the Prime Minister, on a Saturday

morning, very early, when he was coming to the table on the Atlantic Accord,

down a road of other issues for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

will have an opportunity. I will continue to speak with him. He has been good

enough to have a conversation with me four times over the last three weeks. I

felt it was appropriate, at that particular point in time, to try and close this

deal, and I did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to hear the Premier say, in a roundabout fashion, that this does

not mean that this is the only item he is interested in, that the rest are now

insignificant or not important because they were and are part of the plan for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Natural Resources is on record publicly

as saying he is willing to discuss the details of the Atlantic Accord amendment

with the Premier any time, including during the election. He will interrupt his

campaigning, he said, because he will get elected even if he is running for the

Green Party. He will interrupt his campaigning. He does not need to campaign. He

would do this deal with the Premier right away.

I ask the Premier: When do you plan to sit down with Minister Efford to

hammer out the deal that the Prime Minister says he committed to on the weekend,

and would you consider starting that process with the federal Minister of

Natural Resources right away, as the minister indicates he is willing to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to sit down at any time with Minister Efford

to discuss any of the details of finalizing this proposal. The Prime Minister

has already stated that he accepts our proposal, as presented, in full. That was

his clear and unequivocal statement not only to me on Saturday, but also to the

public and to the media on Saturday. I have heard since that Minister Efford

has, in fact, indicated that he would be prepared to sit down. I have a call in

to Minister Efford, waiting for a response to that.

The other thing, of course, we need to understand is that we are in the

middle of an election and the minister is somewhat handcuffed in what he can do

during an election with regard to dealing with his officials.

There may be some procedural problems that he may have to overcome there. I

am ready, willing and able to meet with the minister at any point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again - a final supplementary - words are very important. The Premier just

said that the Prime Minister said: I agree with your proposal as it is.

The words the Prime Minister used in the media are: I believe the proposal

that the Premier has put forth certainly provides the basis of an agreement.

It does not say, I agree with you in full. We have seen negotiations happen

before where the basis of an agreement can be very different at the end than at

the beginning. Again, will he take the earliest opportunity, as he just

indicated, to meet with Minister Efford, who says he is willing to meet, to nail

down the details as much as can be done before June 28?

I acknowledge that some great work has been done, and I think the opportunity

is here right now to finish it, right now, before the election is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we have done for the last six or seven months, we will do

everything possible to move forward on this file. As I said before, we are very

proud of what we have accomplished. We have brought it to a head. We have the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador ideally positioned in this election. We have

commitments from all federal leaders, good commitments, some of them in writing.

I take these people on their word. They are reputable individuals. They have

provided us with good proposals. They have answered the call. They are finally

going to turn around a grave injustice that has been done to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I did indicate that I had heard in the media that the Prime Minister had made

some statements. I can tell you what he said to me on the phone, and that was

that he did confirm that my proposal, that our proposal as a government, was

acceptable to him. Based on that, we will then pursue that in an agreement. We

will pursue that with Minister Efford if and when he is available, and we will

ask for that meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Premier, insurance reforms enacted in other provinces have used a cap rather

than the deductible that you propose in Bill 30. To date, the cap in the other

three Atlantic Provinces, even over a short period of time, have proven to be

workable and to provide substantial and meaningful savings to consumers.

Premier, Bill 30 talks about a 9 per cent reduction in premiums on mandatory

third-party liability. Why is this government trying to pacify consumers with 9

per cent, using a deductible scheme, when it is well-known now that consumers

could easily get 20 per cent or more with a cap system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about pacifying consumers. This is about coming up

with the best automobile insurance legislation for the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. This is ultimately about coming up with the best general insurance

legislation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, dealing with, as the

member knows, the very serious problems that we have with commercial insurance

in the Province, where people are losing their businesses because rates are

skyrocketing, going through the roof. Some of our tourism establishments cannot

afford to insure their business.

As the hon. gentleman opposite is also familiar, this is also about marine

insurance, where fisherpeople in this Province cannot afford to insure their

boats to go out on the water, to perform their trade. We are going to look at

all of it. It is not just strictly about pacifying automobile insurance rates.

As well, with regard to the whole issue of a deductible: a deductible, as the

hon. gentleman knows, is the simplest way to deal with it. We had looked at a

cap. We indicated back in September that we would go by way of a cap of

insurance. We also indicated at that time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- that we would look at minor injuries, and minor in the true sense of the

word, as you understand minor being the mild to moderate type of injury that

occurs and that has been decided by the courts.

When we attempted to reach an agreed definition between the various

stakeholders and with our own government officials, they could not arrive at an

agreement. So, it is not just simply putting in a cap. A cap implies a

definition of minor, which implies a threshold, and what is the definition of a

permanent injury.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter is very complex. We have said all along that we will come up with

the best solution for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we see, again today in the Premier's response, that the

deductible is nothing but ducking the issue again. It is not giving any answers

to the consumers of this Province.

Premier, you indicated publicly that the Public Utilities Board will do

hearings this fall to get input from stakeholders regarding further reforms.

Last week, I asked both your Minister of Government of Services and your

Minister of Justice to table copies of all e-mails, letters, directives, and

instructions, from your government to the Public Utilities Board regarding the

conduct and process of these hearings. Both ministers refused to provide this

information.

Premier, there has been a Freedom of Information request filed to get this

hidden information. In the spirit of preserving the openness and accountability

you promised the people, will you undertake today, here and now, to table this

information immediately?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will provide any relevant information within the guidelines

as set under the Freedom of Information Act, and we will comply with that. If

there is a request in, obviously this information is being gleaned and prepared.

The question is: What is being implied here by the hon. member opposite?

Everything is an open book here. We are providing all the information to the

public. We have made our decisions on our legislation based on the best

actuarial information that we can get. We are also relying on the actuarial

information that has been presented and prepared by the Public Utilities Board.

We have met with stakeholders on this issue, and we continue - the minister and

I met with insurance representatives this morning. The minister was unavailable

on Friday, but I met with insurance representatives on Friday as well. We are

continuing to take all the available information, and as it becomes available we

will certainly provide it to hon. members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Speaker, this government has brought chaos to the regulation of petroleum

products in the Province just when we need it the most. Earlier in this House,

both the Minister and the Premier confirmed that the office would stay open in

Grand Falls-Windsor, but now we are hearing that all employees of this office,

whose contracts expire at the end of this month, may not be renewed.

Will the minister tell this House if these contracts will be renewed or

extended, and will she also reconfirm that this office will remain open in Grand

Falls-Windsor with its current staff?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the Petroleum Pricing Products Commission's

office is still in Grand Falls-Windsor. There is an employee there now who has

been moved up to director. The operations of the PPPC are still continuing the

same, there has been no disruption in service there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, under the current legislation, the Petroleum

Products Pricing Commissioner has the authority to set the price of petroleum

products. The price is set at least once a month and the Commissioner can use an

interruption formula if certain criteria are met.

Minister, as the Public Utilities Board is a regulating body, will it use the

same procedures and will they have the same authority to act swiftly in the

regulation of petroleum prices?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the PPPC is

operating. There has been no change. The only change that has been made has been

the political appointee. The operation is carrying on. The same method of

formulas are being used. It is no different than the PPC, other than the fact

that it is now with the PUB Commissioner.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

work.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 32 does not contain any proclamation date and there is

uncertainty as to when the transfer of responsibilities will go to the Public

Utilities Board. As we are fast approaching June 15, when the Petroleum Pricing

Commissioner would normally set the price for gas in this Province, minister,

when do you plan to proclaim this act? Can you advise this House, with

confidence, that the price will be set as normal and there will be no

interruption to gas price stability in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, as I just stated for the hon. member, there has

been no change in the PPPC. This legislation is not even passed in the House. I

have not done the second reading yet today. There is no change. There is no

disruption. The only problem that I see right now is the hon. member is

concerned about replacing the political appointee. We have taken that out of PPC

right now and put it under an independent agency.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. The Premier has indicated that as a result of

the indication by several insurers that they intend to leave the Province, that

public automobile insurance may be something his government would choose to

undertake. Given that, Mr. Speaker, would the Premier please indicate to the

House what type of public automobile insurance is being contemplated? Has he

given consideration to the number of forms that exist with different types of

insurance, when an implementation date might be available? Is he prepared to be

ready in the event that these three insurers have now indicated - and perhaps

others - will pull out by the end of the year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I may take the questions in reverse, certainly we are prepared to be

ready. That is something we are looking at. As I said previously, I have

indicated that public insurance is more of a last resort from our perspective.

We have always kept the door open a crack in case this happened to be an

alternative that was viable and was a proper alternative for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. As I have indicated to the member in a late night

discussion just the other evening, that is something that should be considered

by the Public Utilities Board and, of course, a proper presentation would be

made to the Public Utilities Board.

I can assure the hon. member that I have had discussions with the minister.

We have the department actually looking at it right now and we will certainly be

looking at a contingency plan which will be in place. So, we will look at all

alternatives and welcome the input of the member on that particular issue as

well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know why it would be a last resort since it has consistently

produced the lowest automobile rates in the country where it exists and the

fairest system for people with no discrimination on age and gender.

Will the Premier not consider doing what New Brunswick did in order to be

ready for our public automobile insurance, should a decision be made, in

studying all the various models, looking at the kind of risks and costs that

would be associated with automobile insurance so that in the event that the

public desires it or, in the event, that the Premier is forced to undertake it,

that he would be ready to go on January 1 with a public automobile insurance

system that has already passed muster with the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that our government will

do rashly or without a plan. What we will do is make sure that we investigate it

thoroughly. We will ask the minister and her officials and her entire department

as to exactly what the alternatives are and what the repercussions are. We will

consult with people in the industry. We will look at the other jurisdictions. As

you and I know, we talked about it the other evening, they are different in all

jurisdictions. The success rates have been different. The setup is different.

The consequences are different. So, we cannot just sort of jump in and say

tomorrow we are going to have public insurance and here is what it is going to

be. If we start to head down that road, at any particular point in time, we will

make sure that we have a thorough investigation done. As well, it would be a

matter of some detailed consideration for a comprehensive hearing at the Public

Utilities Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education. Under the education act,

1997, eleven school boards were elected for a fixed period of time, that being

four years. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, now that he has unilaterally

dissolved these elected school boards effective August 31, when will the new

boards be elected and how many will be on each board to allow for effective

regional representation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I answer specifically and respond to the question directly, I would

like to point out that the transitional committees that are now in place are

comprised of, by and large - the vast majority of our transition committee

members, on our new three transitional boards, are duly elected members; the

vast majority. In fact, with one board all of them are. These are all duly

elected members. There are a couple of exceptions on both the Central board and

the Western board.

The decision, as the hon. member knows, is that the existing boards will

cease to operate as a legal entity come August 31. The transitional boards will

commence to become the legal school board as of September 1 and in September,

2005, we will revert to the duly election procedure and model that, of course,

is envisaged by the very act that was mentioned by the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the education act, the minister knows that directors -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the current education act, 1997, directors and board employees are

hired by elected school boards and the location of school boards, or offices,

are determined by the elected boards.

Mr. Speaker, under whose authority were the three new directors hired this

morning, and under whose authority were the office sites, the locations for

these offices, determined?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: These decisions were made in accordance with the

authority that is given under the act, the Schools Act, 1997. There are

provisions in the act that allow for transitional boards and duly-elected boards

to work in unison with one another. These decisions have been made, and I want

to reassure the hon. member, they had been done in accordance with the

legislation of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like for the minister to name the

section because there is nowhere

under the act that gives appointed school board members the authority to hire -

there is no authority under the act for the minister to hire directors of school

boards, and that is exactly what he did this morning, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that this minister and this government is trying to circumvent

the education act, because they do not have the authority to impose new

directors and board office locations on these new boards. There is nowhere in

the act that gives you the authority to do what you did today. I ask the

minister: Is it not true that these decisions can only become legal if the new

boards that you are appointing, not electing, agree to them in September?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the appointment of the new

directors of our new school boards, a procedure was put in place. With respect

to the public service commission, the newly appointed chairs of the transitional

committees, the Deputy Minister of Education was a part of the interviewing

process, in addition to the Dean of Education, Dr. Alice Collins at Memorial

University. The procedure was carried out. If hon. members are aware, and I am

sure they are, aware of the fact that the three directors, the directors

designate who were announced this morning are, in fact, directors from existing

school boards within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is doing is misleading

the people of the Province. He knows that under the act the only people who can

hire directors are elected school boards. You have abolished the school boards,

effective August 31, and you have hired these individuals this morning under the

guise of an elected school board and they were not elected. You appointed them

just last week, in the House. I ask the minister: Show me in the act where you

have the authority to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that these

decisions that were made where done completely and totally in accordance with

the legislation of this Province. The decisions were made. They were appropriate

to the need that is now required with respect to the transition that is taking

place in education in Newfoundland. I wish to guarantee the hon. member that

these decisions were made appropriately and totally within the legislation of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, previously I asked the minister if the government

is committed to a group of stakeholders in the Province who give of their time

and expertise to try and improve the social and economic well-being of our rural

communities. These stakeholders comprise of Regional Economic Development

Boards, otherwise known as REDBs. I ask the minister: Is the government going to

reduce the number of Regional Economic Development Boards like they have reduced

the number of school boards?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the record will show that there will not

be any reduction to the Regional Economic Development Boards, and I appreciate

that, but there are hundreds of volunteers involved in the Newfoundland and

Labrador Rural Development Council and they give daily of their time as well.

Unfortunately, they are not feeling very appreciated by this government or by

this minister. First, they have trouble getting a meeting. When they finally do,

you set aside forty-five minutes only, to hear their concerns. Minister, why are

you not making time for this council, and why did neither you nor the Premier

accept their invitation to attend their annual general meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

We have time for a very short response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I have met with a number of rural development

councils. I have met with representation from the provincial body. I am on the

front end of a Province-wide consultation with all stakeholders in economic

development throughout the Province, and that process will continue for a number

of months to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order or a point of procedure, probably, more properly, Mr.

Speaker. We have operated in this Province for some three years now with

televised proceedings of the House proceedings. The people of the Province have

come to accept that the proceedings would be televised when the House is

actually in session. In fact, we embarked upon the whole process of televised

proceedings because it does, indeed, give the people of the Province access to

what happens here, in their House, regardless of where you live in the Province.

Also, it makes the Legislature, both government and the Opposition, more open,

transparent and accountable to the people of the Province.

On Thursday past, June 3, the issue of televised proceeding beyond the normal

sitting hours was raised by myself. The Government House Leader had given notice

that the House would sit beyond 5:30 p.m. and beyond 10:30 p.m., and once we

proceeded beyond 10:00 p.m. the proceeding were not televised. The explanation

provided at that time was that the booking arrangements for additional satellite

time beyond 10:00 p.m. had to be made at least forty-eight hours prior to the

time when you wish to use the time.

Given that explanation, and the erratic House sitting times - and we

certainly acknowledge that the sitting times are sometimes erratic and unknown -

a forty-eight hour explanation was reasonable. It was a reasonable explanation,

but I have made some inquiries, Mr. Speaker, with the satellite provider this

morning, a company called Fifth Dimension out of Ottawa, and I spoke with a Mr.

Donato Dipietrantonio, who informs me - and I am sure I have massacred the

pronunciation of his name, and I apologize for such - of the following. He says

that you do not need forty-eight hours advance notice in order to book satellite

time. In fact, it can be booked within minutes, he tells me, if the signal is

indeed available on the satellite.

He also tells me that in order to book it, you only need to call a 1-800

number, and he provided me with the 1-800 number, which I certainly undertake to

provide to the House. When you need the extended service, you simply call the

1-800 number. There is always someone there, twenty-four seven, on the other end

of this 1-800 number. You simply tell him, particularly when he already has a

booking arrangement like he does with the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador House of Assembly, that you want to continue on because your session is

extended. He says, never in the history of this House, whenever there has been a

request made to have an extension, has it ever been denied because of lack of

satellite time. In fact, he says, it would be very improbable that it would be

denied because there are several options that he has in terms of satellites.

Now, he got into the technical differences of where we operate right now, but

he said it is no big deal. You do not need a rocket scientist to figure it out,

once you just tell them that you want to have the extension.

Given this information, Mr. Speaker, which it totally contrary to the

explanation we had last Thursday, we would like confirmation from the Chair, and

hopefully receive the agreement of the government and the Leader of the NDP,

that whenever there are extended sittings, additional satellite time will indeed

be booked. I would go so far as to say, Mr. Speaker, given that explanation that

the satellite time is available, given the fact that the people of this Province

have become adjusted to the fact that they can see it anywhere in this Province

whenever the House is sitting, if you cannot book the satellite time there

should not be any additional sittings of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to add my comments to those of the Opposition House Leader. I

made an intervention as well on Thursday evening, suggesting - to guffaws of

members opposite - that when we have a session of the House cut off from

television in mid-sentence or in mid-speech, as we have had in the last number

of days, in fact, the House is effectively going into private session because

the public has come to expect that when the House is in session they are able to

watch it on the various channels in their local area.

I have had a number of e-mails, in fact, since that date, agreeing with my

position and saying they have no other means of availing themselves of these

House of Assembly proceedings and they like to watch what is going on. We had a

situation where, up until I think it was somewhere close to 3:30 on Friday

morning, members were sitting here making speeches, some of them very good

speeches, debating legislation at that hour of the morning on something that is

of importance to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We had, earlier in

the week, last week, second readings being called at 11:30 at night, approval in

principle of important legislation for the Province.

Having made the decision, as a House of Assembly, to go the route of being

televised, I think we have a commitment to the public to ensure that sittings of

the House are available to the public through television, and that we should

have - given the information provided by the Opposition House Leader -

agreement, a commitment from the Chair, that unless satellite television, or the

television, is able to proceed, unless it is some kind of absolute emergency,

that the House not sit until the television can be obtained and operated so the

public can come to continue to expect to see what goes on in the people's

House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to that, I have been sitting on the Internal Economy

Commission that oversees the House since television came in. Under the former

government, the Leader of the Opposition there, I was left with the impression

in IEC previously that there had to be advance notice. I am sure Your Honour

will check that out, but I was left with the impression that there had to be an

advanced booking of so much time ahead. That is what I was informed, in that

Committee that I sat on. I have sat on that Committee, Mr. Speaker, actually,

for the last six years, and have been at just about every meeting of that

Committee. That is the impression I was left with.

The reason at the time was that it goes through, I think, Memorial University's

satellite and you have to give notice. If they have a priority, it would take

over if there is not an advance booking. That is the understanding I had, but I

am certainly agreeable to finding out what the specifics are. I would like to

know what the truth of it is, but that is the impression I have always had. I

have not heard any different.

Even when the ruling statement was made in the House before - it is what I

had from day one. I sat on the Committee when television was coming in, and

decisions were made about that. We called for that for a number of years, Mr.

Speaker, to have it come into the House. We did, and we pushed the issue many

times for the last several years. We were delighted it came here to the House.

We fought for that, and we saw it accomplished.

I certainly abide by the Speaker's following up on this specific thing, and

back there, because when we made a decision to bring it in, we supported that

and we would like to hear the specifics. We were told, initially, when the

former government was in power, and again this time, it was the same reason I

heard, exactly the same reason given to me on two different occasions by two

different governments. I would like to find out if that is accurate or whether

we are getting the right information.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the comments - and I thank the hon.

members for raising the issue again. It was raised last Thursday evening and we

did some following up this morning.

There are some variations in what we have been told locally and what the hon.

the Opposition House Leader found out, I do believe, from the representative

that is stationed in Ottawa. My understanding is that we have to give some

notice and that we, today, for example, have given notice that we will be

sitting until 10 o'clock so television time has been booked until 10:00. If it

is the wish of the House, and I chatted with the Clerk before we came in, we can

extend that in two-hour segments, and we would that today. So, if we sit beyond

10:00, then tonight the television will be on, extended in two-hour segments.

The reason for that is, every hour that we extend it, we have to pay for it,

and the cost is $327 an hour. That is for the satellite time, and for the

gentleman who has to sit in some kind of a booth somewhere in Pippy Park to make

sure that the satellite system works.

As of now, we will extend it from 10 o'clock until 12 o'clock. At 12 o'clock,

if the House still wants to sit, we will keep on extending it in two-hour

segments to make sure that we have wise expenditure of the taxpayers' money.

From the Chair's perspective, the Chair believes that the House is open, it

should be televised, and we will make every effort we can to make sure that the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador have access to televising of the proceedings

of this House.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to, in accordance with

section 35 of

the House of Assembly Act, hereby table the 2003-2004 Annual Report of the

Commissioner of Members' Interests for the period April 1, 2003 to March 31,

Tabling of further reports? Notices of motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following

private member's motion:

WHEREAS fair, affordable and accessible automobile insurance is a concern for

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

AND

WHEREAS public automobile insurance has been suggested as a model that

could bring relief for Newfoundland and Labrador drivers, and may be a necessity

in the event private insurers discontinue their operations in the Province;

AND

WHEREAS there are many models of public insurance that contain numerous

options and, in the interest of an informed debate, these models and options

should be explored in the Newfoundland and Labrador context;

AND

WHEREAS the Province should be ready to operate a public automobile

system that has been developed to satisfy the needs and desires of the people of

the Province with a practical plan for implementation and delivery;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House appoint a Select Committee on public

automobile insurance to examine into and inquire on the most suitable form of

public insurance system for Newfoundland and Labrador should the Province

conclude that a public system is required.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select Committee shall inquire into and

identify: 1. The most suitable model of public automobile insurance to ensure

fair, affordable and accessible public automobile insurance including: (

a) the

type of public automobile system to be recommended; (

b) the types of coverage

and benefits to be offered; (

c) a proper risk rating system for establishing

premiums; (

d) the method of distribution; (

e) the types of insurers; 2. the

start-up costs for establishing the proposed model, including infrastructure,

office equipment, payroll, initial provision for losses, et cetera; 3. the fixed

and recurring costs of operating the proposed models; 4. the legal and trade

implications involved in setting up the proposed models; 5. the downstream

impact of the proposed model on the legal community, the physiotherapists and

other therapists, as well as on the brokers, independent adjusters, automotive

repair shops and trades or professions; 6. the creation of a basic automobile

insurance policy within a public system.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select Committee be provided with sufficient

resources to conduct an adequate public consultation process and engage

consultants to advise on matters required to fulfill its mandate.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 8, 2004.

Further, I give notice pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not

adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 8, 2004.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS the Premier has written to the Prime Minister of Canada and the

Leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of

Canada asking for commitments from them on fourteen issues which are important

to the future of this Province including: Support for Newfoundland and Labrador's

claim to 100 per cent of our offshore oil and gas provincial revenues, making

the Province the true principal beneficiary as intended under the Atlantic

Accord.

Transfer at no cost to Newfoundland and Labrador of the 8.5 per cent Hibernia

shares owned by the federal government.

Give Newfoundland and Labrador jurisdictional control and ownership over

petroleum and other economic resources in the offshore.

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

The restoration of federal transfers to the Province for health care,

post-secondary education and social services to the 1994-95 levels adjusted for

inflation.

The allocation of future transfers on the basis of need rather than

population numbers alone.

Giving Newfoundland and Labrador a direct and meaningful say in the

management, that is the allocation and harvesting of fisheries stocks in the

ocean territory adjacent to the Province.

Support for imposing custodial management on the Continental Shelf

immediately outside Canada's 200-mile exclusive economic zone, where such

action is warranted to preserve fish stocks from international unsustainable

harvesting practices.

Support for efforts to develop the Hydro-power resources of the Lower

Churchill River system for the primary benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador,

including the provision of a federal government guarantee, if necessary, to

proceed with the project on a stand alone basis.

Support for initiatives that make amends for the grossly-lopsided Upper

Churchill power contract that was signed after Ottawa refused to support a

reasonably-priced power corridor for Newfoundland and Labrador to wheel

electricity across Quebec to external markets.

Support for the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway and to raise it to

an acceptable standard.

Support for efforts for the repair, replacement and maintenance of key

transportation infrastructure in the Province on a timely basis.

Support for the construction of a fixed link across the Strait of Belle Isle

to give this Province the continuous land-based connection to the North American

highway grid that most residents of the nine other provinces enjoy, and which

will complete the Trans-Canada Highway from coast to coast.

Finally, number fourteen: Support efforts to restore and enhance military

training activities at 5 Wing Goos Bay, which has served for many years as a key

NATO international flight training base; and

WHEREAS the people of this Province have not received satisfactory and/or

definitive answers on many of these issues;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the

government of this Province to follow-up and request definitive answers in

writing on these issues so this information can be made public to the people of

the Province before election day, June 28.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.

(3) I give notice that the motion to be debated

on Private Member's Day, this coming Wednesday, June 9, will be the notice for

which the Leader of the Opposition just read into the record.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion? Answers to Questions for which

Notice has been Given?

Petitions

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear, I guess, from the petitions that I have been given over the past

week that the truth is the greatest casualty of this government to date. We

heard today in Question Period that there was no authority under the current

legislation to hire new directors. What we are seeing now is that the Minister

of Health and Community Services is embarking on a journey to consolidate health

care boards. We have seen a lot of unrest in our communities of Grand

Falls-Windsor and Gander, whereby both communities are concerned that there is

no criteria outlined as to what measures the minister will take in determining

which community will actually accommodate both of the health care boards. I will

table this today, but, more importantly, I want to speak to it.

We have heard from the Chamber of Commerce in Exploits Region, that they are

overly concerned because they have not seen any criteria that the minister has

set out. I asked her in this House, would proximity to the facilities be a part

of the criteria, and she said she had reached no decision, but yet in her March

30th budget she said that they would be undertaking to consolidate health care

boards within eighteen months.

I have clearly stated, and others have within the region of Grand

Falls-Windsor, and indeed Central Newfoundland, that the Central West Health

Care Board does met all the proposed, I would think - anyone being reasonable

and fair, in trying to determine the location for the two boards, naturally

would set out and look at what is the location, who will use the services, do we

have the administration facilities in place, do we have the space and is there

going to be any cost to government. All of this criteria has been met, yet, for

all that, the minister herself will not outline, for the people of those two

communities, what she expects as criteria for government making that decision.

It is clear that the Chamber of Commerce has taken out a full-page ad in the

provincial newspapers, at great expense I might add, and there is a lot of

uncertainty in Grand Falls-Windsor right now, because we have seen the school

boards consolidate without any good argument as to why it should have gone to

Gander. The Minister of Education could not even defend his decision, and we

have seen the cancer clinic being cancelled.

Naturally, we are concerned about the health care board. We have, in our

opinion, every reason as to why is should be located in Grand Falls-Windsor, and

we certainly have the population base that is served closest to the area, 66,000

of the 100,000 now using the Cental West Health Care Board facilities. We have

the space, we have the specialists, and it is administrative only. All of this

work is done by road, 99 per cent of it. When you take all these factors into

account, and the exemplary fiscal and operational status that the Central West

Health Care Board has, and continues to have, over the past ten years, I can

tell you, they are a board that always came in and had a balanced budget, and

they always did their homework before they ever gave a proposal to government.

When they brought in a proposal to government, you could be sure that all the i's

were dotted and the t's crossed, there was nothing left to get.

I would hope and encourage -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to close by saying I hope the Minister of Health and Community

Services will use fairness in this regard.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today and present a petition on behalf of the

people of the Bay of Islands-Corner Brook area concerning the long-term care

facility in Corner Brook. I will not read the prayer of the petition because it

was read in the House of Assembly on numerous occasions. I just bring to the

attention of the House, and to the government, and especially the members for

the West Coast, the Member for Humber East, the Premier, and the Member for

Humber Valley, the concerns of the people from Corner Brook-Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, as we speak now there is in the vicinity of thirty acute care

patients who are in the facility right now, in the acute care facility, waiting

to go in the long-term care facility, but there is no room for the residents in

the area. This has been a major concern for the last number of years for the

people of Corner Brook-Bay of Islands. The problem with the facility, itself, is

that there was a commitment made before the election and during the election to

have this facility built, publicly funded, publicly run by the Premier and the

Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber East. Now we see, when the Premier

just had his latest talk with the media, he said: We are doing it as quickly as

possible.

I call upon the government and urge the government, in the strictest way and

in the strongest way, that this facility needs to be built. It was a commitment

that was made. It was a commitment that was followed up during the election. It

was a commitment to the Western Health Care Corporation. It was a commitment

made to all of the people of Western Newfoundland, this long-term care facility.

We know that to have such a facility built, work has to begin immediately.

Now we see that there is a back step of the commitment that was made back in

2002-2003 and most recently in the election of 2003 whereby the facility will be

built in the four-year mandate. Now we have it confirmed by the Minister of

Health and Community Services that there is no such funding in place to do the

next phase of the facility in Western Newfoundland.

This is a much-needed facility. This facility, as the Member for Humber East

is well aware, is something that we need for all of our seniors on the West

Coast of the Province. It is something, Mr. Speaker, that we have united

together as a group, as a community, to try and get built. I urge the

government, I urge the members for the Corner Brook-Bay of Islands-Humber Valley

region, to follow through on your commitment, to follow through on the promise

that you made to the seniors of this Province, to follow through on the

commitments that you made to the children of the parents, and have this facility

built in four years. I know that time is running short. It is a year-and-a-half

by the time the next funding may be announced, or may not be announced. That is

something that I urge the government, instead of doing it in piecemeal, follow

through the commitment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. JOYCE: I just thank the House for the opportunity to present the

petition on behalf of the people of Bay of Islands.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 800 people on the Burin

Peninsula who are concerned about the proposed sewage treatment facility. I

understand that while some people have suggested that, in fact, the proponent

has withdrawn his proposal, I have no confirmation of that. Having said that,

because the date for making representation to the minister is June 11, I have

been asked by these 800 people, in fact, through a petition, to make further

representation to the minister to ensure that this particular project does not

proceed.

We are talking here, Mr. Speaker, about a sewage treatment facility that is

being proposed to be located in a very densely populated area. In fact, it is an

area that the prayer of the petition suggests is not a suitable location for a

sewage treatment facility because it is too close to the Burin Peninsula school

bus depot, elementary and junior high schools, the Burin Peninsula Hospital, and

homes and businesses in the area. The area is used by people from Burin and

Marystown for recreational purposes such as walking, jogging, hiking and skiing.

The access road is a major snowmobile route, connecting trails in the Salt Pond

area with Southwest Arm. The area is frequented by many species of wildlife,

including moose, rabbits and osprey, to name a few. This facility should be

constructed in a more remote location, not central to the most densely populated

area on the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to present the prayer of the petition and I am pleased

that the minister has just indicated that the proponent has withdrawn his

application, and I think for all of the reasons listed above. I am glad that is,

in fact, the way it has turned out.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just take a moment to enter a petition on behalf of the residents of

not only Southwestern Newfoundland but indeed Newfoundland in general,

concerning the closure of the weigh scales at Port aux Basques. In case the

Minister of Government Services might have thought we all forgot about the

issue, of course, just because we do not raise it here in the House by way of

Question Period or by way of petitions does not mean that the people in this

Province are not concerned about some of the decisions that this government has

made, and this one in particular, because it concerns not only an issue of

employment for the people who work in the facility, which is important to me as

a member, certainly, in that area, because it means that these people have to

uproot and move their families. That is a very important issue, but even more

important to this Province is the fact that the closure of the weigh scales is

going to allow 80,000-plus commercial vehicles to enter this Province, come off

the boat and travel 270 kilometres on the TCH, which we all acknowledge is in

terrible condition, particularly in Western Newfoundland where we do not have

the benefit of four-lane highways and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Environment again - he asked about

when it was fixed - perhaps if somebody in government, or not in government but

who works for government, like some supervisor, had been doing what they ought

to have done last year, there would not have been any down time. You cannot

blame the employees who work in the weigh scales for not getting it fixed. They

brought it to the attention of the supervisor and the Minister of Government

Services department many, many times, and somebody in there, some bureaucratic

person who is above these inspectors out there, is responsible for getting that

done. It was not done, that is where the fault lays. You cannot blame these

people for doing it. The fact that is was not done - I say to the Minister of

Environment, he should be more concerned about other than just the environment,

there are people's lives at stake here. We are not talking about just sludge

pits or anything else, we are talking about the lives and safety of the people

who travel on our highways.

Maybe the commentary coming from the Minister of Environment is indicative of

how this government feels about safety in this Province. Well, I say I have no

time for it, and the people of this Province has no time for it. We are

concerned when we travel on our highways. We want to be sure that the guy coming

at you is allowed to be on the road and that his vehicle, particularly these

eighteen-wheel rigs, have been inspected and are allowed to be there. When you

allow 80,000 plus vehicles to come into this Province and travel just about 300

kilometres without having any kind of inspection, you are leaving yourself open

to accidents, and that is not wise. For the sake of the money that you are going

to save, and I have done the cost estimates on it, it is about $200,000 that you

are going to save per year. Whose life in this Province is worth $200,000? Whose

life is going to be sacrificed because this government wants to save $200,000?

I put it to the government, the first motor vehicle accident we have on that

stretch from Port aux Basques to Pynns Brook, as a result of a tractor-trailer,

this government is going to be the subject of a law suit. You will pay through

the nose then, far more than you are ever going to pay by leaving that weigh

scales open. You need one accident only to forever tarnish yourselves -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: - and your reputation for safety.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

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

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

pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today,

Monday, June 7, 2004.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Motion 2.

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

pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today,

Monday, June 7, 2004.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 5, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Petroleum

Products Act, Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 32,

An Act To Amend The

Petroleum Products Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum

Products Act." (Bill 32)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce Bill 32,

An Act To

Amend The Petroleum Products Act.

The bill allows for the integration of the Petroleum Products Pricing

Commission with the Public Utilities Board. As we announced on May 18, the PPPC

will be eliminated as a separate commission and its operations will be brought

under the PUB. The PUB will be responsible for administering the Petroleum

Products Act.

Mr. Speaker, we, as a government, reviewed the Petroleum Products Pricing

Commission to determine whether it should remain as is or if it needed to be

changed. This review coincided with the expiration of the former commissioner's

three year contract.

We started this review totally committed to fuel price regulation in the

Province. People wanted fuel price regulation and regulation has been resulted

in a stabilization of prices. The PUB already regulates Hydro and auto insurance

rates. It has the experience, the expertise and the procedures in place for rate

regulation.

This bill will create one umbrella organization responsible for Hydro, auto

insurance and fuel pricing in this Province. This allows for a more effective

regulation with less duplication.

The integration of the commission with the PUB is not intended to make any

changes to the method of fuel price regulation. The same staff will be using the

same formulas to set prices as in the past.

The Opposition has accused us of playing politics with the commission.

Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. The former government put

politics into gas regulations when they made the commissioner a political

appointee. We are now taking the politics out of it.

The former Commissioner, Mr. George Saunders, did a good job of regulating

gas prices for the people of this Province during his three year contract. This

is not in dispute. I have thanked him personally, myself, for his work since

2001 and I publicly thank him in this House today. But, this government is not

interested in retaining the position as a political appointment. We want to be

fully independent. We are putting fuel price regulation into the hands of

professional price regulators. We are removing any perception of political

interference.

Staff researchers will continue to monitor fuel prices and make

recommendations to the PUB, rather than a commissioner. We are committed to fuel

price regulation in the Province and that is not in question.

Mr. Speaker, we are retaining the fuel price regulation division in Grand

Falls-Windsor. The newly appointed director, an employee of the commission, will

oversee the operations and report to the PUB. There is no additional staff.

I want to assure the consumers, and this House, that it is business as usual

with the fuel price regulation in this Province. The objective is a seamless

transition. The staff in Grand Falls-Windsor will essentially continue

responsibility for fuel pricing in the Province. We still have dedicated staff

solely for the purpose of fuel price regulations. The PUB can conduct hearings

into the price of petroleum if necessary.

Since announcing our intention to restructure the commission two weeks ago,

there has been some suggestion made that the restructuring will result in a

de-stabilization of fuel price regulation. This is simply not true. Fuel prices

are set based on the market factors. It is an international problem that is

beyond the scope of any provincial government to fix. Price regulation only

ensures that price increases are justified.

There has also been some suggestion that the restructuring is a result of

lobby from the oil industry. I can assure the people of the Province there has

been no such lobby. This was strictly an internal decision to make the process

more efficient and to take advantage of the experience and expertise of the PUB

in the right regulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond to the minister's comments in her introduction of

Bill 32. I listened intently to her comments and it is interesting that she says

her whole thrust for doing away with the commissioner's position was that it

was political. It is also interesting to see - why you would fix something if it

is not broken?

I would say to the minister today that if she thought it was political and,

of course, it was - she also said that she did not see anything wrong with his

good work. In fact, she complimented Mr. Saunders on his good work. I do not

think anyone has questioned his capabilities. He did a marvelous job. He

designed a system that held up through scrutiny far and wide. If she was saying

it was political, why didn't she, in her wisdom, choose a commissioner of her

choice? Anyway, she has decided to use the Public Utilities Board for the

purpose of regulating gas prices in this Province.

It is interesting to see how this actually came about, and I would have a

good memory of how this started. It actually had roots in Grand Falls-Windsor

where the office now is. I remember there was a group of people and they called

themselves NAGG, Newfoundlanders Against Gas Gouging. Some of the key people of

that group were Jim Courtney, who is now a councillor in Grand Falls-Windsor. I

see there are a good few - Gary Hayley, I think he was an independent service

station operator. I remember Dan Hiscock was there, and there were several

others. Their protest at the time had been a swing to high prices in gas. I

remember it was summertime and it was when the median was being erected through

the community of Grand Falls-Windsor. This particular group protested the

increase in gasoline prices. I can still remember, Jim Courtney and others with

their protest signs in the centre of the Trans-Canada Highway in Grand

Falls-Windsor protesting the high gas prices. They were suggesting that

motorists would boycott several gas stations that were doing business in Grand

Falls-Windsor and beyond. It was later, then, that a group was formed in St.

John's, the Consumers Group for Fair Gas Prices. It was that particular group

of NAGG that I remember had a meeting at the Mount Peyton Hotel. That was in the

spring of 1997. I was a backbencher at the time. They came to me and asked me

would I present their concerns to government, and I did present their concerns

to government. Then, at that particular time, Cabinet agreed to an independent

study on fuel pricing in the Province. That was carried out by Mr. Dennis

Browne. His recommendation from that study was: Let free market prices dictate

the prices of fuel, gasoline, anywhere.

They kept up their lobby and, of course, they were joined by the group here

in St. John's. Throughout the years they continued. They were not satisfied

with the outcome of leaving that alone. It was the Premier of the former Liberal

Administration - who is now the Opposition Leader today - who agreed to gas

regulation. That was put into effect some three years ago. Through that effort

there has been considerable stability. People will question: Did they bring down

the price of gas by having fuel regulation?

I suppose you cannot say that the gas prices were brought down through fuel

regulation, but you would say that there has been stability. I think that is

what people were looking for, because prior to that you could have gas prices

change about three times in the one day, or more frequently depending on world

markets. At the fifteenth of every month, I think there was a great deal of

certainty of what the gas prices would be for the entire month.

What we have seen today - and I questioned the Minister of Government

Services today. I asked her - it is unusual when you see

an act come forward

like this, the duties and responsibilities of the fuel commissioner's office

are now going to be the responsibility of the Public Utilities Board. Usually

when you see

an act come forward like this you will always see a proclamation

date attached at the end of that particular act, but I do not see one here and

it is not indicated. The minister has not told this House when she, indeed,

intends to proclaim the act and make all the duties of the fuel oil commissioner's

office become the sole responsibility of the Public Utilities Board.

I think the people out there want to know that, because they want to know

that there is going to be no interruption and that they can depend on prices

being stable for a month at a time. We did not hear that today, but I am

encouraged by the fact that she just said the same staff will be remaining in

the office in Grand Falls-Windsor, and the office, itself, will remain in Grand

Falls-Windsor. I am pleased to hear that, and I am glad she confirmed that

today.

I guess what we are not hearing is - we all know that the Public Utilities

Board is a regulating body. She did say, in her opening statement today, that

the Public Utilities Board can conduct hearings into fuel price regulation. So,

even though they are going to be the governing body in the future of setting

fuel prices, now she is saying that the Public Utilities Board can conduct

hearings into fuel price regulations. I am wondering now what their sole

responsibility will be in the future, or will it be a combination of setting the

price and also conducting hearings? That was a bit fuzzy when she mentioned that

today in her opening statement.

Of course, we all know that there is absolutely no cost to government for

running the fuel commissioner's office. There is entirely no cost to

government or the taxpayers of this Province. When the Commissioner, Mr.

Saunders, when his contract expired on May 25, there was apparently $480,000 of

a surplus going to government that was over and beyond what was necessary to

operate the office, itself, in Grand Falls-Windsor. Now, had that continued

until the end of the fiscal year, we would be looking at somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $800,000 that would be going to government coffers to run that

particular office at no cost to government.

Will we, as a people of this Province, have any accountability? Will we get

any numbers on what it will cost the Public Utilities Board to actually take on

that extra duty of running the commissioner's office? How much money will it

cost the Public Utilities Board, or what will they do with the surplus that is

being paid currently by the oil companies? Will that go into the coffers of the

Public Utilities Board? Will it be rolled into general revenue of this

government? Will the Public Utilities Board continue to charge the same rate

that it had been charging previously?

These are kinds of questions that need to be asked, and it will be

interesting to find out, too, because we all know that, with a so-called

cash-strapped government, can this surplus be used for the other parts of

government that need attention, other programs?

I would also like to ask the minister,

section 7 of the bill repealed

sections 24 to 27, and sections 24 and 25 both deal with the budget and the

audit requirements of the Petroleum Products Act. I am wondering now, what

accountability will be brought to the Public Utilities Board in separating its

duty for the fuel oil pricing commission? Will the general public know what it

is going to cost to operate this program as part of the Public Utilities Board?

Will we have access to knowing those numbers? I think that is very, very

important.

Also, I would like to ask the minister, too,

section 2 of the bill repeals

section 3 of the act, which not only removes the commissioner but also

references to the position including the appointment of the staff. Now she did

say, when she stood there this afternoon, that she intended to keep the office

in Grand Falls-Windsor open and she did intend to leave the staff there, who are

currently working there. In saying that, I hope that we can gather from her

words that she intends to renew their contract at the end of this month.

Now, I know she did not say what term their contract would be renewed for, so

I hope that when the minister stands she will be able to say that contract will

be extended, for certain, to the term of the government's mandate, for the

next four years. At least we would like to hear that, so there would be some

stability there.

We do not know what the rate of assessment will be to oil companies, and we

are not overly concerned about that. We are more or less concerned that the job

of providing stability in the market for our consumers of this Province will

stay into effect. That it is not of any interest, really, to us as long as the

assessment will cover the cost of operating the office. Any money that is made

over and beyond that, I think it is important to know, for the people of this

Province, where that extra money is going to go. We know that there is a surplus

there today.

We also know that under

section 7 of the bill, the elimination of

section 26

of the act actually destroys the ability of the Public Utilities Board to

establish interim pricing or to set pricing upon an application from a petroleum

company. It eliminates any petroleum company from making application for a price

change other than through the normal process. These are questions that should be

answered.

Section 8 of the act eliminates the position of the commissioner from the

existence, including the recognition of the Chairman of the Public Utilities

Board as the Commissioner for Petroleum Products Pricing Regulation. So, it is

apparent that you intend for the Public Utilities Board to take over the

complete running of the commission into the future and beyond. You will never go

back to the system that is in place now. I guess that is what you are saying,

because that is what

section 8 of this bill says here. With adoption of the bill

there will be no commission, it will be under the PUB. I guess it will probably

end up with a new sign over the building. It will be directly under the PUB.

It is also interesting, in asking questions about this transfer from the

commission to the Public Utilities Board, we also know that in this current

atmosphere of high prices for gas there will be an expected windfall from

prices. The three leaders of the federal parties - this is a good time to do it

- are now making concessions everywhere they go in saying what they are going to

do for different provinces. In fact, the three leaders of the federal

leadership, now running for election, are saying that they will determine the

best use for the windfall in high gas prices.

I questioned the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board a week

or so ago, and I asked him what we would do with the windfall that is expected

from high fuel prices in this Province, and he said: There will be no windfall.

Now, that is difficult to imagine, there would be no windfall, when we know

people are paying $1 a litre for fuel, and the federal government themselves say

that anything over $.85, they will analysis it at the end of the year, they will

put it in a separate category and it will be given back to the people in social

programs. What is our Minister of Finance saying? He is saying that there will

be no windfall, and that is not true.

It was interesting when the Minister of Government Services, on May 18, gave

her initial release about the doing away with the fuel oil Commission in Grand

Falls-Windsor. She said: We are integrating the Petroleum Products Pricing

Commission to the Public Utilities Board to improve efficiency. Now, that is a

bit of a joke, because we all know that she had accolades for the Commissioner,

Mr. Saunders, and she felt, and government felt in general, the people of the

Province felt, that it was a very efficient operation. She said her plan was to

reduce the cost charged back to the petroleum industry. Well, the charges back

to the petroleum industry have been a bit of a boost to the government coffers.

Is she going to try to reduce the assessment to the petroleum industry? I don't

know what her plan would be in doing that. She thinks, by doing that, ultimately

the consumer will get a break from the gas companies. If there is anybody out

there who believes that, tell me. The Minister of Government Services said in

her press release that, if she were to reduce the assessment to the oil

companies, the oil companies in good faith would pass along that decrease to the

consumers. Now, if anybody believes that, go out and buy a lottery ticket;

because, I will tell you, the oil companies will not pass along a decrease to

the consumers, this assessment. What we do know, the office in Grand

Falls-Windsor has become very efficient in their operation. In fact, they are

now recording a surplus for the six months of this year, $480,000, and they

expect that to go to $800,000 by the end of the fiscal year.

She also goes on to say that the Public Utilities Board will now be

responsible for regulating fuel prices in addition to hydro and auto insurance

rates. The Public Utilities Board has the experience, expertise and procedures

in place for rate regulation, but have they actually done this work of the fuel

commissioner's office? No, I do not think so. That was a new plan that was

devised solely by Mr. Saunders in Grand Falls-Windsor, and his staff, and it has

met the scrutiny of this entire Province. I know that I hear occasionally, on a

routine basis, actually, the Consumers Group for Fair Gas Prices, Mr. Denis O'Keefe,

Mr. George Murphy and others associated with that group, they are on the media

all the time and they have been giving good compliments to Mr. Saunders and his

work. They had some serious concerns whether or not the actual commission would

be able to operate properly in the future. Their concern was about stability,

and whether or not the people of the Province would have any assurance that gas

prices were going to remain uniform on a thirty-day period. In fact, they were

quite shocked, I think, that the commissioner had taken leave, or had been fired

from the commission. They knew, too, that it was political, but they also knew

that he was doing a good job. Their greatest concern, at this point, was that

the Public Utilities Board already has a full agenda on what they are

responsible for in regulation only, and they were wondering and concerned

whether or not they could pay close attention to the Petroleum Products Pricing

Commission.

That is a concern right around the Province. You have to look at the fact

that now we are going into summer when you will see big gas usage by tourists

and, of course, the greatest number of tourists in the Province are ourselves.

We are the ones who really explode the numbers. We are the ones who actually

move around to all parts of the Province in the summertime, and pull travel

trailers and set up camping in our provincial parks and so on. So, we are the

ones who are mobile as much as anyone else in the summertime. If we are going to

be hit with high fuel prices, that is going to keep people parking their cars in

their own backyards.

She said, "A survey conducted by the Petroleum Products Pricing

Commission in August of 2003..." - not quite a year ago - "...showed

that 78 per cent of consumers want fuel price regulation". We know that

consumers out there today want fuel regulation. They want pricing regulation.

I think what is missing from this is what the minister has not said in her

answers to me today, which I did not get. She has not given me the answers as to

when this act will be proclaimed. When will the Public Utilities Board take over

the direct obligation of setting fuel prices, or will the Director of the

Pricing Commission, currently the one who was appointed awhile ago, Mr. David

Toms, will it be his responsibility to recommend to the Public Utilities Board

what he feels the prices should be on a monthly basis? Will the commissioner,

who is now Mr. Bob Noseworthy, of the Public Utilities Board, will it be his

duty to go back to the director, check and make sure that the proper work has

been done, or will he accept Mr. Toms recommendation? Who will actually be

setting the price for fuel regulation in this Province? Who will actually be

setting the price? Will it be the director in Grand Falls-Windsor, or will it be

the commissioner, who is now Mr. Bob Noseworthy, and currently appointed

temporary, I guess, as representing the Public Utilities Board?

These are things that need to be answered by the minister herself. She is

saying, "Government will be asking the Public Utilities Board to do an

operational review of gas pricing regulation to ensure the concerns of all

interested and industry parties are being addressed."

What does she mean about that, industry parties? Is there a leaning by this

government now to be leaning on the side of industry, the oil companies, and

making sure their concerns are addressed? I would hope that she would be leaning

on the side of the consumer and making sure the consumers' needs are

addressed, because she has already said in her news release that she is hoping

to reduce the cost charged back to the petroleum industry. She thinks they will

pass on that decrease to the consumer. I do not think that is going to happen,

but I am interested by her statement where she says that she wants to make sure

that the industry parties' concerns are being addressed. Have the industry

parties been to see government, and what concerns do they have? I think her main

concern should be the consumer in this regard.

She said, "We are committed to fuel price regulation to ensure fairness,

stability and transparency of pricing for resellers, suppliers, wholesalers,

retailers and consumers". I think we all want that, but what we want is to

make sure that consumers are protected. I did not hear the answer today and I do

not think anybody heard the answer as to whether or not - will the Public

Utilities Board use the same procedures as the Pricing Commission right now?

Will it have the same authority to act swiftly in the regulation of petroleum?

Will it be setting prices on a monthly basis, on the fifteenth of every month,

like the Pricing Commission had been doing? I never got any answers when I asked

her those questions today.

Bill 32, as I said, does not have a proclamation date. That is very important

because every bill that ever comes to this House has a proclamation date as to

when it is going to be in effect and the transfer of authority goes from the

fuel commission to the Public Utilities Board itself. The minister did not put

any date on that. What is she implying by leaving no proclamation date on this

bill?

There are a few scenarios that she is implying. She may not be going to go

ahead with this. She might be passing this bill here in the House and never

acting on the bill itself. She may be delaying the responsibilities of the

Public Utilities Board or she might have some reason why she is not going to

proclaim it. I think she has a responsibility to this House to give us an answer

as to why she is not going to proclaim this bill, where she has no date set

there. So, there are all kinds of unanswered questions. When you have unanswered

questions you have instability in the markets; instability for the consumers of

this Province. That is what is troubling from myself here and other people.

I would like to ask the minister, as well, about

section 13, 14 and 16; if

you would take note of it.

Section 13, 14 and 16 are virtually the same as in

the current act except the word commissioner and him or her, as it appears in

section 13 and 14, are substituted with a person authorized by the board, and

the board in 16(2). Does that mean the Public Utilities Board now or the

Commissioner of the Public Utilities Board is replacing this

section and he or

she would have that authority instead of the commissioner? I would like for her

to answer that if she would.

I would also like to ask the minister: Does she have a complete understanding

of the actual cost of the operation of the commission? Is she aware of any

committed contracts that might have been outstanding by the commission when this

office was changed over from the commission to the Public Utilities Board?

I know, in fact, that there was a land transportation study being undertaken

by David French and Associates, which would have had a significant effect on

zone boundaries of this commission in determining prices and pricing margins and

future directions of the commission with regard to the pricing policies. Is she

aware of this report that is being carried out by David French and Associates,

and whether or not she has received the actual final report by David French?

Does she plan on implementing any of the recommendations that comes from this

report, or is this a report that was commissioned by the commissioner prior to

his leaving? Will she pay any credence to this report when it now ends up on her

desk? These are important questions, because naturally for every question there

has to be an answer. There was money spent in commissioning this report. We all

know how important it is with the boundaries that are currently set out by this

commission in determining the cutoff for different zones in the pricing by the

fuel commissioner. So it is important. I would like to hear the minister's

answer in this regard.

I would also like to ask the minister: Has she, herself, actually been to the

office in Grand Falls-Windsor and seen the setup for the process of setting fuel

prices? I would like to know if she has actually been in that office and if she

has talked to the staff. Is she familiar, herself, with the actual procedure

that takes place in getting to the point where the commissioner can set the fuel

prices in this regard? Is she familiar with any of this? I think if she is not,

it would be a good experience for the minister herself to travel to Grand

Falls-Windsor, probably with the Member for Windsor-Springdale. I know that he

is fairly familiar with the office in Grand Falls-Windsor. I am myself, I have

been there many times. I think it would be time well spent to actually look into

the operation of that particular office because it has received the accolades

from all over this Province; in fact, outside our Province. Other provinces are

looking at fuel regulation because they have all been hit hard now with prices

over the past month.

I have not heard whether or not the minister herself has actually looked at

the books and what it costs to keep this operation going. She, herself, knows

that it is no cost to government. I think knowing that there is a surplus paid

by the oil companies to operate this office, would she now consider using some

of that surplus for finding out more information on how consumers can be better

served? There are all kinds of ways to use up a surplus where it is going to be

a benefit to consumers in the future.

I really would like to see the Minister of Finance stand on his feet and say:

Yes, there could be an apparent windfall. There could be a windfall from those

high prices. I would like the minister to stand on his feet and say that he is

determined to do the best for consumers in this Province and that he will, at

the end of this fiscal year, March, 2005, look at how much extra money was put

into the government coffers over and above what was predicated. I know for a

fact that in determining revenue from gas sales he was ultra-conservative. The

Minister of Finance was ultra-conservative in projecting revenue from gas sales

in this Province. It has always been the process where you underestimate and

overachieve. We know, for a fact, that he used a low figure there. If he is

determined to put that money back into consumer's pockets he will agree that

at the end of March, 2005, to actually analyze the gas sales in this Province.

If there has been a windfall, which I expect there will be, he should commit, as

part of a budget strategy, to make sure that goes back into consumer's

pockets.

We have just witnessed one of the worst Budgets in our Province. It would

only be fair and just for the minister, himself, to commit to that. He is the

same minister who stood here in this House, while he was in Opposition, and

insisted that consumers get a break on fuel oil prices for home heating. Yet,

this winter he would not agree to that. In fact, the current Minister of

Education put out a news release saying that consumers who are heating their

homes with electricity should get the same benefits and the same subsidy as

those heating their homes with oil. Now, when they are the government, just

fifteen feet away across in this House, they decided to disband that idea, that

premise altogether, and say: No, the prices were not so bad this year. Well, I

can tell you, they were a lot lower in 1998 when we brought in that particular -

2001, I think it was, when we brought in the subsidy for homeowners in the past

for low-income earners and seniors; the fuel subsidy. When we brought in that in

the past, fuel oil was thirty-nine cents a litre. This winter, at the highest

point in February, around the middle of February, it was fifty-one cents. We

gave the subsidy - the former Administration - when it was only thirty-nine

cents a litre. This winter it was fifty-one cents a litre and we did not hear

this government wanting to take

part in a fuel oil rebate. So, it is a different

matter when you speak from the Opposition side and then you go into government.

It is entirely different, things change.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he will consider taking up that

matter and do that analysis next March, and if there is any benefit to

consumers, if the government has taken in more money than they projected in

their Budget, make a commitment to consumers who have been hard done by this

Budget, to put some money back in their pockets. I think that would be the fair

thing to do.

I am concerned about the proclamation date. I still have not gotten any

answers on that. Why would a minister not set out a proclamation date in a bill

coming to the House? That is troubling. I do not know why; there must be an

ulterior motive. I hope that when I am finished here she will hop up and tell us

why.

I would like to ask the minister, too, we know that there is a set of staff

with the commissioner's office, almost identical to the one with the Public

Utilities Board, and we understand that in order to carry out the proper

functions of the fuel commissioner's office in Grand Falls-Windsor you need

every one of those staff that are out there. They have been confirmed as doing

an excellent job. I am sure that will continue again in the future. Even though

the minister said she was going to extend the contracts for the staff in Grand

Falls-Windsor, she did not give the duration of the extension. That is

troubling. I hope now, when I am finished my response, she will get up and tell

me, and tell this House, what the length of that term will be. That would be

very settling for the people, the staff, in Grand Falls-Windsor. It would also

be good news to consumers right around the Province, who want to know what the

status will be of the future of the fuel commissioner's office in Grand

Falls-Windsor.

I want to close my questioning today, temporarily, because I am sure that I

will be up again, but I want to ask the minister if she can tell me - you said,

when you gave your opening remarks today, that the fuel oil commissioner's

office will be eliminated as a separate commission and it will be brought under

the PUB. When you said it would be eliminated as a separate commission, and now

the responsibilities will be those of the Public Utilities Board, you did not

outline what date it will become the responsibility of the Public Utilities

Board, because that would be the date of the proclamation of this particular

bill. You did not outline that date. You did not outline if the Public Utilities

Board would be taking on a dual role of actually setting the prices for gas and

then, in the same breath, you said that the Public Utilities Board can conduct

hearings into fuel price regulation. Will it be their job to set the prices and,

since they are a regulating body, also do the hearings?

These are questions, I think, that are important and need to be asked. I will

sit down for now and I hope that the minister will be able to stand on her feet

and answer these questions. They are very important to the consumers of this

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for a few minutes just to speak against Bill 32,

An Act

To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. There is another prime example of the

complete incompetence and bungling of the department and the government itself.

It is bad enough to go off and praise up Mr. Saunders and say what a great job

he did, and he did this Province a service. The work that was assigned to him,

he did it well, but then they turn around and phone him on the May 24 weekend

and ask him to resign because we forgot that your tender did not finish until

May 31. So, instead of coming out and saying that you are being released, the

deputy minister apparently called him and asked him to resign so that it does

not look so bad on the government itself, that we got rid of the pricing

commissioner.

It is ironic when the minister, herself, in such glee, and she did it in such

style, that she said it is going to save the Province $100,000 or $110,000, and

it was a budgetary decision made to save the Province money. She was outside the

House telling the media how much she is going to save by it. That is just not

true, Mr. Speaker. The funding for this commissioner, itself, is paid by the oil

companies. It is not costing the Province or the taxpayers of Newfoundland and

Labrador one red penny. It is just not costing one red penny. So, if the main

goal of the government was to get rid of a so-called political appointee who the

minister, herself, said did such a great job, he fulfilled his duties as best as

anybody that she could think of, why wouldn't you just appoint somebody else

if the duties were being properly controlled, properly served, for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador? To try and say and suggest to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that we are going to save $110,000 by this is just

incorrect. It is just not true. Then, to try to come -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, why

don't you read the whole act and why don't you see who pays for the

commissioner? You are a member of Cabinet. I am sure you read it. It is very

obvious, to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that you have not

read the act. If you are thinking this costs the taxpayers of this Province any

money whatsoever, you have not read the act. You have not read the act, or you

are making the same assumptions, telling the people of the Province the same

assumptions, that the minister made outside this House. She said, outside this

House, that it is saving the taxpayers $110,000. It is just not true. It is just

not true. The cost of the comptroller and the office itself is charged back to

the oil companies. So, if it costs less now under the PUB to operate this here,

who is going to get the savings? It is the oil companies. The oil companies are

the ones who are going to save the money. It is not the taxpayers of this

Province.

Then the minister stands up in this House and thanks George Saunders - I

think this is an insult, actually - she thanks George Saunders for the hard work

and dedication, and he served this Province well, and turns around and says he

is nothing but a political appointee.

So, here is a political appointee who the minister says, herself, has done a

good service to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and has informed the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador of all the necessary information, has done a

great job, but yet she has to add that he is a political appointee.

I ask the minister: If the commissioner is needed as you said, why not just

appoint another competent person to do it? If it is a competent person who is

associated with the PC Party and who is going to help out the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, by all means, make the appointment if the person is

competent. In this case, the minister has stated that he is a political

appointee, but yet he is a competent political appointee who did his three years

of service well.

Once again, I say to the minister, she should stand up and clarify how it is

going to save the Province, the taxpayers of this Province, $110,000, which she

said outside this House. If that is her rationale for the minister to get rid of

Mr. Saunders, it is just not true. The rational is just not true.

Now we go to the PUB. Everything is the same out in Grand Falls, according to

the minister, although she would not answer the question today that the Member

for Grand Falls-Buchans asked: Will the contracts be signed for the current

employees at the office now?

The minister would not answer that. What the minister said is, they are still

doing their duties as we speak now, but she would not say that when the

contracts are up, will those people be extended or will there be a wholesale

change. That is what the minister would not answer. I say, with the bungling of

bringing it under the PUB, and the way the minister did it, now we have to bring

this Bill 32 before the House, which was never discussed when Mr. Saunders was

first released of his duties, or his commitment that was made was fulfilled or

not renegotiated. The minister had no idea that this had to be enacted under

legislation or brought to the PUB.

I ask the minister: When you have a person, David Toms, who is going to be

out there now, and he is going to be the Executive Director, if David Toms is

the person who is going to do all of the work, as the minist