May 31,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 7

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of all hon. members I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly the new MHA for Placentia, Mr. Nicholas Careen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: And also on behalf of hon. members I would

like to welcome to the public galleries forty-five grade seven students from

Dunne Memorial Academy, St. Mary's, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Gibbons

and Mrs. St. Croix.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Finally, and by no means least, I would also

like to welcome students from Greenwood Elementary School in Burlington, Baie

Verte, White Bay District accompanied by their parents and two teachers,

Archibald Antle and Garland Morris.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this

question to the Minister of Environment and Lands please. A couple of months ago

the owner of the former phosphorous plant in Long Harbour submitted a

preliminary plan, a risk analysis I believe they call it, for the cleanup or the

containment of hazardous waste at the plant site in Long Harbour. Has government

approved the risk assessment by Albright and Wilson and have you given approval

for the company to proceed with detailed planning for the cleanup?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I commend the new

member for jumping into the fray right off the bat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: We in the department have had a look at the

plant for containment at the site, it is certainly not our first choice and we

have let them know that it is not our first choice and that we will be asking

them to explore other methods of dealing with the phosphorous. However, at the

same time we are looking at their proposal for containment because we do not

have any other option. Since they have presented it to us we must have a look at

it however it is not our preferred option, we have let the company know that and

we will be asking them to submit other options that are more in keeping with

what the original proposal from the government was in 1982, that is to return

the site to its actual former state.

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

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, did Albright and Wilson propose,

as its preferred option, to contain the waste in some kind of storage rather

than remove it from the site altogether?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, they did see it as the least costly for them. However,

that is not a concern of ours. We see it as, we want the safest, possible

environment for our people in that area therefore we will be asking them for

other submissions as well so that we could look at a variety of options before

we give them any sort of go-ahead.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Late Show, here in the House on Thursday, the Minister

of Health stated that the former Conservative government had overbuilt hospitals

in this Province, and he singled out hospitals in Grand Falls and in Port aux

Basques. I ask the minister, has he targeted those hospitals for major new cuts

in services or even for closure?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How does the minister square that statement with the

statements made a couple of weeks ago by the administrator of St. Clare's

Hospital in St. John's. She stated that the St. John's hospitals were under

pressure, because patients are now being sent to St. John's for surgery and

other specialist procedures which are no longer available in hospitals which

served their home regions. I ask the minister: is that not the real reason for

overcapacity in hospitals outside St. John's?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No. Mr. Speaker.

The two are not related.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. The hon. the Member

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I guess the minister is using the same

strategy that CN used to get rid of trains. They gradually shut down services

until people got used to it, and then they took away our railroads. Isn't that

the strategy with this government of hospitals outside St. John's, to take away

services until people get used to it and centralize all services in St. John's

except the most basic services?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the first part of his comment

comparing me with John Crosbie is something that I take great exception to, I

have no desire to be compared to the hon. John Crosbie.

As far as the second part of his question is concerned: no,

we have no plans to centralize health services entirely in the City of St.

John's.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Education.

Has Memorial University shown the minister a

schedule of

proposed tuition increases for the next academic year or upcoming academic year?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, and that does not surprise

me because no

schedule exists yet.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. The hon. the Member for

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Will the Minister of Education confirm that

the University proposes to hike basic degrees in science and arts by 15.2 per

cent? Will he confirm that the tuition costs for professional schools and

professional degrees, proposed hike increase, is 32.9 per cent? Will he confirm

that the proposed increase for med school students will be increased by 47 per

cent in tuition costs this year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to confirm the

precise figures that the hon. member puts forward. I can tell the hon. member

though that among the cost-saving measures that the University is dealing with,

one of their suggestions is that they will, instead of raising tuition at a set

rate right across the board, they are indeed looking at raising it at a higher

percentage to certain of the professional schools, for example, the med school,

or whatever, Mr. Speaker. I can't confirm or deny that it's 15.2 per cent or

forty-seven point something per cent. But I can confirm that the University is

considering an increase which will not be the same for all students.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the student

newspaper The Muse, on Friday past, those proposed increases in tuition costs

were outlined in the front-page headline. Is the minister concerned about the

size of the increase that I've just outlined? Will he intervene to curtail

rising tuition costs so that a university education is accessible to all young

people in this Province, and not just to those who readily can afford to go

there?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, of course I think any human

being is concerned when the cost of anything, especially education, increases in

this Province. However, I have no intention of intervening at this time. It is

an established policy across the free world that governments do not intervene

specifically in the cases of universities, in the way they handle their affairs.

If we were to intervene, Mr. Speaker, then it would mean we would have to find

more money to offset what the University would lose. With the fiscal realities

that we live with, government is unable to do that at this time.

I certainly will continue to talk with the University on

these matters, but we have no intention of intervening at this time, Mr.

Speaker, unless the University does something that we consider to be totally out

of whack, and if that were the case we would have to intervene but there would

be a cost of intervening.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Tourism and Culture.

Approximately three years ago six development associations on

the Southern Avalon made a joint proposal to government for a tourism

development study. They were told at that time that they would not be funded

because government was undertaking a tourism development study for the entire

Avalon region. I would like to ask the minister: When does he anticipate the

study will be available to municipalities, development associations and other

groups and organizations interested in the development of tourism in these

areas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism and

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon.

member for his question.

The Avalon region study is the last in a group of studies

that are to be carried out in Newfoundland in the various regions, and it was

felt that we should study the entire region rather than simply specific areas.

That study is now about to get under way and actually has started in terms of

terms of reference being laid out, and I would like to think that all of the

towns and municipalities, and indeed various interest groups, will participate

in the study. I can assure the member that a series of meetings will be held

throughout the region to ensure that all of those with an interest will have an

opportunity to have input into that tourism study.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, municipalities, development

associations and other interested parties on the Southern Avalon at least have

been kept in the dark on this study. It has been about a year ago now since we

received correspondence that the study would be going ahead. Many are not even

aware that this study is under way.

Will the minister tell this hon. House how the study or the

terms of reference are being done and who is doing it? And why have local

organizations - many local organizations - been completely ignored?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism and

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to the actual study, the original plan was to

do simply a specific area, that area being mostly metropolitan St. John's. The

department felt that was not broad enough and that we should look at promoting

regions in all cases throughout the Province, as we have done with the Viking

Trail. That is an entire region all the way up to and including St. Anthony, as

well as including parts of the Labrador Straits.

So it is our intention, and what our intention was, to make

sure that we expanded the role. The actual terms of reference and those involved

I will have to take under advisement and I will get that information to the

member as quickly as possible.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Rural Newfoundland began this process and they became

involved to be a whole region. The minister is aware that communities on the

Southern Avalon are relying heavily on tourism development to replace

investments and jobs lost in the fishery. Every time they make a proposal to

government they are told to wait for this comprehensive Avalon study. I would

like to ask the minister if he could give us a time limit as to when the study

will be underway or is it just an excuse to put people off and avoid making

decisions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism and

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member, who

is a new member to this House, that we will certainly complete the study a lot

faster than it took in terms of seventeen years to complete the other studies.

It is important that we reach out into every region of the Province to make sure

it is done properly. It is very easy for us to either single out a community, or

single out an organization, but if they do not fit totally into what the final

results of the study are it is simply throwing money away. We have seen enough

of that over the last seventeen years and we do not intent to continue with it.

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

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

My question is for the Premier. The Minister of Education

just indicated that the only time he would intervene, or government would

intervene, into a situation at the University was if something was out of whack

at the University. I would suggest that in the past four years tuition costs for

students in a general arts program has increased by 60 per cent, in the

professional schools it has increased by 100 per cent, and in the medical school

it has increased by 115 per cent. I would suggest that this government intervene

now because if anything was out of whack that is certainly out of whack, and I

want to know if the Premier would intervene into the situation that is taking

place at the University right now?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making some

sweeping statements and really, with all respect, I do not think he really knows

what he is talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: To begin with I told him I cannot confirm or

deny the statements he made about the 15.2 per cent and all this sort of thing,

however, I have had quite a few talks with the University over the past number

of months, as you would expect, and I suspect there will be an increase in

tuition this year. Now, whether that is going to be 47 per cent or 35 per cent I

do not know because I am not even sure it has been through the senate, Mr.

Speaker. It is being discussed. I have to tell hon. members the reality is we

have to pay the cost of operating the University. There are a whole lot of

things the administration could do. They could lay off some professors, they

could roll back wages, or they can deal with the pension fund. They are similar

to government, they have to deal with the thing, but hon. members must also

realize that notwithstanding the increases that the hon. member talks about -

and they are open for debate - notwithstanding the increases, the perceived

increases, some of them are real, we do have the cheapest university education

in all of Canada.

MR. SULLIVAN: And the lowest standards.

MR. DECKER: The hon. member says "the lowest standards".

That is an absolute total insult, and the hon. member should be breaking his

neck to get on his feet and apologize for what is indeed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: As the last report showed, it is one of the

top universities in the world, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member should apologise to

the people who are running that University.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: My question is for the Minister of

Education. The proposed tuition increases that I have proposed or are at the

table before you today are not open for debate. They are proposed changes. On

June 11 the final decision will be made at the Board of Regents. The minister in

my opinion must intervene. You talk about the lowest cost of university

education in this Province. I would like to also remind the minister that we

are, in this Province today, we have the hardest hit economy, and that

university because of the tuition fees. What I'd like the minister to do is to

confirm that he will talk to University officials and intervene to see what can

be done on behalf of students at Memorial University for the upcoming academic

year.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is already

changing his tune. In his first line of questions this was all a fait accompli,

done. He even gave me the announcement and all this. Now he's saying it's a

proposal. That's exactly what I told him when I answered the question. That the

University is considering a whole list of options. It all has to be approved by

the Senate. I don't want to prejudge what the Senate's going to do.

that we have a higher percentage of our students in university than any other

province in Canada save Prince Edward Island. The highest in Canada. In excess

of 40 per cent of the students who completed Grade XII in the past three years

are attending university in this Province or outside. We have the second-highest

in all of Canada, Mr. Speaker. Thirty-five per cent of our people are in

university. By comparison, in British Columbia about 8 per cent of their

students who completed high school in the last three years are in university. We

have the second-highest in all of Canada, Mr. Speaker. So I don't know what he's

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for the Minister of Fisheries. I want to ask the minister what

government is doing about restructuring the processing sector of the fishery,

which of course we all know is completely within the jurisdiction of the

Province. Last week the federal minister made a statement to the editorial board

of The Evening Telegram, indicating that he had asked the Province for a plan

because he was willing to seek federal financial assistance to deal with the

restructuring of the processing sector. Can the minister inform the House when

he will have a plan ready from the Province to present to the federal government

for financial support?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, beginning tomorrow night we're

starting our meetings with respect to the recently released discussion paper on

the fishery. That of course will be one of the things that will be addressed in

the course of those meetings. Following that process, the government will be

presenting to the House and to the people of this Province a White Paper in

which we will then outline our thinking with respect to the fisheries of the

future.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The

minister is on record as saying several times that the fishery of the future is

certainly going to be different and there has to be restructuring of the

processing sector. In fact he's said that he's willing to let the market forces

dictate what plants remain open in this Province and what close. It's quite

conceivable, I say to the minister, that within twelve months the moratorium

could end. None of us expect it, but it's very possible. Then of course the

decision has to be made whether to re-open the fishery or extend, hopefully, the

moratorium benefits. In either case, a plan to restructure the processing sector

is critical. I want to ask the minister: if the moratorium is extended, as many

say it will be, will fish plant workers conceivably have their benefits

terminated because the Province and the Minister of Fisheries have not put

forward a plan for the processing sector?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the problems that we're now

experiencing in the fishing industry in Newfoundland are the responsibility of

the federal government. They've recognized their responsibility by initiating

the so-called moratorium package, and one would expect that at the end of the

package period - whenever - June of 1994, if the stocks have not rebuilt to the

point where Total Allowable Catch can be established then I would expect them to

extend the moratorium package. That is something, of course, over which the

Province does not have any control whatsoever. The government will make that

decision, Mr. Crosbie will, if he is still minister then, which is highly

unlikely of course, will make that decision and we will have to wait and see

what happens.

MR. TOBIN: You will not be minister then.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary for the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That may be more detrimental to the

Province than the minister thinks, if Mr. Crosbie is not Minister of Fisheries,

I say to him; but having said that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries knows

full-well that the processing sector of the fishery is completely within the

Province's jurisdiction. It makes me wonder, when I listen to the comments that

have been made by Mr. Crosbie, if perhaps there is not some concern there that

if the Province does not get off its duff very quickly and present a plan for

the processing sector, that conceivably fish plant workers may be left out in

the cold when a new compensation package is put in place for the fishery.

My question to the minister is: Is he prepared to put the

survival and income of 10,000 or 15,000 plant workers at risk because he and his

colleagues have completely failed to do their homework? Will there be a plan in

place the next few months so that if the federal government has to make a

further decision on extending moratorium benefits that there will be a plan

there for the processing sector that includes fish plant workers in this

Province? That is the question to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate how concerned

the hon. gentleman must be when he realizes the Province does not just drop

everything and respond to a demand from Mr. Crosbie that we produce a plan. I

can name in many cases where the minister himself has been delinquent in

producing certain information that we need, but again these are hypothetical

questions. The fact of the matter is that if the fish stocks are not rebuilt to

the point where we can sustain a fishery then I would expect the federal

government to continue with their moratorium package and the Province, for our

part will, in due course, announce what our thinking is, in the form of a White

Paper. We shall follow the process that we are about to start now with respect

to our discussion paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Culture. Will

the minister advise the House if there will be any change this Summer in the

length of time provincial historic sites around the Province will be open to the

public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism and

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Summer we entered into a pilot project of keeping a

number of historic sites open through to Thanksgiving weekend, and it is our

intention to look to do exactly the same this year - possibly not with as many.

For the hon. member's position, we were very keen on keeping

the historic sites in Bonavista open because it happens to be a major attraction

during that Fall season - what we call 'a shoulder season' - and it is our

intention to look to do the same thing again this year in his particular area.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, at least some development

associations understand that the sites will be only open for ten weeks, so there

will not be a situation where they are open late in the season and extended

beyond the Labour Day weekend.

I have been told by the staff in the minister's office as

well that this Summer staff at the historic sites will be hired for only ten

weeks or less. How does the Tourism Minister justify that with the government's

stated commitment to tourism and development as a means of generating economic

activity and employment in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism and

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I justify it this year the same

way we justified it last year. We put in place a budget that would keep the

facilities open for a given period of time. I have said to the member that we

are very concerned in particular of his particular region because we understand

that there are a number of bus tours that come through, in particular during the

months of September and October, and our department is looking at ways of

maintaining those particular sites into and including Thanksgiving weekend.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Mines and Energy.

Anyone who heard the minister - I guess it was last Wednesday

- and the Premier on Friday, are convinced that the government is actively

pursuing a course, or proposal, or plan, to sell off Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, last August I guess, which is eight or nine

months ago, the minister said that government had studied the matter and decided

the privatization of Hydro would be of no benefit to the Province. Let me ask

the minister, what has happened since August to have changed government's mind,

if privatization was of no benefit nine months ago, could he tell us of what

benefit it is to the Province today and what has changed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government has indicated

its general policy on privatization. Not alone in respect to Hydro but in

respect to a variety of government agencies, and the government is taking a look

at it and will make a determination as to whether or not it is appropriate to

propose or consider privatization in respect of any particular Crown agency. We

will not be making any speculative comments on whether or not it is going to be

considered or whether or not it should be considered in any particular instance

until we are ready to make a proposal for discussion. I assure the House, that

any proposal for privatization will be given adequate public notice to allow

full and complete discussion.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like once again, to

remind the Premier that the minister said in August that they had studied it and

the sale was of no benefit to the Province. I will ask the Premier then, is he

looking at the sale of all of Hydro's assets including the Upper and Lower

Churchill, or is government only looking to sell off Hydro's power generation

and distribution assets and operations on the Island?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the answer that I gave the

House on Friday and I believe on Thursday, and that I just gave the House now,

remains the same. There is no variation on it no matter how the question is

asked.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. The hon. the Member

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a direct

question and I would like him to answer the direct question.

Is he prepared to include the Upper and Lower Churchill in

the sale of Newfoundland Hydro? Is he prepared to include both of them in the

sale?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question

remains exactly as it was two days ago, one day ago and earlier today.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister of Health can

inform the House whether or not he is aware, or has he has been advised of

layoffs with the Burin Regional Health Care Board, and if so, what the magnitude

of those layoffs might be?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have to ask the hon. member to repeat his question. I

was not paying attention.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will repeat the question, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Minister of Health, is he aware of any

layoffs by the Burin Regional Health Care Board, and if so, could he advise the

House of the magnitude of the layoffs?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the Burin Health Care Board

submitted a plan which was agreed on by the Department of Health, and

subsequently there were some questions on the Burin Peninsula as to whether the

plan was appropriate. I am not sure whether the board has submitted an alternate

plan or not, but I will check it out and see just where that stands and let the

hon. member and the House know.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I am wondering, while the minister is doing it, would he take

the time or have his officials check out - there are layoffs, Mr. Speaker, I

tell the minister - the impact on lab. and x-ray services at the Grand Bank

Health Care Centre, there were layoffs at that Centre as well as at Blue Crest

Interfaith Senior Citizens Home just this last week, and I am wondering if the

minister would undertake as well, to have a study done or have someone look into

the impact particularly on lab and x-ray services that will certainly be

diminished for residents who use the Grand Bank Health Care Centre, would he

make that undertaking?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. The hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, but I think I know what the

minister is going to find once he gets word back, but there is very serious

concern in the area, particularly from Lamaline through to Grand Bank, about

services now being diminished at that health care centre, so I am wondering when

the minister gets the news back, I just want to ask him for the record: is there

any possibility that funding could be - because apparently all this activity is

taking place because of a cutback in the board's budget from government -is

there any possibility that the minister could look at reinstating some funding

to allow those very important lab and x-ray services to be continued to be

offered for those people?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, it is very unlikely that we can

take money from some other part of the health care system to divert to an area

of the Province which, by comparison with others, is extremely well serviced.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Tourism

and Culture.

I ask the minister, would he inform the House if the number

of students and the number of weeks worked by students in provincial parks this

year is going to be reduced over last year?

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, in fact the number of students

employed in parks this summer will be somewhat less than they were last year. In

fact, the budget for the hiring of students in our entire summer program is down

from some 200 and a little last year to approximately 175 students. So it might

be, in the entire Tourism Department including the ferry service, the parks, our

wildlife division, our tourist chalets, there may be a reduction of some thirty

to forty positions this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the

House to revert to Ministerial Statements to deal with a statement with respect

to National Tourism Week. I was delayed speaking at the Board of Trade today and

was unable to be here for that particular section.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave of the

House to revert to Ministerial Statements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister does not have leave and I

understand the report will be tabled.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Select Committee appointed to

draft a reply to the Speech of His Honour, The Lieutenant-Governor, I present a

report of the Select Committee as follows. To His Honour The

Lieutenant-Governor, Frederick W. Russell: May it please Your Honour, we the

commons of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative Session assembled beg to

thank Your Honour for the gracious speech with which Your Honour has addressed

the House. It is signed by myself, the Member for Terra Nova and the Member for

St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be received?

MR. ROBERTS: The report shall be received now, of course,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the report

shall be received now rather than tomorrow, carried.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to table the Report of the Tender Act Exceptions for

March and for April 1993.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism and

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague the

Member for St. Mary's, I guess. He was referring to terms of reference for the

Avalon tourism study. The terms of reference are now being drafted. The steering

committee is made up of representatives from six regions of the Avalon. They

include the Northeast, the Isthmus, the Northwest, Mount Pearl, St. John's, and

the Southern Avalon. They will meet in the very near future to finalize the

terms of reference and at the end of that the terms of reference should go to

tender before the end of June and the study should take approximately six to

eight months.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question

asked by the Member for Bonavista South on May 28. In his

preamble to the

question the member said in February, three months ago, there were 64,000

individuals on social assistance which represented a caseload of 31,000. His

question was: What is the caseload number of people on social assistance this

month and how many of them are able-bodied young adults who are unable to find

employment? It should be point out first that the number of people on social

assistance in February was 67,000 and not 64,000, as he said, which represented

a caseload of 31,904. For April, the last month for which statistics are

available, there were 68,148 individuals on social assistance representing a

caseload of 32,606, and 8613 of those individuals were able-bodied persons, 4556

of which are between the ages of eighteen and fifty years of age.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as forecast on Friday I ask if

you would be good enough first to call Order No. 3 which is Bill No. 1 and when

we complete that we will go on with Bill 3 which is Order 6 and No. 5 which is

Order 7.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, that would be Order No. 3, Order

No. 6 and Order No. 7.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, which I am about to introduce for

second reading, will be the most significant bill that I have introduced into

the House. Looking back over the past several years I have had the honour to

introduce into this House, on behalf of the government, some very significant

legislation. Four Budgets which set the tone for budgets across Canada, as this

government set the tone across Canada for financial restraint. Also bills which

preserved the integrity of the Public Service Pension Plan and the Teachers

Pension Plan which by now would have been much closer to bankruptcy and

legislation that guaranteed to credit unions their deposits to depositors and

strengthened the ability of credit unions to survive in the competitive world of

banking.

But far more important than that, Mr. Speaker, is this

particular Bill which I am about to introduce this afternoon having to do with

the prohibition of smoking in workplaces and public places. It is important not

purely for the content of the Bill itself but it indicates a whole new direction

on which we are about to embark in health care. We have in the past concentrated

largely in health care, on people who are sick. Now what we want to do is to

keep people from becoming sick because that is where it has to be.

In Canada we have a relatively good health care system. It is

not perfect, there are some who would think it is the best thing that ever

happened to mankind, it is not. It is true that when a person becomes sick

he/she may see a physician at no immediate cost to himself, it is paid from

taxes. He/she may be referred to a hospital which is supported by taxes and is

not a charge directly to the patient but one of the weaknesses in the Medicare

system is the fact that if medicine is prescribed than it comes out of the

pocket of the person unless one happens to be a senior citizen on guaranteed

income supplement, in which case that person pays only the druggist fee for

putting the pills in the package, and also for people on social assistance for

whom many of the medicines are prescribed free of charge. Also there are other

categories of people who are on private drug plans such as those which are

provided by the government to its own employees, but for a great number of

Canadians, particularly Newfoundlanders, those who are on low wages and who are

not in companies, the medicine must be provided and this causes great hardship

to people who have large medicine bills.

It is a weakness in the Medicare system in Canada and one

which I believe Canadians are going to have to address. I have asked our

officials here to work on this question to see if we can somehow devise a plan

by which people who have extraordinary medicine costs can somehow be helped.

That is only one aspect, the main thrust of this and other legislation which I

am hoping to be able to introduce - not only legislation but the direction of

health care - would be in the area of prevention of disease.

I am going to have quite a few words on the specifics of this

Bill on smoking. Smoking is an extremely serious cost to the health care system.

Over 700 people in Newfoundland die each year from smoke related diseases, from

cancers of various types, from heart and stroke, from emphysema, from other

serious diseases. It is not only smoking, smoking is serious and this Bill will

deal with it but I want to set the tone, there is alcohol as well. Alcohol is a

poison out there in the system. In this Province alcohol is available more than

in any other province in Canada, except perhaps the Province of Quebec. There

are forces at work which would make it even more available if they had their

way. We have to be extremely careful, because of the severe consequences of

alcohol and its consequences in the battering that occurs, in the loss of work,

in the terrible habits that are accumulating, and I suppose virtually every

family and every community in this Province is affected. I believe we have not

only to war against smoking, but we have to go to war against the

over-availability of alcohol.

A third item which we must concentrate on in prevention is

the whole question of fitness. My hon. friend, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and fitness, I guess, mentioned the other day that this was Fitness Week. We

have to spend a lot more time encouraging people to be physically fit and to

exercise. Because Newfoundlanders are basically a plump people. Some people say

we're all a little bit too plump. There are other words of describing that. It's

part of the problem we have. We are not as fit as we should be physically.

These three things add to the burden of the health care

system. It makes people sick and they end up in hospital. They end up going to

the doctor. The doctor puts in his bills. We pay $134 million a year to doctors

in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: No, for a variety of things. Secondly -

MS. VERGE: That's only to MCP.

DR. KITCHEN: Pardon?

MS. VERGE: That's only to MCP. That doesn't count what

you pay (inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Fair enough. Exactly right. Then there's our

food. I had occasion to meet with dieticians, not recently. The theme of their

conference was trying to get people to eat food that was appropriate. That

didn't make them have heart and stroke and other problems that lead to various

forms of disease.

The other point I want to stress is the question of early

diagnosis as well. The night before last I met with the Canadian Diabetic

Association, Newfoundland branch. I didn't realize, I'm new to the health care

system, don't know an awful lot about it, I'm finding out a lot - that there are

over 1 million diabetics in Canada. They tell me that for every diabetic that's

known there's at least one who doesn't know he has the disease. Diabetes is a

disease for many people that can be controlled. If it's not controlled it can

end up with pretty dire consequences. They were saying that in Newfoundland

there's probably more than one in two not diagnosed. I regard that as a very

serious question. That we don't even know who's sick. Who's at the beginning of

sickness. So I believe early diagnosis is important.

Last night the hon. Members for Ferryland and St. John's East

attended the candlelight ceremony for AIDS. It's always a very sad situation

there, to see all of those people, to remember all those who died of AIDS and to

think about those who have AIDS and those who might get AIDS. I looked at the

statistics. Last year I think we identified - the last calendar year, 1992 - six

people with having HIV. This year up until now, up until May 14, we've diagnosed

eight. They tell me: we don't know who are HIV positive, because most people

don't bother or don't know and they don't get tested.

That's a very serious question. Because if a person knows he

has HIV he can take steps to protect other people. Not only that, he can

probably take steps to protect his own health from deteriorating as rapidly as

it otherwise would. The whole question of early diagnosis has to be looked at

too, and I think we have to take these points extremely seriously.

Basically I believe we have to encourage people to take more

responsibility for one's own health. In Newfoundland, it's not only that we have

been dependent on Ottawa that people tell us economically we are in a state of

dependency - but I believe in health care we too are in the state of dependency.

We depend on the health care professionals to tell us what to do. What do I do,

doctor? What do I do, nurse? What do I do? I do not know why it is that we

cannot find out for ourselves what we should be doing in most cases - and there

are people who do not see doctors very often because they take responsibility

for their health, and I believe we, as individuals, have to take more

responsibility for our own health, and we have to have the wherewithal and the

knowledge to be able to handle that more carefully. There has to be an end to

this dependency on the formal health care system of running to the doctor with

every sniffle and cold, because we are over-dependent.

Another thing we have to do in health care, as part of this

general thrust we are trying to make through health, is to move away from the

institutionalization of people, and we have been doing that far too much. We are

about to create community health care boards. As soon as the House closes we

will get at it. Hopefully we may be able to get at it before, but it is hard to

do things that take careful thought while the House is in session and many

things are happening with all the committees of government and so on.

These new boards, I believe, should be under the control

largely of the individual, of people, of individuals whose health is affected.

There should be health care professionals involved, I am sure, but most of the

people, I believe, on the health care boards should be those people who take

responsibility for their own personal health and who represent their

communities.

I was privileged not long ago to go down to Ferryland and see

there a health scheme by which a committee of the community - it was chaired by

the hon. the Member for Ferryland for two years, until he left it to engage in

other worthwhile pursuits, so they have a new Chairperson down there now - but I

was very impressed with what the committee was doing, and the way they were

interacting with nurses and health care nurses in the area, and having meetings

and trying to get people to take responsibility for their own health. I believe

our community health care boards should be built, to some extent, on that model,

to as large an extent as possible, so that the people of Newfoundland are

concerned about health - not just the people who work in the health care system

and are paid by government in hospitals.

The other point I want to make is that we have been putting

people into nursing homes. A few years ago, as soon as a person hit the ripe old

age of sixty-five, they said: I have done my share. I am going to take my

suitcase and walk into a nursing home; or, maybe a son or daughter suggested:

Father, get out of your house. I need it. Go out and get in a nursing home.

Whatever it was, we saw a lot of people walking away from their homes and

walking into nursing homes, and the cost of running a nursing home is becoming

very, very great. We have built three nursing homes in the past several years -

past last year. Say they cost $8 million each roughly. We had to borrow the

money for that. Eight million dollars borrowed, at 10 per cent roughly over a

period of time, is $800,000 in interest we have to pay each year, just for the

building. You divide that by forty beds and you get $20,000 a bed every year

while that is open. That is without anybody being in it. That is even if you

keep it open it costs that much just to pay the money that we borrowed to build

it. Then you put another $50,000 or $60,000 to operate it, depending on the

level of care, and you are running into a pretty high priced facility - which

should be available for someone who needs it. I agree. I am not quarrelling with

that, but what I am quarrelling with is this whole question of trying to

institutionalize people. I believe we can provide home care a lot more cheaply

than that, and perhaps better care too. Maybe we can. Maybe it is better than

just living in an institution.

The other thing that is happening, too, and we should be

encouraging, is the - what I am taking about is the redirection of health care

dollars from institutionalized, professionalised health care - not away from

them - we have to look after people who are sick. I am not denying that, but

what we have to do is try to prevent people from becoming sick, and when they do

become sick perhaps we can provide for care in their own home or in their own

communities as much as we possibly can.

In hospital care, too, we have made many changes in the past

few years. Now people go to hospitals for very short periods of time. I remember

years ago I was in the hospital and it took a year to do what they had to do to

me.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they still did not get it right.

DR. KITCHEN: That is it exactly. I remember we were there

and they would do whatever they had to do with you then you took weeks and weeks

getting better before they discharged you. You were not particularly sick toward

the end of it but now that is not the way it is. People who are in hospital now

are there for two or three days, or a week, and while they are there, except for

maternity which is not a sickness, apart from those most people who are in

hospital are extremely sick and that means that the stress on the nurses and the

stress on the medical people is much greater than it was a number of years ago

when some of the patients were pretty well better and some were sick for a brief

period of time and were in hospital a long time.

What is going on in institutions now is very different from

what was going on a number of years ago. What I am saying is that the whole

health care system has to change, and one of the major changes that I would like

to see introduced, and I am bringing in now is this Bill, and this I hope will

be the beginning of a whole series of things which we can bring forward to

change the health care system from a sick system to a wellness system, where we

concentrate on keeping people well, and that is not going to be easy. I tried to

get a few hundred thousand dollars diverted from this. We have a health care

budget of pretty well $900 million. That is roughly what the health care budget

is in this Province. I tried to squeeze $200,000 or $300,000 out of health care

for prevention but I could not do it. I will do it next year though, I guarantee

you. There will be nobody go across my budget next year. We have our priorities

in place and we are going to do it. There is going to be prevention and even in

the meantime we are going to try to gather together a few dollars to try to move

forward in this question of prevention.

Now, I do not know if I need to go over the evils of smoking

but we must take into account the very serious nature of the effects that

smoking have, not only on the person who smokes. I do not even believe that a

person should have the right to smoke and I tell you why. It is not a matter of

human freedom but if a person smokes and makes himself sick and has to end up in

hospital and we have to take our taxes to keep that person healthy there is

something wrong there. Should a person have that right? Should a person have the

right to destroy his health and the rest of us pick up the cost? I do not know

whether we should or not. It is a question to ask. It is not only the effect on

the individual but it is also the effect on the people who are in the vicinity

and who have to pick up the secondhand smoke.

There is evidence that the secondhand or environmental smoke

that comes from a cigarette laid on an ashtray, the smoke trickling up, the kind

of combustion that takes place there, maybe even more serious, that smoke may be

even more deleterious to health than the smoke that is inhaled through a filter

and exhaled. That is a very serious thing and the smoker is hurting not only

himself, or herself, but also the family. Can you imagine puffing smoke at

children? In politics at one time it was always called the back smoke-filled

room. How many hours, days, weeks, and months have I spent in the smoke-filled

rooms of politics. It is a wonder we are here today.

I saw a video not long ago taken when a woman was in hospital

and she was getting an ultrasound. She was pregnant and the ultrasound had to

with the child. She was in bed, they were taking the ultrasound, and it was

hooked up to a television monitor and the husband was there; she was not the

smoker but he was and we could see the child's heartbeat inside the woman, you

could see the heart, you could see it actually the way the television had it

rigged out, you could see the beat, beat, beat, so he lit a cigarette, inhaled

and exhaled in the way that you would, and the baby's heartbeat stopped. I do

not know how long it stopped but you could see it stop and that kind of threw me

for a loop, that the second hand smoke to a child, an unborn child, to a fetus,

is scary, it is really scary. This whole question of smoke, I believe it is one

of the most serious things that has affected people and we have to do something

about it, so I have no hesitation in bringing in this Bill that would restrict

smoking in the workplace and in public places to provide for a safer and

healthier environment.

I note that some other provinces have this, but not very

many; we will be amongst the first in Canada, I do not know if that is

meaningful or not. In Ontario, they do have

an act to restrict smoking in

workplaces, and in Quebec

an act respecting the protection of non-smokers in

certain places, and in Manitoba,

an act to protect the health of non-smokers,

and I believe one of the Atlantic provinces has also introduced or is about to

introduce some anti-smoking legislation. We will be right up there and I believe

it is important for us to start showing some leadership in the field of health,

and I have no hesitation in bringing this Bill in and, there is another bill

coming forward, Order No. 9 here, which will be respecting the control of the

sale of tobacco to miners and there are other things as well.

I would like for this Province to be amongst the leading

provinces of Canada in taking firm steps to curb this terrible health hazard of

smoking. I know it is difficult. You cannot condemn I guess, the person who is

smoking, I cannot see how we could condemn the person, neither do I know how you

can help people give it up. I am open to suggestions. Should we fund the patch,

for example? I do not know whether we should or not; I have raised that

question: should we fund the patch, the government? They say: well you know, if

a person gives up smoking they save so darn much money that they do not need a

few extra bucks to buy the patch, but I do not know. I do not know how you could

help people -pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Probably - but in any event, what we want to

do with this Bill now, is to, if it gets through second reading, I would like

then to have it referred to a committee over the summer, so that the various

people who are affected, the workplaces and the public places, can have some

input into this committee and then in the Fall, in the Committee of the Whole

House, we can make any adjustments that are necessary in the Bill. I would like

to have this publicly discussed so that it can be fixed up. We do not want to

impose unnecessary hardship on businesses that are struggling to try, but at the

same time, we are determined to protect the health of people in this Province.

The cost to hospitals of having people in with smoke related

illnesses is about $60 million a year; $60 million a year that does not include

physicians fees, that does not include time lost from the workplace, that does

not include the effects on asthmatics and people with emphysema who are

absorbing second hand smoke, nor on performance as well, so that the whole

effects of smoking on society, the costs are, I would not say astronomical but

they are extremely high, and in a Province such as we are, we have great

budgetary constraints, where we cannot really do what we want to do, I do not

believe we should be spending money on things that can be prevented.

If we can prevent people from getting sick, then we do not

need as much money in the health care system, and I would dearly love to give

back to the Minister of Finance, $60 million a year and say: boy, I do not need

it, we are all healthy here now, we have given up smoking. We do not drink

anymore very much, and here is another $50 million, and not only that, we

exercise all the time and here are a few more dollars and in fact we can cut

back on the health care system immensely. I look forward to that time when we

have a healthy bunch of people in this Province and we can - I won't say shut

down the health care system. But we can collapse it, we can make it smaller. I

believe every health care professional whom I've talked to about this is very

enthusiastic about this, even though they make their living from sick people.

Yet most physicians, the physicians and the nurses, are all enthusiastic about

this legislation. I commend it to you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure to

rise and speak positively about any legislation that's going to enhance the

standards of living and affect in a very positive way people's lives.

It's well established by all associations pertaining to

health matters. One specific one here, the American Heart Association, in its

magazine Circulation indicated that: environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS as it's

called, is a major preventible cause of cardiovascular disease and death. In

fact, the AHA - the American Heart Association's council - went so far as to

urge the elimination of all exposure to nonsmokers to ETS. I know that's going

to a fairly strong extreme. But when you look at the costs that are being

incurred in fighting that, and the affect it's having on other people's lives,

other than the people who are doing the smoking and inflicting the cause, we

have to look very seriously whether the measures here in this legislation, this

Bill, have gone far enough.

In fact, it goes on to say that AHA released back in 1992 -

and this November of 1992 - I read it in the Mayo Clinic health newsletter that

I've been subscribing to and reading for several years, and other medical

articles too. They went on to say: the risk of death due to heart disease is

increased by 30 per cent among those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, at

home. It could be much higher exposure in the workplace where higher levels of

ETS have been found to be present.

If you look at that increased risk alone just from this

environmental tobacco smoke, has caused 40,000 cardiovascular related deaths in

the Unite States alone, in addition to almost another 5,000 in lung cancer. So

if you equate 45,000 deaths, just looking at the increased risk of ETS, if you

put that on a scale in Canada, where there's a nine or ten to one usually ratio

in numbers, and if you could equate the same here in Canada, we have between

4,000 and 5,000 deaths that would be directly attributed to the increased risks

associated with environmental tobacco smoke. That is very significant and enough

to very seriously consider taking some drastic steps to curb second-hand smoke

and curb smoking in general in public places.

In another

article it said: cigarette smoking is the leading

cause of preventible premature deaths in middle-aged people. In fact, more than

80 per cent of deaths from coronary heart disease and about two-thirds from

cancer are the causes of people who are sixty-five and over, in fact, where it

has a more profound affect upon their lives. Because usually they're not in the

situation where they can combat these specific diseases and they're not usually

in the same form of health as the people who are much younger.

Male smokers, for example, have twice the death rate in this

group as those who smoke as those who don't; for women, it's 1.8 times. When you

look today there's an increasing number of women smoking today and starting at a

much younger age. The affects are going to be even more pronounced in the

future. You look at cigarette smoke, for example. There are about 4,000

chemicals alone in cigarette smoke. Imagine, 4,000 chemicals. Some of these

chemicals are poisonous. There's DDT found in cigarette smoke, there's

formaldehyde, there's arsenic and various other compounds that are very

dangerous to people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Carbon monoxide, of course, and the

incomplete combustion of that itself, and all the related particles, is causing

- inhaling into people's systems in secondary smoke - very serious problems in

innocent, unrelated people to cigarette smoking.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never smoked, did you Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I gave up smoking when I was thirteen.

That's when I got sensible.

Out of these 4,000 chemicals which are found in smoke it has

been estimated that 70 - 90 per cent in that range, from different studies, are

retained in the human lungs and some of these in minute amounts. Traces may not

have a very significant impact at an early age but it is mostly the accumulation

of these over a period of time that have serious impact. Surely one, two or a

whole combination of these, with time, will have a very serious effect upon the

health of ordinary people. Very much unaware, people who have never smoked

themselves are now being the subject of increased cost to our medical system and

poor health because other people are continuing to smoke.

There are a few other points here. I read in an

article on

advertising a few very interesting things on advertising. Research was done over

a twenty-eight year period on ninety-nine publications. They found that those

publications that have advertisers for smoking had thirty times the chance that

they would not carry an

article related to smoking and the ill effects. For

every 1 per cent increase in advertising revenue that came into these magazines,

there was three times the chance that they would not carry an

article adverse to

smoking. In other words the big tobacco companies are buying their way into the

minds of people across this country and across the United States. I think it is

a sad commentary when people, journalists and magazines, are depending upon the

sources of revenue for something that is having an adverse affect upon peoples

lives and it is an area which we have to do something about. It is estimated

that $3.27 billion was spent on advertising in 1988 alone. In 1988 there was

$3.27 billion spent, just in one particular year. If you break that down, that

comes to $100 per second spent on advertising on the use of cigarettes, tobacco

and other related products. That is not counting other related drugs to

cigarettes.

So, if we look today, here in the legislation that is

introduced here in Bill No. 1, "An Act Respecting A Smoke-Free Environment In

The Workplace And In Public Places In The Province". I think it is a bill which

is long overdue here in Newfoundland and I support it enthusiastically. In fact,

as I said, I think we should go a little bit further supporting it but I have

some great reservations in just legislation alone in bills. I have seen so many

bills and legislation go through, nothing at all is done with enforcement. We

are seeing it all around us. We see garbage thrown out of cars, it litters the

roadside, beer bottles being thrown out because of the anti-drinking laws and

still they pollute the countryside with beer bottles. You can walk every second

day around the roadsides and collect beer bottles because we are not focusing on

the real problem. The real problem is enforcement and there are fines there in

the system, it is useless to have fines in the system if we are not going to

enforce them. It is better to enforce a ten dollar fine 1,000 times than have to

enforce $100,000 fine once. We have to get it through to the authorities and put

extra pressure on the public, upon the enforcement officers to take the steps

that are going to have a significant effect in curbing the violations of the

system.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, authorities, your ears perked up

there.

MR. SULLIVAN: I apologize for waking up the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, we will put you back to sleep soon

enough.

MR. SULLIVAN: Peter Fenwick - I will send you over his

article a little later but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Getting back to the nature of the Bill, I

think it is important that we do, and very seriously, that we do take steps to

enforce this regulation. I have great concerns in this Bill, that when this Bill

is passed, and I have every confidence that it will be - there is a

responsibility here placed upon an individual and a responsibility placed upon

an employer and it is the employers responsibility to see that the law is upheld

within that person's premises. Now, it also gives the authority to the employer

to have a restriction completely on smoking in that person's premises too,

because the Bill says it 'may' - a person 'may' designate - so in other words

there is no compulsion on the employer to designate at all. That is fine. I do

not have a problem with that, but if somebody was in a lounge and is restricted

to the one-half where you can smoke, or 20 per cent where you can smoke, and he

walks up to the bar with a cigarette, the employer may be responsible for

enforcing that, and therefore that person could be convicted for something over

which he does not have fair control.

I know when we get into debate in committee there is an out

there from a legal point of view in that Bill also, for the person where he

would not be charged. He has to reasonably be able to control. I guess there is

an avenue out there, but I think we have to put the greatest burden upon the

abuser of the system - not the one who just lets the system be abused. I think

it is very important that the penalties be in line with the seriousness of the

abuse in the system. I am sure that is what the minimum/maximum things are

proposing to do.

We have, up in our area, as the Minister of Health is well

aware - he attended a function just last Wednesday, I believe, up in Calvert -

the primary health care committee that was established just three years ago, in

line with the World Health Organization, and with the support of Health and

Welfare Canada, and with $170,000 initially per annum funding from the

provincial Department of Health, established a primary health care project that

is being pioneered in my district in Ferryland, and takes in part also of St.

Mary's - The Capes district and Trepassey area, and a similar project going on

in Denmark.

I had the privilege of being the Chairperson of that for two

years. Upon being elected to the House last June I resigned from that, and

extensive work was done to improve the lifestyles and the health of people

within the area combined, and that is roughly 8,500 people on the Southern Shore

from St. Shotts down to Bay Bulls. In that we have identified, through various

interviews - hundreds of interviews and so on - the analyses of the interviews

were compiled, and they identified cardiovascular related diseases as being one

of the major problems in our area. Most people think that smoking and lung

cancer is the first association they strike, and a lot of people fail to realize

that lung cancer is only one of the adverse effects of smoking. It is not the

number one cause of disease and cost for people who smoke. The number one cause

is heart related diseases of a cardiovascular nature, and people who may not be

in as good physical health as they normally would have the problem compounded

with smoking. We found that smoking was a problem, but it is one that is very

difficult to really measure in concrete terms, especially over a short haul.

We have been successful in changing the lifestyles and the

views and thinking of people over the past three years. People have taken a

greater care about their health. I have soon more nonsmoking signs on doors in

houses than I ever saw in my life. I have seen people out doing their daily

walks, into those weigh-in clinics, going down just every Wednesday in some

areas and weighing in, in their own privacy, and keeping their own little score

cards, and picking up information on diets and various other things that would

improve and change their lifestyles and help their health in the long-term. That

has crept into the system there. It has crept in in a very positive way, and it

is a way, even though Health and Welfare Canada have Dr. Ross and his team of

psychologists doing an evaluation, the results really cannot be seen - the full

impact - in a short-term. The effect of this and its continuation is going to be

seen in ten, fifteen, and twenty years, so we have to spend money today to

improve our lifestyles in the future.

That is as important with health as any other area - to have

proper planning. We have to make an investment today to reap a benefit, or our

cost for health care through hospitals and through caring, through out-patient

clinics all over this Province, is going to reach an astronomical level, if it

is not, at the moment, as the Minister of Health indicated. It is close to that

level. It is going to reach astronomical levels if we do not do something about

it now to try to work on an education and a prevention process and change

people's way of thinking. That is where the problem is lying, and I think we are

failing today. We are failing today within many of our schools where young

people are, where people get into a certain way of life. We have to focus a very

intensive education program on smoking within the schools. I had the opportunity

at a school where I taught to monitor that over a period of time. We had very

few male smokers in the school where I taught. Very few. In fact, twice as many

female smokers as male smokers, but the percentage was very low compared to the

rest of the Province. Maybe because the staff at one time had eight people who

smoked and they all gave up smoking over a period of a number of years. Your own

way of thinking, your own lifestyle, and I guess it streams right out in society

and the classroom and everywhere, it has an affect I think. I had the

opportunity to teach science and biology in particular, in chemistry, and I had

the opportunity to be able to deal with it in some ways under various topics the

ill effects of these.

I think we've got to develop - maybe the Minister of

Education, through some program through our school systems. Because it's

difficult - it's never too late to change. Even when you're sixty-five and give

it up, the affects are very pronounced too. It's well documented that a person

can, over the period of a number of years, the ill affects of smoking can

diminish. But we have to start it in the beginning. We have too many people

we're trying to get away from the smoking habit when we shouldn't have that

problem. We should be keeping people from ever getting into the smoking habit.

I think it's very important that we treat our health

seriously. This is a small step. It's a small but important one. I won't get

into too many specifics at this time. We have an opportunity to do that in the

Committee there, and there are a few I want to comment on in a little more

detail. I reiterate again, we cannot underestimate the importance of enforcing

legislation on a bill that's brought in. It has no merit whatsoever if we don't

do something about it and we don't have the resources to enforce it. Because a

bill is passed here and it sits on a shelf. It has no significance to the

outside public. We've got to do it. I know it's to come into affect I think in

one year from the date in which it receives royal assent. That should give us a

period of time to be able to properly inform the public and prepare them for I

guess the consequences.

With that I conclude. I think this government has got to

accelerate the pace at which they are dealing with the health care problems of

this Province, or we're going to have a lot higher per cent of our budget

dealing with health care. Especially here in a province that's diminishing and a

lot of people are leaving our Province. The healthy people are leaving our

Province. The people who are leaving to go to work are leaving our Province

here. People who are not working, and the elderly and so on, who need care,

they're the people who are here. The cost per capita of caring for these people

is becoming, I guess - reaching extremely high levels. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take pleasure in

joining with my colleague, the Member for Ferryland and the Official Opposition

health critic, in voicing support for this Bill to outlaw and limit smoking in

workplaces and public places.

The Wells government took the lead in banning smoking in

provincial government buildings and I commend them for their leadership in that

respect, and for their initiative in putting forward this Bill. I have been a

harsh critic of the Wells administration and I've said on more than one occasion

that at least there's one good thing this government has done. That has been to

ban smoking in provincial government offices. Prior to the ban of smoking in

Confederation Building, let me tell you I suffered through many Cabinet and

caucus meetings at which the majority of my colleagues smoked. Now in those days

we had windows that could open, so at least I got some relief by opening the

windows. Nowadays most of this building is hermetically sealed, so it's even

more important now that smoking be banned.

I listened with interest to the speeches of the minister when

he introduced the Bill, and of my colleague. They're two of the best speeches

I've heard in this Assembly for quite some time. The minister talked about the

need for a fundamental change in our government health care delivery. He

advocated re-orienting the system so that there is much more emphasis put on

preventing illness and promoting wellness. This is a pet concern of mine which I

have spoken about in the minister's hearing a number of times before. Last

December during our all-night sitting between the hours of 2:30 and 4:30 in the

morning the minister put forward his bill to authorize the Cabinet to set up

regional community health boards. Now, that is a bill that excited me but I

pointed out weaknesses in it. It is simply a shell of a piece of legislation

because it does not require the Cabinet to do anything. It empowers the Cabinet

to set up one or more regional community health boards but enables the Cabinet

to continue to do what it has been doing, which is nothing.

The government announced an intention to set up regional

community health care boards over a year ago and the previous minister, the

current Minister of Education, last Spring used to hold up a circle chart

showing the responsibilities that would be assigned to the regional boards and

bragging that the government would have the first such board, the one for

Western Newfoundland, in place by the Fall, but in fact, Mr. Speaker, nothing

has happened. The new minister seems to have abandoned the circled chart and we

do not have a regional community health board for Western Newfoundland.

However it is done we have to find ways to put more emphasis

on promoting health. We have to help people change their habits so they exercise

more, eat better, and take more responsibility for their own health. The

minister's budget is the largest of any department of government. The Estimates

which we have before us now call for Department of Health spending of $875

million. Now, the bulk of that is slated to go into institutions, physicians and

drugs, and a minuscule portion of it is set aside for community health, for

education, and for positive preventative programs.

Under the category of community health there is a $26 million

spending forecast so we have roughly $25 million for community health out of a

total health budget of $875 million. We are talking less than 3 per cent of the

provincial Department of Health spending going into community health and less

again going into promotion, advertising services to prevent illness. One of the

challenges then is to address that imbalance, to boost the education and

prevention effort, and lessen the treatment required.

Our health system is complicated. The federal government has

a critical role in providing funding and the federal government, through

legislation, has attached strings to the funding it gives the provinces, so any

fundamental change in our health system is going to require co-operative effort

by the federal and provincial governments. Mr. Speaker, we have no choice but to

change. The system we have, which offers many advantages, is simply too

expensive and the challenge is to find ways to reform the system to retain the

advantages but re-orient it in such a way that in the future Canadians will be

able to afford a good health care system.

So far we have heard politicians talk about the problem. I

suppose that is the a step. There has been some mention of co-pay or user fee,

but, Mr. Speaker, charging patients really is not addressing the fundamental

problem. It seems to me, we have to look at the essence of the system we have.

We have a system that is physician controlled, physician driven; physicians,

doctors, have a virtual monopoly over the most important services and physicians

are in control of treatment, of tests and of institutional care and of

prescription of drugs. Physicians are pretty much in control. The Minister of

Health and his staff are not in control. The hospital and nursing home

administrators are not in control, all these people have important policy and

administrative responsibilities, but when you get right down to it, it is the

physicians who are making the decisions that affect the spending of the bulk of

public funds for health.

The physicians, really are not accountable, so one of the

basic challenges is to find ways to make physicians accountable, to provide a

positive reward system for physicians caring for patients in ways that will

promote positive behaviour and individual responsibility and, Mr. Speaker, I

think it is time for us to examine the monopoly that physicians enjoy. Is it

really necessary for physicians alone, among health care professionals, to have

the power to provide as many services at public expense as they do? MCP, our

Medical Care Commission, does not pay for nurses to provide services to

patients, does not fund nutritionists to give diet counselling, does not fund

chiropractors to give services to patients. Now in some instances, Mr. Speaker,

upon physician referral, some other health care professionals may recover the

cost of their services from MCP, but again, it comes back to the physicians

being in control.

The Southern Shore Community Health Program that both the

minister and the Member for Ferryland talked about, seems to me to be a step in

the right direction. I was glad to hear the minister speak about it because

somebody suggested to me recently that the provincial government's commitment to

that program may be diminishing. I do not know the details of the results of the

program, I listened with interest to my colleague but I was involved in some

early discussions among the ARNN and representatives of the World Health

Organization and people in Denmark, who had operated a similar program, and it

seemed to me that the model offered many advantages.

I was glad to hear the minister say that in engendering more

self-help, more individual responsibility for health, we have to get people

exercising more and eating better. He talked about the significance of the

provincial government fitness programs, referring to programs of his colleague -

that would be his colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs -

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the government has significantly cut funding for those

programs for fitness and recreation programs. Now there may be room to economize

there, I am not saying that, but the words of the Minister of Health and the

actions of the government in budgeting for Municipal and Provincial Affairs

community recreation and fitness programs seemed to be inconsistent. I'd be

interested in hearing the Minister of Health discuss how better levels of

fitness can be achieved despite the cuts in provincial funding.

The minister asked rhetorically whether we shouldn't think

about funding the patch as a preventative measure, as a measure of getting

people to give up smoking. I jokingly retorted across the House - I don't think

the minister understood what I meant - that the government is presently funding

the other `Ps'. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in recent months have been

talking about the four `Ps'. The four `Ps' are: the pill, the pogey, the

package, and the patch. The government obviously are funding the pill, the pogey

and the package. So perhaps for the reasons the minister suggested it would be

worthwhile, it would pay dividends, for the government to fund the patch. Since

there's all kinds of research referred to by the minister, cited in more detail

by the Opposition critic, about the harmful effects of smoking, the cost to

people's lives and health, and the cost to taxpayers because of the need to

provide treatment for people who become ill as a result of smoking. If we could

cut down on the rate of smoking by making the patch more readily available then

perhaps that would be a wise use of taxpayers dollars.

The Opposition critic talked about the incidence of smoking

and a profile of people who are smoking, pointing out that there's been a rising

incidence on the part of women. Saying women and girls at younger ages have

taken up smoking. That's been a concern of mine. It seems to me that advertisers

and tobacco companies very cynically took advantage of the womens' movement by

linking in their promotional efforts smoking with liberation, smoking with

freedom, smoking with power.

Alcohol and beer companies have done the same thing. So what

we have now are many teenage girls and young women who have taken up smoking and

have gotten hooked - because after all, it is an addictive chemical, an

addictive substance - who've taken up drinking in a heavy way and are hooked on

it. Once you form those habits it's very hard to give them up.

It seems we have to find strategies for countering or banning

advertising by tobacco, alcohol and beer companies which has been so effective

in appealing to young people, and young girls in particular. We have to find

ways of assisting women as well as men in knocking the habit. There are probably

some different reasons why women are smoking compared to men. There may be some

biological or physiological factors that make it more difficult for some people,

women or men, to break the habit. We have to find ways of helping them.

I'll sum up my remarks on the content of the Bill by again

expressing support and praise for the government in taking a leadership role in

curbing the rate of smoking and doing away with smoking in workplaces and public

places so that nonsmokers will no longer be subjected to the same extent to

unwanted second-hand smoke. I share the concern expressed by my colleague about

enforcement. As my colleague said, there's not much point in having a good piece

of legislation if there isn't appropriate follow up and enforcement.

Finally, I'd like to raise a question about process. This is

a very important measure. The minister said at the top of his speech it's the

most significant bill he's had the privilege of introducing in this Legislature.

It is a measure that will affect virtually everyone in the Province. It will

affect very directly business people and owners of public premises. It will

affect every citizen who makes up the public, and I would suggest this is a

prime piece of legislation for referral to a legislation review committee.

I would not want to do anything to stall or delay, but since

the Bill now provides for its coming into force one year after Royal Assent, I

would like to suggest that we refer the Bill to a legislation review committee

for hearings and consideration over the Summer; come back and pass the Bill in

the Fall so that it can receive Royal Assent before Christmas, and have it come

into force this time next year - six months after Royal Assent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

I also rise in support of the Bill with respect to a

smoke-free environment. Mr. Speaker, I do not smoke. I have never smoked,

although I come from a family of twelve children and my parents, they all

smoked, except myself, so I will try to keep an open mind on this. From talking

to smokers, I thank God I do not smoke and I never smoked.

I would like to commend the minister on his attempt to deal

with the problem of smoking in the workplace and in public in general, in trying

to deal with the problems and costs for the health care system. Although I was

having supper with an individual the other night and he smoked - he has smoked

all of his life - and he put the argument forth that they do not really cause

that much trouble for the health care system because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not necessarily agree with the

argument, but he was saying that if a person started to smoke when he was

fourteen or fifteen, whatever the case may be, and he smokes all of his life and

ends up in hospital when he is fifty or sixty or seventy, with some disease, he

is after paying for his health care costs long beforehand, when you take into

consideration interest and whatever the case may be - but that is an argument

that he was putting forth, not necessarily one I agree with.

I was recently reading an

article on smoking, smokers in

general, or whatever the case may be, and I was surprised to find out that young

teenage girls are the biggest growing sector in the smoking area. I think we

need to educate these people more than we have been doing, with respect to

prevention and what it does cause down the road - the health hazards. With

respect to that and the environment, it is only this past weekend, when I was

out all day Saturday with a group of young people from Logy Bay, down Middle

Cove and Outer Cove, cleaning up our byroads - the pop bottles and snack boxes

and whatever the case may be - and I had a chance to speak with those

individuals after, and I think that is where we have to come from, to educate

them at a very young age, to know what the end result is down the road.

Being a nonsmoker, I will try to keep an open mind on the

concerns that smokers have, and nonsmokers. The negative effects that

second-hand smoke has on smokers has been studied to some extent, but I am not

sure of the conclusions yet. We hear all kinds of facts and figures thrown

around all the time, but it constantly changes from one day to the next, so I

will try to keep an open mind on that.

My biggest problem with smoking, personally - I never had a

problem with smokers' secondhand smoke - personally - I never asked anybody to

put out a cigarette, but as I get older I find that the places that it does

start to bother me is in restaurants and in supermarkets. You see people picking

up groceries, that type of thing, in supermarkets, having a lit cigarette. I do

not think it is the place for it, so we certainly should be looking at that

area. Today I believe that most smokers actually do respect the rights of the

nonsmokers, and I do not think they have any problem if you ask them to put out

a cigarette or anything like that.

I have some concerns with respect to the Bill itself, and I

know we are going to be reviewing it down the road, but the employer or the

owner does not have to provide a space. This Bill says an employer may provide a

space, but where? He may provide space outside if he so wishes. I notice now,

coming into Confederation Building or any public building, people are out on the

steps in the middle of Winter, smoking and lighting up cigarettes and having a

smoke, because they are addicted of course. Are we looking to cure one problem

and start another problem or are we going to have people smoking out on the

steps getting pneumonia and this type of thing because they have to have a

cigarette, so I think this is something which we have to be very careful of.

I believe that we can carry this too far, I have had occasion

to be in hospital recently, over the past couple of years and there is supposed

to be no smoking in hospital rooms. We have terminally ill patients in hospitals

and in private rooms or whatever the case may be and they are not allowed to

smoke. We can carry this a little bit too far, so we should look at that also.

There are going to be costs involved with respect to this, especially for owners

and the employers, to provide space if they so wish for proper ventilation and

that type of thing. If they do that there will be cost involved with renting. If

a company is renting space and he has to provide more space for non-smokers or

whatever the case may be, there will be costs involved there for so much money

per square metre or whatever the case may be. There may be costs involved with

owners having to construct a room or space for non-smokers. This would put a

burden of course on employers, on top of what has been there now with respect to

the taxes. So I am wondering, is there going to be any assistance for employers

or owners along that route?

Another concern which I would have, when you read the

legislation, is how far do owners go to enforce the regulations? Is it going to

be sufficient to go to an individual who is smoking in a non-scheduled area and

say: listen put out the cigarette please. Will that suffice? Will he be after

doing his duty when he does that or will you have to say - okay, ask, if he is

in a bar for instance, will he have to go to the bouncer and say: listen, this

person will not put out his cigarette, throw him out. That in itself will cause

problems. Also would he have to call the police? Where is it going to end? How

far along does the enforcement go? For my own interest, I was wondering, are

there going to be inspectors appointed for this? To inspect and check out

buildings from one end to the other, all over the Province? If there are going

to be inspectors hired, how many are going to be hired? What will be the cost to

the government? These are all factors which have to be looked at. If there are

no inspectors hired, how will the legislation be enforced or as some of the

previous speakers mentioned, can it be enforced? What is the point of bringing

in legislation if it cannot be enforced?

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up a lot of time with

respect to this legislation because I know it may possibly be referred to

committee or whatever the case may be put these are just a few of the concerns

that hit me right off, in just reviewing the Bill. There is also another one

there with respect to the fines for the employer or the non-employer. Now I

believe we are being legislated to death in a lot of cases, although I do agree

with this legislation. But the fines, from $500 - $5,000 for an employer or an

owner, this may be too stiff in my estimation. The people who should be hit, if

there is going to be anyone hit, with this legislation are the people who would

be violating the regulations.

So, if you are going to make stiff regulations it should be

with respect to the people who would be violating it but then again this could

be argued, everybody has rights or whatever the case may be, so we have to be

careful on that. I would like to say that I do support the intent of the Bill

and that I look forward to the Legislative Review Committee, possibly I may be

able to have some input there to address some of my concerns. I am sure as time

goes by we will be hearing a lot about this Bill from the general public and

especially the smokers, who it affects most. So, on that, Mr. Speaker, I will

end. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health speaks

now he will close the debate.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A number of points

were raised, I will not attempt to answer them all but I will certainly take

them under advisement. I am a bit concerned about the remarks made by the last

speaker, the Member for St. John's East Extern, on the one hand he is for the

Bill and on the other hand he is against it. I do not know if you know about

this one, about the girl who asked her mother if she could go swimming:

Mother may I go out to swim?

Indeed you can my daughter,

Hang your hat on a hickory limb,

But don't go near the water.

Now, that is like the hon. member, he is for in the spirit of

the Bill as long as we do not do anything about it. We must stamp out this

smoking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you recite that again.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, don't tempt him, no, don't tempt

him.

DR. KITCHEN: I appreciate the problems and this is why we

are introducing it gradually. I would prefer a much tougher bill as two other

members from the opposite side said, but we have to be reasonable about this. We

can put undue hardship on businesses and this is why we are giving them a whole

year to get their act in order, this is why we are saying `may provide' rather

than `must provide'alternate space, but at the same time, let no one think that

we are just introducing cosmetic legislation. This is serious legislation.

We must stop the deaths of over 700 people a year, through

smoke related illnesses and the impact that smoking has on other people. This

has to be stopped, otherwise we will never be able to afford to operate the

health care system, so we are serious in this matter, extremely serious.

Possibly, later on, we may be able to introduce more serious legislation. I

agree to that, legislation is not the only answer, there has to be a vigourous

education campaign. It has to be addressed in part to people in high schools,

that is a very important point and I think we will debate that more when we get

into Bill 9, when we focus on the raising of the level of purchase of tobacco up

to nineteen, because most people get hooked on nicotine in their early years. If

you do not smoke by the time you are twenty or twenty-five, the chances are you

would not be smoking at all, so people get hooked when they are young and they

stay hooked, this is the problem with the thing but that is for another bill.

One thing I want to comment on is the user fee question which

one of the members raised. We have other ways I think of controlling the overuse

of physicians services, than user fees. Right now, in the Province, we have a

joint committee of physicians and the Department of Health, and we have a capped

floored budget, a certain amount of money spent on physicians fees, that is what

it is going to be, and we have signed a five-year agreement and that five-year

agreement is in place for awhile, but what it does, is that physicians watch

physicians, and there is established - I do not know if it is fully established

now, but it is about to be established or it has been recently established by

the joint committee - a Physicians Review Committee, whereby, the practice of

what physicians do is monitored by other physicians and by MCP, so that anyone

whose practice is out of line can be talked to by this peer review committee,

and I think that is extremely important. I believe that will cut down the

overuse of physicians services, which maybe some physicians drift into when they

tell people to come back and come back and come back, and that may do more than

the institution of user fees, because what user fees would do basically, would

be to deprive people who cannot afford it, medical care.

People who can afford will still overuse, if they are in that

habit, if you want to see the doctor and you have a fair amount of money, it

does not matter if there is a five-dollar fee there, you can afford to pay it so

you keep going twenty times. It is the person who does not have the money that

you deprive, so what happens is that the abuse is not stopped, it is just that

the person who cannot afford to pay the fee is deprived, perhaps of badly needed

service. So I do not think we will be, I am not sure, but I do not think we will

be bringing in user fees because the experience has shown that it is not

effective in arriving at the goals to which it is supposed to.

Anyway, as far as the Southern Shore is concerned and the

experiment that was there, we are awaiting a report from the valuator and we

will look at it to see how it is going there. I think I will stop there, Mr.

Speaker, and move second reading of this Bill.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act Respecting A Smoke-Free

Environment In The Workplace And In Public Places In The Province," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (

Bill No. 1).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Minister of

Tourism and Culture has promised us that he will use not more than the hour

allotted to him, so could we call Order 6, Bill No. 3, Sir?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Department Of Tourism And Culture," ( Bill No. 3).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism and

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed

with a degree of pride and confidence that I stand to speak and introduce the

Act Respecting The Department Of Tourism And Culture.

As most people in the House know, this new department was

established on July 17 of last year, and it was a major platform in the

Strategic Economic Plan as put forward by the Premier and the government in June

of last summer. The new department saw portions and segments of other

departments coming together to form this new division known as Tourism and

Culture. The various areas that came together consisted of: Parks and Wildlife;

responsibilities for the arts and cultural centres; public libraries; Wildlife

division; the craft industry, or the cottage industry, as we commonly know it;

and other aspects relating to that, including Historic Resources and others.

The concept behind the new department is very simple. The

intent was to bring together all the various components that could be utilized

and developed in promoting our tourism industry in the Province, and to set out

with that a comprehensive plan whereby we could market each of those components,

instead of separately, we could do it together. The idea also behind the

department was to ensure that when looking to prepare a development plan that

would take us into the next century that the aspects built into the new

Department of Tourism and Culture would, without a doubt, build upon our

successes of the past but also allow us to look forward to the kinds of things

that we could do to enhance the tourism industry in our Province.

The tourism industry in Newfoundland is worth some $440

million annually. It currently consists of the employment of some 12,000 people.

Those 12,000 individuals are employed in some 2,000 separate companies

throughout the Province. It is the goal of the department in terms of working

with our partners in the industry to turn that $440 million industry into some

$800 million over the next ten to twelve years. Our intention is to do that by

systematically working together to build upon what we currently have. In doing

that we should not have any difficulties because of our partnerships and our

willingness to work together with other groups and other agencies to take that

$440 million industry that we now have, as I said, and to turn it into an $800

million industry over the next ten years.

There are many areas in which we hope to do that. I think one

of the most crucial ones we've been moving towards over the last number of years

is our sense of cooperation and our willingness to work with the federal

government on a number of subsidiary agreements that we have, but also in terms

of working with them in what we've been able to accomplish in our dealings with

ACOA. A lot of the facilities in our Province have been upgraded through funding

that has been provided by ACOA. I have to give them full marks in terms of their

endeavours within the tourism industry.

We also believe that over the coming years the best

opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador to achieve the kinds of dollars and

the new input that we're looking for from either international, and in

particular European dollars, can come through tourism by way of our promotion of

this industry. The Cabot 500 Corporation is now in place and we're going to see

with that a tremendous new thrust in our tourism development in the Bristol area

of England, but also in terms of England itself, Ireland and Scotland, by

encouraging those people to visit our Province and to come here and to be a part

of what it is that we are hoping to do for the Cabot 500 Corporation, which will

be in 1997.

We are also looking to build upon other aspects of our

industry, and that in particular being the Wildlife branch. We're very confident

that we're able to take our outfitting industry, that today is worth some $11

million, and build upon that as part of our adventure tourism over the coming

years. That's a package that we hopefully will be able to release to the public

in the next few months. Our adventure tourism package, in particular for the

outfitters, will see us working with outfitters in order to build upon again the

shoulder seasons. We believe that with the camps that are strategically located

throughout the Province we are able to convince our operators in the outfitting

industry to build yet another business for themselves, and that is during the

winter seasons.

We can do that by putting together tourism packages that will

allow people who are coming to take advantage of our Fall and in particular our

winter seasons to use everything from snowmobiles to cross-country skis to

visit, I guess, the hinterland of our Province. By getting into the interior of

our Province, by moving from camp to camp they are able to see and enjoy what we

have that is the beauty of our Province.

Under the new Department of Tourism and Culture one of the

aspects that we intend to work very hard on with the industry is the tourism

marketing approach to what we want to do in the Province. What we intend to do

is to establish in Newfoundland and Labrador a top of mind destination for

residents from the United States and Canada and other countries, who are seeking

in particular our culture and the historic as well as the recreational aspects

of our Province. We want to establish and implement programs tailored to

encourage also Newfoundlanders to see more of our Province.

As of today, as a matter of fact, we've just begun the Ours

To Discover promotion in our Province. That's a promotion whereby we work with

six other partners in this Province to promote tourism within our own Province,

to recommend to people in our Province to see more of what is Newfoundland and

Labrador. In particular, to make sure that people in our Province are aware of

the various festivals that are taking place this Summer. To take advantage of

the various events that are planned throughout the Province, and to encourage

them to visit as many parts of the Province as they can. To make sure that they

take the time to visit and tour the Viking Trail, which goes from Deer Lake all

the way through to St. Anthony and across to the Labrador Straits, where they

have an opportunity to visit not only Red Bay but to visit areas such as the

Point Amor lighthouse; and for me, what is probably one of the most

under-promoted and underrated sites in North America, and that is the burial

ground of a Maritime Archaic Indian on the Labrador Straits, the burial ground

of a twelve-year old boy who was buried there some 7,500 years ago.

These are the kinds of things that I believe we can carve out

a special niche. There is nowhere else in North America that we know of, a

burial ground that is some 7,500 years old. What we want to do is to encourage

people and historians and tourists to come from around North America to see

that.

In my own district, most people are not aware of the fact

that the only place in North America where guns were actually fired in the

Second World War in a real battle where people lost their lives took place on

Bell Island, where a number of ore carriers were sunk by a German U-boat during

the Second World War. The guns that are still there on the hill overlooking the

Tickle were fired back at the German U-boats in defence of the ore carriers.

Those are the kind of things that are a part of this 500 year

old history that we know to be Newfoundland and Labrador, so we want to build

upon those aspects, as I said not just in my own district but in other parts of

the Province. We want to make sure that the tourism planning and research branch

of our department is able to carry out the kind of work we want them to do. We

want to make sure that we are able to maintain strategic and proper planning. We

want to make sure that we have good solid research initiatives to ensure the

continued and co-ordinated development of all tourist and cultural services in

our Province. We want to make sure that they are in a position to evaluate the

kind of programs that are being offered to us by the free enterprise area. We

want to ensure that the planning and research division are there to work closely

with those that are looking to invest their own dollars in this industry to

ensure that they have the proper statistics and background and information that

they will need.

Mr. Speaker, the new Department of Tourism and Culture, as I

said, encompasses a number of different areas and one that we see a tremendous

amount of, not only hope, but a tremendous amount of opportunity for growth is

in the craft development or what we commonly refer to as the cottage industries.

We want to make sure that the mandate for this particular group which is to

develop, co-ordinate, and promote programs and activities is designed to not

only support for also to stimulate the individuals that are involved, the

companies that are involved, and, in particular, the associations that are

involved in the craft giftware and also the apparel manufacturing sectors that

make up the cottage industries or the craft industries in our Province. This

particular branch we are working with called craft development will ensure that

the marketing, design, and promotion of our crafts in this Province receive what

is without a doubt needed in terms of allowing them to establish themselves not

only in this Province but throughout North America.

For the first time this year the new tour guide that we are

offering, and we will send some 400,000 copies throughout North America over the

next twelve months, has a particular

section dedicated strictly to our craft and

our cottage industries. There are a number of pages in that tour guide that

specifically show and depict the kind of things that we are well known for.

Another initiative that we are taking through this department

this year will see the creation of, and the establishment of, display cases

within the tourist chalets that we have within the Province with one specific

intention in mind, and that is to focus on, depict, and display, the crafts that

have been produced in our Province in that given region. Now, it is not the

intention of the centres to sell the product but rather to have it on display

and to advise tourists where they can purchase those particular craft items in

that geographic region of our Province. The one in Deer Lake, as an example,

will not only promote that region but it will also promote the crafts and

handiworks that are produced along the Viking Trail and in Labrador. It will

tell the tourists where those items can be purchases and where they should come

from.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other aspects of the new Department

of Tourism and Culture is in our cultural affairs division. We intend to provide

through that division an overview and involvement in cultural activities both

inside and outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We intend to

ensure that whenever possible we are able to not only promote on our own stages

local talent, but we are encouraging any shows that are coming into our

Province, that intend to be a part of the cultural affairs division in terms of

the kinds of shows that we are putting on our own stages, we are insisting that

those groups that are coming in also employ, wherever possible - and we give

preference to those who can employ wherever possible - our own local talent. We

want to ensure that we give those people an opportunity to grow and be exposed

to some of the world-class talent that we are bringing to our Province. That is

happening on a regular basis and I am proud to say that last year we saw

probably an 80 per cent increase in that activity.

I am also very pleased to say that last year for the first

time the percentage of shows or concerts that took place on the stages of the

Arts and Culture Centre, for the first time was, in actual fact, in a higher

percentage using Newfoundland artists than ever before. Last year some 60 per

cent of the shows that were on the stages of our Arts and Cultural Centres

either one, involved local talent, or two, were entirely produced by local

talent. I think that is a major step forward to ensuring that we are not only

promoting the cultural industries for the sake of employment, but that we are

also offering a commitment that we are promoting culture in our Province for its

own sake - and that is something that we have to continue to do.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most exciting areas for this new

department is in the historic resources division. The mandate of that particular

division is to protect and preserve the historic resources of our Province and

to promote appreciation of these various resources. We also hope and intend to

co-ordinate the orderly development of the historic resources in our Province,

and do that through study and

interpretation. We intend to make sure that the

operation of our provincial museum network, our provincial historic sites, make

sure that some of the other programs we are involved in, such as archaeology,

environmental assessment - and included in that would be our continuing to work

with the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Foundation. That division, of

course, is made up of museums and historic sites and the technical services that

we offer not only to various groups across the Province but also that we offer

internally, and also on a national basis.

A number of people from the historic resources division have

spent sabbaticals from our department working in many parts of Canada, and in

particular in the national archives and in the national office of historic

resources for Canada, and they have been there for up to, in some cases a year

and more because of their technical background and the kind of background that

they are able to offer. Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the work they have done and

we are also proud of the work that we hope they can achieve for us now that they

are back with us and working in our own historic resources department.

In the formation of the Department of Tourism and Culture

last year, Mr. Speaker, or in the formation that we are looking to deal with

today in this Bill, we also saw the parks division come into its own. The

mandate of the parks division in the new Department of Tourism and Culture is to

administer, manage, plan and establish the various parks in the Province. We

want to also, through our parks division, manage our wilderness and ecological

reserves.

Mr. Speaker, in doing that, of course we always have to be

very mindful that we must operate and maintain a system of parks throughout the

Province that are beginning to once and for all meet the needs of the travelling

public. This year sees the completion of some five provincial parks, mainly

those that are tied to the gateway of the Province, and by that I mean people

coming through Port aux Basques or through Argentia. We now have some five parks

that are up to standard in terms of meeting virtually all the needs that any

tourist would want - the kinds of needs and services that traditionally we have

only seen in the national parks. We call them and refer to them as `comfort

stations'. By that I mean there is everything from the hot showers to the

washers and dryers so that people can wash their clothes and enjoy the comfort

of the park with all the proper facilities. That is also a part of what we are

trying to do. We want to be sure that the natural environment is protected and

that the physical and natural resources of each park are also protected. We want

also, wherever possible to educate and inform our visitors about the parks,

about their resources, and we want to initiate and administer the land

acquisition proceedings that are required to ensure that not only the parks we

have are protected, but that where possible and where needed further land can be

acquired and further land can be developed for that particular reason.

So, Mr. Speaker, our parks division is broken down into four

particular sections and they are, of course, the administration support, the

operations, the information and education, and also the planning and

development.

In a nutshell and probably in an overall view that is what

the new Department of Tourism and Culture is all about. I have covered virtually

all aspects of the new department for those who may not be fully aware of the

scope and size of the new department. The only one I really have not given the

kind of credibility I should have to are two other branches of the department

that I personally am most proud of because of the kind of work they have been

able to do over the last number of years. In many cases these two divisions have

probably been, I guess, the focal point of being the most aggressive in their

own way, and in some cases they have probably been various areas that we have

not given the kind of support we should have but are now beginning to do so, one

being the provincial archives and the other one being wildlife.

MS. COWAN: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, the provincial archives division

of the department has a mandate that is very basic and that mandate is to

collect, preserve, and to make available all records received from government

and also from private resources which have any bearing on the history of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador regardless of its physical form or the

characteristics of those records. I was very please about two to three months

ago to have received from Mr. Ian Reid the records and old newspaper clippings

as well as the records for the Reid Newfoundland Company, a company that was

instrumental in the development of the railway across this Province. In a

ceremony at the provincial archives building, at the Colonial Building some

months ago, Mr. Reid presented those historic documents to us. I am very pleased

to say that they are now in our hands and in the process of being catalogued so

that we will have them for posterity sake, but also for those who may one day

wish to review the kind of activities that the Reid Newfoundland Company were

involved in.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I guess the last division of this new

Department of Tourism and Culture is wildlife, and it is the one that is

responsible for so many aspects. Now, I know my hon. colleagues on the other

side believe that wildlife means Friday night on George Street but that is not

correct. The wildlife I am referring to is the wildlife that we have to manage

and the resource that we have in our Province. The mandate for our wildlife

branch is very simple. It is to maintain the ecosystem upon which wildlife and

our people depend, and to make sure that we provide for the humane and

sustainable use of that wildlife, and also to help establish and maintain a

social environment that is conducive to effective wildlife conservation. Now, I

have to tip my hat to this particular branch because in all cases they look at

the resource, the wildlife resource as truly a renewable resource and on many

occasions we have been asked to increase the hunt, be it for resident or

nonresident people. In all cases I must give full marks to the wildlife division

for one basic rule that they have and that is, if they intend to err, if they

intend to make a mistake, they intend to make it on the side of conservation

because, Mr. Speaker, we have to protect our wildlife for the generations to

come.

Another structure, Mr. Speaker, for that particular

department is very simple and very basic, it consists of the administration, the

protection, the research and management and also, Mr. Speaker, the information

and education. So, that, Mr. Speaker, is the new Department of Tourism and

Culture, one that I am proud to say today managed to introduce and be a part of

what is now National Tourism Week, which will take place all of this week. I

regret that I do not have a copy of my statement here because if I did I would

have an opportunity to recap each and every point but I will not do that, Mr.

Speaker, I will save that for my closing remarks.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here and move

second reading of a Bill - "An Act Respecting The Department of Tourism and

Culture". (Bill No. 3)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: Hear, hear! Well done, good department,

excellent minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand and

respond to Bill No. 3 - "An Act Respecting The Department of Tourism and

Culture".

Allow me first to say that I am very pleased with the new

department and I look forward to a new era for tourism and development for

Newfoundland and Labrador under it's guidance. I realize that the economic

benefit to Newfoundland and Labrador through tourism is tremendous, creating

12,000 jobs and bringing in revenues of $440 million. I believe that the future

will only improve on what we already have.

This week being National Tourism Awareness Week is very

important. The theme for this year is, `Tourism and the Environment' and I

encourage the minister in his department to work with the Minister of

Environment and Lands in her department because I believe that Tourism and the

Environment go together, especially here in Newfoundland. As we drive through

our districts and around our Province we have a major problem with garbage in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that even though we may have guidelines and

codes to try to improve on that problem, that enough emphasis is not placed on

it, Mr. Speaker, to try to solve the problem.

I am very concerned about my own district and the tourism

development in that area over the next couple of years. Several years ago our

area developed the terms of reference and selected a company to carry out the

study. We are not funded because the department had a larger plan for the Avalon

region including the St. John's and Mount Pearl Cities. Mr. Speaker, I

understand the regional aspect of tourism and that we all cannot have our own

little enclaves and sidelines to try to develop but we must look at the broader

picture. I am worried about my area and other parts of rural Newfoundland

getting lost in the shuffle especially on the Avalon Peninsula, that we may be

lost in the shuffle, Mr. Speaker, with the development of St. John's and Mount

Pearl and other areas.

I believe that we have as much or as more to offer as the

cities but we all must work together. We must make sure that the little guys do

not get lost in the shuffle. My district, and I am sure that I have heard other