Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions — 10 April 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 15)
2001-04-10
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 10, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 15
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to
congratulate a young student in my district in his mathematic achievements.
Andrew Critch of Hillview, who is a Grade 9 student at Clarenville High, is now
completing advanced math 2201 and 3201 and is also taking
part in all math
competitions at Level III honour student level. Recently, Andrew wrote the W.J.
Blundon Contest sponsored by the mathematics department at Memorial University.
This, by invitation only, contest is usually reserved for elite honour students
who are in Level III. I am proud to say that Andrew placed second in the
Province's competition, an outstanding achievement considering he is only in
Grade 9, and because of this accomplishment Andrew has received an invitation to
attend MUN's annual math seminar in May.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Andrew on this outstanding achievement and wish
him well in his continued studies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I would like to offer congratulations to a young lady from my district
by the name of Rhiannon Morgan. Rhiannon is a fifteen year old student who
attends Queen Elizabeth Regional High School and over the last several days
Rhiannon has been chosen to try out for Canada's National Ladies Volleyball
Team this summer in Waterloo, Ontario. I think it is a tremendous thing for her.
It is a tremendous thing for her coach, Mr. Terry Mosher, and all the people who
are involved in Queen Elizabeth. Who knows, maybe by this fall we will have a
lady who has made one of Canada's national teams to compete for Canada in
world junior women's volleyball.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On April 18 and 19 pilots in Labrador West will, for the second year, be
hosting Young Eagles day. This program is designed to introduce young people
between the ages of eight and seventeen to aviation. It is also intended to
encourage young people to become interested in flying, raise awareness of
aviation career possibilities and provide them an opportunity to gain new
perspectives on their community, their lives, and the world in which we live.
The Honorary Chairperson of Young Eagles is Brigadier General, Chuck Yeager.
Local pilots will use their private aircraft taking young people on short
flights over Labrador West and the surrounding area and answering any questions
they may have concerning aviation.
Following their flight, they will receive an official Eagle Flight
Certificate signed by their pilot and have their name entered into the worlds
largest logbook which is on permanent display at the Air Adventure Museum,
located in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, George Pardy, Bill Cornick, and Gerry Holloway, the pilots who
are participating in this event are to be commended for providing experiences to
our young people that they otherwise would not be able to acquire.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to send
congratulations to a resident of my district who has been appointed to the
Supreme Court of Newfoundland Trial Division. Judge Garrett A. Handrigan is a
resident of Marystown.
After being called to the Bar in 1978, and working as a lawyer with a local
firm and later his own practice, in May, 1989, Judge Handrigan was appointed to
the Provincial Court Judge in Grand Bank and has served there ever since. His
new appointment, as Supreme Court Judge, will see Judge Handrigan serving at the
Judicial Centre in Grand Bank.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Judge Handrigan on this achievement and I send my
best wishes to him and his family as he faces the challenges of his new
position.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise this House, on behalf of
the Minister of Health and Community Services, that government will continue its
commitment to assist regional health boards in encouraging graduate nurses to
work in the health system throughout our Province.
For the second consecutive year government is setting aside funding,
totalling $600,000, to offer a $3,000 bursary to graduating nurses in return for
one year of service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: This spring 160 nurses will graduate from the Bachelor of
Nursing Program offered at our three nursing schools. These bursaries will be an
effective recruitment incentive to keep these professionals at home.
Last year the bursary program was very successful and our health boards
recruited 148 graduates. Feedback from nursing students indicate a high interest
in this program and they identify it as a key incentive to work in the Province.
In conjunction with the reclassification of the nursing profession last year,
which resulted in nurses receiving an increase in their salaries, the nurse
bursary program will assist the health organizations across this Province to
improve their efforts in recruitment and retention. Some health boards have
already started to recruit nurse graduates and are using the $3,000 bursary as a
recruitment tool.
With government's investment of $600,000, this ensures that the regional
health boards do not have to use their operating funds for this program, and
further demonstrates our commitment to the continued high quality of health
services to the residents of the Province. I invite all graduate nurses to
seriously consider the invitation to work in their home Province.
Mr. Speaker, fundamental to a quality health care system is the availability
of trained professionals. This nurse bursary program is one of several currently
offered by government to attract professionals, such as: occupational
therapists, physicians, physiotherapists, speech language pathologists, and
audiologists. The funding for this bursary program is in addition to the $1.7
million we will spend on our various bursary programs. By making strategic
investments to support recruitment in the health sector, this government is
clearly demonstrating that one of the keys to stabilizing our health and
community service program rests with the availability of our health
professionals.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased that these programs are continued this year, but there are many
other issues related to retaining nurses in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. For example, the working conditions of the nurses in the Province is a
major factor. The burn out factor is prevalent within the nursing profession in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Nurses are required to work shift after shift after
shift when they should not be. They are required to give up their holidays.
I had a phone call, just before I left, from a nurse in this system. She was
talking about holidays and the problems related to holidays.
AN HON. MEMBER: They can't do any planning. They cannot plan.
MR. J. BYRNE: No planning, that is right.
They are pressured to work too many hours. As a matter of fact, it is getting
to the point where they are afraid to answer their phones, afraid they will be
ordered back to work. This government has to start showing a bit of respect for
the nurses and the nursing profession in Newfoundland and Labrador. An example
of the lack of respect, of course, was last year when they legislated the nurses
back to work. That is an example of the lack of respect this government has, and
the people on that side of the House.
Also, this government has a long way to go to address the concerns of nurses
in this Province and health care in itself within the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The problem of retaining nurses in this Province and recruiting nurses was
amply demonstrated by the nurses who went on strike two years ago. This
government, instead of dealing with that problem through collective bargaining,
ordered them back to work and now are trying time to fix the problem with too
little too late.
The real problem with nurses leaving this Province is the high cost of
post-secondary education. The debts they have are so high that they feel they
have to leave the Province in order to pay off those debts. The incentive that
is being offered here in not enough to make up the difference of what is being
offered in other provinces and other countries. Something has to be done on that
front if we are going to properly retain and recruit the nurses that we train in
this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The federal government
finally decided last year to remove bracket creep from the income tax. I ask the
minister: Why didn't this Province make provision in their legislation last
December to remove bracket creep in our provincial income tax?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. J. BYRNE: What is bracket creep?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I can give the definition of creep, but I will hold back
on the bracket creep.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member knows, we have changed our taxes into tax on income system.
While we did not move to the bracket creep or creep bracket, what we did do is
allow a flow through of about an extra $12 million back to the people of the
Province.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, and they did it on January 1 so the effects of a reduced increase would
not come in. Because the federal government fully -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Because the federal government fully indexes their tax brackets to reflect
the CPI increase, there is now a difference of $1,164 between the lowest federal
income tax bracket and the lowest provincial income tax bracket, and that amount
is going to increase every single year. That means that the lowest income
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to pay close to an extra 6 per cent
more on their taxes on that income difference. I ask the minister: Why are you
taking money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, as the member stood up and asked the question, he was aware that
his cousins in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick clawed the $12 million back. We are
not into Tory policies in that regard, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: We are not going there!
Mr. Speaker, what we have done is implemented a three-year tax reduction
program, not only allowing the flow through of the $12 million, but $40 million
from the Province itself, $60 million this year and a further $75 million next
year.
MR. MATTHEWS: How much, $187 million?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, $187 million altogether.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a good strategy, to avoid the question and try to portray something
else.
At least we have a little advantage on the minister. You don't have any
cousins in provincial governments in this country, not one! You don't have a
cousin, not one cousin!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: They have a few up in Ottawa.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, B.C., I guess.
The federal government provided an income tax benefit to all Canadians, and
our Province is now clawing back a significant portion of that amount. I ask the
minister: Why are you providing an income tax break through the front door, then
going through the back door and clawing back a significant part of that income?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, every day they get up in the House and talk
about the front door and the back door. They are obsessed with the doors over
there, I can tell you.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yours is revolving.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, no. You will soon have the whole front row full of
ex-leaders over there. We are not revolving; you are revolving, for God's
sake.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, whether you are talking about the front
door or the back door, it is not accurate what he is saying. It is $12 million
flowing through, plus $40 million, Mr. Speaker, that this Province initiated
with the tax back system, plus $60 million this year -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the question, but it is the
answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is for the Premier. Premier, the people of Grand Falls,
Windsor, Bishop's Falls, Botwood, and all the Central Newfoundland area, are
concerned that Abitibi Consolidated may be preparing to shut down number seven
machine at the Grand Falls-Windsor mill. The mill unions brought those concerns
to the current Premier and the current Minister of Labour last August, but they
have not yet received a response.
What assurances can the Premier give that number seven machine will remain in
operation at the Grand Falls-Windsor mill? A very serious issue, Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, with regard to number seven machine, I don't
know where the member is coming from there. The last week-and-a-half or so,
number seven machine is down because some seventeen or eighteen gears went on
number seven. They didn't think at the time they would be able to repair it,
but as of today it looks like they can repair that machine. There is a
substantial amount of newsprint, there is some 70,000 tons per year, which is
one-third the production in that particular mill in Grand Falls. Abitibi has
given their approval for that number seven to be repaired, and as of today, Mr.
Speaker, unless something has happened since a few minutes ago, they were going
to repair number seven in Grand Falls to the best of their ability.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Minister of Forest Resources
and Agrifoods doesn't know what is happening. I just got off the phone with
the manager of Abitibi Consolidated.
I will ask the question to the Minister of Labour. Minister, what assurances
can you give that number seven paper machine will remain in operation in the
Grand Falls-Windsor mill?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to the member opposite, I would like to inform this House that I
have been in contact with both the management of the mill and the unions and the
community at large. I am very concerned about the situation in Grand
Falls-Windsor. If it escalates to the point where the Department of Labour is
required I will be facilitating, by way of conciliator, to come to a resolve in
that situation. I am closely monitoring it. There is a meeting scheduled for
next Wednesday with the unions, the Premier, myself, and the Minister of Forest
Resources and Agrifoods. We are in daily contact with that situation and the
result that we are trying to achieve is one that both parties can work with. I
am in close contact with both parties and we hope to have a resolve that we can
all work with.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I must say it again. The Minster of Labour does
not know what is going on at that mill today; two different opinions. I have a
letter here from a representative of the union that said they asked for a
meeting back in August of last year, minister. You have not responded to that
letter yet. So if you are on a daily contact, I do not know who it is with.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. HUNTER: I spoke to the manager of the mill today and if they do not
resolve this situation then by the end of the week number seven will be shut
down.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What guarantees have you had and discussions with the unions and with the
company to assure -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HUNTER: This is a serious concern. We are talking about 300 to 750
jobs that could be affected in the Premier's district.
AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't care about that.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HUNTER: The port of Botwood could be closed down. Hundreds of people
could be out of jobs.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question quickly.
MR. HUNTER: I will ask this question to the Premier: The Abitibi mill in
Grands Falls-Windsor ran four paper machines a few years ago. They have already
shut down two machines and the third machine is being threatened, Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I will ask him now to get to his
question.
MR. HUNTER: The mill unions and the people of Central Newfoundland have
asked for an industrial inquiry -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. HUNTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
They have asked for an industrial inquiry. What is your response to them,
Premier?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised an issue in this
House that is out in the general public today, and it has been for a few days.
The meeting that you are referring to was an information session. In recent
days, as the issue has been brought to the attention of this government, myself,
and both the Premier and Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods have been
involved -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: I think what is very important at this very moment, for all
of us here in this House, is to look at the issue and see what we can do as a
government and as a House of Assembly to resolve it, not pitting one party
against the other. That is not the intention. What we are looking for is -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what we are looking for is stability both in
Central Newfoundland and the Province in general. We all know how the mill in
Grand Falls-Windsor affects the economy of Central Newfoundland and the
Province, and we will be doing everything as a government to ensure that we can
resolve this situation to the best of our ability.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know what the minister has been doing in the past year but I cannot
find anybody who said that they were consulting with the government, the
Premier, or the minister on this situation. It is a very serious -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, it is pretty obvious, I guess, this government has a history of doing
little too late. After the cow leaves the barn they shut the door.
Is the Premier going to let Abitibi gradually dismantle the Grand
Falls-Windsor mill and then advocate civil disobedience? Is civil disobedience
his only solution for the people of Central Newfoundland as it appears to be for
the people of Marystown on the Burin Peninsula? Is that what you are going to
do, Premier, wait until it is too late?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that
this is a time for civil heads, cool heads, to prevail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I view this issue as a very serious one and one
that we should all look at with a great deal of commonsense. What we are about
to do now is - I know that management has met with the union group today. I
already spoke to both groups today and I want to hear the outcome of that. They,
in turn, will be meeting with us, as a government, next week, and we will be
working through the situation. We will do everything within our power to try and
resolve it to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, the community-at-large
and the entire Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. He is
aware, I know, that women's hockey is the fastest growing sport in the
Province and across the nation. Canada's women's hockey team just won their
seventh world title. Although women's hockey players are among the most
skilled athletes in this Province their sport is not included in the Provincial
Winter Games in Gander. Will the minister explain why?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.
My colleague from Gander, the minister responsible for women's policy, has
already come to see me about this issue and there is no final decision on that.
There is a review underway. I just want to say that we are very proud of the
fact that the Winter Games are going ahead in Central Newfoundland, in Gander,
and that issue is going to be addressed in short order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Newfoundland Minor Hockey has tried to get the sport included in the Winter
Games. When told that ice time was a problem, they even offered to give up half
the ice time scheduled for boys hockey. Will the minister intervene and make
sure that women's hockey is included in the showcase event?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
As I said, the Member for Gander and the minister responsible for women's
issues have been doing a tremendous job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: As a matter of fact, less than two weeks ago we were in
Gander and announced $100,000 worth of funding, $200,000 actually, for two
different departments for the Winter Games. We are working on the issue and we
will address the issue, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, why won't you intervene today to make sure this happens?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. members to let the minister answer the question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the weekend concert is over, and we are
working on this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I say to the
minister, two years ago this House passed a unanimous resolution to change the
name of the Province from the Province of Newfoundland, to the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Two years have passed and we have had no word from
the federal government who must introduce legislation through the House of
Commons for confirmation, and the Senate. I ask the minister if he can provide
an update to the House on the status of the name change for the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow townsman for that very
intelligent question and inform him that, as he knows, to bring about this name
change requires an amendment to the 1949 Terms of Union. We have worked on this
issue to bring around this very important and significant name change for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Unfortunately, the federal government have
not assigned it the importance and the significance that we assign to it at this
particular point in time, but we have contacted all of the key people, been in
touch with all of the key personnel, both the Premier and I, and other
officials, to impress upon Ottawa the importance of getting this matter resolved
as quickly as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, it may not be on the top priority of the list in
Ottawa but it certainly should be a priority for the people of this Province. I
ask the minister if he has heard, as I have heard in my travels through
Labrador, people suggesting that the reason the federal government is not
dealing with this issue is simply because they do not want to offend Quebec,
whose maps today show Labrador as part of their territory? Mail that comes to
Labrador from Quebec many times has Labrador City-Wabush-Quebec on the envelope.
I ask the minister if he thinks that is a possible reason why this has not come
forward in the House? Would he pressure the federal government to make sure that
this is a priority, and change Term I to include the official name of the
Province as Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all of the
effort that we can put together will be put into trying to expedite this matter.
We have, over the past month-and-a-half, both the Premier and I, contacted, as I
have said, all of the key people. We plan to do it in the weeks ahead of us to
ensure that this item is moved forward, that it is moved ahead, so that the
people of Labrador will be given the opportunity to feel included in this
Province. That has been our initiative, Mr. Speaker. That has been the
initiative on this side of the House and we plan to leave no stone unturned
until this initiative is achieved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: One quick question, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
If this is of paramount importance to the Province, I ask the minister, or
the Premier: Why was that not on his list of items when he went to see the Prime
Minister recently?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, in every effort that either IGA has made, the
minister, or the Premier, we have brought up this issue, this important issue,
this most significant issue, of a name change of Newfoundland and Labrador. If
the hon. member had checked the press release he would have seen that the
Premier did indeed mention that item to the Prime Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation also. Last
year, as part of the Viking Celebrations on the Northern Peninsula there was a
substantial amount of money spent by both the federal and provincial
governments. A large portion of that was spent on the construction of Norstead,
a facility that would provide long-term employment for about forty people in the
area. The Viking Trail Tourism Association has contracts signed with promotional
companies, tour groups, cruise ship companies, and in excess of 3,000 people are
booked to visit this facility this summer.
In December of 2000, the Viking Trail Tourism Association submitted a
proposal to the minister and his department to continue operation of this
facility. My question is, Mr. Minister: Why have you not answered them on this
proposal, and what is your plan for continued funding of Norstead?
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, let me say this to you: first off, the
Viking celebrations were a great success for this Province, and excellent
success for this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Millions of dollars, federal-provincial dollars, were put
on the Northern Peninsula to promote and develop tourism. As a matter of fact,
the Viking exhibit is still traveling the world and is going to open in Ottawa
in the next couple of weeks promoting this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: On the Norstead proposal, this minister and the deputy
minister went to the annual meeting last week of the Viking Trail Tourism
Association because we considered it a priority to attend that meeting because
this was one of the issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: We have met with the executive of the VTTA. We are
working on the proposal between the federal-provincial governments. We will have
more to report in due course, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: I was hoping the minister was going to tell me something I
did not know, because I know that there was $1.8 million spent on the
construction of Norstead last year, as well as the other millions of dollars
that were spent on the Vikings celebrations. Why are we now, at the eleventh
hour, when the Viking Trail Tourism Association has to make critical decisions
in the next couple of days about whether they are going to continue with the
operation of this facility this year or not, and they have no answer from this
minister since December of 2000, when their initial proposal was submitted for
approval?
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if I was to talk about what the member does
not know, I would be here all day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated that we are working -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is going to remind hon. members that interjection of this sort is
not acceptable in the House. If members continue to do this, the Chair will have
to take further action and probably name a member. Members ought to let the
questions be asked and answers be given.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
An answer will happen in due course. We are working with the federal
government. Our officials are working on this to try to resolve it. It is an
issue that is going to require a substantial financial contribution for the long
term, and we want to do it right. For whatever is going to happen, the solution
needs to be the right one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits
& White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Why doesn't the minister just stand up and admit that this government's
approach to tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador is to have a party one year
with no follow-up the next year, no plan for the tourism industry, and that is
why the people on the Northern Peninsula and the Viking Trail Tourism
Association have to face making these decisions today. Why don't you admit
that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. K. AYLWARD: The best tourism ads in the country, the best marketing
campaign in years, we have had in the last three or four years, and we have the
member over there - the area that most benefitted from it - and he will not even
admit or give the government an opportunity to finalize a solution to this
problem.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our tourism record in
this government, and we have done a lot more -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Despite the criticism of the member from the area, let me
tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are working on solutions to the problem. Also, it is a
key part of our promotion of the Province, the Gros Morne National Park and
right up the Northern Peninsula.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Labour. Between 1996 and the year 2000,
nearly 8,000 claims were processed by the workers' compensation commission for
workers in the fifteen to twenty-four year age group. The recent task force
recommended that the minister, together with other ministers in government,
embark immediately upon consultations with the public and private post-secondary
institutions to make health and safety education a mandatory program of the
post-secondary program. What steps has the Minister of Labour and others taken
to consult with her colleagues to make this recommendation an active part of our
health and safety program?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The task force for the workers' compensation commission recently presented
their report to government, and that report was made public. I think what is
important about that report was that it had the unanimous agreement of all of
the stakeholders. There was a panel of five people who served on that task force
review. The recommendations were forty-five in number and it was presented to
government. That particular report is now before government and we are reviewing
every one of those forty-five recommendations, and the results of that report
will be made known very shortly.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, time for one quick
supplementary.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The task force strongly recommends as well that far greater attention and
priority needs to be paid to occupational health and safety matters. They
recommend that a provincial accident prevention strategy be formulated on a
priority basis. Has the minister taken action on this particular recommendation?
What precisely has she done?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I think I would like to, at this time, congratulate the people who served on
that panel.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: They did an excellent job of reviewing the issues that the
report itself faced. As you all know, members of this House, the workers'
compensation commission is in serious financial difficulty. Part of that review,
a good thrust of that review, was finding resolutions that would put them on
stable footing. In the weeks ahead you will find out, we will make known, the
recommendations of that report.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to
section 28.(4).(
b) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling three Orders-in-Council for the creation of three new activities of
expenditure for the 2000-2001 fiscal year.
Pursuant to
section 26.(a).(5) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling two orders in council relating to the funding pre-commitments for the
2001-2002 fiscal year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of
Tobacco Related Health Care Cost."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
"An Act Respecting Municipal Elections." (Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow
introduce the following private member's motion:
WHEREAS the recently released Final Report on the Renewal Strategy for Jobs
and Growth has identified knowledge based industries as a strategic growth
opportunity; and
WHEREAS information technology is changing many aspects of society and it is
being predicted that there may be continued change of both a technical nature
and a structural nature; and
WHEREAS many government services can be provided online and the availability
of information and communication technology are becoming important ingredients
in economic development; and
WHEREAS the Department of Development and Rural Renewal and the Department of
Industry, Trade and Technology have been combined to form the new Department of
Industry, Trade and Rural Development,
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the priority of ensuring
all regions of the Province have access to modern telecommunications
infrastructures to participate in the knowledge based economy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member of Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today, Mr. Speaker, the second day in a row I rise on a petition
in this House on roads. Yes, I say to the minister, it is on roads again, and I
am going to continue to present petitions from people in my district who have a
complaint about roads. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that every member in this
House - because I know they are also getting phone calls about the situation
with the roads throughout the Island portion of the Province and Labrador. Mr.
Speaker, I am going to repeat the same thing I have been saying for three years:
Simply put, we need a long-term plan to deal with roads; not every April month
for every member to go scrounging to whoever the minister is; and I pity the
minister. The former minister, who is just about to leave the House, knows it
too, that the fact is -
MR. SULLIVAN: If he had to do some other roads, he might have more
support.
MR. SHELLEY: The minister didn't do enough roads, I say to him.
Mr. Speaker, the fact still remains that there is a deplorable situation when
it comes to roads in this Province. As we talk about this year after year, the
problem has gotten worse. I said yesterday, it is like a bad credit card out of
control. If you have a demand, as the minister has told me, of $198 million and
you are going to stick $18 million into it this year, we don't need to be the
Finance Minister or the Auditor General to realize that just doesn't work. The
mathematics isn't there. You can't even keep up with it. That wouldn't
even be considered a down payment, Mr. Speaker, on a debt of that size.
Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the roads throughout the Province, this
petition is on behalf of every single member in this House of Assembly who has
people telling them - and they are driving over the roads themselves. When you
get people who have paved roads complaining to you, telling you they are going
to cut off a paved road and then there is a person connected to that paved road
who has not seen their first bit of pavement yet, Mr. Speaker - we have a
combined problem in this Province of over 900 kilometers of gravel road and on
top of that hundreds, maybe even thousands, of kilometers of road that is twenty
to twenty-five years old.
Mr. Speaker, in my particular district, I have the people on the La Scie
Highway who have a twenty-five year old road that is as bad or worse than gravel
roads. Then I have five communities off that road that still have gravel roads.
Now, Mr. Speaker, they don't know if they should be joining together or if
they should all be fighting on their own, whether they should get the old
pavement replaced or gravel road done. That is how pathetic a situation we are
facing today in Newfoundland and Labrador, all because, Mr. Speaker, we don't
have a plan. You have to have a plan if you are going to address a problem of
that magnitude.
What it does besides give you the common decency of a decent road to drive
over for our school children, is it also entices industry. We have a gold mine
in Nugget Pond on the Baie Verte Peninsula that almost didn't go ahead last
year because of our road. Can you imagine! What else is going to be turned away,
Mr. Speaker? Think about tourism that was talked about so much here today. I had
it last year, and this particular petition is -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: - from the community of Harry's Harbour which turned away
tourists last year because they didn't want to turn down a gravel road again.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is long overdue with regard to being addressed. We
need to address it as a major plan, not something we deal with at the last
minute every year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 3. I ask for first reading of a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, Bill 6.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 6)
On motion, Bill 6 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. LUSH: Order 5, Mr. Speaker, Bill 4.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Petroleum
Products." (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure today to get up and open debate on Bill 4 again, "An
Act Respecting Petroleum Products."
Where I left off yesterday was concerning the importance of prices to people
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When they want to do planning, planning for
their budgeting, travelling and other functions that they do in their lives from
day to day, it is important that some control will be on pricing. Hopefully,
pricing can be decreased so that people can do more with the dollars they have
to spend at the end of the day.
Yesterday I was referring to some of the effects that high prices have on
people in their every day work, particularly when it comes to people depending
on fuel and gasoline to get to the workplace to do the job that they have to do
when they get there. As we know, a lot of our jobs in rural Newfoundland today
center around equipment that they need, whether it is in a fishing boat, whether
it is a chainsaw, whether it is a harvester, or a skidder, or some other piece
of equipment. They need to know, on a regular basis, if there is going to be any
increases in the cost of their fuels and gasolines. It is important that we have
some consistency in the prices of gasoline, heating fuels, and any kind of fuels
that we use in equipment. This does have a detrimental effect on the budgeting
for ordinary individuals in our Province and also a detrimental effect on small
businesses in our Province.
Most small businesses today depend on a very small margin of profit to get
them through the year and to help them plan the next year. If gasoline prices
are going to be up all the time, going up inconsistently, then there is cause to
worry about small businesses not being able to budget and carry on their
businesses throughout the year. It is important that we do have some type of
regulation in place, or legislation, to keep the prices more consistent. Small
businesses, I know, are really affected because if you have a small business
with a couple of pieces of equipment then the increase in fuel or gasoline could
make the difference of that business surviving the rest of the year or probably
going out of business.
I see a great benefit in having a constant, consistent, tax legislation in
place so that all of these small businesses - and even the larger businesses too
- can do better budgeting and better planning to make their business more
profitable at the end of the day and provide more benefits to their employees,
which certainly is a big spinoff when it comes back to the government and to
other different small businesses in our communities. We all know, what goes
around comes around, with money, with spinoffs, the tax dollars that go back
into the government, the government can do more work. It is important that we do
have some consistency in prices of fuel oils and gasoline. Maybe a decrease in
the price of gasoline, with respect to the taxes, might be a better way to make
it even better again with respect to the people of our Province surviving and
getting the best benefit out of that precious resource of fuel and oil products.
I think we probably should look at some mechanism in legislation that would
guarantee or ensure that the prices of gasoline, heating fuel oils, and other
products from petroleum be decreased. It would be a great benefit, particularly
to people depending on home heating fuel. The last few weeks many members, I
know several on our side, myself included, are getting many calls from seniors
and fixed income people, complaining about the high cost of heating fuel. They
have to make difficult decisions in what they are going to do with the limited
amount of money they have to survive on to be sustainable in their family
living.
Madam Speaker, the calls that I have gotten this week, with respect to
heating fuels, is that a lot of people are running out of heating fuel and are
now living in very uncomfortable conditions. They must still have enough money
to provide food and other necessities in their daily living, but we are having a
lot of people calling in saying: we do not have enough money to buy heating
fuel. The price of heating fuel is so high. It is so different. It is higher
this year than last year. It has certainly cut into their budgeting for their
livelihoods in trying to live in their own homes and their own communities in
rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very important that we do everything we
can, everything possible, to help our seniors, our fixed income people, and our
less fortunate people, to live in their own homes in the outports, in the rural
parts of Newfoundland and Labrador where it is very difficult to get the
services that we all enjoy in bigger centres. We can jump aboard a car and in
two minutes be at a hospital or a major chain store, or any services that
government provides, when people have to get in their vehicles and drive for an
hour, two hours, probably five hours to get the services they deserve and need
with health care and other services that government provides. The cost of
gasoline to them is very important. It could make the difference of people
having to cancel appointments, cancel surgeries because they cannot afford to
come to the bigger centres, particularly the St. John's area where the Health
Sciences and other hospitals provide services that cannot be gotten anywhere
else in the Province. Madam Speaker, that is very unfortunate and very unfair to
the people of our Province. We have to make sure that there is a consistency
with fuel oil and gasoline prices to make sure that people have a fair
opportunity, an equal chance to avail of all the services that government
provides and all the services that private industry provides so that they can
make their lives better.
Madam Speaker, a very important part of the legislation that I see, which
just bothers me a little bit, is on page 5 with respect to
section "4.
(2) The commissioner may divide the province into zones and may set a different
maximum wholesale and retail price that a wholesaler and a retailer may charge
for heating fuel and motor fuel for each zone."
The way I see it in this Province today, most people are on fixed incomes and
the paycheques that they receive is the same on one end of the Island as it is
on the other end of the Island. If we divide the Island up into zones where
prices are higher in one part of the Island and lower in other parts of the
Island, then I think that is very unfair. People should have equal opportunity
and pay equal prices for fuels all across the Province; not penalize anybody
because they either live in a built up area or a lesser remote rural area. I am
not too pleased with that part of the legislation. I think we may have to look
at that again, just to make sure that everybody in the Province is treated
equally and fairly.
Madam Speaker, on the same page, with the basic fuel prices in
section
"6.
(1) The commissioner shall establish a petroleum product base wholesale
and retail price for each type of heating fuel and motor fuel sold by a
wholesaler and a retailer using the criteria prescribed for that purpose by the
regulations."
If the commissioner is going to be independent and responsible in how he
regulates and increases, and allows this legislation to be enacted, then I hope
it will be done in a responsible and equitable way so that everybody will be
treated fairly and equally, no matter where they live, no matter what job, what
profession they are in, or if they even do not work, or what type of incomes
they receive.
On page 6,
section 8, application for change in the price bothers me a little
bit.
Section "8.
(1) A wholesaler or a retailer may apply to the
commissioner for a change in the price of the type of heating fuels and motor
fuels, setting out - and that could be in respect to the price last approved by
the commissioner, the proposed new price, the date on which the proposed new
price is to take effect, the reason for the proposed change in price, the other
information that may be prescribed by the regulation. Madam Speaker, the
commissioner does have the power to implement and to change the prices as he
sees responsible and fit.
With the ability to appeal the decisions that are made by the commissioner in
item 8.(a), it says that the commissioner does have the right to deny the
application. If that is so, I have a big problem with item 8.(4). It says,
"Only one application may be made by a wholesaler or a retailer in a 12
month period." So why do we need that
part in that legislation, if the
commissioner does have the right to deny an application and any application that
comes forward can only be done once by any retailer or wholesaler. That part of
the legislation bothers me.
MADAM SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that his time is up..
MR. HUNTER: Can I have leave, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
That does bother me a little bit, because if the commissioner does have the
power to deny an application then we certainly should not have a restriction in
there to only allow an applicant to apply once every twelve months. In some
instances or circumstances where an applicant needs to apply more than that,
then he is left out just by that part of the legislation only. I think if the
responsibility is on the commissioner, and he is responsible and fair to the
applicants and to the wholesalers and retailers, then he should make that
decision on his own and not have to be included in the legislation which denies
the right of any applicant to apply more than once for that twelve month period.
The commissioner does have the option, if he wants to make an interim order
setting, which is a temporary price of heating fuels and motors fuels, so any
change in prices that might appear or might need to be done, then the
commissioner does have the power to do it and may be would not have to go into
an appeal process on that.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, it is important that we do recognize that
the legislation is important. This is a very serious problem, and it was a
pleasure for me today to speak a few minutes and continue the debate on this
legislation, Bill 4. I say to Madam Speaker, may we continue debating issues of
such importance to the people of our Province, in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. It is something that affects their everyday life and the quality of
life that they have.
Madam Speaker, I will just conclude by saying that we need all the debate we
can get on this important piece of legislation. In rural Newfoundland today,
this is so important that it could affect the lives of many people with respect
to their heating and their ability to provide warm and comfortable homes. With
seniors today, and people becoming seniors, we must really look at a way of
decreasing the price and probably eliminating the tax on home heating fuels
altogether, so that dollar could go a little farther and provide a little bit
more comfort for the people of our Province, and also help people who do not
have the ability to get out in our forests and cut firewood to bring home to
have a better heating system in their homes, and more comfort. The price of
gasoline could affect that, with respect to them in their vehicles to get to the
area of cutting and back again, and gas and oil for their chainsaws, and all of
that.
It is a very, very important topic, it is a very important issue, and I think
everybody should be concerned and should find a way that we can do this as fair
as possible and equitable to everybody concerned. I hope that everybody does
consider this legislation as probably a step in the right direction.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I had waited for some time before I stood, because the tradition in the House
is that when someone speaks from the Opposition side then someone from the
government side would normally get up and speak. Obviously, that is not the
case. Perhaps that will improve a little bit when we get cameras in the House in
the fall. Maybe when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can see that it is
the Opposition in the House that carries the debate day after day after day,
that someone from the government's side might be encouraged to get up, other
than in those members' statements, to have some participation in the debate.
Maybe when the cameras come in, as I said, that might change a bit, because
surely the members on the government side would not want it to be known that we
have been carrying this debate now for several days and not once, other than the
minister when the bill was introduced, have they said anything relative to
supporting this particular piece of legislation.
An Act Respecting Petroleum Products, Bill 4, came as a bit of a surprise to
us. We were not surprised in the spring sitting; we were a bit surprised in the
Liberal leadership, because as the Liberal leadership began to unfold we came to
realize that many of the policies that were contained in the Progressive
Conservative Party platform, the Blue Book, last time were indeed finding
themselves into the Liberal leadership. Things like the Child Advocate, for
example, the Ombudsman, that all found itself as part of the Liberal Party
platform being put forward by several candidates who were running for the
leadership of that party.
One of the ones that I want to draw reference to is the fact that the current
Premier, the winner at the Glacier by fourteen votes, all of fourteen votes,
just more than enough to have a card game, by the very narrowest of margins, the
winner there, the current Premier, he used to be, a few short months ago, the
Minister of Mines and Energy. On January 6, 1999, two years ago, after Dennis
Browne had submitted his report, the minister reacted to the calls for gasoline
price regulation. What did the minister say? I am reading from a press release
put out by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, dated January 6, 1999,
put out by the minister which says, "Mines and Energy Minister Roger Grimes
has reacted to a new round of calls for gasoline price regulation. The issue of
price regulation was reviewed in detail during the latter half of 1997, when, in
response to consumer concerns government appointed Dennis Browne to investigate
and report on gasoline prices in the province..." says the then current
minister.
The minister, in 1999, was reacting to the 1997 report by the commissioner
appointed to look at gasoline prices, Dennis Browne. In his press release the
minister says: "In particular, Mr. Browne was directed to determine whether
regulation of gasoline prices would be in the public interest. The study was
completed following extensive consultation with consumer groups, town councils,
the oil industry and various provincial and federal government
departments."
Madam Speaker, in January of 1999 the minister, who is now the Premier, said,
"Government generally agreed with the consumer advocate's report and
accepted its two main recommendations; that there be no price regulation and
that government monitoring of gasoline prices be improved. A monitoring and
publication program has been established within the Department of Mines and
Energy to keep the general public informed of gasoline prices and the issues
related to gasoline pricing."
The minister said in his press release, "While several provinces have
investigated price regulation, Prince Edward Island remains the only province
where regulation is implemented. One argument against price regulation is that
prices would normally be higher in a regulated market."
Madam Speaker, why would we bring in price regulations if it is going to
cause the price of fuel to go up? What the minister said on January 6, 1999, now
the current Premier, was, "One argument against price regulation is that
prices would normally be higher in a regulated market. Tracking of gasoline
prices in this province confirms that this would be the case here."
Tracking done by commissioner Dennis Browne shows, in his report, that if we
are to regulate gasoline prices in this Province, indeed the prices of gasoline
and other fuels would actually increase. The minister confirms that would
happen. In other words, in a regulated market prices tend to increase rather
than decrease. Mr. Grimes also said at the time, and I am quoting again,
"It's important to note that the Consumers Association of Canada is also
on record as being opposed to price regulation."
Madam Speaker, why then did we have in the Liberal leadership leading up to
the great contest that took place at the Glacier on that snowy day in early
February, why did we have several candidates coming out and saying they were
going to go and they were going to adopt a program that would lead to the very
thing that one candidate, namely the current Premier, had said approximately two
years before that, that would cause the prices to go up. It baffles logic, in
particular in the sense that there is some evidence to suggest - I am reading
again here - that the Consumers Association of Canada is on record as being
opposed to price regulation. Only one Province has it in Canada, that is Prince
Edward Island. Also, that prices in a regulated market tend to be higher than
they are in a market that is operating on the free market principles of supply
and demand. Mr. Speaker, this seems to defy logic. Certainly all members on that
side, as they lined up at the Glacier, with some rare exceptions, find
themselves having to support this particular proposal.
We on this side are certainly not against having some public knowledge of
pricing. In fact, our critic for mines and energy has at various times made
various statements on that particular issue. For example, a statement made by
Opposition mines and energy critic John Ottenheimer, the Member for St. John's
East, on April 27, 2000, almost a year ago, said he wanted the breakdown of gas
prices displayed prominently at the pumps so consumers can see for themselves
why the prices are what they are.
Mr. Speaker, let's examine why prices in Newfoundland are really what they
are. There are four elements in the price that is established for gasoline and
other fuels. One is, of course, the price of crude. The price of crude, we
cannot control that. That is controlled in an international marketplace with
various cartels. The price several years ago was down to $11 or $12 a barrel and
it has been up to more than $30 a barrel. It is currently in the $28-$29 a
barrel range. We cannot control that. Item number one, factor number one, in the
price that you pay for gasoline and other fuels is the price of crude.
The second factor is the costs added because of refining. That will vary
somewhat, but in the international marketplace there is some consistency in the
general cost of refining.
The third factor is the costs added by the retailer; in other words, the
amount of margin that is between the cost that the retailer is paying at the
wholesale level and the amount that he charges at the retail level. The other
factor is the taxes that have to be paid.
Mr. Speaker, when we examine these particular factors in various locations
between Newfoundland and other places, we found that the biggest factor in high
prices in Newfoundland is not factors numbered one, two or three. The biggest
factor is the pump taxes.
Consumers can see for themselves that half the price of a litre of gasoline
in Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed taxes. They will understand why, then,
the cost of fuel is so high in this Province. It is the highest taxed
jurisdiction in the entire country. So, you are in the highest taxed
jurisdiction in all the country; you can fully expect ,when it comes to gasoline
and other fuels, to pay the highest price.
Now, there are various studies that have been done on this particular topic.
For example, if you were to look at a comparison between Newfoundland and other
parts of the world - and I have one study here that was quoted by our critic for
mines and energy, the Member for St. John's East, John Ottenheimer, he says
that the contrast here is between what is paid in St. John's with what is paid
in Bangor, Maine. So, the crude content component of the price was the same in
both centres. In both centres, in Bangor, Maine and in St. John's,
Newfoundland, the cost of a litre - and this was in April, 2000 - was 23.4 cents
a litre. That is what it cost, the crude price for the people who were buying
the fuel, the crude to be refined in Newfoundland or ending up in Newfoundland,
and what was going to Bangor, Maine, 23.4 cents a litre.
The refiner's margin - that is the cost added because of refining - in the
two centres was almost the same. In other words, it cost 12.8 cents a litre in
St. John's to refine it, and it cost 12.1 cents a litre in Bangor, Maine. So,
Madam Speaker, we haven't had much variation at this stage in factor number
one or in factor number two. Look at factor number three. That is the marketer's
margin. That was also very comparable. In St. John's, it was 9.0 cents a litre
and in Bangor, Maine it was 7.4 cents a litre. In other words, the profit margin
was slightly higher in St. John's than it was in Bangor, Maine.
Look at the pump taxes. If you looked at the first three factors, you would
say that the price of gasoline in April, 2000, in St. John's or in Corner
Brook or anywhere in Newfoundland should be comparable to Bangor, Maine or other
places in the New England States, but the pump taxes were not the same at all.
In Newfoundland a year ago, in April, 2000, we were paying 37.2 cents a litre in
St. John's as compared with just 14.5 cents a litre in Bangor. That is a
difference there.
Now, if you looked at all of these factors and put them on to the prices,
then when you go and you see that factor number one, the price of crude, is
exactly the same, 23.4 cents a litre; when you look at factor number two, the
cost added because of refining, we find out that it was 12.8 cents a litre in
St. John's and 12.1 cents a litre in Bangor, Maine, and the markup was
somewhat comparable although a little higher in St. John's at 9.0 cents a
litre compared to 7.4 cents.
Then, of course, we come to the taxes. So the real reason we have higher fuel
prices in Newfoundland as compared to other parts of Canada or other parts of
the United States is because of taxes.
That is why we on this side of the House - we are not saying there should be
no taxes on gasoline, not at all. We are not saying that. We are not even saying
that we can afford the tax regime that is imposed in places like Bangor, Maine,
or in some other places. What we are saying, though, is that for certain groups
of people we should look at, because it is an essential product, our tax regime.
We should look at, for example, the HST that is added, and other taxes are
comparable - they are not comparable to Maine but they are comparable to some
other parts of Atlantic Canada.
When we look at the whole package, the only bit of flexibility we might have
is on HST. Yet, we find ourselves in this Province locked into an agreement with
other Atlantic Provinces - Nova Scotia and New Brunswick - whereby we do not
even have the flexibility of doing that. It is one thing for the Premier to say
he is going to bring in an oil and gas regulatory regime. The truth of the
matter is that there is not much that person can do if we are not going to give
them some tools to work with.
What we are saying basically is that until this government comes to realize
that ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to have lower taxes on their
gasoline and home heating fuels, that will make a big difference to ordinary
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; however, we also have said, on this side of
the House - again I quote from a press release dated January 7, 1999, of what we
would do if we were there. You will recall that we also had said that we would
look at the issues of taxation on essential products like home heating fuels.
That was part of our platform. We are surprised at the other side. They are
taking everything else that the PCs put forward in our election, and they are
adopting it. We would have been so happy if we would have seen it because we
applaud them. We say that when you have run out of your own ideas - and
obviously this government has run out of its own ideas, it is on its last leg -
now there are going and saying we do not have any ideas of our own so we are
going to look to the PCs Blue Book and we are going to take some of their ideas.
They should be charged with robbery, but I do not know whether that is defined
adequately under the various codes. They have run out of their own ideas and
they certainly have not fulfilled all of their ideas.
I took a chance the other day when I had a few moments and was going through
my files up there and I came across the Blue Book for the 1996 election. A lot
of that is not even touched yet, but they have run out of some of their own
ideas and now they are coming to the Blue Book. One of the ones they did not
take, one of the ones we wish they would have taken, is the idea that we have to
look at the taxation that is charged to ordinary Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, particularly when it comes to home heating fuels. We would have
been standing in our places and applauding them.
I am delighted they are going to bring in things like a Child Advocate. I
helped write the report that brought that forward. I have done a fair bit of
research and perhaps more than most members of this House on that particular
topic - myself, together with other members, including the Member for Port au
Port. I am hoping that the person will be directly responsible to the House of
Assembly, and that would be consistent with what you recommended, rather than
answerable to some line department, but we will have to see what happens in the
consultations that are now ongoing.
Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the PCs. We said two years ago, we will
create a petroleum products monitor to ensure monitoring and disclosure of gas
and oil pricing for consumers. I have had many conversations with people in the
department over there, particularly one individual. I do not like to name civil
servants in the House, so I will not name the individual that I talked to a
regular basis on the issue of what constitutes the various components in the
establishment of the prices on gasoline in this Province or home heating fuels
in this Province.
We need to have more public knowledge. In fact, I have heard people say that
when you go up to the gasoline pump you should be able to look at the gasoline
pump and see what you are paying for the four components I mentioned earlier. In
other words, when you go up to the pump you should have a little scale there and
it would show you exactly what the cost of the crude is, tell you what the cost
of refining is, tell you what the margin of profit is, and tell you what the
taxes are. If we had that showing, then people would be able to see clearly what
it is they are paying when they go to pay for their gasoline or their home
heating fuel.
When the Premier talked about having transparency, I thought perhaps he would
have agreed that every gas station should be forced to post at the pumps, all
the components that make up the price that they are paying, or when you call for
your home-heating fuel, someone should have to say: Break it down. It can be
done. For example, I just referred to - if you were getting your municipal tax
bill in Halifax, it would break it down for you, exactly what you are paying
for, every single component. You could see it all broken down. Nowadays, in the
age of computerization, that can be done quite easily. Therefore, we should be
able to see exactly - when you go in to pay for your fuel (inaudible) do it very
simple, right the program. Do it right when you are paying for your gasoline.
You do not have to show it at the pumps. You can go in, you can break it right
down and say: Here is what it is costing for crude. Here is the cost of the
refining processes. Here is the margin we are paying in profits, the retailers
cost, and here is what you are paying in taxes. Break it right down. Now that
would have the effect of being totally transparent, and people would see exactly
what they are paying for all of the component parts.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time is now up.
MR. H. HODDER: My time is up, and I am reminded as well that there are
some other hon. members, including my colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's,
who want to join in the debate.
In conclusion, I will not go on very much longer because we, on this side,
are saying to -
MR. BARRETT: No leave.
MR. H. HODDER: Let the record show that the Member for Bellevue is so
miserable this afternoon. He is so hurt by how he got scolded so badly because
of all the storms and his failure to take effective action quickly, that now he
is miserable and mean and is denying the hon. member leave to continue and
participate in this great debate.
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. BARRETT: Now we are going to hear a good speech.
MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,
I really accept and thank him for his vote of confidence in myself and my
speech. As usual, I am sure that he - in most of my speeches that I gave here in
this House at any time, I have always managed to have the Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation involved in that speech. I guess that is why he is
so pleased and excited to hear what I have to say. He may, in the course of the
next twenty minutes, find his way into my few remarks.
AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know what happened to him (inaudible) Placentia
Bay West.
MR. MANNING: And his roots are in Placentia Bay.
I am pleased today to make a few remarks on Bill 4,
An Act Respecting
Petroleum Products, and to talk about the concerns that people have with the
high petroleum costs in our Province, whether it is home heating fuel or gas
that we put in our cars, trucks, bikes, chainsaws, and everything else that we
use here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly, after this winter a lot of
people use Ski-Doos. The high cost of gas concerns everybody in regard to any
way, shape or form, that you may be using that product.
This is an opportunity to say a few words on behalf of the people in the
Province, but indeed on behalf of the people in my district of Placentia &
St. Mary's. We are like all districts. We use these products. We use them on a
daily basis. While many people, especially elderly people on fixed incomes,
people who have their families moved away to other parts of the country, other
parts of the world, and people who use their vehicles to make a living, whether
it is a small business operator, whether it is a fish buyer, whether it is
anybody who is involved in construction industry in our Province, or whatever
the case may be, fuel prices are a major concern to the many people in the
Province.
The supply of product to different communities around the Province,
especially those that are trucked in, is a great concern for a lot of people. We
use a massive majority of the product that is consumed in the Province, that is
used in the Province, is trucked around. We seen last year, in the matter of a
couple of days, when the truckers of this Province brought the supply of food
and products to a stop because of the fuel prices, because of their opportunity
to voice their concerns. We seen what happened in the matter of a couple of
days, Madam Speaker, when she came to a screeching halt in regards to the
truckers of the Province.
I can remember growing up and talking about what you were going to be when
you grew up, you talked about your lawyers and your doctors. Everybody attained
to be something. If you mentioned that you were going to be a truck driver or
something like that, someone may have turned down their nose at you. But, how
important the truck driver was last year when it came to putting food on the
table; how important the truck driver was last year when it came to putting gas
in our vehicles; and how important the truck driver was last year with regards
to the movement of goods around the Province and Labrador. How important it was
that we had the truck drivers here to do that for us. How important an industry
it is, and how important it is that we protect that industry and assist that
industry in whatever way we can.
I guess the fact that we are bringing forward a bill in this hon. House to
question and concern, and to raise some of these issues is something that, I
think, concerns us all. Is what we are proposing here in the House today the
right direction? I guess that is what we are questioning here today. We are very
concerned, here on this side of the House, of what we believe to be sort of a
flip-flop' government. A flip-flop' government that is flipping and
flopping on many different issues and certainly vital issues to this Province.
When we look back at January 6, 1999, a news release came out from the
Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, who is now the Premier of the
Province, the heading on the news release was: "Minister reacts to calls
for gasoline price regulation." I am not going to read out all the details,
but Minister Grimes, at the time, said: "Government generally agreed with
the consumer advocate's report and accepted its two main recommendations; that
there be no price regulation and that government monitoring of gasoline prices
be improved." He went on to say, a little bit further down in that news
release: "It's important to note that the Consumers Association of Canada
is also on record as being opposed to price regulation."
At the time - which is not that long ago, a little over one year ago - the
minister of the day, who is now the Premier of the day, was against price
regulation. While the concern is there and the issue is there, at that time he
was against it. We are not against doing something to help the people of this
Province, to help them with the cost of operating, but is what we are proposing
here today the right answer? Is what we are proposing here today the answer to
the problems that face many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? That is why we
think a monitor may be a better opportunity, certainly a better chance, to do
something in relation to gas prices in the Province.
We propose, and we have proposed - I go back to last October when our critic
for Mines and Energy, the Member for St. John's East, Mr. Ottenheimer, put
forward a news release at that time, October 27, 2000, which called for an
independent monitor of gas prices; and not a government mouthpiece. An
independent monitor of gas prices who would travel around the Province on a
daily basis and monitor the price in gas, monitor the different companies,
monitor the different issues that are out there, and then bring back the
concerns to us here in the House of Assembly, and to the minister of the day;
raise those issues with him and let us know on a daily basis what is happening
in regards to the price of gas and the effect that it is having on individuals
and businesses throughout the Province. That is why we believe that without an
independent from government, the department spokesperson has the ability to ask
tough questions about the root causes of gas prices, fluctuations and whether
consumers are getting a fair break. It is further proof the interests of
consumers in the Province are not being protected. This is why we believe an
independent monitor of gas prices would address the concerns that are here in
the Province, would raise the issues with the government so that we would be
able to know what is happening in Port aux Basques today, what is happening in
St. Anthony today, what is happening in Labrador City today, what is happening
right here in the City of St. John's, and what is happening out in Conception
Bay South, and so on and so forth. We believe unless we have an independent
monitor, unless we have somebody within the Province who is not dependent, is
not shoveled to and told what to do by the government - that we have somebody
within the Province who can address this concern.
I talked to people in my district, Madam Speaker. I talked to people
throughout the district who are in business and use their vehicles for their
businesses. Last year, because of the increase in gas prices, their bottom line
on their business at the end of the fiscal year is much different because it
increased the cost of operating the business so much. I talked to people
throughout my district who burn stove oil for heating purposes in their home;
furnace oil and stove oil. The increase last year, versus the year before that,
in some cases was as much as $1,000 and $1,200. For those elderly people in our
districts, the senior citizens and people who are on fixed incomes in our
districts, who have seen that increase this year: What does government do to
somebody who has seen an increase of $1,100 to $1,200? They come out with a fuel
tax rebate of $100.
I was talking to a senior citizen down in St. Mary's Bay one day this
winter and the tax on her oil fill-up alone was $118, and they are going to give
$100 fuel rebate to that senior citizen. We have to look at the situation where
we have a litre of gas here in the Province and over 50 per cent of that litre
of gas is tax. We have to ask ourselves then, if we really - if the Liberal
government of today really wants to do something for the people who are out
there suffering from the high fuel prices, who are suffering from the increased
fuel prices that we have, why don't we look at the tax structure that we have
and look at reducing some of that tax structure to give people an opportunity to
put dollars back in their pockets for the other services we have here and the
other needs that people have out in the Province? This is why we believe that if
we had an independent monitor, a person who is not answerable to government, to
address some of these concerns, that we would then be able to look at the
independent issues around the Province and have them brought here before the
House for proper debate.
Madam Speaker, in this Province taxes make up between 50 per cent to 55 per
cent of the pump prices for gasoline, and over half the tax is provincial. With
every $20 fill up over $12 goes directly to federal and provincial coffers for
taxes. Over $12 goes to taxes for $20 a fill up. We all know how much gas we get
in our cars for $20; very little. But when you have almost $12 of that $20 going
for taxes, it raises a lot of concerns. We are the most taxed people in the
country. If the provincial government really wanted to do something for the
people of the Province, they would address the concern over the high amount of
taxes that we pay on our gasoline.
Madam Speaker, in the Browne report they recommended no price regulation. The
studies that they did, and they talked to people throughout the Province, they
talked to individuals, they talked to people who are in industry, they talked to
people in government circles, and the report said that they found no evidence to
support price regulation. Here we are today debating a bill that will give us a
chance to address the concerns under price regulation, but we have to ask
ourselves: Is this exactly what we want to do, or do we want to put money in the
pockets of the consumers of this Province, to give the consumers of this
Province, the small businesses of this Province, the people involved in the
trucking industry in this Province an opportunity to save some dollars?
Therefore, that is why we are looking on this side of the House for an
independent petroleum products monitor. We believe by doing that, when motorists
have all the appropriate information at their disposal, they can make choices as
consumers which can help keep prices in check. Competition is what keeps prices
down. Competition is healthy, Madam Speaker. It is what keeps prices down in
other parts of the retail sector and it can work for petroleum products as well,
once consumers have the basic facts in their hands. What would be wrong with
bringing your car into the local gas station and printed up on the side of the
gas pump was the price of the gas, how much federal tax is on the gas, how much
provincial tax is on the gas, and the total amount of the litre of gas that you
are putting in your car or truck at the time? What would be wrong with bringing
your vehicle in and knowing exactly what you are paying for, knowing the exact
amount you are paying for the litre of gas you are purchasing?
We believe that an independent petroleum products monitor would be able to
maybe bring that forward as the recommendation and then we would have an
opportunity to say to government that there is going to be no hidden factors, no
hidden prices, no hidden agenda here with regard to the oil companies, and that
when I stop at the gas pump, I know exactly what one oil company is charging for
a litre of gas, I know exactly what the federal government tax is, I know
exactly what the provincial government tax is. As I said before, over half the
price for a litre of gas, we are paying between 50 per cent and 55 per cent - it
fluctuates, I guess, with the overall price - over half the price is tax.
Therefore, that is the concern that we have to look at. Whether we can address
that concern or not, the overall picture of government , I understand, has to be
looked at, but at the same time we are heavily taxed and therefore we would look
at that opportunity, Madam Speaker.
The recommendation of consumer advocate, Dennis Browne, in his December 1997
report on gasoline prices which was entitled, Gasoline Prices and the Public
Interest, was that there would a lot more monitoring and disclosure with respect
to pricing. That is the recommendation that we on this side of the House of
Assembly support. The report that was put out at the time was looking for ways
to address that concern.
We, Madam Speaker, as I said, are calling upon an independent petroleum
products monitor - a consumer watchdog - an impartial consumer watchdog that
will go out into the Province, have the power, be empowered by this House, be
empowered by the government, to operate an open office where the public could
express their concerns and frustrations regarding oil and gas prices, and where
they could look for facts and make their reports disclosing publicly the results
of thorough monitoring of the industry. Without the thorough monitoring of the
industry, without that person who would keep a daily watch on what is happening
in the industry, we can never address the overall concerns that we have. We
believe, as a party on this side of the House, that by having an independent
monitor throughout the Province some of these concerns would be addressed.
Madam Speaker, if I could go back to the Dennis Browne report in December of
1997, the first recommendation of that report, I would like to read it into
Hansard today if I could. The first recommendation was: No Price Regulation.
"If Government seeks to enhance wholesale and retail price competition in
the Newfoundland and Labrador gasoline market, it should attempt to do so in the
most cost effective manner possible. We believe the most cost effective public
policies are those designed to utilize market forces instead of using Government's
legislative powers to regulate price. Direct Government intervention in the
market is generally the least desirable approach and should only be pursued as a
final recourse where there is no indication that the market will behave
correctly. We have found no evidence to support price regulation."
I repeat, "We have found no evidence to support price regulation."
That comes straight from a report that was paid for by the people of this
Province, that was put forward by the minister of the day. I think the minister
of the day, I believe, is now the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs,
if I am correct. Madam Speaker, the minister was presented with that report in
December, 1997.
It puzzles me. Now, it does not puzzle me altogether, because there are a lot
of things after coming to this government over the past number of years,
recommendations that have come to this government that have been ignored, that
have been cast aside, that have been put on the shelf, and I am not surprised
that the former minister, who is now the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal
Affairs, decided to put this report on the shelf. It is only keeping up with his
record of not acting on behalf of the people, not following the recommendations
of that report.
I am pleased that the minister is here in the House, and maybe he can get up
on his feet today. Maybe the minister can get up on his feet today and tell us
why he didn't act on the report by the consumer advocate, Dennis Browne, in
1997, why he didn't follow recommendation number one in that report. He sits
down so non-chalant, sitting back. Take it easy, Minister, that is what he
should be called, the minister of take it easy. Here he is, he did not even
comment. He did not even stand up, he has not stood up in the House. He was the
minister of the day when this report was financed by the people here, by the
people of the Province. He accepted the report from Dennis Browne and he did not
do anything. He did nothing in regards to the report.
As I said, the first recommendation here was no price regulation. I just read
it into Hansard. The minister of the day, who did nothing, had this report in
his hand. I would like to know, Madam Speaker - I don't see it anywhere in my
research papers here, I don't see it anywhere - how much this report cost the
people of this Province. I would like to ask the minister today - maybe he can
help us out with that - does he remember? Does the minister have a memory of how
much this report cost the people of this Province?
There were several references here to provinces all across the country. Every
province here is referenced. Therefore, this report must have cost a fair bit of
money. It must have cost the taxpayers of this Province a fair bit of money.
I say to the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, are you looking
for a copy of the report? I have an extra one here if you need one. I would like
to know why the number one recommendation in this report, why you, as minister,
did not take that recommendation and do something about it? The recommendation
of a person who traveled across the Province, traveled across the country
seeking information - there you go, he has the report. Good, I say to the
minister.
Can you get up on your feet and tell us, number one, how much that report
cost? Number two: how come the government here today is not even following the
number one recommendation of that report? If the first recommendation of that
report says no price regulation, the people who did the report, Dennis Browne
and company, must feel that was a very important recommendation. They made it
the number one recommendation in the report, so they must feel that, after their
consultation with the industry, after their consultation with people throughout
the Province, after their consultation with people throughout the country, the
number one recommendation of no price regulation is very important.
I ask the minister why he is not on his feet today telling us, telling the
people of the House, telling the people of the Province, how come we are here
today discussing, how come we are here today with a recommendation, how come we
are here today with a piece of legislation before the House talking about price
regulation when a government funded, a government paid for by the taxpayers of
the Province, calls for no price regulation and we are here today discussing
price regulation? It would all make you wonder, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time is up.
MR. MANNING: By leave, Madam Speaker, to make a few closing comments, if
I could?
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, it is a major concern for a lot of people in
the Province. It is a major concern for people in my District of Placentia &
St. Mary's, that price regulation, the cost of gas, the cost of fuel, the cost
of home heat, is a major concern for a lot of people in the Province. They are
looking to government for an answer. They are looking to government for some
relief. They are looking to government to some way come forward to east that
burden.
Here we have
an act that we are bringing forward in this House, and because
the other side of the House has the majority of members in the House, ten
chances to one it is going to be passed. We said here in the House before, when
the Member for Virginia Waters was independent, maybe sometimes he would get on
his feet and vote against the government, maybe sometimes his conviction that he
used to talk about in those other days, he would stand up in the House and vote
against the government, but conviction went out the window when he got appointed
to Cabinet. We understand that. We understand the Member for Virginia Waters
now, that his convictions have to stay behind and he has to do what he is told
to do. We understand that, Madam Speaker. Therefore, we ask how come a study
that was paid for by the people of this Province, that the number one
recommendation by that report was no price regulation, and we are here today -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MANNING: Madam Speaker, we take issues as they come here. We deal
with them.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MANNING: I say to the former Minister of Fisheries, now the Member
for Port de Grave -
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quid Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I understood that the member wanted leave to clue up his remarks. This hon.
member would like to speak in this debate, but it appears that he is keeping the
debate going longer and longer. I would be inclined to continue with leave to
allow the member to clue up his remarks, but if he plans to continue for another
lengthy period of time, I withdraw leave.
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) be reasonable.
MR. MANNING: Reasonable does not come from down there, so you had better
hang on.
All I am saying is that the people in my district and the people of this
Province are very concerned about the issue here of price regulation for the
simple reason that, while we can maintain a price for three or four months under
this piece of legislation, while we cannot see it increased, we also cannot see
it decreased. All I was referring to was the fact that, if we had enough members
in the House, of conviction, who believed in what they want, that we could stand
up in the House and defeat this motion, but we cannot do that because the
numbers do not allow us to do that, Madam Speaker.
Price regulation is a concern for a lot of people out there. The issue of
high gas prices and high fuel prices is a concern for a lot of people in our
Province. The issue of high gas prices and high fuel prices is a issue of
concern for a lot of people in my district, but whether this is the way, whether
this is the avenue to address that concern, is still questionable because of the
fact that we had a consumers report that said that the price regulation was not
an opportunity; that price regulation was not the way to go; that they could
find no evidence to support price regulation. Therefore, we are asking
ourselves, is this the route to take, or would an independent petroleum products
monitor be a better way to address this situation?
We put forward that issue several times, and we would ask the government of
the day to address that concern and maybe if you really want to do something for
the people of the Province, if you really want to address the high gas prices
and the high fuel prices in this Province, that we would put a petroleum
products monitor in place. Price regulation is not the way to go.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Madam Speaker.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak at second reading today on Bill
4,
An Act Respecting Petroleum Products. The issue of prices of petroleum
products in the Province, or rather the cost of fuels and gasoline in the
Province, is one which affects far too many people in this Province,
particularly those who are on a low or fixed income, who cannot respond to the
fluctuations in the price. We have seen some significant fluctuations over the
last year-and-a-half and more in the price of heating fuels in particular and in
gasoline as well. The costs have been passed on to consumers through the
trucking industry as well, and have reflected in prices in our stores and
supermarkets.
We are trying to figure out a way of dealing with the problem. It was
proposed two years ago by the New Democratic Party that there be a three-pronged
approach to relieving the cost of heating fuel in particular in this Province by
introducing, first of all, a substantive rebate to the consumer on the cost of
fuel that would be equivalent to 15 per cent, not the $100 rebate that this
a one-time, one-shot deal, that would only have a very minor effect, Madam
Speaker, but a 15 per cent across-the-board permanent rebate to the consumers on
the price of home heat, whether it be through petroleum products or through the
use of electricity or propane. Madam Speaker, that would have been something
significant that would have had an actual impact on people's ability to heat
their homes and avoid the terrible choices that people are having to make, to
choose between heating their homes and having adequate food and nutrition for
themselves and their families. That was point number one of our three point
plan.
The second point, Madam Speaker, was to introduce some regulation on the
changes in the price of fuel. That would be, not the wholesale regulation but an
opportunity for an individual consumer or a consumers group to go to the Public
Utilities Board and challenge a price increase. If the price of fuel increased -
and the big concern around this Province has always been that the retailers and
wholesalers always follow the prices up the ladder when they go up, but they do
not follow them down the ladder when they go down, or they do not follow it fast
enough. As a result, the consumers are feeling that they are gouged.
We do not have a lot of control over the world price of fuel. Pierre Trudeau
found that out, back in the 1970s and the 1980s, that we do not have a lot of
control over the world price of fuel, and we have a lot of trouble with, in this
country, establishing a Canadian price for fuel. The National Energy Program of
the Trudeau government was a disaster politically, particularly out west, and
they still talk about it. So we have not got a lot of control over that.
However, when consumers are feeling gouged, Madam Speaker, we do have the
ability for someone to have a remedy. If they can go to the Public Utilities
Board and challenge a price increase and ask the Public Utilities Board to
determine whether a particular price increase is fair and reasonable, that would
give the PUB powers to role back prices that did not meet that criteria.
The third of our three-prong program, Madam Speaker, was to reinstate a
winter heat supplement of $50 a month for those in receipt of social assistance.
That was there for many years. Probably the minister may well tell us it is
still there, but it has been spread out over the entire year. Well, our response
to that is that this was in fact just a disguised minor increase in the rate of
social assistance which has been already too low and not kept pace with the
Consumer Price Index. So, we would reinstate the winter heat supplement to
provide additional relief above and beyond the rebate to all consumers of 15 per
cent. We would see a winter heat rebate for those on social assistance with
special attention paid to the needs and costs of people on the Labrador Coast.
What this government did in response to that: First of all, they refused to
engage in the 15 per cent rebate. They refused to engage in that, and instead
they got a $100 one-shot rebate. They had a commission to study the regulation
of gas prices, and that commission turned it down and said it would cost money.
In fact, the former minister of Mines and Energy, while still in that position
in December, issued a chart - and I do not happen to have it with me - but it
was a chart prepared by his department, not just by him. I believe the Deputy
Minister prepared it. That chart showed the prices in PEI for the last two
years, in Charlottetown compared to St. John's, showed the level of
fluctuations, showed that overall the prices in St. John's were lower than in
Charlottetown, and said, as part of that, that is why he believes, as Minister
of Mines and Energy, that the regulation of prices was not a good thing.
I believe the current Minister of Mines and Energy had a press conference
today in which he admitted that, in fact, gasoline, for example, may even cost
more under this plan than without any regulation at all. He has admitted that
may be the case. I would like to know why the change of heart on an issue of
that nature, why the change of heart and why not have a simpler system which
allows consumers to play a role. I do not see any role in this bill for
consumers. In fact, the whole notion of having public hearings seem to be rather
difficult to have. In fact, we wonder whether the hearings are public at all.
There is some provision for a complaint hearing under
section 15. (2)which says:
"In a hearing under this section, the wholesaler or retailer and the
complainant shall be entitled to be heard and witnesses shall be permitted to
attend to give evidence on their behalf." Well, what about the public? Is
this a public hearing or is there somewhere witnesses can go and give evidence
if it is decided by the commissioner? That is only on a complaint hearing.
Madam Speaker, the role here seems to be to set up a commissioner to whom
someone can apply who can make a decision in the absence of holding a hearing so
that the wholesaler writes a letter to the commissioner, answers certain
questions on criteria yet to be decided and then the commissioner can set the
prices; no necessity of having a public hearing at all, no real role for the
consumers, no special provisions of giving notice to the public of applications
being made, a a lot of uncertainty here as to what exactly is going to go on.
So, we have the three criteria, the three proposals that we had on a fair
redistribution of 15 per cent of the cost of fuel throughout the Province. That
was turned down in favour of a $100 one-time rebate. A reasonable proposal for
controlling price increases, or an opportunity to challenge price increases, was
turned down in favour of this here, and the winter heat rebate for social
assistance recipients, of course, has not been dealt with.
What do we have instead, Madam Speaker? What we have is a response to the
necessity, I guess, of the new Premier feeling he has to do two or three or four
things to make it look like something is actually happening. One of these was to
reverse the government's position on the regulation of petroleum products,
reverse the recommendations of a report from a commission set up by the
government and using, not somebody who is regarded as pro-industry but, in fact,
using the Consumer Advocate. The Consumer Advocate who, one would assume, has a
genuine interest in achieving what is best for the consumers would have been
happy to propose regulations if he believed that this type of regulation would,
in fact, work. He recommended against it.
Now, there are some interesting aspects to the bill and I wonder, if it was
done properly, whether, in fact, it might actually help independent retailers.
If there is a proper spread here and if it is done properly, it well may be that
independent retailers will have access to gasoline at wholesale prices that are
not subject to various prices from one - you know, if you happen to be a major
player in the Province, whether it is Irving Oil or Esso or somebody, they have
one price for their own stations and another price for the independent. This
may, in fact, be an opportunity for independents to get some fairness in the
system, but I am not sure if that is going to be an effect. That might be one of
the effects of it, so I am interested in that. I would be interested in what the
minister thinks about that, whether he thinks it would have that effect, and
perhaps his officials would be able to advise him of that. We might deal with
that at third reading or in Committee.
I did a have look at the PEI act, and there are some interesting differences
between the approach taken in the Province of Prince Edward Island and the
approach taken here. One wonders how is the commissioner going to set a prices.
It just says that the commissioner has the power to set prices, but what are the
criteria?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: No, what are the criteria? On what basis will the
commissioner set prices for petroleum? What will he use to determine -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: But what will he do? How will set the base for fuel prices?
Well, the answer is found in clause 6. (1): "The commissioner shall
establish a petroleum product base wholesale and retail price for each type of
heating fuel and motor fuel sold by a wholesaler and a retailer using the
criteria prescribed for that purpose by the regulations." But what does
that mean? That means that cabinet can write rules as to how the price is
established but we do not know what those rules are. We are being asked to pass
a piece of legislation that says: Well, the commissioner will decide what the
prices are but the criteria that are going to be used are unknown. The criteria
are not know to the Legislature which is being asked to pass this bill. We do
not know on what basis the commissioner will be asked to set prices or on what
basis he will given that power.
That is also the case for the price adjustment mechanism. The price
adjustment mechanism set by the commissioner under clause seven will also be
applying the criteria prescribed by the regulations. What that means to the
layman or layperson, Madam Speaker, is whatever the Cabinet puts in the
regulations, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. We do not know what those
criteria are. We are being asked to pass legislation for that purpose.
In Prince Edward Island, the Commission is being given, the Commission that
is being asked to make these decisions is actually the equivalent of our Public
Utilities Board but the Public Utilities Board equivalent in P.E.I. is given the
power under
section 31 of their Petroleum Products Act which says, "In
determining the price or a change in the price of heating fuel or motor fuel,
the Commission shall apply such criteria as it may from time to time consider
advisable." Maybe the criteria is even more general.
On the other hand, it allows for people to make arguments to the Commission
as to what the reasonable criteria are. Transportation costs maybe one, variable
prices may be another. In our Province, other market factors that affect that,
anything that may be relevant from time to time, and the Commission is given the
power to deal with that, not a narrow set of criteria provided by regulations.
What ultimately the Commission in Prince Edward Island is entitled to do is to
reject those prices proposed if they are not considered to be fair and
reasonable. If the prices are not reasonable then they will be turned down.
Madam Speaker, in Prince Edward Island the consumer has a role in these
hearings, in helping to argue whether or not the prices or price changes are
just and reasonable. That is the terminology used, just and reasonable. Not only
that, in Prince Edward Island the onus is placed on the wholesaler or retailer
to prove that the price in effect or the price change requested is fair and
reasonable. So, there is a mechanism there to say: Okay, just because you are
selling gasoline, fuel oil or furnace oil, at this price you have to prove that
it is just. If you fail to prove that your price increase is just and reasonable
then it will not get passed, and the onus is on you. If it is fifty-fifty,
iffy-iffy, it does not go through.
Madam Speaker, there seems to be, in the Prince Edward Island legislation,
some teeth, some actual bias in favor of the consumer, if you will, bias saying:
Okay, the prices are not going to be taken for granted just because they are
proposed by the wholesaler or retailer. The onus is on the wholesaler or
retailer to actually prove that the prices they are charging or the price
increases requested is just and reasonable. We have no such criteria. We do not
even know what the criteria are, and there is no onus in the legislation. It
seems to be wide open.
We have a significant difference to the procedures here. The Commission in
Prince Edward Island is permitted to prescribe it's own procedures to be
followed in terms of how to conduct the hearings and how to authorize people to
appear or be an intervener, to permit evidence to be taken in various ways. They
are given general powers with respect to evidence.
Our commission is given the same powers that a commissioner would have under
the Public Inquires Act. The guidelines in terms of the procedures, in terms of
how to hold hearings, will be found in the regulations, not given to the
commissioner to actually do this job. There are quite a few significant
differences in the legislation and the approach taken here and it seems the
approach that is being provided by the minister in this particular legislation,
it appears to be rather hastily drawn. If they are proposing, as has been
suggested, to have this in effect by May, then we would have to see some
regulations pretty quickly. I would expect that they are probably already
written.
What we have here appears to be a hastily drawn power to say that they have
accomplished what the Premier told the public and told the Liberal Party in his
speech to the convention and leading up to the convention, that he would, in
fact, bring in price regulation. So, he wants to show that he is meeting his
promise. On the other hand, what we have here appears to be something that is
less than the kind of just and reasonable criteria that is offered in the
Province of Prince Edward Island, at the same time not giving the level of
transparency that the public of this Province would demand, no provision for
notice of applications to be given to the public, no provision for an automatic
participation by consumers, interest groups or consumers themselves, and, it
appears, very little in the way of the public able to initiate the process.
This Bill 4 appears to be very inadequate. It seems to be flawed in many
respects, because it does not provide the kind of protection that one would
expect. The criteria are not spelled out in terms of what would be required to
trigger a price increase, or what criteria would be considered by the
commissioner in dealing with these issues. Neither has it been adequately
explained, Madam Speaker, as to why we need yet another commissioner appointed
by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council with another level of bureaucracy when we
already have a perfectly good Public Utilities Board in place that has its own
staff all ready. They have a number of different responsibilities under
legislation for public utilities, for the regulation of automobile insurance,
various other roles that they play, and to attach this responsibility to them
should not be terribly onerous. They have the facilities, they have the setup,
they have the infrastructure in place to provide for hearings, and to give the
Public Utilities Board this power would seem to me to be a much more publicly
acceptable and credible response than to set up another commission with a whole
new mandate, a whole new commission, a whole new corporate philosophy, the power
to have an investigation team, to hire staff and all that is required, all to be
passed on to the oil companies, but not to the oil companies ultimately.
Ultimately, they will be passed on to the consumer.
This does not seem to me to be a very efficient way to deal with the issue
here. If you want to protect the consumer by providing an opportunity to review
prices, then that could be done under the existing mechanisms of the Public
Utilities Commission. I think that this government has failed to recognize that.
Instead, what the minister has said this morning may well come true. It may well
come true that the costs, the regulatory costs as it were, are going to be
passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices and the end result may
not be beneficial to the consumer. If what the former minister, the former
Member for Humber West, told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when he was
Minister of Mines and Energy is correct, that in fact the Prince Edward Island
experience has been negative with respect to the prices of petroleum products in
the Province of Prince Edward Island when a comparison is made between that
province and this Province.
All of these things need to be explained to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We need to have answers to these questions before we can vote on this
legislation. The concept of trying to provide some protection to consumers is a
good one, but we have not been shown how, in fact, this bill will do that. What
we have been shown so far by the former Minister of Mines and Energy is that it
wouldn't do it if it was like the kind of regulation in P.E.I. We have
expenses here that are over and above the expenses that are already being
incurred by the Public Utilities Board, for example. Why are we having a new
commissioner with a new big plum appointment for the Cabinet to hand out to
someone to do this job, a whole new set of staff, investigators, economists, and
other people to advise them? We already have a Public Utilities Commission with
existing staff who are used to regulating the insurance industry to some extent
today and would be well suited, in my view, to regulating petroleum products as
well.
I understand my time is just about up. I see the Speaker nodding. I thank
members for their kind attention during my remarks. I hope that the minister
will respond to the concerns raised on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador with respect to Bill 4,
An Act Respecting Petroleum Products.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to speak in second reading on this bill regarding the regulation of
gasoline prices. I was interested today in the press conference that two
ministers of government had. I would like to read from their statement. It says,
"Minister Matthews said: Our intention with the introduction of this
Bill is to restore consumer confidence.'" Then he goes on to say - oh
yes, this is very important, "The main elements of the bill include the
establishment of an independent Petroleum Products Price Commissioner with the
ability to set maximum retail and wholesale prices."
In the event of restoring consumer confidence, here is the line that puzzled
me; and it speaks to the heart of this piece of legislation. "While this
process will provide greater consumer confidence and less fluctuation, it is
important for consumers to realize that it will not guarantee lower
prices." So, on the one hand, the intention of the bill is to restore
consumer confidence and, on the other hand, the process, while it will provide
greater confidence and less fluctuation, it is important for consumers to
realize that it will not guarantee lower prices.
What has been the heart of debate from people in this Province on gasoline
prices? They have no confidence, there is no question about that, but ultimately
it is about the price we are paying at the pump. Ultimately that is what people
are talking about when it comes to a litre of gasoline. The price is enormous.
The price is outrageous. Everybody in this Legislature understands that and I am
convinced that everybody sitting in this Legislature admits that. Now, how do we
deal with it? How do we deal with ensuring that what consumers want, that
government, in its role - because we have a limited role in this debate, in my
view. So, how do we use the legislative levers at our disposal to the extent
that we can to provide to the average person within the Province some relief?
Because, that is what people want.
What kind of debate is going to take place here next year, I ask everybody in
the House today? Let's say this piece of legislation passes. There is no
reason it shouldn't, government has the numbers, and they seem to be
committed. I will speak to the issue in terms of where government has been and
where government is now on it. What happens next year when we are in the
Legislature at this time, after a full year of price regulation, and we all come
to the conclusion, as Minister Matthews has indicated here, that it will not
guarantee lower prices? Because it can't, can it, Minister? Impossible! You
would think, you would hope, that regulation would go towards lowering the price
of gas. That is what people in Port de Grave want, the same as they want in
Kilbride. They want to know that - here is where confidence comes into it. Here
is where consumer confidence is at question. They want to know that when they
are in Holyrood and they paid for a price of a litre of gas and they are their
way to Trinity for the weekend, why it is 10 cents more down there on the same
weekend. The consumers want to know why in Grand Falls it is one price and in
Windsor it is another price. They want to know why, in Conception Bay South, on
one highway, within two miles of each other, the price is dramatically
different. Now does this legislation, in any way, shape or form, go to correct
that? No, it does not.
I think if we were to go to recommendations made to government in the Dennis
Browne report, I think it would go a long way to stabilizing prices. It would go
a long way to ensure that people are involved and consumers are involved in the
process and explanations are given at the appropriate times. I think if those
recommendations had been implemented, those huge fluctuations at different
places and at same points in time on the Island, that we would not see such a
dramatic different. Obviously, you cannot.
What we are trying to provide - we are talking about consumer confidence. We
are talking about providing to consumers the confidence in understanding why
there are fluctuations. Now, in the absence of it right now we have no way of
knowing. The government does not, we do not, nobody in this Province has any way
of knowing for sure if they are being gouged or not. They do not know if they
are not. We do not have access to the information. In Dennis Browne's report,
if you, government - how much did the report cost? Ca