Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 23 May 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 30)
2001-05-23
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 23, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 30
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) constituent.
MR. SWEENEY: That is the record. Today is the record.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate Robert Lynch on being elected as the new Fire
Chief of the Harbour Grace Fire Brigade.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Chief Lynch succeeds outgoing chief, Paul Ash, who conducted
the election of officers on April 24.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lynch has been a volunteer firefighter for the last fourteen
years and has held several executive positions on the brigade. He will also
continue in his role as public relations spokesperson for the brigade.
I also want to congratulate the other positions elected. Former chief Paul
Snow will be assistant chief; Keith Skinner; Ray Verge; Jim Barnes and Brian
Dwyer were elected crew cheifs. The new treasurer is Pat Hearn. Sandy Carpenter
will serve as the Brigade's representative on the board of directors and
Gerard Quinlan will be the club manager.
In this year, the International Year of Volunteers, I want to congratulate
the Harbour Grace Fire Brigade on their election of officers and their
continuing efforts for promoting fire safety.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to bring to the House's attention today something of
significant importance happening in this Province. Newfoundlanders, by our very
nature, have been very curious people and we observe a lot of the happenings in
order to predict what the weather will be like or what the following day will
be. A red sunset, everybody knows that the following day will be a good day. A
grey sunset, then be prepared, a dirty day. A ring around the moon means you are
going to have change.
Mr. Speaker, three very important things have happened within the past couple
of weeks. There has been three blue lobsters caught in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Two on the West Coast, which was a significant indication
of what happened on the Northern Peninsula, and one now on the East Coast, which
a lot of people see as a reminder and as an indication of what is going to
happen in the District of Port de Grave when the Premier has the initiative to
call the by-election there so we can get out and have a change in political
climate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a citizen of Corner
Brook who has been named one of seventeen recipients of the Governor General's
Caring Canadian Award.
Jim Crocker has been involved for many years in helping the citizen's of
Corner Brook. He has served as a volunteer chauffeur for seniors and the
visually impaired. He has helped develop amateur sport through the West Side
Sports Club, as well as through hockey and softball associations in the Corner
Brook region.
Mr. Speaker, the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award is presented to
individuals and groups whose unpaid, voluntary contributions provide
extraordinary help to people in the community. There have been a total of 563
Caring Canadian Awards handed out since the program was implemented in 1996, and
the award consists of a framed certificate as well as a lapel pin and is usually
presented by Her Excellency, the Governor General.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Crocker on this award and congratulate all
volunteers for the work that they are doing to better our communities.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: I just wonder if the Member for Bonavista South could inform
the House whether or not these blue lobsters turn red when they get in hot
water?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period I asked the Premier a number of
questions about the need for a lobbyist act and in one of his responses he
indicated that government had never been lobbied on behalf of Inco. Last night
after the news and this morning I received a number of calls from people who
have indicated otherwise. So, I would like to give the Premier the opportunity
today to answer some questions regarding lobbyist activity in the Province and
we will end it here, I say to the Premier. For example, a well-known lobbyist in
the Province, Mr. Anstey, friend of the Premier, friend of the government, a
high profile Liberal, fundraiser for the Premier and the Liberal Party. If you
look at the registry in Ottawa of Industry Canada it indicates that Mr. Anstey
is a lobbyist for the Voisey's Bay Nickle Company, which is a subsidiary of
Inco.
I would like to ask the Premier this: Can you state categorically today that
Mr. Anstey has never lobbied you, as Minister of Mines and Energy, or as a
leadership candidate, or Premier, or any of your cabinet or officials on behalf
of Inco or Voisey's Bay?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would appreciate an opportunity to clarify the issue. I don't know
exactly what a person who is a registered lobbyist in Ottawa does. I can tell
you that in Newfoundland and Labrador nobody needs to lobby the government in
the sense that is normally viewed in the public, where they come to the
government instead of the proponents themselves and try to convince government
officials, or members, to take a certain view. That has never happened.
I do not know what Mr. Anstey does on behalf of Inco or any other of his
clients. I know he is very successful in his profession. I do know that. What he
does in terms of arranging meetings, or doing other things, I do not know how he
does his job. But, I do know one thing, nobody needs someone else to come to
ministers or officials in Newfoundland and Labrador to try to lobby this
government. They can call directly to myself, any minister, or any department,
at any time. If they use the services of someone else, that is their choice. In
the sense of someone lobbying, because the common term is that someone would
come instead of the proponent and say: I would like to present this case on
behalf of someone else and I hope you would be disposed to think, or act, in a
certain way. That I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in my experience, has not
happened, certainly not with me, and I don't think with any of the ministers
in this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Categorically, the services of a close associate of yours
has never been used to your knowledge. He has never made a call on behalf of
somebody to set up a meeting with anybody. Has that ever taken place? You split
the hair, so I will ask the other side of the question.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will say again, I do not know how people
who are registered as lobbyists in Ottawa, or in other jurisdictions, where it
might be required how they perform their duties on behalf of their clients. All
I can tell you - and I do not know a case, in any case, who exactly would have
called me or my office, for example, two years ago when I was the Minister of
Mines and Energy, to arrange for meetings. I know that I had lots of meetings
with Mr. Scott Hand, directly, who was leading the discussions on behalf of Inco
and I did not need anybody else in the room suggesting what I should think or do
on behalf of the government. I am sure that he did not need anybody else in the
room suggesting what he should think or do on behalf of Inco.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: He has avoided the answer again, Mr. Speaker.
Let me ask him this: In the registry, for example, it indicates that Mr.
Anstey is a lobbyist for a company called Merck Frosst, which does significant
business with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in pharmaceutical
business. To your knowledge, has Mr. Anstey spoken to you, any of your Cabinet
ministers, on behalf of Merck Frosst, set up any meetings on behalf of Merck
Frosst, to discuss possible business opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador
with government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me say again, anyone who is registered as a lobbyist, because there is no
such thing as a registered lobbyist in Newfoundland and Labrador, not even Frank
Moores, not even John Crosbie, because those people have called me themselves
directly because they wanted to talk to me about certain issues. They did not
suggest they were representing anybody else, or a particular client; they wanted
to speak to me.
I understand that they, too, may be registered lobbyists in other
jurisdictions where it is required. I do not ask those questions of them. They
have never come to say: I want to speak to you, to try to influence your mind
and the government or anybody else about how you should think on a certain
issue. They come forward because they are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who
have an interest, as I understand it, in what is happening in this Province.
They want something to happen in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and anyone who comes forward at any time who wants to make that representation
to me, I will gladly listen to them any day of the week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The issue is not the individuals involved. The issue is, we do not have a
lobbyist act. I would like to ask the Premier this. You said this yesterday:
Never has this government or you, to your knowledge, been lobbied on behalf - by
a lobbyist. I am not convinced that is the case. I would like to ask you this
question: Until January of this year, Mr. Anstey was a registered lobbyist for
Hibernia Management Development Corporation - again federal documents - which
got important concessions - a statement, matter of fact, not opinion - from
government with respect to the rate of production, the increase of production at
Hibernia. I would like to ask you this: To your knowledge, did Mr. Anstey have
any conversations with you, ministers or officials of government, or any other
ministers on any matter related to HMDC operations in the Province and HMDC's
request of government at the time to increase the rate of production at the
Hibernia platform?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear the Leader of the
Opposition suggest, because of the nature, the context, of the comment, that a
concession was given to Hibernia Management Development Corporation.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) say that.
PREMIER GRIMES: That was the language just used.
The suggestion inherent to that meaning that we gave something away to
Hibernia that they should not have had. That is exactly the context in which you
just asked that particular question.
The fact of the matter is that an agreement was reached between the Hibernia
Management Development Corporation and the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to allow for a couple of things: for increased production to occur
because it was going to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador more so
now while the price of oil is much higher than it was a year-and-a-half ago and,
because they have the capability of doing so, they also increased the royalty
take and the royalty provisions to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
and agreed to
schedule - that had the royalties at a certain level with rates of
production - it was agreed by absolute agreement for the two parties because it
was in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide more funding -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador rather than leave the old
schedule in
place.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to see the Leader of the Opposition try
to suggest that there was something wrong with that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: - or that there was some kind of confession given that
was disadvantageous to the people of this Province, because it did not happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier again. I certainly did
not try to intimate anything. I will ask him: Based upon what he said, based
upon the agreement that was reached with HMDC for the increased rate in
production, did Mr. Anstey contact you, any of your officials, any of your
ministers, to lobby, to have a chat about, to set up a meeting with HMDC
officials while this agreement was being negotiated, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: That I do not know. I do not know exactly who made which
phone calls to which people at what point in time to arrange the meetings. I
know one thing for certain, Mr. Speaker. The meetings should have occurred. The
meetings needed to occur. The meetings did occur. The right and proper decisions
were taken as a result of those meetings because it was in the best interest of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the record will clearly show that.
Now, if it is really important, which I absolutely fail to see why it is, who
might have called who to make the first call to say: Will the Minister of Energy
meet with the head of HMDC? Because, I can tell you, when I was there for the
couple of years, nobody needed to call on behalf, because Harvey Smith, who was
there at the time, would have a call placed directly to my office and we would
meet. Now, what happened a year-and-a-half or two years ago, I do not know that
because I was not there; but, I can tell you, the right meetings did occur. The
right decision was taken, and something that was beneficial to Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians happened as a result of it, and I am proud to have been a part
of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Anstey, according to federal documents, is
a registered lobbyist for Kruger in the Province. Kruger, as we all know, is
dealing with government departments, and has dealt with government departments,
on serious environmental issues, Main River, as well as availability of wood
supply to operate at the mill in Corner Brook.
I would like to ask the Premier this question: To your knowledge, has Mr.
Anstey or any other lobbyist met with any ministers in your government, any
officials within your government, established any meetings, set up any meetings,
talked to any officials, on behalf of Kruger?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't know that, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you this: If, in fact, these
particular companies, all reputable companies, important economic players in
Newfoundland and Labrador, good corporate citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador,
contributors to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, if they have found it
fit to take Mr. Anstey or anyone else as a consultant or a lobbyist, or whatever
they use them for, I hope he is doing something on their behalf. If he has been
charging them any money, I hope they are getting some service from him. They are
the only ones to judge whether or not the service they are receiving from a
person that they hire out in the private sector for their own purposes is worth
any money that they might be paying to him.
I can only tell you, again with respect to Kruger, Joseph Kruger himself, as
the president of the company, knows today, because he has done it in the past,
that he does not need anyone to place a call or set up a meeting with me or any
of the ministers. He has called me personally in the past when I was Chair of
the Economic Policy Committee of the Cabinet and asked to have meetings about
certain issues on behalf of the whole of the committee of government. Mr. Kruger
made the call, not anybody else on his behalf. So I don't know if they used
anyone else to make other calls or not. I can only tell you again, that
important meetings were held, important decisions were taken, and we are pleased
to be able to work cooperatively with those kinds of corporate citizens who have
a long track record and history of being good citizens in a corporate sense, in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can only echo the Premier's commentary on the corporate citizens that we
have talked about. There is no question. Their reputation is not as stake. Mr.
Anstey's reputation is not at stake. Government's dealings with lobbyists
and the right of the public to know who is influencing what decision and whom
they are asking for, that is what we are talking about. We are not trying to
take apart anything else.
I would like to ask the Premier one final question with respect to a company,
FPI. Recently, you know, with the situation that occurred with FPI, certainly
back during the NEOS proposal, Mr. Anstey was a consultant. I understand he was
a consultant for the dissident board of directors. Did he make any
representations to you or to government to set up any meetings on behalf of the
dissident board, or any minister, or any official in government, with respect
to that issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear, I guess, that while it
may be important to the Leader of the Opposition and the person who is
suggesting he should be asking these questions - the same person who would
suggest and told him last week that there were great flaws with the legislation
for the Citizens' Representative and that we had taken upon ourselves the
ability to fire the Ombudsman, which, in fact, it is now known, a few days
later, not at all true; that somebody either did not read the legislation or had
no idea of what they had read. There are no amendments yet; we understand that.
We understand if there are some inconsequential minor amendments that will make
the bill a little bit better, we certainly may very well agree to them later
today.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot go out and totally misrepresent any
particular issue. What the people of the Province are more concerned about is
this: The people of the Province are more concerned about the decisions that are
taken. Let's talk about FPI, recently, because the Leader of the Opposition
and the President of the PC Party - the Leader, not the President - the Leader
of the PC Party came out and said in the public that there was no place for a
government. They agreed one day that there was no place for a government to try
to determine who the board of directors would be. Then, because they did not
think that was playing properly politically, they suggested a few days later
that maybe the government should do something about who the board of directors
would be. It is the decision that is taken at the end. I do not believe it
matters at all who made the phone call, who set up the meeting, or even who went
to the meeting.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: The reality is, we will be judged, and proudly so, based
on the decisions that we take as a result of the meetings and intervention; not
who set them up or who went to the meeting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All of this coming from a man who, frankly, was not interested enough to ask
one question about how the impact of FPI - unbelievable!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: The same attitude is being exemplified here. The Premier
has gone from splitting hairs on a definition of who called who, to saying: I
don't care who called who. Now we are talking about the right decisions.
Premier, the reality is - and you know it, the ministers over there know it -
that there is lobbying activity occurring in the Province. All we are asking is
for you to keep in step with your commitment to be open and transparent, to
strike a committee of the House this summer, to recommend back to the government
ways and means by which we can regulate it under a lobbyist registration act.
Won't you stand up and agree with that, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The questions were asked yesterday. We will, as the government, look at the
issue of whether or not, at this point in time, it is important to have lobbyist
registration legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, having been in the
government for twelve years, dealing with all kinds of issues in all kinds of
departments, I can tell you this, and I will say it again for the public record:
Companies in Newfoundland and Labrador may be using consultants and lobbyists on
their behalf. Just like Imperial Tobacco used Leo Power, who organized
Progressive Conservative campaigns, to come into the tobacco hearings because
they thought they needed someone else to help them understand the Newfoundland
environment and so on. Just like some other companies have used Frank Moores.
Just like some other companies have used John Crosbie to maybe make some
contacts and so on. So there are some people who companies decide, for their own
reason, that they might employ and use. I can tell you for the record, they don't
need anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador to place a call to this Premier, to
these ministers, to this government, on their behalf. All they have to do is
call themselves and come in and discuss any issue with us at any time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Because the issue has been raised, we will look at it
through the summer and we will decide whether or not we will bring forward
legislation next fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, the hiring practice of
the Terra Nova project at Bull Arm still leaves a lot to be desired when it
comes to hiring workers from Newfoundland and Labrador. The Opposition have made
an issue of their hiring practices at the Terra Nova project over the past
number of years. Mr. Speaker, why are workers from outside of Newfoundland and
Labrador, and even outside of Canada, still given preferential treatment when it
comes to hiring people for the project?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the real thrust of
the hon. member's question is. The facts of the matter, I think, speak for
themselves. In terms of the amount of local labour content that has gone into
both the Hibernia project at Bull Arm and the Terra Nova project, and in terms
of the amount of business that has accrued to the Canadian business community
and the Newfoundland business community, it is clear that we have been, on both
accounts, the major beneficiaries of that economic activity. To the extent that
the hon. member might suggest that there is some need of changing labour
practices or laws by way of legislation or regulation, I would be happy to hear
what his thoughts are but I can tell you that in those two projects there has
been significant economic benefits on employment and on procurement to this
Province, and we intend to see that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: - that is built on and added to in any future projects that
go forward in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The thrust of the question is this: that there are Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians leaving this Province when they should be working at that site, and
we have foreigners working at the site.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in 1999 this Province lost some 350
engineering and design jobs to Leatherhead, England and government refused to
enforce the many development conditions of the Atlantic Accord and the Terra
Nova Development Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, why is government still allowing skilled Newfoundland and
Labrador workers such as divers, electricians and others, to be discriminated
against in employment on the Terra Nova project?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member in response,
that if he can demonstrate one circumstance or if he can demonstrate a dozen
circumstances where people in the context of legislation and regulations that we
are responsible to enforce and administer is being discriminated against in this
Province against those regulations, let him bring forward the circumstance and
we will be the first to take significant interest in reviewing that circumstance
and bringing redress to it if in fact there is something we can do. We do not
want to see, Mr. Speaker, one Newfoundlander or one Labradorian have to leave
this Province for purposes of employment. We acknowledge that people do have to
leave sometimes. We acknowledge that people from the outside have to come in and
work sometimes. We are in a free market economy. We are in a big country where
we have great ability and great mobility but let him lay on the Table of the
House or bring to my attention situations where there is discrimination and
where we have failed to act in the best interest of the industry and we will be
happy to look at and bring redress if it is appropriate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should learn what the Atlantic Accord is all
about. If he wants a few names maybe he should make a trip to the airport and
ask a few people up there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, when is this government going to insist that
the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board strictly enforce the benefit
requirements of the Atlantic Accord for Newfoundland workers and Newfoundland
businesses? When?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we regretfully in this Province, even today -
even with all of the best efforts of all of us in the Province, collectively,
both in the government circle and in the private enterprise and the private
sector, despite all our best efforts we still - we acknowledge that we have too
high an unemployment rate in the Province. We acknowledge that the issue of
employment opportunities in the Province is important to the people of the
Province and I say to the hon. member, it is an issue of such seriousness that
it is really too important an issue to be trying to make small, political points
by making comments such as he just made about going to the airport and asking
the people about their employment, or lack of employment opportunities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: I have to say to the hon. member that I hope in fifty years'
time, if he is alive, and if per chance he ever gets to sit on this side of the
House, that he takes those issues more seriously than he is taking them today
because we consider them to be a very serious issues on this side of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying this: despite debate
that the cheap shot questions might wish to put to this side of the House we
will take our obligations and our responsibilities with respect to employment
opportunities in the Province, seriously.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) that people in the Province have maximum
opportunities for jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week the President of the United States made a direct offer of
participation regarding energy sources and supply, and an invitation to both,
Canada and Mexico, to make it easier for buyers and sellers of energy to do
business with one another. My question is to the Premier: Has your government,
or any department within your government, Mr. Premier, given consideration to
what is being considered, proposed, and put out there by the Americans? Have you
given consideration? If so, can you please share with the people of the Province
the nature of those deliberations and possible future discussions and proposals
which your government is prepared to make?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report that about a year
before the President of the United States made his commentary and talked about
the need for a North American energy plan we had engaged in discussions with
potential buyers and traders in energy in the United States of America so that
we could find possibilities to deal with the issue of having power exported from
Newfoundland and Labrador - most likely from Labrador with the Lower Churchill
development - into the marketplace in the United States. We have had many
discussions spanning a little over a year. As a matter of fact, we had many
discussion leading up to the signing of the renewal for another three year
period of the recall of 130 megawatts, which we resigned afterwards with Hydro
Quebec, but only after full examination of whether or not we could have gotten a
better deal by selling to some possible buyer or marketer in the United States
of America.
When the Minister of Mines and Energy gives a further update as to prospects
with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill Falls - which I am sure
the Opposition would love to find and support us in getting a way to do for the
benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I am not sure every day, because I
am sure that if we came forward with a very good proposal they would probably
have their fingers crossed hoping that it would not happen, or would not work.
That seems to be their mood and tone these days.
We have had discussions for over a year now, Mr. Speaker, and we will seek
out an opportunity actually, in the not too distant future, to have the Minister
of Mines and Energy give a full report on those discussions and on possibilities
for development of the Lower Churchill to the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
We have been told - in fact, the Minister of Mines and Energy in the past
indicated the fact that one of the impediments, with respect to any serious
negotiations and successful negotiations between our Province and the American
market, is the absorbent rate, fees, and rents that would be charged by the
Province of Quebec with respect to what are known as wheeling rights.
My question would be to the minister, or perhaps who is Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs: Has this notion been taken seriously by your
government and have you, in fact, addressed this issue with your federal
counterparts? Because it appears, Mr. Premier, that this government is condoning
what appears to be condoned by the federal government in the fact that the
federal government appears to support what Quebec is doing.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: My question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is: Have you
taken this issue seriously and have you taken up this issue with your federal
counterparts?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I must say again, I am disappointed in the
very tone of the question.
The suggestion, from the Official Opposition, to ask a question: Has the
government taken this issue seriously? Mr. Speaker, the government takes issues
of importance to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians very seriously, every single
hour of every single day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: The kind of language again that the Opposition critic
would use -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: Maybe he does not understand, or again they are trying to
put a particular spin out into the public of Newfoundland and Labrador to cast
an important debate in a certain light. He should know, being the critic, that
the rules in the marketplace today in North America through the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission in the United States and with the Canadian rules as well,
prohibit anybody, including Quebec, from charging any rate that would be seen to
be exorbitant or outlandish or anything else.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the question is this, and fact is this -
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) in the U.S., both Lloyd Matthews, Minister of
Mines and Energy -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition blurting things out across the House as he wants
to do, talked about the Minister of Mines and Energy talking about a marketing
fee which has absolutely nothing to do -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, I ask the Premier now to conclude quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - with wheeling and transmission. So again, he does not
know what he is talking about. He does not know the difference, Mr. Speaker. He
does not know the difference!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Labrador West. You have time for one quick question.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and
involves a quote in today's paper where he states that in the future, because
of the road improvements in Labrador today, that passenger service may not be
required to accommodate more than fifty passengers. I ask the minister if he is
aware that currently the Sir Robert Bond , providing passenger service
from Goose Bay to Lewisporte, only pulls into Cartwright once a week on a trip.
The capacity of that boat right now is 240 passengers with sleeping
accommodations up to 144.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I believe the hon. member has asked his question.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) no, a
preamble.
MR. SPEAKER: Well I am pretty certain that I heard a question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to quickly get to his question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Will the minister commit that there will be no reduction to
ferry service from Labrador to the Island portion of the Province until the
complete Labrador highway system is finished from Labrador West to The Straits?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I
think yesterday the Opposition critic went out on a tangent in la la land and
started dreaming about boats that were going to Labrador, and dreamt up all
kinds of things that were going to happen in Labrador. I can assure you that
nothing will happen in Labrador until there is full consultation with the people
of the Northern Coast, and the boat that will be going into Labrador will have
sufficient capacity to carry freight and passengers. Our intention is to improve
the service to Labrador, not reduce the service to Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will make another try at getting this petition on since I could not get it
presented a couple of weeks ago. I will read the prayer of the petition. Because
the petition was not done up in the proper format we will just (inaudible) one:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following
prayer: As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is on behalf of the people of Conche. I brought it
up from time to time in the past couple of months about the condition of the
roads in Conche. The 26 kilometres of deplorable gravel road that was
constructed, not by the Department of Transportation, but actually by logging
contractors probably about thirty years ago. Mr. Speaker, it is one of the worst
roads in the Province. The people of Conche, who we all know well here in this
House, have to commute over this road everyday, on a daily basis, just to pick
up the basic necessities of life: groceries, fuel, gas, medical services in
Roddickton. Everything basically that they need in Conche they have to travel
over 26 kilometres of ridiculously, terrible gravel roads.
Mr. Speaker, during the by-election this past winter a number of members of
government were in Conche and made a commitment to the people of Conche, at that
time, that their road would be done within two years. The people of Conche are
wondering if the commitment that was made last winter is going to be honoured.
The people of Conche had this commitment made to them on numerous occasions
before by different members and different government ministers and it is about
time for the government, Mr. Speaker, to get on with doing something with this
road so that the people of Conche can have some kind of future there in their
community.
I ask the government how they expect to ever develop any kind of a tourism
industry in an area like this when you have 26 kilometres of dirt road. In 2004,
as I understand, the French Shore festival is going to be taking place, and
certainly Conche is an important community on the French Shore of Newfoundland
and Labrador and expects to participate in this celebration. It would make it
much easier for the people of Conche to gain some benefits from the tourism
trade that is gradually developing in our Province by having an upgraded road
with an asphalt top. There are 300 people in this community, roughly, and they
deserve to have something done with their road just as other people in the
Province.
We heard the minister in the Budget announce $18 million for road work and a
million for his district just last week -
MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask leave of the House to
revert, just for a moment, to Presenting Reports if I may?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking for leave to revert to Presenting
Reports. Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to statutory requirement, I am pleased to table the Report of Mining
Leases and Mineral Licences issued for the period April 1, 2000-March 31, 2001.
I apologize for missing the opportunity earlier.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that sometimes I make light of it but I am
standing today to present a petition on behalf of people in my district again
today on road conditions. It was just received this morning. It is from the
residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula. I will read the petition:
WHEREAS eleven communities are accessed by Route 414, commonly known as the
La Scie Highway; and
WHEREAS the highway is in deplorable condition, large potholes, ruts and very
bad road conditions; and
WHEREAS this road is used by trucks from the La Scie fish plant - which was a
very productive fish plant in its best days - heavy trucks also transporting ore
to the Nugget Pond Gold Mine, school children commuting by bus, and the general
safety of the public;
THEREFORE we the undersigned hereby ask the government to place the La Scie
Highway, Route 414, on the Roads Program this year and undertake the upgrading
and paving of that particular highway.
Mr. Speaker, I have done this on many occasions in this House. It is no joy
in presenting petitions about road conditions. To take that a little bit
further, there was no joy in standing with people last year in my district, when
you seen the sun come up, and you had people making up posters and signs,
including school children, to block off a road. Don't anybody in this House
ever believe that those people had nothing better to do at 6:00 o'clock in the
morning than to go up to block off a road. It is degrading. It is embarrassing.
They feel like they have been slighted.
Mr. Speaker, as we hear from other members right around this House about road
conditions - and I have been in some member's districts on the opposite side,
as of late, and seen some pretty bad road conditions. People in this Province
are basically saying that the basic infrastructure of road transportation has
gone far beyond now. It has gone to such a state now that it has to be addressed
as an urgent situation. The government's idea and plan for it is just not
there.
Simply put, the community of La Scie and eleven other communities on Route
414 - I just mentioned in the petition, the fact that they have a fish plant
there which uses heavy trucks to go back and forth. Last year when this road was
blocked - this is how serious it is getting - the gold mine on the Baie Verte
Peninsula, Nugget Pond, is transporting ore now from the Kings Point area, from
a find they had in that area, and we would actually have to close down the mine
in Nugget Pond because of the lack of a basic infrastructure of a road. That is
what it almost got to last year, and that is a sad statement for this Province
when we have an industry, like a goldmine, ready to be closed down because we do
not have a road to travel over. That is how bad it has gotten.
I have talked to the minister on many occasions. I have presented petitions
here day after day, and I don't want to do it any more. I don't want road
protests; I don't agree with them. We shouldn't have to do it. The people
don't want to do it. I don't want to stand with them next week, or the week
after, to try to state their case again. Basically, they are getting sick and
tired of it, and so am I, in presenting these petitions. The government has to
address this problem once and for all. It has to be done. I say it again: When
you ask for solutions, we will give them to you. You have to have a plan, you
have to involve the federal government -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: - because simply put, Mr. Speaker, this government has
failed when it comes to basic infrastructure in this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition again today on the bulk export of water from the Province.
The prayer of the petition reads: We, the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of
Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province.
Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in
Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside
the Province.
It is time that we demand our full and fair share!
With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the
opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spin-off from secondary
processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled
and processed in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by people from Main Brook as well as
from Pilley's Island, Beaumont, Brighton and so on. There are some 140
signatures on this particular petition today. The people of the Province have
spoken very clearly on this in 1999. The people of the Province are speaking
clearly again today. The people of this Province want our resources to be
processed in a manner that will benefit the people of this Province, in a manner
that will give maximum benefit to the people of this Province in terms of jobs
and spin-offs, as well as royalties.
Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province want to work. They do not want to be
leaving for Alberta, British Columbia, the States, or elsewhere. They want to
stay in this Province, and they want to work in this Province.
We have enough resources in this Province that we should be able to make that
happen. We have enough resources in this Province that everybody who wants to
work should be able to work, but we have not done it because we have given our
resources away. We have allowed our resources to go outside the Province for
processing elsewhere. It is time that the people of this Province - and they are
doing that and they are doing it very loudly and clearly - send a message to
this government that the resources of this Province must stay in this Province
to benefit the people of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I stand by that. I am saying, as a Member of the House of
Assembly, that I want the people of this Province to be the main beneficiaries
of the resources of this Province. I want the people of this Province, the
owners of our resources, to be the ones to benefit from the jobs that are
created from our resources.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay
East & Bell Island.
MR. WALSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to do it
while the hon. member was presenting his petition, but I would like to ask the
Chair as to - seeing as how we are into the last day or two of this particular
session, I want to be at least on record for the fall. My understanding, having
been here for some twelve years now, is that a petition given to a member is to
be presented in a timely fashion, as quickly as possible when the House of
Assembly is open, and presented on behalf of the individuals who have signed the
petition.
Over the last number of weeks, I have heard petition after petition on this
one subject. Mr. Speaker, again, my point of order is based on whether or not
this is one petition that may have been received some time ago and is now being
presented in, what we call in Newfoundland, dribs and drabs, a piece here and a
piece there and a piece there. If the petition had been presented to the member
in a bulk form, to be presented -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. WALSH: Yes, and I use the word bulk - are the rules of this Chamber
being abused by presenting petitions in pieces?
If the hon. member is willing to stand and advise me that in the last ten
days or two weeks he has received a sheet of paper as a petition every day, that
is fine; but, if the member has received all those petitions in one bulk form
then the petition should be presented that way and not come in, in dribs and
drabs, or a sheet every day.
I ask for the Chair's direction as to whether or not this should be
permitted and the House should be abused in this way.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To that particular proposed point of order: There is a time limit given of
three minutes to that, and that went through our Standing Orders, a revision of
the committee on which I sat. I believe I was vice-chair, if I remember
correctly.
There is no way that what the hon. member indicated can be enforced. There is
no reference in fact to that particular thing. If so, we would have to have this
House monitoring the incoming mail of every member of the House. We would have
to monitor every courier service that sends them in. We have had petitions that
came in for two weeks. It took me almost a month to get petitions in, hundreds
of them, that come in dribs and drabs from different stores and different areas.
It is not enforceable. It is not in the rules of the House, except time limits
and maintaining it to the contents of the petition, as clearly spelled out in Beauchesne ,
and our Standing Orders specify time. That is something that is not stated in
our Standing Orders or in Beauchesne and it is not even something that
can be enforceable by this House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, to the point of
order.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, today in the mail I received petitions from
two communities. They are clearly presented today. There are some twenty sheets
with some 140 signatures. For the academics of it, if the member would like for
me to count the number of sheets I would be happy to do so.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will take the point that the hon. member has raised under
advisement but, as all hon. members know, before any petition is presented in
the House we have asked members to clear it with the Table. I would assume that
has been done on each and every petition that has been presented here. I will
take the point that the hon. member has raised under advisement.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 18, Mr. Speaker, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 4,
An Act Respecting Petroleum Products.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Walsh): Order, please!
A bill,
An Act Respecting Petroleum Products. (Bill 4)
Clause 1.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, at Committee stage, it is an opportunity for us to debate back
and forth the various provisions of the act. I ask the Government House Leader
if the Minister of Mines and Energy expects to be present, because I have a
couple of questions for the minister.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I will just raise to the Government House
Leader: Is the Minister of Mines and Energy present? We are at Committee stage,
I say to the member, and therefore -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Mines and
Energy may be able to respond to a few questions.
MR. MATTHEWS: When I heard you were on your feet, (inaudible).
MR. OTTENHEIMER: I realize that. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Chairman, we have had an opportunity now to discuss this bill at length
and there are a few points I wish to make, but my first question - and we will
do this while we are debating clause 1 of Bill 4 - my first question of the
minister is: Members on this side of the Legislature are curious to know,
Minister, what, in fact, was the change that motivated members opposite to, in
fact, present Bill 4 to the House of Assembly and subject to the people of the
Province the consequences of regulation of petroleum products?
We have seen many examples, both by the present Premier, the former Minister
of Mines and Energy, and the Consumer Advocate who was independently appointed
to address this issue, all of whom, at a particular point and not that long ago,
Mr. Minister, spoke against the concept of regulation. So my question, I guess,
at the beginning is a very general one in nature. What has prompted the
minister, in particular, the sponsor of this particular legislation, to in fact
now find that it is appropriate to introduce the concept of regulation to the
people of the Province?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The reason why we have brought forward this piece of legislation at this
time, Mr. Chairman, I think has been explained in the last month or so, both by
myself when we introduced the bill and in public comments that the Premier and I
have made regarding the bill since that time. Simply put, the reason why we have
brought the bill is because we have been sufficiently convinced that the people
of the Province, notwithstanding the commentary and previous positions on
regulation as an exercise, we are sufficiently convinced that the people of the
Province wish to have some sort of a mechanism in place that provides for the
orderly conduct of raising prices on petroleum products at certain times, and
reducing the prices on petroleum products at certain times.
The people of the Province have, over and over, told us, by many standards of
measurement - when I say by many standards of measurement, I mean by virtue of
polling that has been done, by virtue of representation that we get directly
from which we get a sense of the public's mood, by virtue of communications
through the media that consumers have put forward. We have been convinced that
the people of the Province want some sort of a regularized regime that oversees
increases and decreases in petroleum product prices.
We have said, Mr. Chairman, from day one, that this bill and regulations
generally do not necessarily guarantee lower prices for petroleum products. We
cannot control what happens at the OPEC level. We cannot control what happens at
any level in the chain between wellhead and the wholesaling of the product, but
we can have some sort of regulation that deals with wholesale prices and retails
prices. This is the concept, these are the principles, on which P.E.I.'s
legislation is based and on which Quebec's legislation is based, to the extent
that they have regulation, and they do have some regulation in this regard in
their industry.
Mr. Chairman, the motivation is nothing more than a clear-cut belief that
people in the Province want somebody overseeing the pricing of petroleum
products, and that whether or not it means a lower price or a higher price at
the end of the piece, if you took it on average over a year or two, they still
believe that if they have regulation, at least the process will be transparent,
at least the process will be fair in terms of being objective, and people will
have some level of predictability and some level of stability in petroleum
product pricing. Predictability in that it will happen on a regularized basis,
about every thirty days, and stability in that they will know for sure what the
price is going to be for at least that thirty day period. It is in response to
the public's essential request that we move in this direction. That is a fair
question for the hon. the Member for St. John's East to ask.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) want an election and you are not going to have
one, so you don't listen to them all of the time. You have to be consistent.
MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member that I personally - I do not know
about him; I cannot speak for him, obviously. He would not wish to have me speak
for him. I can say personally that I have not seen a poll that suggests that 87
per cent of the people of the Province want an election. I have seen a poll that
suggest that 87 per cent of the people want petroleum products pricing
regulation. So, on the basis on my not having seen a poll that suggests what he
suggests the public wants, but on the basis of having a poll that tells me they
do want regulation, we have moved to bring in Bill 4.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The minister uses words such as predictability, stability, and this being the
great panacea for what the public is in fact looking for. Again, it does not
address the very sound conclusions that were reached just over two years ago
when, for example, the present Premier stated quite strongly that it is
important to note that the Consumers Association of Canada is also on record as
being opposed to price regulation - using his direct quotes and his research to
oppose the concept of gas pricing regulation.
In that same commentary, the then Minister of Mines and Energy, our present
Premier, reacted by simply saying that he supports the views that were also
concluded and formulated by the then appointed Consumer Advocate, Mr. Dennis
Browne, when he embarked upon a fairly lengthy and detailed study to examine
this very issue. In fact, the recommendation is quite brief and I will just
refresh the members present of exactly what our appointed Consumer Advocate had
to say with respect to price regulation.
He begins his recommendation by saying: No Price Regulation. He states,
"If Government seeks to enhance wholesale and retail price competition in
the Newfoundland and Labrador gasoline market, it should attempt to do so in the
most cost effective manner possible. We believe the most cost effective public
policies are those designed to utilize market forces instead of using Government's
legislative powers to regulate price. Direct Government intervention in the
market is generally the least desirable approach and should only be pursued as a
final recourse where there is no indication that the market will behave
correctly." He says, quite emphatically, at the conclusion of
recommendation number one, "We have found no evidence to support price
regulation."
This is the conclusion of a very in-depth study that was done at the request
of government, an in-depth review. In fact, the Consumer Advocate, who obviously
prepares a report on behalf of consumers of the Province - that is his job, that
is his mandate, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman - his first regulation is to say
no to the concept of price regulation.
As I indicated earlier, and it has even been supported by the Minister of
Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, he, too, at that
time, was against the concept of price regulation as it relates to the setting
of prices of petroleum products.
Mr. Chairman, I have to ask the minister once again. I need further
clarification on this point. The consumers of the Province, I would suggest,
were as concerned in 1997 and 1998 and 1999 with respect to what was happening
with gasoline prices as they are today, in May, 2001. What, in fact, has
changed? If the same individuals were listening to the same consumers, and if
the position of consumers, as a result of a very detailed and in-depth study
being undertaken by the Consumer Advocate, reflected the same opinions and the
same conclusions, the consumers have not changed and the position of the public
has not changed, but nevertheless the position of the government has changed. So
I have to ask the question once again, and I ask the Minister of Mines and
Energy, could he perhaps distinguish between the public position of consumers in
the Province in the late 1990s when this study and analysis was undertaken, and
compare for us how that had differed, and how consumers of the Province have had
a difference of opinion and a different view with respect to their position on
gasoline prices in the Province. What has changed in some eighteen to
twenty-four months?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When the hon. member speaks about the position of consumers in the Province,
I guess it is a matter of whom you are referring to in your own mind as being
those who represent consumers in the Province. There are a couple of groups in
the Province - I can think of three groups - who have been dealing with the
issue in the name of the consumers of the Province. How the organizations came
about I am not certain. There was a group in Grand Falls called NAGG; that was
one advocacy group. There was another group in St. John's headed by George
Murphy. There was another group headed by Dennis O'Keefe. They all claim to be
consumer advocates. Regardless of whether they are self appointed, whether they
are elected, or whether they came about by mass grassroots support, I am not
certain, because I am not really too familiar how they came about and how they
operate.
I can say to the hon. member that the groups such as these, that we have
heard from, that the public has been hearing from regularly, are groups that
have been singularly supporting the position of regulation.
To be fair to them, Mr. Chair, I would think that they have had some
influence upon the view of the public generally with respect to regulation of
gas prices. That is why I believe you have seen substantially high numbers in
terms of favoring regularization when polling and that sort of thing has been
done.
To the question of the position of consumer groups, the only groups I am most
familiar with are groups that roundly support regulation.
While I am on my feet, if I may, I want to take this opportunity to move two
amendments to the bill that I have not yet moved. They are amendments to clause
2. The first amendment is to do with
section 2(1)(b). This amendment is to
clarify the definition of consumers, or the term consumer, to exclude persons
who purchase petroleum products at prices that have previously been agreed upon
between wholesalers and retailers.
This particular amendment is being introduced at this time as a result of
some representation we have had from the industry subsequent to the introduction
of the legislation, and it is merely designed to ensure that suppliers and
purchasers of petroleum products, who have entered into fixed price contracts
for a period of time at either the wholesale or retail level or both, are not
impacted by the intent of this bill to regulate gas prices and fuel product
prices on a month-over-month basis.
I have already had a brief discussion with the hon. the Member of St. John's
East on this. An example of that would be where a company like North Atlantic
who refines and wholesales product and has fixed price contracts with, for
example, the airline industry in Gander for a period of time, is not captured
because these types of arrangements were never intended to be captured or to be
affected by regulation of petroleum product pricing. So, I move that amendment.
There is one other amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to move at this
time. It is an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. This amendment would provide
that the commissioner may order a change in price for a petroleum product
applied to other retailers or wholesalers in addition to the retailer or
wholesaler who applies for that change.
Mr. Chairman, the bill - as I think I mentioned when we introduced this bill
- will provide for price regulations on a regional or on a zonal basis in the
Province. This is necessary of course, because of our large geography and the
difference of cost of getting products to certain remote areas of the Province
as opposed to certain more heavily populated areas. It also is as a result of
the fact that in certain smaller situations we have retailers who have low
volumes and could not otherwise work or operate on the same basis as somebody
with a higher volume in retail. Pardon?
MR. SULLIVAN: Do you think the (inaudible) is going to work?
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, we think it will work.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, we think it will because we think we have done a
fairly good job at analyzing what other jurisdictions have done, and we think we
have improved upon that. In any event, Mr. Chairman -
MR. SULLIVAN: What other jurisdictions?
MR. MATTHEWS: P.E.I. and Quebec, in particular.
This amendment will allow the commissioner, in addition to addressing a
particular circumstance of a particular retailer in a zone if he feels that he
should make a different price ruling for that one dealer, he may at that time
while changing the price, if he feels like doing that, for one dealer in a zone
he could also make that, if he so chooses, generally applicable to all retailers
in that particular zone even though they have not asked for consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I move these two amendments, to Bill 4, that is currently
before us.
CHAIR: Before recognizing the Member for St. John's East, the Chair had
an opportunity to review the amendments to clause 2 and clause 8 and the
amendments are in order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The minister just referred to other jurisdictions in the country, and
throughout this whole debate the question has certainly crossed my mind, I would
say to the minister, and I would be interested in his views: Why is it that it
is only Prince Edward Island? I know the minister refers to Quebec but it is
really Prince Edward Island's legislation that resembles mostly what is being
presented in Bill 4. Why is it only the Province of Prince Edward Island, with
the exception of some variation of that in Quebec, as the only jurisdictions in
our country that has accepted the notion of regulation? I guess the question is,
to put it simply: If it is that good, minister, why is it other Canadian
jurisdictions have not entertained the concept of regulation?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I say to the hon. member, it is not a bad question that he asked. I think it
is a very reasonable question because in fact, if regulation were the answer to
lower prices consistently I am sure other jurisdictions, other than Quebec,
P.E.I., and New Brunswick - I think which have legislation on their books but
which have not enacted it - would probably be regulating.
MR. H. HODDER: Do you regulate lumber prices as well?
MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member, his question is a very good one
and it is a very valid one. That is why I have said consistently from day one
that -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: My mike was not on, I may have a comment on that.
MR. H. HODDER: Are we regulating lumber now as well?
MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. Member for Waterford Valley, if he wants
to proposition government with respect to the regulation of lumber, he should
bring forward his thoughts.
The question is a good one, and I suggest that other jurisdictions have not
regulated for two basic reasons. Number one, it does not automatically guarantee
better pricing at the pumps or better fuel pricing for people who burn oil.
Secondly, there is obviously severe resistance to regulation by the wholesale
industry in terms of those who sell petroleum products to the retailer. With
respect to other jurisdictions, the marketplace has still been the determining
factor as to how pricing takes place.
The other thing I would say to the hon. member, in fairness, is that the
larger the urban or the larger the metropolitan centre where products are sold,
to that degree there is a better chance that market forces work in favour of
consumers. In larger urban centres the marketplace, basically, is the better
regulator of prices. But, in a Province like ours, and I guess a Province like
P.E.I. where you have sparse population, there is more ability for those, if
they would want to do so, to take advantage of the marketplace. I am not
suggesting that wholesalers or retailers are doing that, but there is more
opportunity for them to do that. Hence, there is more of a perception that
regulation works best on behalf of consumers.
I take his point, and I accept the concept that everybody does not support
regulating petroleum products. As a matter of fact, while the consumers
generally, as in the general public, overwhelming support it there is a great
divergence of you when it comes to the industry itself and, in fact, to some
retailers who sell the product. We are trying to capture in this bill - a piece
of legislation we are trying to capture in this bill, a circumstance where
everybody's interest has been recognized to the extent that we could
accommodate it. We have tried to address concerns that the industry has brought
forward at the wholesale and retail level, and also address the concerns that
the consumer groups have brought forward.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not convinced, I say to the minister, in his explanation or rationale
for trying to give an account as to why other provinces have not jumped onboard
on this very exciting concept that the minister and this government feels is now
appropriate to be presented to the consumers of this Province.
I do have a question for the minister, and it is with respect to Prince
Edward Island. Prince Edward Island being the only other provincial jurisdiction
that has implemented the notion of gas price regulation. It is my understanding,
minister, that from January 1999 to December 2000 - we are talking approximately
two years - the tax excluded average annual price of self serve regular unleaded
gasoline in Charlottetown increased by 16.1 cents per litre, compared to 14.6
cents per litre in St. John's, in our capital city. I guess the question is,
number one: Is the minister aware of that? If so, number two, how can he
rationalize - again, for the betterment and the protection of consumers in our
Province - that regulation is the be-all and end-all when, in fact, we have this
type of statistic facing us when we compare our jurisdiction, which was
unregulated obviously at that time, compared with the only jurisdiction, I might
add, that is regulated?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is interesting that the hon. member would make a point that suggests that
not only does regulation not keep the price necessarily lower in one
jurisdiction than another, but that the people of this Province - contrary to
the perception that they have been putting forward for a long time - are being
hard done by on pricing of petroleum products. Actually, we are getting a better
deal in St. John's since 1999 than they are in Charlottetown.
I would say, first of all, that St. John's is probably the most competitive
market in Newfoundland; without a doubt it is. I think we would all acknowledge
that. Even as compared to Charlottetown, it is a much bigger marketplace. I am
not sure that these figures - because I do not have them in front of me - are
the same for the rest of the Province. We do have good tracking of how prices
are impacted. I would say only this to the hon. member: Again, that we have
never said that petroleum product pricing regulation will guarantee lower
prices, but it will guarantee stability. It will guarantee predictability. It
will allow people to know how often prices will change and how long they will be
in place.
The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Chairman, the brute reality is this, if
everybody said and acknowledged, which is not the case, that regulation will
cause prices to be higher, the fact of the matter is that the consumers of the
Province would probably say: Well, we are prepared to pay a small premium for
having somebody looking out to our interests in this thing, month over month and
year over year. I don't think it can be argued that, notwithstanding what
happens in the movement of prices year over year, there have been circumstances
where increases of petroleum products have taken place before they would
otherwise have taken place under regulation, and decreases have been slower to
be put in place as a result of the marketplace or the industry being left on its
own.
So, we want to make sure that prices, as I have said publicly, are held off
until the latest possible moment, and that price decreases are put in place at
the earliest possible moment. That is the objective we are trying to achieve
here, together with the issue of some stability and some transparency in how
pricing is occurring.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman
A noble effort, I say to the minister, but I am not convinced and our
position has not changed. There are some fundamental issues, issues that have
been presented by a number of authorities and commentators, including those
appointed by members opposite, who have brought forward and presented to the
public of this Province independent and informed decisions and conclusions with
respect to what is in the best interest of consumers of Newfoundland and
Labrador, as it relates to the regulation of petroleum products.
I realize that there are a number of my colleagues who want to speak on this
issue for a number of moments, Mr. Chairman, and I will now defer to my
colleagues.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. MATTHEWS: Former gas retailer.
MR. FRENCH: I am glad you said former, minister.
MR. MATTHEWS: There is nothing wrong with that profession, I say to the
hon. member.
MR. FRENCH: Oh, there wasn't while I was at it, I say back to you, Sir.
Minister, I guess we have all watched this legislation and we have certainly
all watched, in recent weeks, the fluctuation in gas prices; up and down, up and
down, up and down. I said this a while ago, when I spoke on this particular
bill, that the
section of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador where I come
from, I do believe has the lowest gas prices in the Province. Yet again, the
question begs to be asked, Minister: Why every day, when one company increases
their price, within half an hour, every particular service station in that
division automatically, bang-o, raise their price, and up the price goes? Most
of the time, Mr. Minister, when we are buying our gasoline, we are probably all
buying the same gasoline as well. I have watched on a number of occasions when
oil tankers from one company are certainly buying their gasoline from a
competitor. It is coming out of the same tank, it is going into the same tanks
in the ground, and the only thing different, I say to the minister, is that when
it comes out of the pump at the island at the gas station it may have a
different name. In actual fact, Minister, it is all the same gasoline brought in
here by the same tankers, stored in the same tanks, and then, later on in the
day, shipped out by one company over another.
We see service stations in Newfoundland and Labrador now who advertise: We
will not be undersold by gasoline. So, if the guy across the street drops three
cents a litre, we will drop three cents a litre. If the guy across the street
goes up ten cents a litre, we have to chase him and go up ten cents a litre. I
have to wonder, at the end of the day, Minister, where exactly are we going with
this legislation? If we do not think that one oil company communicates with
another, we are crazy, we are stupid; because I, for one, do not believe that
there is no conversation back and forth between oil companies. The problem in
this Province, outside of our taxation on gasoline, is that the oil companies
have now become greedy. The oil companies have now said to people in this
Province: Take a back seat. You no more have the right to be a business person,
man or woman, on your own any more. We are now going to dictate everything that
you do in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The company that I worked for, Minister, for ten years, that is exactly what
they have done. They have set the price of milk. The have set the price of
chocolate bars. The only thing they really could not set the price on was beer.
The reason they could not set the price on beer, Minister, is because the price
of beer in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as you know, being the
former Minister of Finance, is regulated by the government and by the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission. If that wasn't so, then would I
suggest, Minister, that they would even try to regulate that. They set prices on
just about everything in this Province that they sell within their stores. If
you go to one, it is the same price in one as it is in the other one next door.
I will always remember one time in one of the stations that I had leased, I
sold diesel fuel. After awhile I would get calls, you know: Bob, how much do you
sell your diesel for? I would give them a report. Then, a little while later, I
would get a call back: Say, Bob, how much is Johnny Jones' diesel fuel three
miles down the road? You would go down and you would check. You would come back
and your would report that. Within a day or so, Minister, you would be told to
increase your price of gasoline to exactly what it was that your competitor had.
I also remember on another occasion I had a call from the company again that
I represented, wanting to know the price of gasoline, every single price of
gasoline that another station sold in the vicinity of Manuels Bridge. It was an
Irving Oil station. I sent an employee down, parked on Irving Oil's lot, got
out with paper and pencil and wrote down every price of gasoline that Irving Oil
sold. They brought it back to me. Again, of course, as I was instructed to do, I
called it into the company. As that day later went by, I got a call back again
from the same company: Bob, as of 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, I want your price for
unleaded gasoline to be so much, your super to be so much, and on and on. At the
end of the day, I had the same price for gasoline as every oil company in my
area; because, while I may have had a one cent or two cent difference, or 2.1
cent difference than somebody else, I was instructed, Minister, to increase my
prices to a price that was above board - not above board but was equal to every
other service station in the particular area where I lived. By the way,
Minister, I operated two stations and I might say, until the company that I
represented became extremely greedy, we were doing a fair volume of gasoline.
When I spoke the other day, I remember, I think it was the Minister of Labour
saying that we had a Consumer Advocate, I believe, in the name of Mr. Dennis
Browne, do consultation on oil prices and gasoline prices in this Province. I
remember, Minister, Mr. Browne coming in and meeting with our caucus. I pointed
out to Mr. Browne exactly how much gasoline we sold in our two locations. At the
end of our meeting, he looked at me and said: Mr. French, you are the kind of
fella I want to talk to. You will hear back from me before my report is
complete.
I am still waiting today, Minister, for that phone call from Mr. Browne,
because he never called me back after and asked me my thoughts or my
contribution to the report that he was going to submit to the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Believe you me, Mr. Minister, at that particular time
I could have given him some great stories; because in our two businesses, as we
went on, although we were not paid a lot of money for this, we had absolutely no
say in the setting of gasoline prices. Once a week we filled out a report and
wrote a cheque. After awhile, the oil companies got a little bit greedier. They
introduced a new form, and when we were doing our reports, which had to be done
weekly to the oil companies, on your report, you had to indicate the total
amount you sold that week. There was a spot on the form where you filled out the
price of the gasoline, and when they came in to pick up what was called my
remittances, they were paid for their gasoline almost overnight. You probably
had three or four days in which to pay for that gasoline, that was right.
If you went in one part of Kelligrews to buy a litre of engine oil, which was
a certain price, and you came a little bit further down the road, next door to
me was a Petro Canada station. If you went into the Petro Canada station, they
sold the same litre of oil as the same station did in Kelligrews. When you came
to mine, you paid the same price as Petro Canada and you paid the same price as
Irving Oil.
All of this stuff, Minister, was regulated. It was not regulated by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was regulated by the oil companies
themselves. Again, when the company that I represented moved into where we all
had to go to a certain company to buy all of our products, as time went on and
time moved on, the particular company that we had to go buy a can of soup from
or a package of cigarettes from, or a box of matches from, now became the seller
for this company's oil. So, in actual fact, we could buy the oil cheaper from
this company than we could from our home company which manufactured and put the
liter of oil in a plastic bottle. We could buy it cheaper of them than we could
from the home company which we represented. I do not know how that became.
If we are going to bring in gasoline regulations - and I am really amazed
that the government has moved in this direction. I am all for gasoline
reductions. I would roll them all back tomorrow. There would not be one in this
Province that I would not touch. I told a fellow one time: Heaven forbid that I
should ever become the Minister of Environment.
AN HON. MEMBER: Or the regulator.
MR. FRENCH: Or the regulator. That is one job I would not want. I think I
would keep the government very busy bailing me out, because I would be a very
obstructionist individual.
When the company that you represent goes across this Island and goes into a
trade show in the City of Corner Brook, a company that I did a great amount of
business for, and the representative from the company that I was in went up to
this owner and said: Everybody in the area that I represent are not playing the
game. The guy said: What do you mean? He said: Bob French and his son, Terry,
run two stations. They are told they are not buying everything from the
individuals we were suppose to buy from. The guy looked at him, smiled and said:
I do not much about that. He said: Don't worry about it, because when I go
back to Kelligrews, the first two people I will see will be Bob French and Terry
French. They will be instructed and told by me that they must - must - buy their
products from this other company; which, by the way, was not a Newfoundland
owned company. They had head offices outside of this Province altogether.
The local Newfoundlander, his family and his brothers were involved in this
business, and at the end of the day we were not allowed to buy our products from
this particular individual, which meant quite a loss to that man's business.
Every station that represented the same oil company in the Province that I did,
had to cease buying from this Newfoundland company, owned by Newfoundlanders,
started by Newfoundlanders, had increased the growth, and they employed
Newfoundlanders. All of a sudden, overnight, my business could not longer spend
money with them. I could name you a dozen fellows today who could no longer
spend money with the company that they represented.
Now, why did we want to go and do business with a particular Newfoundland
company? The reason we wanted to do business with a particular Newfoundland
company was that we felt we were smart enough business people to go to these
individuals once a year, sit down and negotiate prices and deals, so that at the
end of the year we were entitled to a rebate and that rebate, of course, at the
end of the day went back to the oil company.
As I have said, Minister, the oil companies have become very greedy. Nobody
will ever convince me that the price of gasoline in this Province should be as
high as it is today because of world prices. That, to me, Mr. Minister, is
absolute rubbish.
I spoke to a fellow who worked with the company that I was with for years, in
the commercial sales end of it, and he talked to me about the prices of
everything. When you buy gasoline it is based on the dock price on the sale of
gasoline in New York. The price of a barrel of gasoline in New York is the price
that all of these oil companies are buying oil, which of course, some of them
refine and turn into gasoline. Yet, for whatever reason, that is where we seem
to be, minister, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. While I would be in favour
of a reduction in gasoline prices I do not think that this bill is going to
actually do that for us, because it is more than the price of gasoline that they
set in this Province.
I have attended some of these meetings where people wanted to stop the sale
of gasoline. I have sat there and listened to fellows: Well, maybe we shouldn't
go in there anymore to buy a bottle of Pepsi or a can of soft drink. We shouldn't
go in there anymore and buy a dozen beer.
At the end of the day, Mr. Minister, we do not reduce the prices of gasoline
if we don't have greater control over the oil companies in this Province. I
remember one day doing an interview for CBC radio and talking about the gasoline
prices in this Province. The phones in our office later on that day, Minister,
almost jumped off the desk. People were calling in and wanted to know if it was
our Party's position - the comments that I had made on a local radio station -
as it came to the cost of gasoline.
I have watched Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I have watched major oil
companies walk into a station and say: Everyone of you people here can have job
but - at the time that I finished in 1996 - you must all go to work for $5 an
hour; and at the end of the day we are going pay your manager $500 a week. If
you do not want a job at $5 an hour, get out the door, we don't need you
anymore. That is what happened, minister. I had people who I paid as much as
$6.25 an hour, to work in pumping gasoline and selling gasoline. At the end of
the day, all of these people became unemployed, almost overnight.
If we do not put something in gasoline prices besides reducing the tax -
which is what we have to do, and I think you know that and I know that. If we
don't reduce the taxes on gasoline I really and truly don't know what else
we are going to do. We are going to roll back. How far are we going to roll
back? In my company's case, if Petro Canada's gasoline, next door to me,
dropped two cents, I would phone the company and say: Listen boys, I cannot
compete. Petro Canada next door dropped two cents. Five minutes later my phone
would ring back: Bob, drop all your prices two cents. Where was the regulation?
Don't tell me, Minister, that the gas companies and oil companies were not
making money because I know the difference. I know how many million litres of
gasoline we sold a year. Because we were fortunate enough to have two locations,
I can tell you, Minister, that we sold in the millions of liters of gasoline a
year. That was year in, year out.
These oil companies and gasoline companies also come in and you have no say
in this. You pay a price to rent their convenience store, you pay a price to
rent their care wash, you pay a price to represent their gas pumps and if one of
the pumps breaks down, you are responsible. If a hose gets run over by a car or
some fellow takes off with a nozzle still in his tank and rips the hose off, you
are responsible, at the end of the day, for paying for that. All of those things
changed, because first when we got in the business there was none of that. Your
company was there to assist you. Last going off, everybody in Canada - the
company that I was with - had to wear the same uniform. They had to wear the
same uniform in the summer and they had to wear the same uniform in the winter.
We went to shows. The guy put all of these things on demonstration, but we were
told you had to have these items. If somebody was going to pump gasoline at your
station -
CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. FRENCH: I thank the hon. members for giving me a couple of minutes.
Again, I would just like to say to the minister that we have to get into more
than just saying: Hey, we are going to create another arm which says somebody
may or may not be able to roll back the prices of gasoline. Minister, if we do
not take a look at taxation and we do not take a look at what a lot of these
people do, if they are all in business and if it is a free and open market how
in the name of goodness does every gasoline station in a particular area in this
Province have the same prices? Now I could spend the next two hours talking
about gasoline because, as I said, I spent ten years selling it.
One of the big things that the government is going to have to be aware of is
that these companies have become greedy. What they collect in rents in a year is
amazing. At the end of the day minister, as you know from being in private
industry yourself, it all goes back to your bottom line; and believe me, sir,
there is not an oil company in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that
has to sell at prices today as high as they are. There is no reason why any oil
company in this Province today cannot drop the prices of their gasoline.
Most of the people on my side - and I just say this to finish up - get a
great kick out of me because they are afraid that when I get up to speak I might
get into some name calling with the company that I represented. As you noticed,
minister, I have not mentioned their name. I told my colleagues today that I
would not mention their name and I will not. But let me tell you, they are one
of the greediest crowds that I ever worked for in my life. As a matter of fact,
if they had the right they would take the milk out of your tea.
I thank the hon. members for their time and with that, Mr. Chairman, I will
sit down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to have a few words to say on Bill 4,
An Act Respecting
Petroleum Products. I would like to say to the minister that the people of this
Province have been looking forward to some mechanism to reduce the price of
petroleum products. We are looking forward to
an act or a bill such as this to
do exactly that because in parts of this Province today, Mr. Minister, it is
very hard to live. The cost of petroleum products, heating fuels, et cetera,
certainly can make a big difference in where they live in the Province today.
The public is looking forward to and expecting good legislation to help correct
the problem of high heating prices and gasoline prices, I say to the minister.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out a fact that the prices of
gasoline in the Province today does have a detrimental affect on tourism. If we
have inconsistency in prices of gasoline from one part of the Province to the
other than that is going to create an uneven playing field for different small
businesses that depend on attracting tourists to their part of the Province. If
we see things happen pertaining to some of this legislation then some parts of
the Province could be played off against other parts of the Province,
particularly when a commissioner can divide the Province into zones. If these
zones boundary certain parts of the Province and the commissioner decides to
have different prices bordering these zones - Minister, I can see a problem
arising in the tourist industry in the coming years where small businesses will
be competing against each other in communities, trying to attract that tourist
trade. Minister, it is not only in tourism, it is in small businesses too. We
see small businesses today that are only barely surviving. A difference in
gasoline prices and heating fuel prices could make enough difference to allow
that business to either survive or not to survive. If the zoning is going to
affect the prices in a large amount then we could see businesses having to
decide on what part of the Province the business wants to carry on. That could
have a real detrimental affect in rural parts of Newfoundland where businesses
can survive in any part of the Province - any part of rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, no matter how remote it is, then they could probably survive. But, if
there is going to be a big difference in the prices of petroleum products then
some of these businesses may have to think again and decide that they may have
to relocate to other areas where the prices are more favourable for their
businesses.
I can see a lot of problems arising from that. I can see a problem with
respect to clause 8.(4) where the wholesaler/retailer can only apply within one
twelve-month period. With the amendment, I see a problem that could arise there
where the commissioner can dedicate to other wholesalers or retailers a change
in prices even though they may have applied within that one twelve-month period
for a change and was approved, but if competition within that zone also applied
for a change in the pricing then, minister, I could see that retailer/wholesaler
having the two changes within the same twelve-month period; which certainly is
different from
section 4 when it says they can only apply for one twelve month
period but they could have two, three or more changes depending on how many
people apply within that zone to have changes. The commissioner could make that
determination regardless if that same person who had applied before wants to
change or not. So I can see that being a problem down the road, I say to the
minister. It does not seem fair that we could have one
section dedicating to the
other
section of how many times changes could be made because the commissioner
says yes or no, or if the commissioner wants to entertain more than one
application from a wholesaler or retailer. If it is in that zone there could be
many retailers. It is possible that every retailer in that zone could apply for
a change within that twelve-month period. You could see a problem arising within
that zone reflecting the number of applications that the commissioner gets. I
think that would be very unfair to other retailers and wholesalers in that zone
who did not want the change and needed another price in order to be competitive,
in order to survive within that area of the zone.
If we divide the Province up into many zones - it does not say how many - we
could see a fluctuation of different prices from one end of the Province to the
other. That certainly could make a big difference to the small business industry
in Newfoundland and the tourism industry. We could see small companies competing
more vigorously, competing on a scale where it could make the difference of
these businesses staying in that community and staying in that part of the
Province. Minister, I really do not see the point where we can have that
amendment and still abide by the following rule, number 4.
Minister, from what I see in the Province today with respect to gasoline
prices and the affect that it does have on businesses - particularly with the
farming industry. Some of the farming industries depend on these lower fuel
prices and marked gas to keep their farms operating and to keep them going, but
when they move out into other parts of the Province where they have to buy fuel
from other retailers then they will be paying the full price for that product. I
don't know if there is a mechanism in place where they can get reimbursed for
taxes or anything at the year-end when they do their taxes, but businesses like
farming and fishing, that depend on a set lower price for fuel, need to be
protected. They need a chance to make sure that set prices and lower prices are
available from one end of the Province to the other. If we change this
legislation to make a commissioner responsible for setting prices then we are
going to end up with a lot of inconsistent prices, varying from low scale to a
high scale, which is going to dictate how people travel, dictate where people
live and where businesses are established. It worries me to see that we could
further put another nail in the coffin of rural Newfoundland and Labrador today.
I think we have to be careful when we put legislation in place that could do
that type of thing, that could set the precedent for different prices throughout
the Province.
I say to the minister that this zoning certainly sounds like it might be a
good idea when it comes to keeping prices lower or higher in certain parts of
the Province, but it can make a big difference in rural Newfoundland where a lot
of people depend on staying in their community and needing a lower price of
fuels, heating fuels and gasoline prices. If we do not be careful of what we are
doing, then we are going to do exactly that. We are going to destroy even
further the competition in rural Newfoundland and create an uneven playing field
for small businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I have talked to people who came into the Province in the last
little while and the biggest complaint that you will hear is that the gasoline
prices are so high that a lot of people just will not do the traveling they
would like to do around the Province, the sightseeing and getting into every
nook and cranny in this Province that has so much to offer, so much beauty for
tourists to look at, and could create so many memories in tourists' minds for
a long time, and when they go back to their home in their own provinces they
could tell other people of the beauty of this Province. But the message as I see
it, and what they say when they go back to their homes, is that Newfoundland and
Labrador is a beautiful place, we know, but it is the not the place to go
because of the high fuel prices; and if you are going to come here in this
Province you need to do a lot of driving. There are a lot of places to see.
There are a lot of little communities that are beautiful and tourists just love
them, but when it comes to the dollar, Mr. Chairman, then they look at that
aspect. Then they decide what part of the Province they are going to go to get
the best bang for their buck when they come here as a tourist. So, they end up
going into the bigger centres where they can spend more time and look at more
things; but in the smaller areas, in the rural parts of the Province, the remote
part of the Province where we do have the beauty of this Province, then our
tourists are not getting there. They are not getting into all these nooks and
crannies where the scenery is so beautiful, it is just breathtaking.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HUNTER: I just want to make that point, Mr. Chairman. I really did
see something that could be wrong with the twelve-month period of applying for a
change -
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. HUNTER: I will just finish up, Mr. Chairman. Just give me a second.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. HUNTER: I did see a change with the amendment there that certainly
could create a conflict when it comes to zoning and different applications being
applied for by retailers and wholesalers.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just had a few comments. I haven't spoken on this before, and I think it
is a major piece of legislation that we have. Government took a direction on
this and they had a person appointed, who went out and did a review and
recommended. The then minister of the day, I think, the now Premier, indicated
that - I think it was the Premier at the time.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mines and Energy Minister. On January 6, 1999,
actually, "Minister reacts to calls for gas price regulation." The
Premier of the Province indicated on January 6 that he "...has reacted to a
new round of calls for gasoline price regulation." He went on to say, and
this is a quote, "Government generally agreed with the consumer advocate's
report and accepted its two main recommendations; that there be no price
regulation and that government monitoring of gasoline prices be improved.... A
monitoring and publication program has been established within the Department of
Mines and Energy to keep the general public informed of gasoline prices and the
issues related to gasoline pricing." End of quote.
Basically, he went on to say then, "It's important to note that the
Consumers Association of Canada is also on record as being opposed to price
regulation."
So this government, in fact, went out and promoted anti-regulation,
basically, of gas prices, and indicated that it is not going to solve the
problem. He went on to say, "In fact, statistics just made available to
government show over the past couple of weeks, the Canadian average had
decreased by 0.9 cents per litre, while prices in most communities in
Newfoundland had decreased by one cent per litre." This is a 1999
statement. This is indicating, on regulation, government said it is not the
answer. The Consumer Advocate said it is not the answer, and now we have a
government saying we are going to bring in gas and price regulations. That has
to be a total flip-flop. I think, as my colleague for Harbour Main-Whitbourne
thought the Minister of Education, from two articles compared in The Telegram ,
it was a complete flip-flop.
AN HON. MEMBER: How about Main River?
MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know if he flip-flopped on Main River. Did the
minister flip-flop on Main River? I am not sure.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I am saying that I cannot really see why, so strongly for
the last two years, have the same basic members, the former minister, who is now
the Premier of the Province, brought in legislation that he said is not the
answer and is not going to work.
MR. MATTHEWS: There go my people; I must follow them.
MR. SULLIVAN: No.
Robert Frost described, and I think I said this before: A Liberal is a man
too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.
Well, in this quarrel they have taken both sides. We cannot regulate gas
prices and now we can regulate them. A year ago you could not do it, and now you
can. I cannot see what has changed since. Why, today, is legislation going to do
what this government said, and the now Premier of the Province said, as
minister, is not going to solve the problem?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. SULLIVAN: I can keep my voice down, if it is bothering you.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, the voice is wonderful.
I just think it is appropriate, in the vein of quotes, that we should quote
one from Winston Churchill, who said: Hurry, for the people are ahead of us; so
we shall catch up to them, for we are their leaders.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell the minister that it is no trouble to catch up
to their leaders because they are going around in circles. Just stay where you
are and you will catch up, I would say.
What is more efficient, a clock that loses a second every hour or one that
does not work? They say that the one that does not work tells the time twice a
day. The one that loses seconds, it is every so many billion years before it
tells the right time.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: It depends how good your math is.
MR. SULLIVAN: It sure does. That was my favorite subject in school, I
might add.
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MR. SULLIVAN: Math.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are not very good at it.
MR. SULLIVAN: I might not be, but I taught it for a while, too, over the
years.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is one area that I will compare marks, in math. I will
not speak for all areas.
AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, I hear an interesting quote the other day that
might be applicable to you.
MR. SULLIVAN: What is that?
AN HON. MEMBER: It said that you were like a broken clock., that twice a
day you even tell the right time.
MR. SULLIVAN: I just said that. You must be stopped on that circle, are
you, or are you still moving?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: He is good at math.
MR. SULLIVAN: He is good at math. I do not doubt that. I do not challenge
his ability at math. I never questioned that. He questioned mine. I will give
him a transcribe of my math marks if he wants it. If that is any indication, I
do not mind doing that. I might not be as proud to give some of the others, now,
but I will certainly do it in that area.
AN HON. MEMBER: What about history, Loyola? How are you in history?
MR. SULLIVAN: I am not an historian. I will admit that. I did some
history at university, actually. I was more interested in economic history. I
did economic Canadian history, actually, two courses. One was from a very
interesting gentleman. I think he died at the age of about forty at Memorial
University. I do know if you remember David Alexander.
MR. H. HODDER: At thirty-seven.
MR. SULLIVAN: At thirty-seven years of age, he died a young man. That was
a few years after he taught me, I hope. Actually, it was a very interesting
course in history.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am just saying that everybody who dies does not fall
down. I have seen evidence of that out there.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: What is it saying? It is brought to the attention of
management that employees who are dying on the job are failing to fall down.
Would you please try to enforce that regulation? If you die, fall down.
He was very interesting. He did a very good job in Canadian economic history.
There are interesting things they have said. I have a whole series of quotes,
and I am not going to spend too long on this because we do have to get to other
bills here today. Let's see what this one is now. February 13, 2001 -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, just over a year or more. A few years after the
previous Mines and Energy Minister, the now Premier, in a statement said:
Premier Grimes said Cabinet discussed the regulation of fuel prices and Mines
and Energy Minister, Lloyd Matthews, has been directed to develop a framework
for the regulation of fuel prices and Cabinet is asked to bring forward a
proposal which will become effective within ninety days.
Well, the ninety days are up. We missed the boat on that one by just a few
weeks. The very same person who said no, instructed his Mines and Energy
Minister to come forward and develop regulations to regulate the price of fuel.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is another topic. I am not going to go into that
depth.
AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down now and let Harvey (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No. Harvey will get his turn.
I see so many releases here by government, contradictions.
MR. MATTHEWS: Loyola, forget the rest of the releases. You have made your
point. Are you going to vote for the bill or against it? That is what I want to
know.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am.
AN HON. MEMBER: Alright, good enough, sit down.
MR. SULLIVAN: I was in Nova Scotia recently, and at the gas tank there it
shows the cost per litre of gasoline, the amount of taxes there, provincial
taxes, the cost and so on. It breaks that down.
AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, do you know what gas is in Alberta today?
MR. SULLIVAN: Most of it is a lot of hot air, because natural -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: How much?
AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy-two cents a litre. Unheard of.
AN HON. MEMBER: Where?
AN HON. MEMBER: Edmonton.
MR. SULLIVAN: Do they have gas regulation?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SULLIVAN: No regulation. That supports our side of the argument.
AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, your party has been asking for regulation.
MR. SULLIVAN: Where? I don't see that anywhere. I don't see that in
all the releases we have done. I can go through all of these releases by
government and all of these releases by our party and it says contrary to what
you are saying, actually.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? Someone else will get up, and I will get up
again, after a minute. Could I have leave?
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
CHAIR: The hon. the member, by leave.
MR. MATTHEWS: Loyola, are you voting for this bill or against it?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am for or against everything.
MR. MATTHEWS: You are for and against everything?
MR. SULLIVAN: I am for or against everything.
MR. MATTHEWS: That confirms, in my mind, that you fit the definition of a
Liberal.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is it. The facts demonstrate clearly what we have been
saying, that the gas taxes are primarily responsible for the extremely high
price consumers in this Province pay for gasoline. That is the reason for high
gas prices.
The release is here. He talked about a party, I say to the Member for
Twillingate & Fogo -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to get the money (inaudible) promised the
last five years.
MR. SULLIVAN: This is not about money and taxation. This is about
regulating the price of gasoline. I am going through tons of releases here put
out by the leader, by our critic, by the Member for St. John's South,
government releases, all dealing here with the prices, with this particular
issue. I am seeing no contradictions in any that come from our party.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who reconciles your bank account at the end of the month?
MR. SULLIVAN: I do it myself.
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MR. SULLIVAN: I do it myself. I want to make sure it is somebody who got
a good mark in math.
MR. H. HODDER: He reconciles that (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I reconcile that. Sometimes I am not reconciled when I look
at it, but I reconcile it.
I told him that by the time the Member for Waterford Valley gets around to
reconciling my account, if I give it to him, the next month is going to be here.
I cannot do that.
MR. MATTHEWS: There are not enough days and hours in the month to count
Harvey's money.
MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to get my hands on the bank account of the
Minister of Mines and Energy.
Here is another one look, Mines and Energy, gas regulation. I had a few
interesting government quotes. There are a whole variety of issues. I know the
purpose, I guess, behind it is probably to provide more consistency in gasoline
prices. I think that would be safe to say, to provide consistency, not to give
lower gasoline prices. In fact, the prices may very well be higher by
regulation. Isn't there a minimum price set here?
MR. MATTHEWS: What?
MR. SULLIVAN: A minimum price. Other provinces - does Prince Edward
Island set a minimum price in their legislation?
MR. MATTHEWS: No. Quebec sets a minimum price.
MR. SULLIVAN: Prince Edward Island does not. The one that you are
patterned and talking in support of, Prince Edward Island, it does not set a
minimum price on gasoline. It sets a maximum price, does it, for gasoline?
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, this does, but Quebec -
MR. SULLIVAN: But Quebec's policy is more restrictive and narrow
legislation.
MR. MATTHEWS: Quebec's legislation is designed to protect the
independents, so they set a minimum price.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right. Does the minister feel that it is going
to keep prices down and make it cheaper? Why would you go through the process of
legislation and regulating people to death if it is not going to achieve the
number one goal we would like to see: less money coming out of consumer pockets
going for gasoline? Wouldn't that be the ultimate goal? If we are going to pay
less because of this regulation, then regulate it. If you are not and you cannot
guarantee that, and it could be higher at times - it could be up, it could be
down - why do it? Does the consumer -
MR. MATTHEWS: It could be, Loyola. It could be.
MR. SULLIVAN: And it could not be, and it could be lower because it is
not regulated. It could be lower because it is not regulated. Why do you
encumber consumers in this Province with regulation after regulation if it is
not going to accomplish the number one purpose, what the minister said is what
eighty-some per cent of the people of the Province want. They do not want gas
regulations controlled for the sake of control. They want it because they
believe that it is going to keep the price of gasoline down, it is going to be
cheaper on the consumer, and they are going to spend less money a year.
AN HON. MEMBER: It might (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: We cannot go on might. Might does not cut it in
legislation. We cannot have legislation that might. Legislation is definitive;
it has to be to the point. It is not a might.
AN HON. MEMBER: It is the law.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, it is the law. The law must be definitive, I
say to the Minister of Environment. It must be definitive. It must tell you what
you can and cannot do. There are no fences to sit on. In case there is doubt,
interpretations may be challenged and decisions rendered in due course,
challenges to it.
Basically, I cannot see how this is going to accomplish something. I just
hope it does, but what is it going to cost? I want to ask the minister: What is
the projected cost of this legislation to the department and to the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador? What is the projected annual cost to carry out
this regulation? How much?
AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty cents a person.
MR. SULLIVAN: Fifty cents a person? You are saying a little over $250
million - $269,500 taking our population - is going to be the cost? Would that
be right, Minister? It would be over $250 million, the cost of this legislation,
on an annual basis.
MR. MATTHEWS: It may not cost the consumer anything because it might be
cost recovery (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I am not talking about the consumer. The taxpayers of the
Province, by instituting those mechanisms in this legislation to regulate this,
the cost of having salaries or staff and people to make sure the act is
followed, how much is it costing?
MR. MATTHEWS: It may not cost them anything, the taxpayers, because they
may refund it from the industry. There is provision or will be provision for
that possibility.
MR. SULLIVAN: It might not, and what might it cost? It might be nothing
on one end of the continuum. What might be the cost on the other end?
MR. MATTHEWS: I think the minister said, fifty cents a person.
MR. SULLIVAN: Fifty cents a person. That is over $250 million per year on
an annual basis. In the next ten years, not factoring in inflation, we will
spend between $2.5 million and $3 million of taxpayers' money by bringing in
this legislation over and above what it would if we did not bring it in. That is
$3 million.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I am going on the minister's figures now. I am
simply doing the math, based on the minister's figures. If they are wrong, if
that are on the low side, it is going to cost far more. It is going to cost
several million dollars to bring in. So why would you regulate something that is
going to cost millions of dollars? Who is going to pay for it? Who pays for this
regulation?
Here is who pays for it: If we need to get revenues - unless we are going to
borrow, and that costs money and interest on borrowing, that erodes our dollars
we have to spend on other services, that taxation is going to come out of
gasoline tax in the future, or it is going to come out of liquor tax, gambling
revenue, income tax, HST, or some other tax. The money is going to come to pay
for this out of some other taxes, so the consumer is paying for a regulation
that is not going to give them a cheaper gas price in the final analysis.
We have tried to reinvent the wheel on this one. I am not convinced. If
someone could stand up and convince me how this is going to do the job, I will
jump up and support it. I have read it, I have followed it. We drew our
conclusions that it is not going to do it. Over a year ago, the now Premier of
the Province said, it is not going to do it. Dennis Browne said, it is not going
to do. The Consumers Association of Canada said, it is not going to do. The
department that the minister is in said, it is not going to do it. Who knew? All
of a sudden, the manna fell from heaven, we are enlightened now and we all now
know that this is going to do it. So we are enlightened now that this is going
to do the job that it could do over a year or two years ago. Now here we have
it.
When the consumers go to a gas tank, they don't see - I think the minister
used 87 per cent. Was it 87 per cent of the people, the minister said, who
support it, I ask the minister?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, he is getting Government Services and Lands to give
him some more figures. Are they going to be from the figures he just gave me a
few minutes ago?
It is going to cost $2.5 million to $3 million of the taxpayers' money in
the next ten years just to pay for the staff and to regulate this.
Did the minister say 87 per cent of the people support it in a poll? Did they
say they supported it because they believe it is not going to g