March 26, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 5

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Yesterday, the hon. the Premier raised a point of order concerning comments

made during Oral Questions on March 24. I remind hon. members that points of

order must be brought to the attention of the Chair as soon as they occur. I

refer hon. members to Beauchesne 319.

In the case of breaches of order which occur during oral Question Period,

they must be raised immediately after the oral Question Period. I refer hon.

members to a ruling made on November 20, 2002, when the Government House Leader

rose on a point of order concerning comments made during Question Period on

November 19.

The ruling is: It is also, however, a requirement, when raising points of

order, that members bring such matters to the attention of the House

immediately, and in the case of something said during oral Question Period

immediately after the proceeding ends. The Chair is of the opinion that raising

the issue a day late is actually too late. This case is identical to that and

the Chair rules similarly that the point of order is not timely.

Yesterday, the hon. the Opposition House Leader raised a point of order about

the procedure followed when the Chair of the Committee of the Whole rose the

Committee to report to the Speaker that her ruling had been challenged. In our

House, we are guided by our Standing Orders, then our own precedence, and only

when these two are silent do we consult the Standing Orders and usages of the

House of Commons.

In the case at hand, our Standing Order 60, paragraph 3, applies. The

Standing Order reads as follows, "The Chairperson shall maintain order in

the Committees of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an

appeal to the House...".

I refer hon. members to Hansard, March 21, 1978, when, during the debate on

Interim Supply, the Committee of the Whole rose to report an appeal of the

Chairman's ruling. The Speaker then put the question to the House.

There are other instances as well when this procedure was followed. One, on

March 4, 1956, and one on January 23, 1958. So the procedure followed by the

Chair of the Committee of the Whole yesterday is the procedure required by our

own Standing Orders and precedence.

The Chair would also like to remind all hon. members as well that points of

order concerning matters arising in the House should be raised in the House and

not in the Committee of the Whole.

I would also like to take this opportunity today to welcome to the gallery

ten Youth Services Canada Participants from the Town of New Perlican in the

District of Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: They are accompanied by their co-ordinators, Mrs. Paulette

Cumby and Mr. Jim Drover.

As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery a former member of the House

for the District of St. George's, I believe it was at that time, Dr. Bud Hulan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to urge all Members of this House of Assembly and

the general public to support the School Lunch Association's Skip-A-Lunch

campaign and donate the money they usually spend on lunch to the School Lunch

Association.

Mr. Speaker, since 1989, the School Lunch Association has served hot meals

for primary and elementary school children in our Province. The Skip-A-Lunch

program in St. John's, now in its sixth year, has become an integral part of

this program, raising funds as well as increasing awareness of child poverty and

its effect on children's education in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The event is well known in the community and has garnered the support of

prominent figures from the political, business, arts, entertainment and media

communities, including our own Liberal caucus.

Mr. Speaker, what I admire most about the program is the sensitivity

displayed toward children and the ultimate goal of ensuring they are provided

with food without judgement by their peers or injury to their self-esteem. As

part of this program, children have a chance to enjoy school with a full

stomach, an alert mind, and an opportunity for a brighter future. I think these

are worthy reasons to skip lunch once a year and I urge everyone in the Province

to do so tomorrow in aid of this very worthwhile cause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to rise in this House to compliment and

congratulate the Flying Blades Figure Skating Club of Clarenville for hosting

the Annual Provincial Figure Skating Championship.

The tremendous effort and support of a large network of volunteers helped to

make the event a huge success for the Clarenville Club.

I would like to congratulate two members of the club in particular: Stacey

Goodyear, who captured the bronze medal in the Junior Silver Ladies A division,

as well as Lezley Walters, who took gold in the Senior Bronze Ladies A category.

Mr. Speaker, other skaters who also competed in that event representing the

Clarenville club included Mallary Philpott and Melissa Berkshire. Alison

Halleran also qualified but unfortunately, due to an injury, was unable to

compete.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Figure Skating Championship included some 204

skaters from around the Province, and included some representatives from St.

Pierre and Miquelon.

I would ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the

Flying Blades Figure Skating Club on a tremendous effort, and organizing a

tremendous event, and also to congratulate and commend the skaters who

participated from all around the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the organizers and

participants of the 2003 Labrador Winter Games which took place in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay March 10 to March 15.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: The concept of the Games, which was developed in the early

1980s, is to promote the development of sport and recreation programs throughout

the communities in Labrador; encourage, promote and enhance co-operation and

understanding among all peoples of the region; revive and encourage the

development of traditional sports and activities associated with the traditional

lifestyles of the region.

As a sporting and cultural event, the Labrador Winter Games are truly unique

to the Province. This uniqueness is not only restricted to the diversity of the

sports involved, but extends to the cultural mix and age range of the

participants. The sports at the Games include traditional activities such as Dog

Team Races and Northern Games, and standardized sports such as Volleyball and

Table Tennis. The Games not only provide the opportunity for the distinct

cultures of the region to come together and participate, but also provide the

opportunity to be truly competitive with other communities.

Mr. Speaker, the 2003 Labrador Winter Games was the eighth time that athletes

came together in the largest sporting and cultural event in the region. I ask

all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the organizers and

participants on making these Games such a success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to inform my colleagues in the

hon. House of the serious concerns I have over the transfer of Stephenville's

Port Harmon by the federal government.

On March 17, 2003, I wrote the hon. David Collenette, Minister of Transport

for Canada, outlining the Province's concerns. In that letter I demanded the

minister revoke the direction given to his officials to conclude a transfer

agreement with the Port Harmon Authority Ltd. without further delay.

On the evening of March 24, I spoke with Mr. Collenette and made him an offer

regarding the port. The terms of this offer included: l. The Province will

assume responsibility for the wharf; 2. The Province will accept the $7.5

million the federal government has offered the port authority for capital

improvements and operation of the harbour; 3. Within sixty days of the federal

government's acceptance of this offer, the Province will turn the port and the

funds over to a community-based group.

Unfortunately, Mr. Collenette stated he is proceeding with the transfer as

originally planned.

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada officials have repeatedly ignored my department's

requests to be part of the discussions with the Port Harmon Authority Ltd. As we

have not been party to the discussions, we have no assurance the arrangement is

compatible with provincial interests.

Federal policy states the regional and local ports, including harbour beds,

owned by Transport Canada are to be first offered to other government

department or province is not interested in acquiring these facilities,

Transport Canada then seeks expressions of interest from local stakeholders,

including municipalities.

We are also concerned that the Federal Port Divestiture Program has not

followed an appropriate process to deal with either provincial concerns or those

of the local community. Residents in the Stephenville area have formed a

concerned citizens group to help ensure their concerns are heard by those making

decisions on this matter. Mr. Speaker, I point out that the people from

Stephenville are here with us in the House today. Transport Canada has

acknowledged they are aware of the concerns of other local stakeholders but

attempts to resolve the issues have, thus far, failed.

We encourage the Town of Stephenville to seek a court injunction to prevent

this transfer.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the Province's concerns over this transfer and I

assure the people of the Stephenville area that this provincial government will

continue to do whatever it can to bring a successful resolution to this issue. I

and needs of the people of the Stephenville area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the

House sat today. I appreciate that.

This is just another example of too little, too late. Another example of the

poor working relationship between this provincial government and the federal

government in Ottawa. It is an example of the poor communication, or no

communication, that this government has with Ottawa over the past couple of

years. It shows that this government has no clout in Ottawa. It is something

that was admitted by the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

who said when he went to Ottawa he was not listened to, Mr. Speaker, and

obviously this administration is not being listened to. We see it time and time

again.

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been ongoing for some time. Why did this

administration wait until the last minute, two weeks basically, to get involved?

This issue has been ongoing for some time. It is not acceptable. It is shameful.

It has been going on for a year to two years.

Mr. Speaker, even worse than that, we have it in the minister's statement,

"We encourage the Town of Stephenville to seek an injunction to prevent

this transfer." Here again, as the Premier does time and time again when he

is on his feet in this House of Assembly, the Pontius Pilate act, washing his

hands of all responsibility of things that he was involved with in the past, we

now have this minister washing his hands of this inaction taken by this

administration on this very serious issue.

just not listening to the requirements and needs of the people of the

Stephenville area." Mr. Speaker, they are not only not listening to the

people of Stephenville and area, they are not listening to this administration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is just another example of the consequences of a policy on privatization

by our national government, one which this Province seems to be interested in

certain other areas, such as Triple P in seniors' care facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we have examples of that here in this

Province at the airport today where people are on strike because the people

running the airport authority, even though it is supposedly still in a

non-profit group, are trying to drive down wages. We now have an example of the

people of Canada, to private individuals, plus $7.5 million, to turn that

facility into a profit making enterprise for a few people at the expense of

everybody else.

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that this government hasn't been able to do

anything about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to advise members of the level of benefits that will accrue to

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from the White Rose project.

Prior to receiving government approval in December, 2001, Husky Energy

committed to undertake a minimum of 80 per cent of the topsides engineering,

fabrication and integration work in this Province, with the remaining 20 per

cent to be undertaken at facilities throughout Canada and hopefully in

Newfoundland as well. This translates into approximately 2.8 million person

hours to be completed in this Province from a total of 3.5 million person hours

associated with the topsides component of the project. Husky gave a further

commitment to proactively identify measures and initiatives that will increase

the level of Newfoundland and Labrador participation beyond that level.

The Department of Mines and Energy monitors the progress of the White Rose

project on a continual basis in conjunction with the Canada-Newfoundland

Offshore Petroleum Board. We continue to be given every assurance by Husky

Energy and its main contractor for the White Rose topsides, Aker Maritime Kiewit

Contractors (AMKC), that the work commitments for Newfoundland and Labrador will

be met.

There are currently in excess of 350 people working on the White Rose project

at AMKC's facilities in Marystown and upwards to 300 people working at AMKC's

engineering offices in St. John's. The number in Marystown is expected to peak

at over 700 as fabrication and integration work advances.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Mines and Energy has been working diligently

with Husky Energy, AMKC and local fabricators to have a portion of the work,

currently scheduled to be completed at facilities throughout Canada, undertaken

in Newfoundland and Labrador facilities.

Government is hopeful that our collective efforts will meet with positive

results. However, we must all recognize that success in bringing White Rose work

to Bull Arm and other fabrication sites will ultimately depend on the ability of

contractors to bid work on competitive basis. There are very significant

challenges associated with doing this. The Bull Arm site, for example, is a

purpose built facility for the massive Hibernia project. There are significant

start up and overhead costs associated with using the site, which are difficult

to absorb on a relatively smaller scope of work and still remain competitive.

Also, local fabricators are bidding against fabrication yards throughout Canada,

which are in steady state operations and have lower costs than Bull Arm.

Mr. Speaker, in light of these challenges, seeking additional work in the

Province will require a strong willingness on the part of all players to be

realistic about what they would like to achieve from this project.

There is no entitlement on the part of Newfoundland and Labrador to have all

the work associated with oil and gas projects undertaken here. This would be

unrealistic in today's global economy. We do not live in a climate where

investment is captive to this Province. Oil companies has investment

opportunities in every corner of the world and we have to be competitive to

attract a portion of the investment dollars to this Province. I believe that

most of our local companies and our skilled workforce understand this and are

prepared to compete.

Mr. Speaker, I assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that our

government will hold Husky Energy to its commitments on White Rose. We will also

continue to work cooperatively with Husky Energy and other oil and gas companies

to achieve the maximum benefits possible from our oil and gas resources while

remaining an attractive place for investment in this sector.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would usually thank the minister for a copy of his statement, but I did not

receive it until just two minutes before the House opened. I understand the

minister is in a new portfolio but he knows full well that he should have the

decency to send over the statement at least a few minutes before so we can read

it.

Even though, still on that point, we have to remember that it sounded like

the minister stood today to make sure that there was an apology on behalf of the

oil companies to prepare Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for missed

opportunities again, as we have seen in this Province over and over. We remember

full well, this Administration and a former minister standing up to tell us that

there were modules going to New Brunswick so that work could go to New

Brunswick. Today I think all the minister has done is set us up for maybe an

apology that is coming down the road.

I read in one particular sentence, "Government is hopeful that our

collective efforts will meet with positive results." Imagine, this

government is going to be hopeful again that jobs that should be in this

Province remain in this Province. That is the problem we see with this

Administration time after time. This is not new. White Rose is a third major

development offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador and when people in Marystown

hear the minister speak, as they did today, they are very concerned, I say, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Very concerned that jobs in this Province of such a

development should stay in this Province. If this is a warning from the

minister; that prepare yourself that all these jobs may not in fact take place

in this Province, it will be nothing new from this Administration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says, "There is no entitlement on the part of Newfoundland

and Labrador to have all the work associated with oil and gas projects

undertaken here." Not only is that true, Mr. Speaker, because of the

inadequacies of this government, it is also true that the major beneficiaries of

the White Rose project is once again going to be the people of Canada as opposed

to this Province. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will receive $269

million in net benefits over the life of this project and the people of Canada

will receive $2.248 billion. Once again, ten to one, the money flowing from our

offshore going in taxes and royalties ending up in the coffers of the people of

Canada to the net loss to the people of this Province of almost 90 per cent of

the value of this project. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, and this

government should not be putting up with it.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, this Province has been trying to build an oil industry for more

than a decade, I guess probably two decades now, if we are realistic about it.

We now have two oil projects in the production phase and a third well into the

construction phase. By any definition, you can now say that we have an oil

industry development in our Province. I am sure that the statement by the

minister, that we received a few minutes ago before we came in, has certainly

been a breathe of fresh air to the workers in the Province and has instilled

hope and confidence in their lungs this afternoon. That is just a wonderful

statement, Minister. You should be proud of the fact that you are hopeful.

Despite the fact that we are now in our third major oil project, despite the

fact that we have a maturing industry, Mr. Speaker, there are still many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who question the level of benefits that this

Province is receiving from the development of one of our greatest non-renewal

resources. Today, Mr. Speaker, the United Association of Plumbers and

Pipefitters took out a full page advertisement in order to ask this government

some very, very difficult questions. Today we would like to give these

tradespeople the answers that they so rightfully deserve.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is this: Given that our workers and

our tradespeople and engineers are now working on our third major offshore oil

project and have accumulated significant experience in this industry, why do our

highly qualified tradespeople and other industry experts still have to fight

tooth and nail to garner benefits that they so rightly deserve?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, we are all fighting tooth and nail to garner

maximum benefits for our Province. This White Rose development has gotten the

best deal for our Province of the projects to date. We are guaranteed a minimum

- a minimum - 80 per cent of the work that can be done in this Province will be

done here. Our department and I are working as hard as we can to increase that

figure. That is why I said in the statement that we are hopeful that we will get

more than the 80 per cent.

The reality is that we cannot have all the work done in our Province. We

cannot have our (inaudible) developments done our terms alone. It is a tough

world out there. It is tough to get development. It is tough to investment in

your province. We are not doing as well as we all would like to do, but we are

improving in my view. This is the best development to date, and we are

continuing to work on maximizing the benefits for the people of our Province. We

did that with the Voisey's Bay development last year, which the Leader of the

Opposition opposed. He said that if had been Premier that development would not

have gone ahead, and we would have had 500 or 600 less jobs in our Province this

year as result of his obstinacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to developing our

Province and creating jobs for our people, and we will continue doing so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. It is a tough world out there, and we

have to fight tooth and nail for every single job, and that is what we are

commissioned to do. That is what we have to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: This government is giving up. The fabricators in this

Province are sitting on the other side of the House over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the United Association of Plumbers and

Pipefitters says that this Province should be the only province that is the

principle beneficiary of the development of our oil and gas industry.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain to the people just exactly what

work is being performed in this Province and what work is being performed

outside this Province.

I would also ask the minister to break down for me the percentage of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that represent the 350 people who are working

in Marystown and the 350 people who are working in the engineering offices

downtown. How many of them in each office and each facility are Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, or does he know?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the bulk of those people are Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. We are getting over - guaranteed over - 80 per cent of the agreed

work that can be done in this Province. We are working at getting more.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition may realize that it is a tough world out

there; perhaps not as tough as he was used to when he was running a monopoly in

this Province and charging people more money than they should have had to pay

for cable rates. He is dealing with a different kind of business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. NOEL: When you are dealing in the competitive world, Mr. Speaker, you

have to meet the competition. You have to get the best deal that you can. It is

not always going to be the deal that you would like to have, but we are

improving what we are getting for our Province and we are going to continue

working hard to achieve that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The difference with us and that government, Mr. Speaker,

is: that government will take any deal it can get. That is the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: In the minister's statement, it is a fallacy in today's

global economy. We do not live in a climate where investment is (inaudible) to

this Province. That is the line you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is the line you swallowed from Inco. They told you

that Goro was going to go ahead. Where is Goro now, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: In the minister's statement, he uses words of confidence

like: we hope to have a portion; we are going to get a portion. Isn't that

wonderful? We are hopeful that our collective efforts will meet with positive

results. We need to be realistic as to whether we are going to get it or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: There is no entitlement to have all the work in the

Province. What kind of a government is that? Who is standing up for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

quickly.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if this is the third project now in this

Province, would the minister please explain why he can say that he is merely

hopeful rather than providing firm commitments and rock solid guarantees to the

people of this Province that they deserve?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is an authority on

taking any deal that you can get, and fast deals when it comes to that. We know

just how the Leader of the Opposition operated when he was doing business deals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Where are we compared to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. NOEL: Good monopoly deals is what he knows about, where he made

hundreds of millions of dollars off the cable ratepayers of this Province, by

charging them more than they needed to pay for cable services. When I was trying

to get a reduction in cable rates in this Province, his company was calling me

up and complaining about how hard up they were, how difficult they were having

it, to do business.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes Goro, where are we compared to Goro? Goro is not

operating today and Voisey's Bay -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: We are well ahead, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the Voisey's Bay deal is going ahead, created

100 jobs in this Province last year and will create some 500 or 600 this year.

When we say we are hopeful about what is going to happen on the White Rose

Development, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister, now, to conclude his answer, quickly.

MR. NOEL: - we are hopeful about the extra 20 per cent. We are confident

about the 80 per cent that is guaranteed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the difference between myself and the minister is that I owned

my company and I didn't give it away. He doesn't own his resources and he is

giving them away every day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He doesn't even understand the business. We completed

with satellites, we completed with wireless and we completed with telephone

companies; no monopoly, Minister. You don't understand the business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, rather than -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, rather than use the half billion dollar Bull

Arm fabrication site, which has now become nothing more than a storage facility

for old tires that are supposed to be recycled some time in the next decade.

This government seems to be prepared to ship work that could, and should, be

done in Newfoundland and Labrador to other provinces.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question for the minister is this: Why is this government allowing work to

be shipped outside this Province when we have more than enough capacity to do

the work in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: All of our hearts, Mr. Speaker, bleed for the Leader of the

Opposition who is in this tough business that enables him to only earn $300

million over a twenty-year period or something. That is a really tough kind of

business to be in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, the White Rose development is a good development

for our Province. It has not gotten all the work for our Province. We would like

to get that. We hope to get that on future developments as our people learn how

to do these developments as the industry develops. As our infrastructure

increases we are going to get more of this, and we are doing our best to promote

this industry now. It is not easy out there, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that.

It is not easy to get these companies involved.

Let me tell you that we are going to develop this industry. We are already

creating jobs in the Province. We are already creating profits in the Province.

That is why the economy in the Province is doing so well, and we intend to

continue doing that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said, as our people learn to do these developments.

Do they already know or are you saying that they do not know? Is that what you

are implying by this? Are you saying that they do not know, that they have a lot

to learn? Or, has the Province not gotten them ready for it? Which one is it,

Minister? We are not ready or they do not know? Answer that, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, a lot of our people have become

very expert in the oil industry over the past decade or so in this Province.

They are working in this Province today. They are working in other parts of the

world, and they are respected wherever they go to work. They can get jobs as

soon as they want to have jobs, but we need to have more people who are trained

to do this kind of work in the Province, and that is what we are trying to do.

We are improving our training facilities and we are turning out more people who

are qualified to do that kind of work. As we continue doing that, we will

continue expanding the industry in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House if Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, with the interests of our people at heart, are managing projects

like White Rose, and how many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are at the senior

management table of this and other projects making decisions that control the

development of our resources and, in fact, our destiny and our future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I do not have those figures off the top of my

head. I will look into getting them and supplying them for the Leader of the

Opposition. Let me tell you that the people - men and women, young and older men

and women - of Newfoundland and Labrador have responsible jobs with these

projects. Naturally, we have not been involved in this industry forever. We do

not have the top jobs all the time, but we have good jobs. Our people are well

respected for the job they do and they are continuing to take on more important

responsibilities as the industry develops in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to questions asked in the House on Monday by my colleague from

Kilbride, the Premier is quoted in the local paper, The Telegram, as

saying, "...the Liberals have not used contractual positions as a way of

stacking the public service with Liberal supporters."

I would like to ask the Premier today, does he still stand by that statement

today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course I stand by the statement because it happens to be factually

correct. You will not see us, Mr. Speaker, standing up talking tough on behalf

of a group, like the Leader of the Opposition did today. He talked tough last

week, when he talked about not meeting commitments and putting people on notice,

Mr. Speaker. He has been backtracking ever since. He is a big hero for a group

today for a few minutes and we will see when the truth comes out how far that

goes.

With respect to the question, Mr. Speaker, this government has never - as a

matter of fact, our record is ten times as good as the previous Tory

Administration with respect to contractual hiring. We follow the Public Service

Commission. We hire people according to that, Mr. Speaker, and we have some

people on political contracts, which is the norm in any government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Premier's statement, I would

like to ask: How does he explain the appointment of Beaton Tulk's former

executive assistant to the position of Inquiries Officer with Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation? This job, which pays an approximate annual salary

of $50,000 a year, was not advertised or competed for.

For that matter, how does the Premier explain the appointment of Minister

Sandra Kelly's executive assistant who is now tucked away in the Department of

Industry, Trade and Rural Development - another job with approximately a $50,000

annual salary, another position filled with no advertising or competition? The

list goes on and on, Mr. Premier. How does the Premier explain those positions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are, in every government, political appointees that are on political

contracts. I would suggest that maybe we can get this as part of a policy from

the Opposition because they were the masters at it when they were the government

fourteen years ago, Mr. Speaker. Are they now suggesting that the governments

and elsewhere in the democratic world, do not have a certain category of staff

referred to as political staff? Every political office has political staff, and

those do not go through competitions; they are appointed by the political

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia

& St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, compared to 1996, there are now eleven less seats on the

government side of the House. Since 1999, there are nine ministers that have

come and gone but the vast majority of their political appointments, their EAs

and personal assistants, have found positions within the public service. The

only person I can find in my research that has not found a position is Danny

Dumaresque.

This stacking of Liberal political supporters is costing the taxpayers of our

Province hundreds of thousands of dollars. I want to ask the Premier: How can he

stand in this House today and justify the statement that the Liberals have not

used positions as a way of stacking the public service with Liberal supporters

when that is exactly what you have been doing and continue to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it shows the level of what the Opposition feels to be important in the

Province. This is not a publicly important issue. There are political staff in

every government. Maybe we will get the answer from the Leader of the Opposition

who has had his full caucus vote on the unacceptability of Ron Dawe because Ron

Dawe was politically appointed by us without a competition. Maybe because he has

not given a reason publicly to Mr. Dawe, which is why he is taking him to court

to try to find out, but it is not the Leader of the Opposition, it is the Member

for Ferryland, the Member for St. John's West, the Member for Bonavista South,

the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, all of whom in a caucus voted that

he was no longer acceptable to run for political office. Probably it was because

he was appointed to a political position by us, as the government, without a

competition. Mr. Speaker, that does happen from time to time, but I can tell

you, the numbers these days are much smaller than in any equivalent time when

there were a group of Tories in charge in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question today is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

As you know, we have a situation developing in Stephenville regarding the

privatization and divestiture of the Port Harmon Authority, which is very likely

to be completed by March 31, 2003. You are aware of the public opposition to

this move and the inadequate process that Transport Canada has followed. This

port would become under a for profit private company. You are also aware that a

citizens group is trying to negotiate an agreement with Transport Canada to take

responsibility for this port and run it as a not-for-profit organization.

Mr. Speaker, what assurances can the minister provide that a not-for-profit

community group will assume ownership of Port Harmon Authority versus a private

run for profit company?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that, to date, this government has taken every

action that is available to it. The irony we are facing is that of all the ports

in this Province that are available to us, this is the one port that we do not

have the reversionary rights to. It is because of the deal that was made between

the Americans and the federal government. They have control of this port. We

have asked them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: No, I will go further.

We have gone to the point where we begged them to look at the proposal that

we have put forward. One that says: Allow you to follow what you would normally

do in any transaction. Offer it to the Province first. If the Province is not

interested, offer it to the municipalities second. Those requests from this

government have been ignored. Indeed, the requests of the people who are sitting

in the galleries today have been ignored by the federal government knowing full

well that at the end of the day a for-profit organization may own it. We have

stood strong and we have stood tall with those people. We make no apologies for

the efforts that we have taken to date to help them accomplish their goals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The minister said that the federal government has ignored the requests of the

people of Stephenville. Well, this Administration has ignored for some time too,

up until a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, the minister encourages the Town of Stephenville to seek a court

injunction. Why has the minister not sought a court injunction to prevent

Transport Canada from completing this deal on behalf of the people of

Stephenville area and the people of the Province? Why have they not pursued that

court injunction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am going to explain this in as simple terms as

I possibly can so that all hon. members opposite understand.

The government and the people of Stephenville only became aware - I would

think in the last four to six weeks - that this was, indeed, a for profit

organization. All individuals in the Stephenville area truly believed that the

negotiations were taking place on behalf of a community-based group. It is only

in the recent weeks. So much so - less than six weeks but I want to be fair

because if I say four weeks, someone will hold me to four weeks and two days.

But let me say this to you, that the only group, at this point, based on our

legal advice, that have the right to seek that court injunction would be the

Town of Stephenville. I will say to you today that we have made our intentions

known to them, that if they cannot afford, themselves, to take the legal action,

my department and this government will provide the funding for them to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister states that only the Town of Stephenville can seek

a court injunction on this matter. Well, I have a briefing note here from the

Department of Justice to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation

and it says, under

section 5(1)(

c) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,

S.C. - I can read it all out but the part -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now - he is on a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: "An environmental assessment of a project is required

before a federal authority exercises one of the following powers or performs one

of the following duties or functions in respect of a project, namely, where a

federal authority

"(

c) has..."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: "...the administration of federal lands and sells,

leases or otherwise disposes of those lands or any interests in those lands...,

for the purpose of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in

part." While there are no penalties incorporated -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

quickly.

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

It basically says, "...failure to conduct the required environmental

assessment could allow an interested party -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Why

have you ignored the briefing note from the Department of Justice that permits

you to seek a court injunction on behalf of the people of Stephenville? Why are

you ignoring it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain if the people caught the

question or will be able to decipher what was said but I think I got enough of

what was read quickly to appreciate the question, or intended question.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Well, if the hon. the Opposition House Leader would give me

the respect of letting me give my response, it would be much appreciated. I

realize he has a job to do, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I am entitled in this House to respond as well as anyone else. That

is my right by being here.

In response to the question, legal advice was sought of the Department of

Justice. That legal advice was provided. The hon. gentleman is quite correct

when he makes reference to the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency and the

act. The question is, number one: Can you take a legal action? Secondly, if you

do take one, what is your prospect of being successful in any case?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I see now, Mr. Speaker, we have all lawyers on the other

side. I thought it was just a couple we had over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: I gather, Mr. Speaker, that they want questions but I guess

they do not treat it - it is Question Period. They truly do not want any answers

here.

Mr. Speaker, the advice has been given to the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation. There are some options under the environmental regulations,

but not withstanding that we pointed those out. The proponents involved in this

particular company have already indicated that even if an environmental

assessment is required they are quite prepared to do that. So, it is not really

a legal option to sue anybody and say: Thou shalt comply with the regulations.

Because our understanding in conversations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: - with the proponents and their legal council is that they

have already said: We will comply with the environmental assessment

requirements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: So your references to it are correct. It is a possibility,

but it is an unimaginable resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just remind all hon. members that we do have rules and guidelines that we

must follow when we are doing Question Period.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

One of the further consequences of his government's inaction since it

signed the Climate Change Action Plan in August, 2001, and fought against Kyoto,

is that the EcoTeam, who were organized by the Conservation Corps, had shut down

its program, had laid off seven employees. This is an organization conducting

energy audits in St. John's, Gander, Bay Verte, Corner Brook, which produced

energy audits leading to retrofitting, renovation work and all kinds of economic

activity. Why is this government once again refusing and failing to act on areas

that could provide economic benefits to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and

jobs for our people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would expect and suggest that the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

might get some more detail from our friends with the EcoTeams. They have

acknowledged, in a public story that is in The Telegram today, that they

were established by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: As a matter of fact, I was the minister responsible at

the time who established - it is not inaction by us, Mr. Speaker, it was this

government, in a department that I was minister of at the time, that established

the Conservation Corps and the EcoTeams that were in the paper today.

Mr. Speaker, if he were to read the story further, even the people who are

now involved and talking about the impacts publicly are not suggesting that it

is any result of any inaction by this government. They know and understand that

it is the federal government that has signed on to the Kyoto Protocol and so far

has done absolutely nothing about a real plan that we can get engaged in and

involved in.

The Minister of Mines and Energy and his senior officials have been working

signed on to. We will gladly engage with them once we know what it is the

we will do about it here in Canada, and how any parts of it, including the

conservation core and the EcoTeams in Newfoundland and Labrador, might be able

to fit into that overall national strategy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Until, Mr. Speaker, we get some action from the

pleading with them to take action, it is the other government that must take the

action first and then we can build on what we established here in the first

place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has a vehicle called Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which

in Quebec is the engine of economic activity there. Why doesn't he see

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro with a vision to engage in this kind of

activity, look at alternate fuels and develop jobs, instead of laying off people

in rural Newfoundland, and have a vision that increases technology, give them a

mandate to increase jobs, to increase energy activity, to engage in conservation

projects and do the things that, since 1997, the Kyoto Accord has expected

people in this country to do when Canada signed on to it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are very proud of the success that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has had

in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are proud of the fact that they are operating

under the Electrical Power Control Act today as it has been debated and passed

in this Legislature by all members. They are fulfilling their mandate as

described by law today. If the member opposite wants to have another debate,

which I am sure the new minister and others would gladly engage in a debate

about, an expanded and different mandate for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we

would gladly enter into that debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

Development.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to table in the House today a report entitled, A Review of

Federal/Provincial Cost-Shared Economic Development Co-Operation Agreements -

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The report, which was compiled by officials in the Department of Industry,

Trade and Rural Development, outlines the history of cost-shared agreements

between the provincial and federal governments over the past decade. It

highlights many of the strategic initiatives implemented under these agreements,

and the benefits that have resulted from them, especially in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador.

The report, I am sure, people will find to be very informative, but it is

also a report that we are going to forward to the Minister of Industry for

Canada, Minister Allan Rock, and to the regional minister, Mr. Gerry Byrne, in

hopes that it will support our initiative in creating a Canada-Newfoundland and

Labrador Regional Economic Development Board.

Notices of Motion

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give notice, I want to move the following

private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association has expressed grave

concern on behalf of its members that the RNC, having lost more than seventy

officers in recent years, lacks sufficient personnel and proper equipment to

discharge its responsibility to protect the public in the jurisdictions it

serves;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this Honourable House call on the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to address the concerns raised by the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary Association on a high-priority basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have information in response to a question that was asked yesterday by the

Leader of the Opposition claiming a downed live power line on the Northern

Peninsula. I wish to allay his concerns, Mr. Speaker.

He did not specify where on the Northern Peninsula this was suppose to have

happened; nor did he state exactly when this was supposed to have occurred. In

any case, my department has checked with officials from Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro who have assured me they have no record of an electrified line

being down for two weeks in the northern region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to continue with his answer.

MR. NOEL: Bulk transmission lines are monitored through the Energy

Control Centre. If a fault occurs on a line, the line is tripped, an alert is

received at the ECC, and the fault is isolated through the protective nature of

the system. The ECC monitors voltages on the bulk lines and status information

is received. Many situations can be rectified directly through the ECC but, if

not, a crew is dispatched immediately.

Distribution lines carry a lower voltage and have protection systems in place

for safety of Hydro employees and the general public. Most lines have re-closers

which trip in case of a fault on the line. In a residential situation, a

transformer normally feeds several homes and has a fuse which trips the line if

there is a fault, isolating electricity from the downed wire. The homes

connected to that transformer are then without power and they notify Hydro

almost immediately. Once a fault is detected or reported, a crew is dispatched

without delay.

The months of January and February were particularly harsh in the northern

region with regard to ice and snow conditions. The regional office -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday and, under our Standing Orders, we go to the

private member's resolution today, which is -

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would like to finish his

statement -

MR. NOEL: It is just another paragraph.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) ask leave of members opposite, seeing it is our

Private Members' Day. (Inaudible).

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

MR. NOEL: The regional office reacted by moving current staff to provide

assistant or by using temporary workforce as required. The safety of both

employees and the general public is Hydro's number one concern, Mr. Speaker.

It should also be noted, for the record, that Hydro does share poles with

Aliant Telecom and cable companies in the area, so I do not know if there might

have been some confusion in that regard. If the Opposition Leader has any more

specific information, I would be happy to have it further checked out, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand there is an agreement to go to Petitions. Is that an

understanding, that members will go through the proceedings -

MR. E. BYRNE: One petition.

MR. SPEAKER: One petition?

Is there an agreement that we go to Petitions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

Petitions

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to bring forth a petition from the

residents of the Humber area concerning the long-term health care facilities in

the region.

To the Hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the existing health facilities in Western Newfoundland for extended

and chronic care of patients are woefully inadequate to meet the demand; and

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation anticipated the demand for a long

term care facility in the region and commissioned a study in 2000 and that the

study was concluded in 2001 and recommended that a new facility be constructed;

and

WHEREAS the study was delivered to the Department of Health and Community

Services in August 2001 and a follow up presentation was given in October 2001;

and

WHEREAS a conceptual plan was presented to the regional MHAs in January of

2002 that outlined the necessary infrastucture required to address the extended

care and chronic care needs of Western Newfoundland.

THEREFORE the undersigned - and there are 1,508 signatories to this petition,

Mr. Speaker - residents of Western Newfoundland served by the Western Health

Care Corporation request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

immediately begin implementation of the plan to build the required facilities as

identified in the study.

AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I bring this matter to the attention of the House because of the

deplorable condition of existing long term care facilities in Corner Brook. I

have toured these facilities, Mr. Speaker, and find them to be completely

unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, we have an aging population and the demand

for new long term care facilities is ever increasing. People who have worked

hard their entire lives and who have given so much to our Province deserve to

spend their later years in comfort. That comfort is presently not available. I

ask the government to factor this demand into their existing plans.

I can also assure the people of Corner Brook and the surrounding communities

that our party recognizes the need for such a facility and its construction by

government would be one of the priorities of our government should we win the

next election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also would like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Bay

of Islands region concerning a long term care facility.

If I could read the petition, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS the existing health facilities in Western Newfoundland for extended

and chronic care of patients are woefully inadequate to meet the demand; and

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation anticipated the demand for long

term care facilities in the region and commissioned a study in 2000 and that the

study was concluded in 2001 and recommended that a new facility be constructed;

and

WHEREAS the study was delivered to the Department of Health and Community

Services in August 2001 and a follow up presentation was given in October 2001;

and

WHEREAS a conceptual plan was presented to the regional MHAs in January of

2002 that outlined the necessary infrastructure required to address the extended

care and chronic care needs of Western Newfoundland; and

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to begin implementation of the plan to build the required

facilities as identified in the study.

AND in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate Israel Hann and his committee for

keeping the light bright for us to keep this facility, because it is a very

important facility. I know first hand the need for it, Mr. Speaker, on a

personal basis, and I also know from visiting a lot of the facilities on many

occasions.

I would like to thank my colleague, the Member for Humber East, who has

worked with me in last two years to make this a priority of our government. I

call upon all hon. members, and I agree with the Opposition, that this is a

facility that is needed in the Corner Brook, Bay of Islands area. This is a

facility that we need to take care of our seniors. This is a facility that I

will commit to that I will keep fighting for until this facility is built in

Corner Brook to supply the much needed needs to the seniors of Western

Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today also, to present a petition on behalf of approximately 500 - I

have more than that, but I will present 500 today - signatures from around the

Burin Peninsula. From Burin, Marystown, Grand Bank, St. Lawrence, Garnish, Jean

de Baie, Lewin's Cove and other areas of the Burin Peninsula. It concerns a

petition that I have presented many times in this House of Assembly concerning

this Province expanding the provincial drug coverage system in order to include

high cost prescription drugs such as those needed to treat MS, Alzheimer's and

people with hormone replacement needs.

Mr. Speaker these drugs are quite expensive, and our Province is the only

jurisdiction in this country that do not provide any assistance whatsoever to

the working people of the Province. Every other province in this country

provides some assistance to people who work for a living. This province requires

people to spend and liquidate any assets that they may have in order to purchase

this drug and reduce themselves and their families down to income support levels

before this Province will help out in any way whatsoever. This is totally

unacceptable. It is time for this Province to catch up with the rest of Canada

and make the people of this Province equal to those residents who live in other

provinces.

As I repeatedly said, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad reflection on this Province

and this government that people really have to consider, when they are affected

with these illnesses, the possibility of relocating to another Province in this

country, even for half of the salary that they may be making here and still be

financially better off at the end of the day, simply because the other

governments in this country provide assistance with the purchase of these high

cost drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to draw to government's attention that there are

reports available which suggest that people who use these drugs can cost the

health care systems less money in the long run. Many people, by having the

ability and the availability of these drugs, can sometimes, in many cases, delay

their admittance to institutions within the Province, therefore costing the

Province less health care dollars in the long run than it would normally.

Mr. Speaker, I know that Budget Day is tomorrow. I know that the Minister of

Finance has travelled around the Province to different regions having public

hearings on the Budget. I know that she has been approached on this issue many

times during those public hearings. On behalf of the many, many thousands of

people that I have presented this petition on over the past few years, I say to

the minister and to this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, just to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: There are many people in this Province, and many relatives

of people who have those illnesses, who will be watching very closely tomorrow

to see if this government has recognized their needs and will take seriously -

the question they are asking is: Will this government step in and assist people

with the purchase of these high priced medications?

I say to the minister and to the government that tomorrow, on Budget Day,

people around this Province will be watching in anticipation and hoping that

there will be some relief financially for them towards the purchase of those

drugs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to make reference to the resolution that is being

debated here in the House today. I will just read the resolution, it says:

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Home Heating Fuel Rebate announced by

the Minister of Finance on March 20, 2003 provides a $100 rebate for low income

households that use furnace oil, stove oil or propane as their primary source of

heat; and

WHEREAS households that use electric heat have had extraordinary increases in

their heating costs because of the unusually cold weather; and face additional

deferred costs when Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro raises electricity rates to

offset the cost of bunker C fuel used to produce electricity at Holyrood;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the government amend the Newfoundland and

Labrador Home Heating Fuel Rebate to include low income households that use

electricity as their primary source of heat.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, the minister, back on March 20, looked at using only

those sources of heat.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Mines and Energy is interfering with my

limited time here. I would like to have the courtesy to explain the rationale,

and then if the minister -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) don't always extend the courtesy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister does not agree and thinks there is a difference - I

personally think there is discrimination by telling seniors out there, disabled

people, and low-income working people, that because you heat your house with

propane as your primary source, or stove oil or furnace oil or whatever the case

may be, that you can get a rebate but people who have electricity only and incur

high costs should not get an equivalent debate.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am trying to explain, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of

Mines and Energy would wait and hear the explanation. It is kind of annoying

when you have ten or fifteen minutes to address points and he keeps interrupting

and does not allow it.

I would like the Member for Virginia Waters there, the Minister of Mines and

Energy, to have the courtesy just to listen as least. We gave leave to people to

do petitions here today and I would like an opportunity to be able to get the

points out. He is entitled to stand up and disagree but he should not interrupt

and use my time, and he is continuing to do it.

I will ask the Speaker to ask the minister to stop interfering continuously

while I am speaking.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All members know that when the Chair recognizes a member to speak then other

members ought to listen. It is certainly not acceptable for members to

continuously interrupt the proceedings of the House. So I ask hon. members to

cooperate and to follow our own Standing Orders.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. speaker.

I think it is important that people who are having high increases in costs of

running their households this year have electricity as their primary source. I

am going to explain a little further, as their primary source. Also, in a long

winter, a hard winter when you have higher electricity costs, the fuel fired in

Holyrood Generating Station uses bunker C fuel. There are higher costs and it

drives up - and it reflects in your electricity rate. While it might not happen

now, it happens on an annual basis. These people have fixed incomes on an annual

basis.

I want to use another example, and I hope the minister understands this.

People who use a primary source of electricity also have secondary sources in

some cases. Some people have a stove, that they use oil in the kitchen. Some

people have wood stoves that they use. Some have propane in the kitchen, even

though electricity is the primary source. Those people are almost confined to

their kitchen. They keep on a wood stove or an oil stove in their kitchen, or

propane heat in their kitchen. They spend a lot of time in their kitchen because

they cannot afford to heat their entire house. People who have electricity as

their primary source and have these other options as a secondary source are not

getting that benefit even though they are using this on an increased basis in

the wintertime.

I think it is only fair that if a low income person, whether they are the

working poor in this Province, whether they are seniors, some disabled people,

people with very high costs and very low incomes, people who are more

disadvantaged than others should have an opportunity to get a break on their

heating costs in the winter, regardless of how they heat their homes. It costs

money. Years ago people could go in and cut wood. Many seniors today have no

families around to supply them. They have to buy wood. Some buy propane to

supplement it. Some buy oil for their kitchen stove. Those people have every

much a right, even though electricity is their main source, to expect to get a

benefit from this government on a rebate on their source of electricity. I think

it is unfair.

I know people in my district who could not afford to put oil in their tank;

people who have to stay in their kitchen using an alternate source, not their

main source, to get heat. I have had calls on it. I have talked to some of my

colleagues, and I am sure people on both sides of the House are aware that

people have had a very difficult time. A lot of these houses in rural

Newfoundland are two-storey houses. They are not well insulated. The windows and

so on are allowing a fair air exchange; wind blowing in some of these. They try

to put plastic on the windows. They are living near the seacoast. In some areas

it is pretty barren and very little protection and they are getting a lot of

high costs because of it.

Now, I do not think we should be here discriminating and handpicking who

should get a break because of high costs there. I agree with having an income

level to do it. Many people out here do not understand. Most members of the

House who have dealt with constituents should understand the plight of people

who are not as fortunate and do not have the income levels we have. I am not

saying anybody in this House does not understand that. I think anybody who deals

with the people of the Province, on a daily basis, should know and understand

that. I think everybody, probably everybody in this House, have constituents out

there who have approached them at some time with some of those hardships. I

think we have to show a little bit of tolerance. We have to show a little bit of

fairness and a little bit of fair play and not be discriminatory in setting this

particular rebate.

MR. NOEL: Sure the Marshall plan says we have to balance the books. Now

you are advocating more spending.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Mines and Energy is still singing out and

trying to interfere but I will try to ignore him. It is difficult when he is

across the House from you and shouting at you. It is kind of difficult to keep

your train of thought but I will try to do as much as I can on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Not only is it discriminatory - this is March. When can

these people expect to get a rebate? April, May or June? We knew since early

last fall, certainly into January, that this was a difficult winter, and the

conditions persisted. Here we are, up in March, near the end of March, when

people are starting to see some light, and starting to get through a difficult

winter, and they are going to provide a rebate that will probably come through

in the summer months. I think we should have initiated some action.

In an interview I did on radio, and I did a news release on this long before

the minister ever made the announcement, I spoke with the media on this topic

and said we have to have some type of mechanism in place on an ongoing basis to

be able to help low income people, particularly seniors. It is not only seniors

we are referring to here, but low income people generally. The most sympathy

probably goes out to seniors because they are very old, they accept things, they

are not as eager to speak out, and they are more eager to do without something

than ask for it. These types of people, I think, need somebody who is going to

stand up and represent their interests. It has not been applied on an

indiscriminate basis, basically. It is being applied on a discriminate basis.

I would have liked to have heard the minister, way back when I called for

this first, come out and say we are going to try and get some money in their

hands in the wintertime when it is more difficult to heat their homes. It is

unfortunate it is so late. One hundred dollars is not huge, but it is helpful

when people are trying to figure out where their next dollar is going to come

from.

I know that seniors in particular out there are going to pay their bills.

They are going to pay their light bill before they eat. They are going to see

that Newfoundland Power or the oil company get paid, because that is their

nature. I think what we have to do is support this resolution here today to try

to get $100 in the pocket of other seniors who are equally as disadvantaged,

other disabled and low income people who are as equally disadvantaged as the one

that was given the selective use of this particular rebate under our home

heating fuel.

I am not going to belabour the point. I can speak on it all day if I want,

but I am going to just conclude by asking that government here today, in this

House, do the honorable thing and give unanimous support to this resolution so

we can get on and get money into the hands of these people as quickly as

possible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to rise and have a few words to say on this

debate on the issue of the rebate for home heating fuel, and the resolution as

introduced by the member opposite to have this extended to include electricity.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it would be instructive if we were to first of all see

and talk a little bit about what the policy that is now in place is intended to

do. Very clearly, it is intended to help low income families to pay for the cost

of fuel which this winter has been particularly volatile. The market for fuel

has been particularly volatile, and even though there is in this Province at

this point in time an attempt to have the prices leveled out over time, it is

tied to the price of oil in the New York Harbour market. As we all know, things

happening in the world today are extremely volatile, from South America where

there have been strikes in Argentina and with the consequent loss of substantial

volumes of oil flowing into the North American market, to the troubles which we

now have in Iraq and in the Middle East.

The hallmark of the winter of 2003 has been volatility in the price of oil;

and compounding that, of course, we have had a longer than normal winter. By my

recollection, right now we are into the fifth month of our winter and I expect

it to go on a little further.

The intent of the rebate, very simply, is to help those most in need. As

outlined in the Ministerial Statement by the Minister of Finance some time ago

when she introduced this particular program, anyone in this Province who is in

receipt of any portion of the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit, any

person in this Province who is in receipt of the Newfoundland and Labrador HST

credit, those who are in receipt of the Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors'

Benefit, and those who are receiving social assistance during the period January

to May, become eligible. Very clearly, this policy is aimed at the people who

are most in need and have the greatest need for the extra dollars to pay for the

oil in their tank.

As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, this winter has been challenging for many

of the seniors. I do recall recently in Corner Brook a senior calling me late at

night to indicate that the tank was running very low on fuel and, because of

some difficulties that the family had in paying previous bills, they did not

have any prospect of getting oil from that company on the following day. It was

short-term situation. The gentleman was expecting his Old Age Security cheque

within a week or so and he needed a few dollars to get him by to get a bit of

oil in the tank. I must say, Madam Speaker, I was somewhat fortunate in being

able to find assistance for him within the community; because within

Newfoundland, of course, we are a very caring society and we always reach out to

help those most in need.

Madam Speaker, the issue and the reason for the rebate is very simple: to

help those most in need in times - particularly in winters like this, which have

been extremely cold and where there is a great deal of volatility in the price.

Is it a policy that will help and cure all the problems as outlined by the

individual who introduced this motion? Will it fix all of the leaking windows?

Will it fix all the bad doors in all the substandard homes that people are

forced to live in? No, Madam Speaker, it will not do that, but it will help. It

will provide a measure of comfort for those most in need.

Madam Speaker, it is instructive perhaps to take a look at what is happening

in similar programs in other parts of the country. Are we, in other

jurisdictions, including the price, the rebate, to electricity? The bit of

research that I have been able to do thus far is that none of the rebates being

offered, at least in Atlantic Canada, are offering a rebate to offset the cost

of electricity. Yes, we would understand and admit that in the Province at this

time people have the thermostat maybe a little higher and it may be on for a

little longer, but the cost of electricity has not changed. It is relatively

stable. I think there was a minor increase back late last year but it has been

fairly stable over the winter, so there has been no increase in the price of

electricity worth talking about.

The policy that has been introduced by the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador at $100 per household is not a lot of money. We would not argue that it

is a lot of money, but in comparison to other programs in other provinces in

Atlantic Canada it compares very favourably and is being brought in on similar

Madam Speaker, the other piece on this is that, while we have brought in this

particular policy in a Province which everyone knows right now we are not quite

flush with dollars - I presume that tomorrow when we hear the Budget Speech we

will see what that means in terms of numbers - we are not a Province flush with

dollars, but we are a Province which has a great deal of sympathy for our

seniors and for those who are down and need some help. We can only wonder: Why

is it that our federal colleagues have not recognized the need for a similar

program? Why is it that they have not seen the same circumstances that we have?

Why is it that they have not brought in a program of their own that would help

seniors and low income earners within this Province to get through this

horrendous winter and these very high oil and gas prices?

Madam Speaker, I do not want in any way - if the monies were available, I

would be the first to rise in my place to increase the amount from $100 per

individual to whatever the Province can afford. I would extend it to include

electricity. I probably would extend it to include wood, because people who are

using wood fuel probably are more in need of this than people who are using

electricity. The people who are going in the woods and cutting a load of wood

are facing the same increase in the price of gas and oil for their chainsaws and

for their trucks as is seen at the pumps today.

There is no doubt that there are many out there who would like to see this

particular program extended to other individuals and other sources of heat, but

the fact of the matter is, $100 per household and to the individuals who would

meet this criteria will cost the Province something in the order of $2 million.

It is not a lot of money in the overall scheme of things, but a lot of money

nonetheless.

What I do find just a little bit ironic is that the same gentlemen and the

same members opposite who would advocate that we would extend this to another

heating source, or perhaps even increase it, are those who are saying to us, or

those who are associated with them are saying, that we should only balance our

budget. We should not spend any more than what we have, and that we should add

up our pluses and our minuses and do a balanced budget.

It is very difficult, when you are running a government that is compassionate

and caring, to always balance your budget. In most cases, as I have always said,

the needs of the few are the needs the government needs to address.

This request is not unlike a similar petition I heard earlier this evening

from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It was a very well put petition

dealing with the long-term health care in the City of Corner Brook. It is a

petition which I introduced into this House on about three separate occasions in

the last year or so, exactly the same. The member opposite, of course, indicated

that this would be a high priority for his government. Well, that does not quite

jive with the information which I have obtained and seen in the public media

over the last number of years. There is no doubt that he understands there is a

great need for that facility in the City of Corner Brook, but it is always

subject to it being within the fiscal capacity of the Province to do.

It makes for an interesting discussion and debate when, day in, day out,

members opposite are asking us to bring in this program, do that thing, spend

more money on this and spend more money on that, and, at the same time, speak

about balanced budgets, having your pluses and your minuses adding up so that

you have a balanced budget.

Madam Speaker, I understand the Member for Ferryland, and I am sure he is

quite convinced in his own way, in his own mind, that there is a need for this

increase. I would only wish that I could stand in this House today and be able

to support the petition. If there was any possibility at all, Madam Speaker,

that this could be done within the fiscal capacity of the Province, I would be

more than happy to support it, but I would indicate again that the policy that

we have brought in with respect to the $100 rebate is in accord with the policy

that we brought in, in previous years. It is most unfortunate that our

colleagues in Ottawa have not yet seen fit to come in and bring in a similar

program, and it is a program which is consistent with what is happening in other

provinces in Canada. As a matter of fact, it is perhaps double the amount that

is paid by some other provinces, and the policy that we have brought in is

consistent with that of other jurisdictions, in which they do not include

electricity either.

Madam Speaker, the thing that this policy is attempting to do, what it is

attempting to do in some very small way - and I will admit, it is in some very

small way, because $100 of fuel in a tank these days is not a lot of oil. It

will not last very long. I will not say it is better than nothing; it is a help

to those who are most in need.

Madam Speaker, I rise but I really cannot support the petition. I wish I

could, and I wish the capacity of the Province was there to do it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am happy to stand in this House today and support the motion as put forward

by the hon. Member for Ferryland. I will just repeat the

BE IT RESOLVED portion:

"THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the government amend the Newfoundland and

Labrador Home Heating Fuel Rebate to include low income households that use

electricity as their primary source of heat."

Madam Speaker, according to the latest numbers by Statistics Canada, almost

50 per cent of the families in this Province use electric heat, as opposed to 35

per cent of the families in the Province who burn some sort of fuel like propane

or gas or oil, and there is 15 per cent of the families in the Province who use

wood. Based on these statistics, and based on the unusually cold winter that we

have had and are presently having, it would appear that the government is

clearly discriminating against approximately 65 per cent of the residents who do

not burn either gas or oil, but they are still in the middle of an unusually

cold winter. These families have had to take unusual measures, many of them,

this winter to stay alive, to keep any kind of warmth in their house for their

families.

The rebate is directed, obviously, at people who are either on social

assistance or who are low income, and that would be demonstrated by their

receipt of either the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit, the HST credit or

the Labrador Seniors' Benefit, and demonstrating the fact that they are low

income. It is on behalf of the 65 per cent of those people, those among that 65

per cent who would qualify by virtue of the fact that they are in receipt of low

income and still in the middle of a hard winter but who do not qualify because

they use electricity, that I do stand to speak to this motion. Among those we

have families, obviously, the ones who are receiving the Newfoundland and

Labrador Child Benefit amount, who have small children and they are doing

everything in their power. They are low income, so obviously they do have a lot

of money to spend on heating their homes, and we can only imagine those families

with their young children in this severely cold winter trying to keep their

homes warm.

The same thing can be said, Madam Speaker, for the seniors who are heating

their homes with electricity. Many of our seniors, as has been demonstrated,

live at or below the poverty line. They are in the receipt of the Seniors'

Benefit and that is of some help to them, but obviously their income once again

does not allow them to heat their homes adequately. You can only picture some

seniors living in their home with the heat turned barely on, the house cold,

and, as the hon. Member for Ferryland said, many of them have drafty windows in

their houses and they have not been able to take advantage of a RAP grant

because there have been cutbacks there. So, these people are being severely

discriminated against.

A lot of our families, Madam Speaker, live in Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing, and ordinarily every winter they receive a fuel rebate or heat rebate.

In a normal winter, that rebate runs out fairly quickly, and a lot of

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing homes are heated with electricity, so

obviously that would exclude them once again from the rebate. So, given the fact

that their heat rebates run out, in a normal winter, early, I hate to think of

the situation that those families find themselves in this winter where now they

are not eligible for an additional rebate because they burn electricity.

It is my pleasure to stand. I will not go on any longer. The majority of what

I would have liked to have said has been said by the Member for Ferryland, but

it is on behalf of those people who are out there, the 65 per cent of the

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who have been excluded because they burn

electricity, that I ask this government not to discriminate against them but to

add them to the winter rebate because of the unusual severity of this winter, so

that those people will at least have some comfort by getting this small amount

of rebate that has been offered.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to join in this debate on the private member's motion

regarding the home heat rebate program that the government has recently

announced.

Madam Speaker, the Province proposes to give $100 to people who are in

receipt of the GST- HST rebate and are also burning fuel oil as a major source

of heat.

Madam Speaker, first of all let me say that I support, certainly, this

particular motion but I will go a little further and I will tell you why as I

speak. First of all, on every $100 worth of fuel that consumers buy the

government collects $15 in HST. On every $100 worth of electricity that

consumers buy in this Province, that they use to heat their homes, turn on their

lights or warm their water, the government collects $15 on top of that. So, you

pay $100 for your oil and you pay $15 to the government by way of tax.

So, what are we doing here, Madam Speaker, when the government says we are

going to give a rebate to certain people. All we are doing is saying: Of the

taxes that we are collecting from you we are going to give you back a little

bit.

Madam Speaker, clearly the cost of heating a home, whether it be by

electricity, heating fuel, furnace oil, stove oil or fuel oil, whatever it is

called that you are using to burn in your house, that cost is significant and it

is increasing. We have seen some fluctuations recently, but obviously the cost

is very burdensome on people in this Province.

As the Member for Ferryland has said, we have a situation where many homes in

this Province are not well insulated, some two-story homes. In fact, people who

are most in need of this program are probably in the least well-insulated homes

in many cases.

Madam Speaker, when our party talks about energy conservation, when our party

talks about having this government respond to Kyoto and have people out there

helping people to retrofit their homes, we are talking about saving energy costs

for individual consumers like the people who are going to be supported by this

rebate.

One of the other things that we did, Madam Speaker: Several years ago, this

government, in the Fall of 2001, introduced an income tax cut which would have

cost about $35 million. At that time, we proposed, instead of cutting the taxes,

which would primarily benefit those who are well-to-do in our Province, what

government should have been doing is introducing a home heating rebate to the

equivalent of 15 per cent, actually rebate to the consumer the equivalent of 15

per cent.

You cannot knock off the tax. People will tell you: Oh, that is contrary to

the agreement signed with the federal government in relation to HST, with New

Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. So, you cannot do that. Our hands are

tied, Madam Speaker, by the agreement signed by this government. We cannot knock

off the HST but we can, Madam Speaker, introduce a rebate to the equivalent of

15 per cent of the home heating costs, whether that heat is provided by

electricity or by propane, which a modest number of people have, or by fuel oil.

That would cost more than the $2 million, that would cost about $30 million,

because we costed it out. It was less, Madam Speaker, than what this government

did by way of a tax cut benefitting wealthy people in this Province. That is the

kind of program that this party would fight for, introduce and put into place if

we were in government, making sure that we are not here to give tax cuts to

people who are wealthy and already have no trouble at all heating their homes,

but, in fact, giving back and taking away the taxation on people who are

struggling now to heat their homes and are making the tough choices; will I go

cold or will I go hungry? That is what is happening to too many people in this

Province today, because of the cost of home heat. We have had a very cold

February, we have had a very cold March up until the last few days, extremely

cold, minus 20 for days and days and days on end in many places of the Province,

colder in Labrador and inland Newfoundland, the Buchans area. We saw what

happened in Badger when the flooding took place, solid blocks of ice in peoples

houses for weeks and weeks. A very cold winter, Madam Speaker, and we need

sufficient relief that is going to actually deal with the problem.

A lot of people in this Province do not heat their homes through furnace oil.

They heat their homes through electricity because, in many cases, that is the

cheapest thing for people to put into their houses. It is cheaper than a

furnace, the insulation costs are cheaper, so people building houses often use

that. It is in older homes. It is easier to do that than find the cost of

putting in a furnace. Eventually they pay because, as the Resolution says,

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is burning Bunker C out in Seal Cove to provide

the electricity that is heating people's homes. All we are doing is converting

the energy from fuel to electricity and turning it into heat in people's

houses. They are going to pay, they will pay, because there is a special formula

designed and approved by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities to

ensure that eventually the consumer pays.

MR. SULLIVAN: Most people on electricity as their primary source are

using a stove in their kitchen to heat their homes, as a secondary source, and

they are -

MR. HARRIS: Yes, the member is quite right. The Member for Ferryland says

that many people who do have electric heat as a primary source of heat in their

house also have oil stoves in their kitchen, or propane stoves in their kitchen,

which is a secondary source of heat. Many people - and I know from my own

childhood, Madam Speaker - would probably huddle around their kitchen with the

electricity turned down or turned off because of the cost of heat in their

houses. That is the reality for many people in this Province even today.

We have to recognize, Madam Speaker, that people, when they are heating their

homes, they are heating their homes the best way they can. If that means leaving

the oil stove on in the kitchen a little longer, or the propane stove on a

little longer, turning down the electricity, depending whether their propane

tank or their oil tank is full or not, this is the unfortunate reality.

I have a letter, Madam Speaker, from an oil distributor in Bay Roberts, and

he was writing on another issue. He was talking about the concerns of not being

able to get enough wholesale, the margins were so small that he could not

deliver oil. He was talking about people phoning up looking for $50 worth of oil

because that is all they had, $50 dollars. They wanted $100 worth of oil, $75

worth of oil. He was talking about the cost of being able to deliver that. He

said he had so many people who wanted oil delivered he could not afford to

travel the distance required just to deliver $50 worth of oil and wanted

something done about the price, wanted the gas and oil price commissioner to

make sure that he could do that.

This is an example, Madam Speaker, of the state which many people are in when

they cannot afford it, they cannot pick up the phone and say to an oil company:

Come and fill up my tank. That is out of the question. Come and deliver $50

worth of oil, come and deliver $100 worth of oil: That is the situation that

people are in. On that $100, as I said earlier, Madam Speaker, that they are

paying, there is an add on of 15 per cent for HST that goes into the coffers of

we should be doing is not only covering the cost of a rebate in relation to oil

heat but also to electric heat because that is very expensive, too. People are

even paying $300, $400 and, in some cases, $500 to heat their homes in the

winter with electricity and that cost is just as significant to them as the cost

of buying oil is for people who use that as a primary source.

There should be no discrimination. There should be no distinction made. Why

are we doing that, Madam Speaker, even though we may see a blip in the price of

oil? In fact, it seems to be going up and down depending on the fortunes of the

Americans in Iraq. We now have our oil prices tied to that regardless of the

fact that we have absolutely no control whatsoever over any of these factors as

it goes up by ten cents a litre one day, and another week it is down by ten

cents a litre, and it is increasing over time.

Madam Speaker, this is something that we should take and look at for the long

term, not just look at for a one-shot deal because this happens to be an

election year and the government wants to see itself as passing out cheques for

$100 and being seen as giving out goodies to people. We should have a firm

policy that recognizes that, in the long run, what we are doing, as a

government, is taking 15 per cent of the cost of home heating fuel for every

single person in this Province, in fact, driving the cost of heating people's

homes up by 15 per cent.

It is not difficult to implement, Madam Speaker. We costed it out very

carefully a couple of years ago because we wanted to be able to answer the

question: What would you do instead of a tax cut for the wealthy? We said what

we would do, we would ensure that there would be a rebate of equal to 15 per

cent of the cost of home heating, both for our users of electricity and users of

furnace oil, to each and every person in the Province. The benefits of that very

clearly would go to those who are struggling to meet their basic commitments.

Madam Speaker, that is our position. Clearly we support the resolution in

terms of this particular rebate. I could amend it, I suppose, but I would rather

have the government members opposite recognize that, to just do this - because I

do not think they will accept my amendment to do a whole new program. I do not

think they will accept that at this point. What I do hope they will accept is to

recognize that people who are heating their homes with electricity, as well as

oil, deserve to have the same kind of relief as one for the other, and I leave

the resolution as it is.

I will support it as it is and I hope that hon. members opposite will also

support the resolution in the hopes that those who are heating their homes with

electricity this winter get the same advantage from this rebate system as do the

people who happen to be heating their homes with oil.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, this is certainly an interesting resolution. The debate being

put forward today is certainly a very important debate affecting a very

important group of people. Basically, those people on low income; people having

to heat their homes on low income. When one gets a winter so severe, as we have

had this winter, it certainly aggravates an already bad situation.

I listened with interest to the proposal put by the NDP, a 15 per cent

rebate. That is certainly not too much for the people that we are talking about,

a 15 per cent rebate. The hon. gentleman talked about a rebate for all main

heating. He talked about oil heat; he talked about electric heat - the two basic

forms. The problem, when one gets into making these kinds of decisions, is to

what rationale one uses.

In the past, governments have not had a policy. The governments that are in

existence today react to an emergency situation. It has always been that

governments gave a rebate to people using oil fuel. It is oil fuel that is most

volatile to the fluctuations in the economy. Generally, in the winters that we

have given these rebates, the price of fuel had escalated and gone through the

roof, so to speak. I think this year it went up by 50 per cent. One statistic I

saw, it went from forty-seven cents a litre to sixty-nine cents a litre; a

terrific increase. Now, electricity has not increased. Granted, people have had

to use more because it is colder. Naturally, we have had to use more. The

rationale used by governments in trying to react to this situation of what group

of people was probably most negatively impacted by this cold weather would be

those people using oil because of the tremendous increase in the cost. As I have

indicated, at least one set of statistics showing that it increased by more than

50 per cent.

Madam Speaker, every government that I know of in Atlantic Canada today - we

are not the only government that is giving a rebate because we are not the only

place that went through this climate, this cold winter. The Government of Nova

Scotia, they have offered a rebate, and not as large as ours, I might say. I

think Nova Scotia has offered a $50 rebate, where we have offered $100. So we

have doubled the rebate offered by the Government of Nova Scotia, but it is the

same area in that it is for people who have heated their homes with oil as fuel.

That is the same as the government from Nova Scotia. All governments that I know

of, that are into this program, that is the criteria they used.

A couple of years ago the federal government got involved. The federal

government got into a rebate, but again, it was the same principle, only for

those homes that were heated with fuel. Again, the argument being that

electrical rates did not increase. They were more stable. Even though people had

to use more, they were not subjected to the price volatility the same as those

people using oil.

Madam Speaker, it is certainly something that we have to look at into the

future maybe, of having some kind of a more permanent policy than reacting as we

do to emergency crises in the circumstances that we are now in, but the

government has reacted in the way that it has to try and bring some relief to

those people most affected.

I wanted to follow on, if I may, by extending the argument used by the Member

for Quidi Vidi with respect to having a rebate for oil and electricity. The

question then arises in many areas in rural Newfoundland - there is another very

important source of heat that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians use and that is

wood. So if you get into expanding from the oil to the electric and then to

propane, there is no reason why you -

AN HON. MEMBER: Propane?

MR. LUSH: Yes, propane.

- why we should not include wood. I know many families who have to use wood

as their main supply, and many people do not get their own wood. Many people

have to pay for it and wood is an expensive product these days. So if we are

expanding the program, the question arises: Maybe we should do all forms of

heat. Just not exclude any form. Any main source of heat, they should be given a

rebate for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Yes, there is a mixture of some. There is some that use more

wood than they do oil or vice versa, or more wood than electricity, not vice

versa. Wood still makes a very important product for home heating in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, just to say that the rationale used by this government - and I

would like to able to extend this program to all our people who are on low

income, but governments have to use rationale for why they do things, and this

rationale that they use, this government, the Government of Nova Scotia, the

Government of New Brunswick, and another governments that have been into this,

use the rationale of price volatility, price escalating to the ceiling, to the

roof, and to try and offset that governments take this approach that they offer

a rebate just for fuel. The other sources of heat have not been dealt with.

Maybe we ought to; maybe it is something we should look at because winters like

this winter can be pretty harsh on people, there is no question, when people

have to get into a situation of deciding whether it is going to be food or heat.

Neither of these are decisions that we like to be into but the government, in

its wisdom, have decided this year that they would give a rebate to those

people, as in the past, who use oil as their source of heat.

Madam Speaker, the debate is worthwhile and it is something that makes us all

think and consider and empathize with the circumstances that many of our people

living in Newfoundland and Labrador are faced with.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am very pleased also to stand here today and fully support the resolution

brought forward by my colleague, from the District of Ferryland, with respect to

the home heating fuel rebate.

This, without a doubt, has been one of the coldest winters on record, and

because of that, our people have incurred a very high expense in regards and

comparison to normal winters when it comes to heating their homes. Over the past

three or four weeks, four or five weeks, I have received an awful lot of calls

from constituents in my district with respect to the fuel oil rebate. These

calls have come from seniors, from widows, from students who are renting and

paying utility bills, and other people on fixed incomes in this Province. I

believe, Madam Speaker, that the rebate in question should be used to help all

people in need to offset the cost of heating their homes, regardless of the type

of fuel they use; whether it be furnace oil, propane or electricity.

Madam Speaker, a large number of seniors and others on fixed incomes these

years use electricity as the primary source of heating their homes. While I was

in my district last weekend I spoke with a very knowledgeable resident of my

community, one known to a lot of people in this Province, Mr. Arthur Wicks. I am

sure most of you know him. Mr. Wicks uses electricity to heat his home and he

told me that his bill for last month was just about $400. That is the way it has

been for the last three or four months. Normally, he told me, during the winter

months his electric bill would be around $200-$220. So, Madam Speaker, that is

just one example of the many people caught in this financial situation. Because

of the fact, Madam Speaker, that a large amount of our electric energy is

generated by the hydro plant in Holyrood - and also the cost of that oil used in

generating the electricity is no doubt factored into the cost of electricity

used by the residents of this Province, because of that, Madam Speaker, I

believe that the rebate should apply to all people of this Province on fixed

incomes. Therefore, be fair to everyone on the fixed income level as already

determined by the government.

Madam Speaker, in view of this government's care, concern and compassion,

as they say for the people of this Province, I now call on them to exercise this

care, concern and compassion and include home heating fuel rebate for people who

heat their homes with electricity as well.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I certainly want to take a few minutes to rise today on this particular

debate, and I would hope that the Minister of Mines and Energy would listen to

the points made here today because it has been a pretty good debate. I want to

commend the Member for Ferryland for bringing forward this particular motion,

because what it does is put things in perspective. The minister shouts across

the House about spending money and so on. Let's put this in perspective today,

Mr. Speaker.

What we are talking about is that right now the government has offered $100,

not a week, not a month, but $100 -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the Minister of Mines and Energy

- as a matter of fact, I will give him leave to stand on his feet to give his

views on this, which he has not done here yet today. Otherwise, he can be quiet

and listen and maybe he can learn something from it.

Mr. Speaker, what the Member for Ferryland has done today, I can commend him

for it because he is talking to the same type of constituents I am talking

about. With all due respect, many members in this House have the same

conversation, including the Minister of Mines and Energy. The people in this

Province, the elderly and the low income people, are simply asking that, just

because they do not use oil heat, because they use electricity, that they get

that $100 a year rebate. Now, how much are we really asking for when the

minister looks across the House and has the gall to ask us: Where are we going

to get the money from? Now, we could stoop to that type of debate today but we

are not going to, because we could certainly -

MR. NOEL: You do not have an answer (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I will give you one answer. Maybe that will make the

minister sit back in his seat for a little while. If we stopped the $1 million

ad campaign that we did this year, it would take care of this $100 a year for

these people who are asking for this rebate. Now, if you want me to go on with a

further list, I will, Minister. Otherwise, you should be quiet and learn

something today.

The bottom line here, to put this in real perspective here today - because

the minister, in all fairness, is the only one - because the members who stood

up their place and took the time to stand in debate today made some very good

points. The Member for Terra Nova, the Member for Humber East, made some very

good, valid points, but the minister decided to sit in his seat and squawk on

about something he really does not understand, obviously. I am talking to

constituents, the same as the Member for Ferryland and my colleagues who spoke

here today are talking to people one on one, low income people, especially

elderly people in our Province. I have talked to them, where they have talked

about $100. It does not sound like a lot and, yes, maybe it should be more and

we could look at $200 or $300, but we are not here to argue that point today.

The fact and the reality is this: there is a $100 rebate. It is going to help a

little bit. It means a lot to some people, like the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi said earlier today, in deciding whether they are going to heat their home

or buy groceries. Now, some people may thing that is far-fetched, but it is not

far-fetched. If you go around this Province today and speak to people - and we

should remember this - the elderly who are fortunate enough and healthy enough

to be in their homes, most of these homes, as was pointed out today, are old

homes, not very well insulated and pretty cold. I am sure there is not a member

here who has not been in those homes throughout this Province, throughout rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the Member for Terra Nova has. A lot of the

homes around this Province today are older homes and the people who are living

in those homes mostly are the elderly people in our Province who are fortunate

enough to be healthy enough to stay in their own homes. We should applaud them

for that, Mr. Speaker.

At the same time that we sit here and say, yes, a $100 rebate - which we have

all agreed upon and the government has moved in that direction, and we applaud

them on it - whether it is enough, $100 or not, is an issue we are not debating

today. It is the fact that the people who are heating their homes with oil are

getting a $100 rebate, and an elderly person who is living next door in the same

type of home but is using electricity cannot get that $100 rebate.

Let's put it in perspective, the way it should be. All we are asking for

here, we are not asking for a major Budget increase. We are not going to ask you

to change your numbers tomorrow when you announce your Budget. We are talking

about giving that same benefit of $100 a year, once a year, to the people who

heat their homes with electricity.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I really seriously believe that there are members

in this House, on the other side of the House, who also believe - as a matter of

fact, the Member for Terra Nova almost said it - that those people living next

door who happen to be heating their homes through electricity, helping out with

wood and so on, but we know they are cold houses, a lot of the old homes around

Newfoundland and Labrador, with elderly people living in them, with low incomes,

should have the same benefit of the $100 rebate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, that is not a lot to ask. We are not asking the

minister to come up and change his Budget tomorrow, or do anything that is

unreasonable. I think it is a very reasonable and rational choice. I think it is

something we have sat and talked about with calls that we have had from our own

constituents. It is something that is reasonable, and we think we are just in

asking for that.

I believe today, the private member's motion that the Member for Ferryland

put forward, this particular motion, that we used the time here to debate this

today, Mr. Speaker, and we had a number of members stand in their place and talk

about it. That we took the time to debate this here today says a lot. It says a

lot for a fact as simple as this: If a person heats their home through fuel or

if they heat their home through electricity, if there are low income people in

this Province who need a little help, it is not a big lot, but a $100 cheque to

say we are going to help you - it is late this year, but it is a $100 cheque

that is going to help them. I think that is the way it should be.

That is why I ask the members opposite today, on this particular private

members' motion - there has not been a lot of political rhetoric or tripe

today, except for the minister who did not stand in his place. Otherwise, it has

been a good, straightforward debate with compassion, as the Member for Humber

East said when he spoke about compassion for people in this Province who need a

little help.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it should not have taken two hours of

debate here today on this. The simple question we are asking, as an opposition -

our party, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi, on behalf of the NDP Party -

that this small $100 rebate that you are going to give to the people in this

Province who burn fuel, why not extend it to the people who also burn

electricity?

Some rates have been discussed here today. I do not have the statistics in

front of me but there were homes, I think the Member for Bonavista said earlier,

with just over $400 a month in a electricity bill. Mr. Speaker, if those bills

were piling up since December, as some people pointed out earlier, a long, cold

winter, December, January, February and March, and everybody talks about the

long winter it has been, then certainly that small $100 cheque will be a great

help for those people.

We are simply saying, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude by saying this: that

the people in this Province who need this, the $100 that we have debated here

for two hours today, it is certainly a reasonable request. We hope that the

government will search their conscience and be compassionate, as they say they

have been, and allow the people in this Province who use electricity for heat to

also be able to use that $100 rebate.

Mr. Speaker, we ask that the government consider this seriously today and

vote for this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated.

I would now advise the hon. House that we stand adjourned until tomorrow,

Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.