April 30,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before recognizing the Opposition House Leader let me on

behalf of hon. Members welcome to the galleries today fifteen students from

Cabot Institute, here in St. John's, and fifteen students from Kelsey Institute,

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. And these students are accompanied by their instructors

Neil Moores and Mr. Peterson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if I might take a moment of the time of the House to

pay tribute to a couple of well known Newfoundlanders who recently have been

named to the Canadian Softball Hall of Fame. They have been recognized for their

achievements and accomplishments as builders. One is Duey Fitzgerald, who I am

sure is well known to all Members of the House. He was involved with softball I

think for at least twenty-three years, it is my information; as a coach, as an

umpire and as an administrator. He also has a keen sense of humour as everybody

would know. Included amongst his achievements was the fact that he was the first

ever Newfoundland umpire back in 1973 to umpire a Canadian men's softball

tournament, and that was in Quebec City.

The other gentleman is Vince Withers, also extremely well

known in the community and to Members of this House, who has had an amazing

involvement in softball for thirty-four years as an umpire an administrator, and

an official, among many of his achievements he is the co-founder for Softball

Newfoundland. He was the first Newfoundland umpire to umpire at a national

tournament, and that was at a senior women's tournament in 1972, and he has

served at the national level as well.

So I would like for the House and Your Honour on behalf of

the Members of the House to perhaps write a letter of congratulations. I might

add that I believe they join the only other Newfoundlander in the Softball Hall

of Fame who is a brother of the Member for St. John's South, I believe, Dee

Murphy. So I would like to send congratulations to these gentlemen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we too would like to be

associated with the remarks of the Opposition House Leader concerning Duey

Fitzgerald and Vince Withers. Both of these individuals, of course, are well

known not just in the immediate St. John's area, but throughout the Province

with their long involvement in softball, and other sports as a matter of fact,

both of them have been involved in community life, particularly in the sports

life of this Province for a long, long time. And this honour that is being

bestowed upon them, of course, is very much deserved and we would like to be

associated with those remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to on behalf of the

New Democratic Party -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, I can only recognize

him if he has leave of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to on

behalf of the New Democratic Party be associated with the congratulations of

these two gentlemen. Both Mr. Withers and Mr. Fitzgerald are very well known for

their activity in softball. It is the sport which has perhaps the most

participants of any sport in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and one

which has been growing rapidly over the last number of years. I know Duey

personally, as having worked with him at one of my first summer jobs at

Bannerman Park here in St. John's where we helped to coach and teach youngsters

in little league baseball, not softball. Both these individuals deserve the

recognition that they have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a quick and very short

question for the Minister of Education. Can the Minister of Education confirm

that six more career civil servants in the communications and publications

division of his Department have just been notified, I think on Friday, that they

are being laid off? Can he confirm that?

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

DR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a number in that division

have been notified in the last few days.

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

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

President of Treasury Board. Forty-five days after the Budget was brought down

we finally got the departmental salary details. The Minister and Premier have

both said publicly in this House that they needed that extra time to ensure that

all the adjustments resulting from the layoffs announced in the Budget were

made. Now, we find out that six positions eliminated in the Department of

Education just a few days ago are still included on Page 133 of the salary

details under communications and publications. My question to the President of

Treasury Board: what is the value of the salary details document? How can we

believe it? And, secondly, can the Minister confirm that this latest round of

layoffs in the Department of Education is in addition to the layoffs announced

by the Minister of Finance in his Budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all let me point out that in spite of the alarmist

statements by the Member opposite there is no new round of layoffs. Let me point

out that when the topic of salary estimates first came up I pointed out to

Members opposite that in order for the effects to be felt through the system,

and especially in terms of the temporary part-time people who are normally hired

during the Summer months and so on, that it would take quite some time for the

effect to filter through the system and this is the reason why the salary

estimates, in order to be 100 per cent accurate, could not be provided at the

time of the Budget. They could simply not be provided. Members opposite took the

position that that was a lot of nonsense, that we could have presented accurate

salary details at the time the Budget was presented, and totally rejected the

position I took that we needed time, the effects of downsizing and so on to

filter through the system, we needed time to be absolutely certain that our

salary estimates were 100 per cent accurate. Members opposite then decided to

use an obstructionist tactic. They said they would refuse to examine the

Estimates of the House until the salary estimates were prepared. I pointed out

at that time that we would hurry the salary estimates but that in fact there may

be some errors in the salary estimates because some positions may appear that

ultimately would not be there, or, the other way around, Departments are in the

process of dealing with their allocated budgets for the year and, Mr. Speaker,

it takes some time for the effect to be known. I would like to stress again the

strangeness of the position of Members opposite, on the one hand trying to

indicate that the salary estimates could have been done when the Budget was

being prepared, and on the other hand they are now saying, why did you not wait

longer until the full effect was shown? I wish they would make up their minds,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: It is too bad the President of Treasury Board

is not able to speak for himself. He is sitting that close to the Premier he has

to mouth the Premier's words. What the President of Treasury Board has just told

us is simply not going to wash with the public.

MR. BAKER: It is the truth.

MR. SIMMS: It is not the truth and that is the problem.

That is the entire problem with this President. Let me ask him this: is it not

true that really what is transpiring here is another massive assault on the

public service, on public service jobs? Is that not a fact, and is it not being

done in order to keep the Budget deficit at the $53 million as closely as they

can so as to avoid embarrassment about their projections as occurred last year?

Let me ask him this: since it is only six weeks since the Budget came down and

with forty-two weeks left to go in the fiscal year, will he confirm for me then

that Treasury Board has already asked the Department of Education to find

another $250,000 since the Budget came down? Can he confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could make the

blanket statement that everything the hon. Member has just said is incorrect, is

not true. I suppose that is perhaps the easiest way to deal with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know.

MR. BAKER: No. I said what the hon. Member said is not

true. I did not say "I do not know." I said what the hon. Member said is simply

not correct, not true, incorrect, however way you want to phrase it.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that in the Budget

estimates, each Department has been allocated certain salary guidelines. There

is an amount in the Budget for salary and Departments are supposed to live

within that amount for salary. This is not an additional cut, there have been no

orders gone out to make additional cuts. No, no, no.

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

MR. SIMMS: Final supplementary. I hope the words that the

President of Treasury Board just used do not come back to haunt him, and I

strongly suggest he check with his officials before he comes back to the House

and says "no, no, no." Because I can assure him it is a fact. I can assure him

it is a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Now I want to ask the President of Treasury

Board this: have any other Government Departments been asked to start trimming

once again from the budgets given to them just six weeks ago? And can we expect

other layoffs similar to the ones that we have just exposed that have occurred

now since the salary estimate details have been provided? And is this not all

again, as I said, a desperate attempt to avoid a repetition of last year's

Budget chaos? Is that not what they are up to?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Again, Mr. Speaker, there are a whole bunch of

"nos" that have to be said. And I do not know where the hon. Member is coming

from. I do not know how he can stand in the House and indicate to the public of

this Province that all of a sudden Treasury Board is now going through the

Departments and asking for more cuts, elimination of more positions and so on. I

cannot see how he can get away with saying that because it is simply not true.

He seems to indicate that he knows that this is going on. I challenge him to

prove that it is going on.

PREMIER WELLS: We are eliminating more cars.

MR. SIMMS: Speak for yourself, now.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of

questions for the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the Minister of Health

if he would, seeing that it has been two months since the Budget or just about

two months since the Budget was presented and we all know that the Budget

certainly did adversely affect, we believe in many ways, the health care system

in this Province, in fact, we think it was in a state of shock for at least a

short period of time.

Could the Minister give an update to this House and to the

people of the Province, as to any changes that have been made in the Hospital

Board plans, the individual hospital board plans. We are led to believe that

certain hospital boards in the Province have been upgraded, have been allowed to

keep some of their services, have had additional monies allocated to them.

Could the Minister give us an update as to which hospital

boards have accepted their Budget allocations as presented in the Budget

document, which hospital boards have been given additional funding and which

hospital boards have had reduced funding as a result of recent changes?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this is a good question; this is

a good complicated question, which would certainly be more appropriate on the

Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, I do not carry around in my head all the details of

every single hospital board in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, during the budgetary process, after we

learned how much money the Government was prepared to spend on the delivery of

health care, we notified all the hospital boards in general terms, what their

budgets would be for the upcoming fiscal year. In normal years this would have

been done, maybe a couple months after the Budget came down, but this year,

because we did envisage some fiscal problems, we got these letters out as fast

as we could, and generally throughout the system there have been very few

changes made, however, some of the hospitals, especially where we made role

changes we have had to do some fine tuning.

One case in particular is Placentia, which I would suggest

the hon. Member is talking about, where, after our fine tuning, we discovered

that in order for them to fulfill the mandate that we want them to fulfill, it

was necessary that we give them an additional $100,000. We are looking through

other hospitals in the Province and it is quite possible that in some cases they

might not need as much money as we allocated to them, so we may have to fine

tune them backwards. We envisage the most difficulty at hospitals where we had

some role changes, but there is no major increase, there is absolutely no

increase in the total health care budget, but there is some fine tuning to

certain parts of the system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a

supplementary.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary, and the

Minister has referred to it: basically the question we would like to ask and

like to have is that - and we were hoping that the Minister was misquoted in a

recent newspaper

article were he said that basically if additional funding were

going to one hospital then that funding had to come out of the total hospital

care budget and, in effect, will be taken away from some other hospitals. We

want to know, and I think the public has a right to know, which hospitals are

being down sized in addition to their budgetary cuts and which hospitals have

had increases since the Budget was announced. We would also like the Minister to

say that he really was misquoted, that, in effect, if any hospital is going to

get additional funds they should come from the general revenue of the Province

or from taxation, but certainly not from the hospitals that had their

allocations cut.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is too early in the process

yet for me to say which hospitals will have to give up some of their money or

which hospitals will need a little extra money. We are spending $530 million,

Mr. Speaker, in delivering the hospital budgets in this Province, and 45 days

into the new year is a little early for anyone to get up and say here are the

facts.

I would suggest to the hon. Member that the absolute total

facts will not be available until this fiscal year ends, which has been the case

for generations. You always get a Budget, and then you get an actual Budget

which is adjusted in the year. But I would be quite prepared to predict that

before this year is over there will be a considerable amount of fine tuning to

the various hospitals throughout the Province unless we are going to be

different from the way we have been for the past 25 years, Mr. Speaker, unless

there is a difference, and I do not see any major difference. There will be some

fine tuning.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a final supplementary,

but the way the Minister answers questions it is very difficult to get to the

truth. I mean he tells us in one statement that there is $100,000 or $165,000

going to be allocated to Placentia. He also says it has to come from other

hospitals. Which hospital does it come from? Are you going to wait until the

last of February to take that money from another hospital? That is all we want

to know, and we think we have a right to know that.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister to do what any

Minister of Health who is doing his duties properly would do, which is to go to

the Government. When you look at the statements of the Newfoundland Public

Health Association, the Newfoundland Nurses Unions who say that they cannot

maintain the Canadian standards in health care. There are tragedies waiting to

happen in rural Newfoundland. Will the Minister go to his Cabinet colleagues and

seek some additional funding for health care to resolve these problems rather

than try to take it from other hospitals?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, with that philosophy I am

surprised the hon. Member is not a part of the NDP Government in Ontario today.

You just cannot go and write a magic paper and get money coming out of the blue.

I mean the hon. Member was a Member of Government for years, and he should know

that is not the way things happen. The fact of the matter is the Department of

Health -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Obviously they thought it, yes. That is why

we owe all the money that we owe as a Province. The department is spending $530

million in health care, Mr. Speaker, the same as we are spending to pay off the

interest on the debt that the hon. Member ran up.

Now, if we are to take $100,000 of that money and add it onto

one institution, it is going to have to come somewhere else from within the

system, but it is quite normal that over the past number of years when your

spending that kind of money, some hospitals will spend a little less, some will

spend a little more. Generally speaking, the ones who have not had their role

changes most likely will live precisely within their budgets, but the ones who

have had role changes, Mr. Speaker, might need less, they might need more.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member should be aware that for years

this has been going on with the hospital boards. As a matter of fact, his

administration brought in a program whereby hospitals which spent less money in

a year than they were allocated were actually allowed to keep a portion of that

money. So, Mr. Speaker, this has been going on for years, and it is just that

the hon. Member was accused in a letter of trying to destroy what was going on

in Placentia - he should read the letter in the Telegram. Now, I suppose, he is

making sure that if there is either nail left to be driven in that coffin, he

wants to make sure that he totally destroys the health care system in Placentia

and in Newfoundland at the same time.

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

supplementary

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary.

Is the Minister just saying in his final comment that because this Opposition is

doing its job that in effect you have punished the people of Placentia? Is that

what you just said?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I know I am not the best

communicator on Earth, but if the hon. Member inferred that from my statement, I

am either the world's worst communicator or he is the world's worst listener.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the

Minister of Health. The Minister mentioned in answering an earlier question that

$100,000 had been provided to the Placentia area health care board. Will the

Minister tell us what additional services this will provide? And whether or not

he has provided other funding as well as the $100,000?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health has the

duty to deliver health care to our people. We do that through hospital boards

and they do it through their hospitals and their home care programmes and what

have you. We give hospitals a mandate. We give the Health Sciences in St. John's

a mandate to do tertiary care and so on. We say to Placentia: here is your

mandate. Your mandate is to deliver all the primary care services in the

Placentia area, to provide lab work, to provide x-rays, to care for the

seventy-five people in the chronic care facility.

In order to do all these things you must have so many

dollars. While we were fine-tuning the Budget the board came back and said to

us: if you expect us to carry out this mandate we need an additional two hundred

and some odd thousand dollars. People within the Department went through their

request and they discovered that indeed the hospital board did have a point, and

that in order for them to carry out their mandate - for example, to maintain a

twenty-four hour service - they did indeed need some additional money. We have

allocated to them $100,000 additional money to carry out their mandate.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly we see

another good skater on the hockey team opposite. Since the Minister listened to

the concerns of the committee and acted to a degree, for which I thank the

Minister, will he agree to further improvements provided he is convinced of the

need?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is almost

surprised to hear that we listen. This is the most listening, open government we

have had in seventeen or eighteen years. There is nothing new about our

listening, that is what we are here for. And what the hon. Member is talking

about is something which is carried out on an ongoing basis by the officials in

the Department. This was done through the administrator in the Placentia area.

It happens all the time. But do not be surprised about this Government

listening, this is what we are all about. That is what Liberalism stands for,

listening to the people. And if there are some minor changes that have to be

made we will be quite pleased to make them.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has

admitted that he did listen to the concerns of the local committee, as he should

and as he praises himself up for doing. And since he reacted, consequently the

concerns must be legitimate. Consequently a lot of credit goes not to the

Minister for listening but to the committee for bringing the concerns to the

Minister.

In light of that, I ask the Minister will he now apologize to

the members of the committee who he said had another agenda and were not acting

in the best interest of health care in the Placentia area?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if I had any reason to apologize

I would be so humble that I would be down in Placentia apologizing. I cannot

take responsibility for the way The Evening Telegram wishes to carry any

story. I have the little

article in the paper cut out. I said, in a discussion

with The Evening Telegram - and I am man enough to admit it - that the

Government's agenda in delivering health care to Placentia, Baie Verte, Port aux

Basques, Bell Island and St. John's and Newfoundland is to deliver the best

health care that we can afford. And there are no other agendas. We are not

concerned because a district is Liberal or Tory, we are only concerned with

delivering the best health care system we can deliver.

And thinking out loud I said to the reporter from The

Evening Telegram : I hope - and I said I believe - I hope that that is the

same agenda that the people in the Placentia, Baie Verte and the Bell Island

areas are running by. And I stand by that. I hope that anyone who gets up and

criticizes what we are doing is doing it based on health care. And I can

challenge anyone in this country to criticize what we are doing with the amount

of money that we have to do it with. Criticise it on the basis of health care

and we will pass with flying colours.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Health as

well. I would like to ask him about patient care in Western Newfoundland. The

Minister's Government is forcing Western Memorial Regional Hospital at Corner

Brook to handle a greater load than ever by taking over services the Government

has cut at Burgeo, Port aux Basque, Deer Lake, Norris Point, Bonne Bay, and Baie

Verte, yet the Government has slashed the Western Memorial Corner Brook Hospital

budget forcing the hospital to close thirty acute care beds and eliminate about

seventy positions. Now, I ask the Minister how can the result of this

combination be anything but a serious deterioration in care for patients in both

rural and urban areas?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this

Government has been strapped by the way this Province was abused by the previous

administration, there is no doubt about it that we do not have the fiscal

capacity to put as much money into health care as we would like to do. That is a

known fact and I cannot argue that. The hon. Members knows full well why we find

ourselves in this position. However, the suggestion of closing thirty beds in

Western Memorial: some of these beds, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able

to say we closed them. I am delighted to say we closed them. Some of these beds,

Mr. Speaker, were pediatric beds and every time we do away with a pediatric bed

we are saying that we have overcome rickets, we have overcome smallpox, we have

overcome polio, we have overcome tuberculosis in children, we have been

successful as a people and we have overcome the need, we do not need those

pediatric beds any more, Mr. Speaker, so some of the beds which we have closed I

am proud to be able to say we closed. I wish we could close the Janeway. I wish

we could say that we have overcome the need for a Janeway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when we rationalized the

hospital system, when we made some alterations in Burgeo we compensated for that

in Corner Brook. When we made some changes in Bonne Bay we compensated for that

in Corner Brook. The wonderful thing about this policy which the Department of

Health has put in place, with the full backing of my colleagues in Government,

Mr. Speaker, is that we have put in place a system where every single hospital

board has a role to play and if you tamper with one you have an impact on the

other, but it is all one integrated system which is committed totally, Mr.

Speaker, to delivering health care, and I am so pleased that Government

supported the Department of Health when we put that system in place, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Minister of Health is completely out of touch with

reality and is really quite pathetic. I say to the Minister of Health that one

of the very worrying developments in hospital care in Western Newfoundland has

been in the area of diagnostic services. The Regional Hospital at Corner Brook

operates a lab and X-ray department which now has to serve many more patients

since the closure of the clinic in Deer Lake and the down scaling in other

smaller hospitals, yet as I hope the Minister realizes, Western Memorial has

been forced to lay off eleven staff from the lab and X-ray departments. Now, the

full effects of the cuts have yet to be felt. Some of them are working their way

through the system, bumping is still going on, but already, over the last two

weeks -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am waiting for the hon. Member's question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary.

MS. VERGE: I ask the Minister to look at the situation

regarding longer waits for patients requiring X-rays, blood tests, and other lab

work in Western Newfoundland, and the delays in testing specimens resulting in a

deterioration in body substances with faulty readings. What action will the

Minister take to ensure that there are proper diagnostic services for patients

throughout Western Newfoundland in the immediate Corner Brook area as well as in

other parts of the region served by Western Memorial Regional Hospital?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member says I am out of

touch with reality. The people who blew $30 million on a Disney World scheme

called Sprung says I am out of touch with reality, Mr. Speaker. Let the people

of the Province judge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: The diagnostic services, Mr. Speaker, in the

Corner Brook Hospital: the Department of Health has been monitoring that on a

daily basis. We are aware that there were some changes made when the x-ray was

taken out of Deer Lake that would necessarily have some impact on the Corner

Brook Hospital. I have talked personally with the administrator. The Department

of Health talks with the administration back and forth. The administrator

assures us that he would like to have more money, as would I, as would

Government, as would all of us. But under the circumstances he is satisfied that

the services are adequate at the present time. They have made some changes.

For example, previous to the changes people from the Sops Arm

area who came into Deer Lake for X-rays came in, had their X-ray done one day

and went back home and then a few days later had that read and got the results.

Now just to show how the thing has been streamlined people go to Corner Brook

and have their X-ray, have it read, and the doctor is notified all in the one

day. So we have streamlined the thing, so that it is much more efficient.

However, I have to say to the hon. Member that we are

constantly monitoring Corner Brook and Stephenville, Mr. Speaker, and we are

monitoring every other hospital in this Province, and that is the work of the

Department of Health to constantly monitor the hospitals. And if a severe

problem develops there, we will have to address it. But to date -

MS. VERGE: Somebody will die before you will act.

MR. DECKER: - Mr. Speaker, there has been no reason to

believe that there is anything unnecessary happening. But we are monitoring it

very closely, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago the

Minister announced some amalgamation proposals, and we have lived with two years

of uncertainty and indecision since that time. Originally the Minister said it

would be a matter of weeks or months at the most before he would make those

decisions, particularly as it relates to Northeast Avalon. Last night or this

morning we saw the City of St. John's essentially declaring war on the City of

Mount Pearl as a result of the Minister's indecision. It is very clear that

indecision is causing an even greater rift between the two cities, a rift which

may well result, in fact, in regional government of any sort being impossible.

Would the Minister immediately cancel his amalgamation proposal? Or at least

ensure his constituents and mine that the super city concept will not be

considered, since it is clearly against the wishes of our constituents?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's and the

City of Mount Pearl both of those cities have every right to mount any sort of a

campaign they wish. I understand they both have engaged PR firms and have

decided to take their case publicly and restate, I guess, a lot of the points

that they made in the feasibility process at the hearings and in their briefs

and so on. They have every right to do that, Mr. Speaker.

The final conclusion and decision as far as the Northeast

Avalon is concerned I would hope would be made as soon as possible. And that

decision may or may not see an expanded urban core. The actual groupings that

will be decided as far as the seventeen - there are seventeen communities in the

Northeast Avalon - how many groupings will result when the process is complete,

I cannot predetermine, Mr. Speaker. That decision will be made as soon as

possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is obviously not

prepared to give us any answers again in relation to when he is going to make a

decision. Well let me ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, maybe the Premier would

confirm the statement that he made, I believe, here in the House some time ago,

that he will not force amalgamation down the throats of those that do not wish

to have amalgamation, and that he will not use his majority in the House to

force what he cannot get by agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, he does not accurately

reflect what I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, the Opposition does not, they have

their own motivation to twist and contort in whatever way they want to and they

seem to do it on a basis of monotonous regularity, in fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the position the

Government has taken in the past is that we just would not willy-nilly force

amalgamation down people's throats; we have allowed two years at least now or a

year and a half of extensive discussion; what I said in the House, Mr. Speaker,

is, we would not sit in the secret of the Cabinet Room and pass an order in

Council, as we are entitled to do, under the law as it stands now, we would not

sit in the secrecy of the Cabinet Room and pass a law, to order communities to

be amalgamated.

If, we concluded as a Government, that it was desirable that

amalgamation for any group of municipalities should be done or should be

considered, we would bring it to this House, if the group concerned did not

voluntarily do it; we would bring it before this House or it could be done by

resolution, if we had to, involving the city of St. John's, the city of Corner

Brook, the city of Mount Pearl, it would have to be done by a piece of

legislation in this House because they are all under separate statutes. So, Mr.

Speaker, the commitment that I made is that we would not sit in the secrecy of

the Cabinet Room and make these decisions secretly, if we felt it was desirable

or necessary to bring together any particular groups, we would bring the

proposal before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On April 24, the gentleman

from Kilbride asked me some questions about the awarding of a contract for the

hospitals in Burgeo and Port Saunders. They were detailed like; amounts of money

saved, local content and all that sort of stuff, so rather than take the time of

the House, I will table it, Mr. Speaker, and let the hon. Members have a look.

Petitions

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition signed by 161 people, residents of Menihek. The prayer of the petition

is: We, the undersigned, protest the proposal by the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to cut back the funding of the Captain William Jackman Memorial

Hospital in 1991-92. Your petitioners urge the Government to reconsider this

proposal which will have the effect of reducing the level of health care

services to our communities.

Mr. Speaker, this is another one of the several petitions

that I have presented in this House concerning the health care cuts in Western

Labrador, an area of this Province which produces a tremendous amount of wealth,

probably more wealth for this Province than any other electoral district in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Western Labrador want this

Government to reconsider the amount of cuts that they have given the Captain

William Jackman Memorial Hospital, to reconsider the amount of funds that they

have allocated to that hospital for funding this year, because they feel that

this Government has not considered the special needs of Western Labrador because

of it's position geographically.

We in Western Labrador do not live a half an hour, an hour

and a half, or two hours away from another health care centre, Mr. Speaker. We

live eight hours turn around time for emergency medical treatment. That is what

it is, Mr. Speaker. If we have to get an air ambulance into Western Labrador it

is an eight hour turn around time. So we feel that people in Government have not

considered the geography of Western Labrador when they decided the amount of

cutting they are going to give the hospital in Western Labrador.

We feel that the cuts proposed with what the board had to

live with are not fair to the people of Western Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We felt

that the additional strain that is going to be put on the major health care

centres such as here, now is going to put even more strain on the people of

Western Labrador, more stress. Just this week I talked to a young woman who has

spent twenty-five years living in Labrador City and raising a family, and she

came out here in January for treatment at the Health Science Complex. She was

discharged in February and told to wait for a bed so she could get heart

surgery. Now, Mr. Speaker, she has been discharged from hospital since February

7 and here it is the end of April and she still has not been admitted to the

Health Sciences Complex because they say there are no beds available. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if that is the case today, can you imagine what it is going to be like

in six months time. Can you imagine how that woman feels, after spending her

life working in Labrador City in a household raising a family while her husband

worked in the mines producing the wealth for this Province and now she comes out

here and waits months, months, Mr. Speaker, to be admitted to the hospital. Now,

that is bad, that is tragic, but imagine what it is going to be like next year,

when we have the additional strain put on the hospitals here in St. John's and

in the regional centres, all these regional hospitals are going to have more

strain put on them and that is going to cause more stress on the people living

in Western Labrador.

The Minister accused me last week of fearmongering. Mr.

Speaker, it is not fearmongering, these are facts that I am stating. They lost

$870,000 in funding this year and what I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the

quality of health care in Western Labrador is going to suffer during this year

and next year and that is going to affect the people in Western Labrador. The

hon. Member still does not understand how it is going to affect people - people

are nervous, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be 3,750 fewer patient visits to a

physiotherapist in Western Labrador, do you not think that bothers them? That

does bother them, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be fewer specialists visiting

Western Labrador, do you think that bothers the people in Western Labrador?

Well, it certainly does.

They do not have access to specialists as the people who live

an hour's drive from here, they can drive into St. John's. It costs $1,000 to

fly to St. John's from Western Labrador, it does not cost you just five dollars

or ten dollars of gasoline to drive in here, it is $1,000 air fare. Now, Mr.

Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: If I could have just one minute, Mr.

Speaker, to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I would ask this

Government to reconsider this drastic decision that they made in cutbacks to the

Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital and re-instate the funding to ensure a

good quality health care system in Western Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to rise

just for a moment or two to support the petition so ably presented by the Member

for Menihek and I want to say that I take pleasure in supporting the people from

Labrador West, who, probably are the most independent, hard-working people who

contribute in a very meaningful way to this Province.

The people of Labrador City - Wabush are very

self-sufficient, have a very vibrant economy for most of their history of

twenty-five odd years, or I guess thirty years in Labrador West now, they have

contributed in a very - how many?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: Thirty-two? They have contributed over those

thirty-two years in a very meaningful way to the general revenue of this

Province, they have paid their taxes, they have paid on gasoline, as we heard

the other day, they paid sales tax, and there is no question if you talked to

the people of Lab. City - Wabush that they are very often upset that they give

so much to the Province in the form of taxation and money and revenues to the

Government, and they receive so little in return. And these people, you must

remember, went to Labrador as many as thirty-two years ago, and many of then

from many parts of rural Newfoundland who were not really miners. They went

there, they learned a new trade, they left their homes where their parents and

grand parents had lived all their lives and they went out to a wilderness part

of Labrador to earn a living. These people deserve special recognition, and they

certainly deserve special services.

One of the things that has happened in Lab. West over the

years is that through the company and through Government agencies they have

tried to do special things to encourage people to stay in Labrador West. Whether

it is a physiotherapist in our health care system in Labrador West, whether it

is an Arts and Culture Centre which gives people in that part of Newfoundland

certain access to certain cultural events and activities that take place. Those

things are designed to keep people in rural Newfoundland, and certainly Labrador

West is deserving of the special status that they receive. And then you look at

the possibility of the Labrador West Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital

losing $870,000 of their small budget anyway when they did not have all the

services of St. John's. You are not cutting back the Health Sciences Complex in

Labrador West, you are not cutting back the Grace Hospital or St. Clare's, you

are cutting back the only hospital, the only health care services that they

have.

Besides the special services and special status of Labrador

West, they have special weather conditions in Labrador. There are many times in

Labrador, as my colleagues just mentioned, that it is an eight hour turn around

trip to leave Labrador West in an air ambulance to come to St. John's and get

back to Labrador, but there are lots of times during the year that you cannot

even do that. Even if the air ambulance is there on the ground, there are times

in the winter when you cannot fly out of Labrador West. That is why the services

have to be kept there. Now I got to say I take some pride in supporting those

very strong, hard working, independent people of Labrador West, but it is

unfortunate that we always have to get up in this House and try and support

petitions which are downgrading and negating the gains that those people have

made over the last thirty-two years, many of them at their own expense, because

I am sure if you factored it out like the Member for Pleasantville often wants

to do, and say, how much do you actually contribute to Newfoundland and how much

do you take away from Canada, as is his analysis. I would like to have someone

do an analysis sometime of how much the people from Labrador West in a real

taxation form contribute to this Province and how much they actually receive

back in the form of Government grants, incentives, government employees, whether

through the educational or health care system. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, it is

just another example of where this Minister of Health, the Premier, and the

Cabinet does not listen. They have not listened to the concerns of Labrador West

and they have not listened to the concerns of a vast number of people. If the

Labrador West people were able to arrange 1000 people to come to the steps of

Confederation Building maybe somebody would listen to them, but unfortunately

that is not very likely, and I suspect they will have to live with the

downgrading of services in Labrador West, but it is certainly unfortunate and

not something that shows very much foresight on the part of this Government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition signed by 150 residents of Green Bay,

mostly from the north shore of Green Bay, and Little Bay, St. Patrick's,

Springdale, in that area. The prayer of the petitions is as follows: we the

undersigned residents of Green Bay humbly petition the hon House of Assembly not

to make any changes to the ferry system which would see the combining of the

ferry service between Little Bay Islands, Shoal Arm, Long Island, and Pilley's

Island, which would result in the termination of the Little Bay Island's

mainland terminal at Shoal Arm.

Shoal Arm being omitted from the service would result in

disastrous things to the livelihood of this area, the main source of employment

of Little Bay Islands, the S. T. Jones fish plant also employs people from our

communities. We have to commute back and forth and because of a lack of

accommodations on the Island should Shoal Arm be dropped, and the Mainland

terminal for Little Bay Islands, we would be unable to seek employment with S.T.

Jones, thus raising the level of unemployment in our area. Shoal Arm is

important not only to the residents of Little Bay Islands but also to the

surrounding area. We urge you to consider all our concerns before making a

decision that could adversely affect the lives of the residents of Green Bay.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition essentially from the

residents of the north shore of Green Bay district in support of the case of the

citizens of Little Bay Islands. I presented a petition on behalf of Little Bay

Islands in this hon. House before. Needless to say my position as the Member for

the district is that both ferry services should be left intact because there is

no way that one boat, even for six months of the year, can do justice to the

transportation needs of the area. The people who signed this particular

petition, Mr. Speaker, are used to a steady flow of traffic through their area

giving commerce to their area from Little Bay Islands. Some of them as well

actually commute and work at the fish plant in Little Bay Island's. The Little

Bay Island's fish plant has a crab operation in the Fall, Mr. Speaker. It is a

fishery not unlike the caplin fishery, very fast and swift, and the fish plant

actually has to import labour from off the Island, even though it is only a

small Island, for a very brief period of time, so a good transportation system

to enable workers to commute to and from the island is essential from their

point of view. The proposal of this particular administration to amalgamate the

transportation systems of the two islands will only lead to the downgrading of

the economy of both islands and to the district in general. We are also talking,

of course, Mr. Speaker, of half a dozen or more jobs involved here in addition

to the inconvenience to the residents and the downgrading of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, this Government came to power promising rosy

things for rural Newfoundland. So far all we have seen from this Government is a

cut back in jobs, services, etc., making life in rural Newfoundland, especially

on islands in rural Newfoundland, so miserable as to force people to resettle.

Unfortunately unlike in the days of former Premier Smallwood

there is no grant to help people move any more, so we have a situation where

people are being squeezed out and really have nowhere to go. The telephone calls

that I get in my office indicate that people are desperate for work, but at the

same time they have no alternatives. There is nowhere to go, you cannot go to

Toronto, even Calgary is laying off right now. No major companies in Canada seem

to have landed any contracts in Kuwait. So being squeezed out of rural

Newfoundland is absolutely no good whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, if you have nowhere

to go. Right now even going to and from where you live in rural Newfoundland is

becoming more and more difficult because of this Administration, because of its

downgrading of the transportation infrastructure.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of this petition, and I

ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to reconsider the

amalgamation of these ferry services. As of my coming into the Legislature area

at lunch time we had not had word on the final outcome of the Minister's

deliberations with regard to these two ferry services. But I would urge him to

drop the idea of the amalgamation, leave well enough alone, do not fix that

which is not broken. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. SIMMS: I am just waiting, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposition House Leader, I should say.

MR. SIMMS: That is fine. Mr. Speaker, I was just

wondering if the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was going to

have a few words.

MR. GILBERT: No.

MR. SIMMS: He is not going to have a few words.

MR. GILBERT: I spoke to it last week.

MR. SIMMS: You spoke to it last week, I see.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is another petition, you know.

MR. SIMMS: This is another petition from another group of

people, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, from the North Shore.

MR. SIMMS: From the North Shore. Do you have a copy of

the petition? From the North Shore. Now that is not the same petition he brought

in last week, is it?

MR. HEWLETT: No the other one was from the Island.

(Inaudible), Mainland terminal.

MR. SIMMS: So the one that the Minister spoke to last

week was from a group of people representing the other side, if you want, this

is representing people from another part of the area, another part of the

District, one was from the Island, and one is from the Mainland. He understands

that now, I guess. So in lieu of that he may reconsider and say a few brief

words and respond to the citizens of the Province who have petitioned the House

as is their right. I would hope that the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation will reconsider this, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he did not hear the

prayer of the petition as read and articulated by my colleague the Member for

Green Bay. And I am not sure of the numbers, I did not catch the numbers.

MR. HEWLETT: One hundred and fifty.

MR. SIMMS: One hundred and fifty people who are residents

of Little Bay and St. Patrick's have signed this petition, and they petitioned

the House of Assembly not to make any changes to the ferry system. I presume

they want the House of Assembly to ask and plead with the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation and his Department not to make any changes to the

ferry system which would see the combining of the ferry service between Little

Bay Islands and Shoal Arm in Long Island and Pilley's Island which would result

in the termination of the Little Bay Islands mainland terminal at Shoal Arm. It

is pretty straightforward. And as I said a couple of days ago speaking to a

petition presented by the Member for Green Bay on behalf of some constituents in

Pilley's Island, I have some ties and roots from Pilley's Island, so I know the

area somewhat and have a great deal of interest in it. And I also mentioned

yesterday, it never ceases to amaze me the determination of the Member for Green

Bay, he is on his feet day after day, day in, day out, representing his

constituents, speaking out on their behalf, unfortunately to no avail. He was up

yesterday presenting petitions from people in his District. He is up again

today. And what reaction do we get? We get the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation saying, oh, no, he is not going to bother to comment or respond

to the petition. He is not even going to speak to the petition. He spoke to it

last week. So the people out in Green Bay, Little Bay and St. Patrick's area can

petition all they want to the House of Assembly, he is not going to respond or

comment any more on this particular issue. He has spoken once and that is it. I

mean how arrogant, and how dictatorial, Mr. Speaker, can you get. The least the

Minister can do is stand in his place and say to the citizens of Little Bay and

St. Patrick's that he understands their concerns, he knows their frustrations.

And if he must give an explanation why he cannot do what they are asking him to

do then let him give the explanation. But at least he should not be so arrogant

as not to respond to the people. The people have a right to petition.

And, Mr. Speaker, the petition and petitioners go on to say:

should Shoal Arm be omitted from the service, that the results could be

disastrous to the livelihood of the people of the area. The main source of

employment at Little Bay Islands is the S. T. Jones fish plant, and that employs

people from all those communities, all around that area. And they have to

commute back and forth because of a lack of accommodation on the island. There

are no accommodations worth talking about on the island other than staying with

a friend or a family member, something like that.

So there are no accommodations. They have to commute. And

should Shoal Arm therefore be dropped as the mainland terminal for Little Bay

Islands they would be unable to seek employment elsewhere or at S. T. Jones fish

plant. Therefore the level of unemployment in their area will just increase from

what it is.

So they say Shoal Arm as you can see is very important, not

only to the residents of Little Bay Islands but to the entire surrounding area.

And the 150 people who have signed this petition to the House of Assembly asking

the Minister of Transportation to reconsider this, to have another look at it,

are urging him to consider all of their concerns before he makes a decision that

could drastically affect the lives of the residents of this particular part of

the Green Bay area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what could be more clear? What could be

more proper -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: -then the people of the area asking the

Minister responsible. So I hope the Minister says a few words on the petition

and does not continue with his normal arrogance.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a Bill,

"An Act To Amend The Co-Operative Societies Act", carried. (Bill No. 24).

On motion, Bill No. 24 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the absence of the

Minister of Finance who sponsors such bills, I would like to do a very brief

introduction to this Bill 14, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax." It is very,

very straightforward. All it does is it repeals paragraph 9.1 subsection (

a) of

the Tobacco Tax Act 1986, and the following is substituted 'that in the case of

cigarettes a tax of 0.0678 dollars on every cigarette. This Act is considered to

have come in force on March 8, 1991.' In effect this raises the tax on

cigarettes to the point of which now, Mr. Speaker, there is a provincial tax of

about $1.35 on a pack of 20 cigarettes. It is a substantial source of revenue

for Government, and in the first instance this measure was taken to generate an

extra $8 million or $10 million worth of revenue. So that was, on the surface,

the function of this particular piece of legislation. We are in the situation

where we need extra money, we have to have extra money, and this was a tax that

we felt at this point in time we could institute.

There is a limit as to how rapidly taxes on tobacco and some

other products can be raised. The general guideline is that these taxes

generally progress throughout the country at about the same rate, and the reason

is obvious. If, for instance, in Newfoundland we were imposing a tax of $5.00 on

a pack of cigarettes and in Nova Scotia next door there was a tax of $1.00, then

the activity of smuggling would be encouraged and there would be a lot of

smuggling back and forth, cigarettes being bought in one province, sold in

another. It is an activity that is very difficult to control in some instances.

So, this particular increase in the Tobacco Tax keeps us in the same ballpark as

the Maritime Provinces so that there will be no large differential between

Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, or Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, and this

tax is about the same as what is being generated in other provinces.

So, Mr. Speaker, we had to do it because we needed money, and

we did it in such a way that it would not create the smuggling problem that

would be there if we had raised the tax on tobacco even higher. I make no secret

of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that I was one of the ones who was encouraging an even

higher tax on tobacco than we have brought in, but we have to keep it within the

ballpark in terms of the Atlantic Provinces.

Some people say, Mr. Speaker, that because we are now raising

this tax on cigarettes that we are going to run into the law of diminishing

returns. My answer to that is if only we were so lucky. If only we were so lucky

that the price of cigarettes would cause everybody who smoked to give up the

habit. The effect that would have on our health care system 10, 15, 20 years

down the road would more than make up for the loss in revenue that Government

would be suffering.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this

particular piece of legislation, and I hope that it is dealt with by the House

as expeditiously as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I really have no major

objection to my colleague, in his enthusiasm, wanting to respond to the bill.

Actually there is not a great deal that one can say about the bill, except to

bring - and I missed the President of Treasury Board's opening remarks. I am not

sure if he addressed the impact on border communities and the impact on

smuggling into the Province.

MR. SIMMS: No, he did not touch any of that.

MR. WINDSOR: He did not touch it?

MR. SIMMS: No, he did not even mention it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Did you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: If he did, he obviously did not say anything

of great value.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said that it is in the same ballpark

with the rest of Atlantic Canada (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: In the same ballpark. Well, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister not being the Minister of Finance may not be in possession of all the

facts, but it is quite clear that we are losing, and if he is not aware that we

are losing then his officials are not in possession of the facts because we are,

indeed, losing a tremendous amount of revenue from tobacco products that are

being brought into the Province without paying provincial taxes on them because

prices of tobacco products are so much cheaper in other parts of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, it is true. And in fact it is a product

that is relatively easy to move and light and easy to handle. Also, a very

valuable commodity at this stage of the game, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting. I

have been recently advised that people who are transporting it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, a tractor-trailer load is worth a lot

of money. In fact people who are transporting it are under very strict

guidelines as to what they may do, and in fact whether or not they may stop

without some kind of supervision. It is indeed a very valuable cargo, far more

valuable than the average cargo that you are hauling in a tractor-trailer. Just

recently a trucker was in fact telling me in fact about that.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think we should be concerned about the

impact on - smuggling is too strong a word, perhaps, but illegally bringing the

product into the Province without paying it. And also the impact on the border

communities. We spent the last couple of days talking about the impact of the

gasoline tax on the border communities in Labrador. And it is so easy - I did

not get into the latter area of the debate on that. One point I would have made

and wanted to make on that, was that when the Minister of Finance was saying,

well, it is only a couple of cents a liter difference or something. Might be

$1.50 on a tankful of gasoline or something.

That may well be true, but must people - I think a majority

of people - who live in Labrador City and Wabush probably travel to Fermont once

or twice a week, and they would certainly ensure that they filled up when they

were in Fermont. Not that they would go deliberately up there to fill up.

Obviously that would not make any sense. But certainly while you were up there

you will ensure that you will fill up on gasoline, that you will fill your trunk

up with cigarettes if you are a heavy smoker. Certainly you will make those

types of purchases. Alcohol is another one. Very common for people in Labrador

City and Wabush to go to Fermont to buy alcohol. Not to mention which, of

course, the selection - particularly of wines - in Fermont, the good French

wines. Much better and much different selection than the wines that are imported

by the Newfoundland Liquor Commission. And I have had an opportunity on several

occasions in Fermont or in Labrador City to sample some of the wines that were

brought from the Quebec liquor commission which are totally different.

The point I want to make is that there is indeed an

opportunity here for us to lose some revenue. I find it very difficult to argue

against raising taxes on tobacco, I really do. And the President of Treasury

Board, I have no doubt, will disagree with that. Everybody who smokes now the

President of Treasury Board will hate with a passion. There is nothing worse

than a reformed smoker. And we have two of them, as House Leader and Opposition

House Leader. And when they get at one another's throats we know the reason.

There is nothing worse than a reformed smoker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) listen to who is talking.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, but I was saved fifteen years ago, Mr.

Speaker, I have long since gotten over it.

MR. SIMMS: Remember sitting around the Cabinet table

(Inaudible) go down the other end of the room.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, yes. That is one good thing about it. I

do not know what it is like around the Cabinet table today, but I know in the

old Cabinet room ventilation was not great. And I always had the privilege of

sitting next to the hon. Senator Ottenheimer who came to a Cabinet meeting armed

with a full package of cigarettes, with a pipe and a pouch of tobacco, and a

package of small cigars. And he laid his arsenal down on the table. And he had a

box of matches from somewhere in the world - outside of Canada - but it was a

box of matches from some hotel or lounge or restaurant or somewhere from some

part of the world. And when he ran out of matches you knew he was about to start

travelling again. You knew he was due for another trip somewhere. Because the

hon. Senator was a great traveller and did a lot of travelling on behalf of the

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. And (Inaudible) indeed was a great

ambassador for Canada generally in that particular role.

But I had the great pleasure of sitting next to him at

Cabinet I think for about six or seven years. And next to him was the former

premier who was famous for his cigars. And on my right for the longest period of

time was the former Member for Naskaupi, Mr. Goudie, and next to him was the

former Member for Bonavista, Mr. Morgan. Now all of those are very heavy

smokers, and I was caught in the middle and begged for mercy on many occasions

to be moved to the other side of the Cabinet table. And I sat there in a cloud

of smoke. The new Cabinet room upstairs is much better, I think. It has some

ventilation and the problem was not as bad and it is a little bigger so you were

spread out a bit more.

Anyway, to get back to the topic, because I do not have a lot

of sympathy for those who smoke. I recognize their rights but I do not think we

will get a lot of public sympathy around the Province for saying that tobacco is

getting too expensive. Indeed, it is incredibly expensive and you are paying a

penalty for that habit, or that addiction, because indeed cigarette smoking may

well be classed as an addiction so you pay dearly for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $5000 worth of cigarettes.

MR. WINDSOR: Which $5000 worth of cigarettes?

AN HON. MEMBER: The ones for the private dining room.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, they were not for me you can be

assured of that. They may have been for guests and dignitaries coming in so they

would be properly entertained. You can be sure they were not for me or for most

Members of the Cabinet. I am not one of those that think, by the way, the

Premier should not have an opportunity to entertain and should not have a dining

room. I told the present Premier I thought it was a mistake when he dismantled

the old dining room here on the main floor of Confederation Building. I think a

Premier not only has a right but he also has a responsibility to properly

entertain official guests and dignitaries coming into the Province.

MR. SIMMS: He is in fact doing it now.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, he is doing it. We have this

$20,000 extra payment in the supplementary supply for entertainment in the

Premier's home. Now, he does not even have to account for it.

MR. SIMMS: Plus, they use the executive dining room over

there.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, they still use the executive dining

room in the west wing which is a new modern facility. So hon. gentlemen opposite

need not start talking about that stuff because we can throw all kinds of those

things back at them just as quickly as they can. I for one think the Premier

should have an opportunity to entertain properly, and so should Ministers.

Ministers are representing the people of this Province and when they are doing

official business of Government I have no difficulty at all with them properly

entertaining dignitaries and guests from outside the Province, from the business

community, or from wherever, and you will not hear me, and I think the President

of Treasury Board will confirm, that you have never heard me criticize

Government for that, as long as they were legitimate expenses. Those that are

being legitimately entertained by Government, as our Ministers are when they go

to other provinces of Canada, or other countries of the world, are properly

entertained in line with the duties, responsibilities, and position they occupy

in respect for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is about all I can say on the tobacco tax

because it is simply an increase on taxation and I think we need to be very

careful that we do not pass the point of diminishing returns. As the cost goes

up our returns will go less, apparently because of less consumption. I should

say this, the weakness in what I am saying, when I say I do not have a lot of

sympathy for those who smoke, unfortunately the majority of smokers today in our

society are young people, a very high percentage of young people, in fact young

girls. There are more young girls than young men, so it is university students

and young people who really cannot afford it, unfortunately, and I do not know

that by increasing the cost of that habit, or that addiction, as you choose, is

really an appropriate way to try to help them help themselves. I would prefer to

see a lot of that money put into programs to help people get away from smoking,

to eliminate smoking altogether. If I thought that this extra money was being

used to curb smoking habits, if I thought the increase of $500,000 coming from

the Liquor Corporation would be used to help alcohol and drug addiction, then I

would applaud that kind of a move, but unfortunately I do not see it. I do not

see any increase in that type of a program here and I think that is a serious

weakness, and that this Government should look at. Statistics are there, when

you are talking about the increase in health care costs, then have a look at

alcohol and tobacco usage. Indeed there is a great opportunity there.

Seat belt legislation was a very controversial piece of

legislation. I realize I am way off tobacco tax but I am talking about the cost

of Government services. Seat belt legislation was a very controversial piece of

legislation and there many people on both sides of the House who agreed, and

some who disagreed, with the seat belt legislation. I remember the former

Minister of Transportation when he was trying to pilot that through caucus and

cabinet in the House of Assembly, the Member for St. George's, Mr. Dawe. He said

you have a right, I suppose, not to wear a seat belt in your car if you chose

to, but are you prepared to waive your right to free medical treatment if you

have an injury, if you are in an accident and are injured because of it? I

thought now, that is a pretty astute statement. I wonder if we took the same

approach to those who drink and drive, and said, are you prepared to waive your

right to free medical and hospital treatment if you are injured in an accident

because you are responsible, you are impaired and therefore responsible? Are you

prepared to forgive your right, or waive your right to medical treatment if you

are the victim of lung cancer because you smoke, for example. An interesting

concept. When we say it is our right to do these things to ourselves there is a

cost on society, and no doubt, I think statistics could show very clearly the

cost of health care as a result of automobile accidents, as a result of drinking

and other drug related uses. That may indeed be, it is a long term thing. Not

only would it be a great saving, I think, in health care costs, but a saving of

lives and misery.

My wife was very recently involved in an accident, she was a

split second away from being killed, her and three kids, a split second. And I

will not say any more at this point in time because the issue may well yet be

before the courts, and I might prejudice the case. But, you know, at another

time, later on, perhaps some hon. Member might remind me. It is a story that I

would like to relate here, because another split second and she and the three

kids could have been eliminated totally, could have been killed. I wonder,

therefore, if we have the right, should we not give up certain rights to various

treatments and various other privileges, they are not rights they are privileges

given by society, and we take them as rights, but indeed they are privileges.

And I do not have a lot of sympathy for somebody who abuses those rights, and

inflicts pain and misery and suffering on others because of it. And there are a

million examples I could give. Now somebody who is impaired, who is caught for

impaired driving, and who gets involved in an accident and kills somebody, I do

not have a lot of sympathy for that person. I think that person should pay and

should pay dearly. Yet I see them every day getting off with very light

sentences in our courts and I will be critical of the courts. The courts can

come down like a lead balloon on certain very minor offences, and other far more

serious ones that have long term impacts on peoples' lives often go off forgiven

or with very light sentences. I wish I could go into that story, but I will

reserve that for another time. There is a story there, and I will talk about

that whole issue one of these days when the thing has been resolved.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks I will take my seat

and I thank my colleague from St. John's East Extern who is anxious to get up

and speak to this piece of legislation. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you. I feel compelled to say just a

word, Mr. Chairman, I really enjoyed the hon. Member's comments. And, you know,

I think at times in the House we do not pay attention, and I wanted to get up

and congratulate the hon. Member, without patronizing. I enjoyed the sincerity

of his comments and I would like to discuss some of the issues he raised about

changing attitudes among young people in another context. That is all I want to

say, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am certainly not

going to stand for any considerable time on this bill either, Mr. Chairman, but

I am a non-smoker. But I cannot say that goes well with everyone. Mr. Chairman,

I suppose, the people that I am speaking about now would be so surprised at me

standing here in my place today, because last Saturday we were out to a bit of a

celebration, and a couple of the people there who were smokers said, you know,

we really think under the Charter of Rights that we have a right to smoke, and

we have a right to smoke in certain areas. And giving the Government a slap, and

I suppose all of us because I am certainly a proponent of non-smoking. But they

said, even at the Confederation Building, where both of them are employed, they

said there should be a place in the building where people could go, and it

should have been their right to do it. I am deadly opposed to smoking. If I go

in some place now where there is someone smoking it really takes the

conversation aspect of it away. You know, if you are visiting someone, it takes

everything that I like away from it. But the point remains that those two people

said they did have a right and I am not sure they do not have that right, I

really do not.

You know, we talk about taking things away from them. You

know, people will say smoking is a killer, and who am I to say otherwise? I

believe it, but there are people out there who do not believe the same thing. I

have spoken with doctors who do not believe it. They do not believe it, but who

are we, we are sort of oppressors because we have the right to tell people here

in Confederation Building that there should not be a room, perhaps vented to the

outside, where they could go and have a smoke. I think it is wrong, but I still

think they should have a right. I really do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) provide a separate room for

(inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: Well, I am not sure about the President of

Treasury Board but I am almost sure about my colleague here, the Opposition

House Leader. I have not seen him smoke since it was banned here in the

building. I am not so sure of what he does on the QT. He might be in Grand Falls

or some other part of Newfoundland smoking. There are people out there who

really do not believe it is true. In fact only a couple of weeks ago I sat down

with a doctor who was smoking the pipe. He knew my father. He said, your father

always smoked a pipe, and I said, yes. I said, it is funny though, here you are

smoking now and the majority of doctors say it is wrong. I said you should know

as much as any of the rest of them because of the job you do. He is a

pathologist. We were just in conversation, and I was surprised when he said to

me, I have no intention of giving up smoking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. PARSONS: Never mind, a good friend, a doctor. He said

there are pros and cons to it. I am an anti-smoker, I hate it, but what I am

saying is there are people out there with other views. There are people out

there who would like to have a smoke and who do not

think there is anything wrong with it, and I do think they

have a right. I think everyone in this world has a right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: When we take away a person's right, no

matter what it is, we take away that right, and we are slowly eroding the

rights. We do not have that many rights now, you know. Oh, no, we do not. Even

in sports and recreation, it has all been taken away. It has been taken away

gradually.

MR. DOYLE: Tell him about the pathologist we were talking

to.

MR. PARSONS: I told him about the pathologist. He was

there with me.

MR. DOYLE: He and I were talking to a pathologist about

smoking.

MR. PARSONS: I questioned him on smoking. I even

questioned him on secondhand smoke. He said there is no conclusive proof. Let me

say now that he is a very well informed gentleman who is in one of the larger

centres in Canada. This is what his job is, and I was surprised, I must say, I

really was. He was a real nice fellow and he certainly did not overpower us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was this discussion?

MR. PARSONS: Oh, I will not tell you where the discussion

was. Anyway, I want to say to the House Leader that I can see it being a

deterrent in some ways, but there are people out there who will not stop

smoking. I think when the taxes are raised, and people are now paying something

like $5.00, and some cents, for a pack of cigarettes, about $6.00 a pack for

cigarettes, there are still poor people out there going to smoke that cigarette

if it is the last thing they do. If it were to go for something to eat, or for a

pack of cigarettes, they will take the pack of cigarettes. It is an addiction,

sure it is. It is the same as everything else. Then, I do not think, that we are

completing the turn. We are not evolving. We are not doing what we say we are

doing. We are going to tax it out of existence. I do not think that is a real

truth.

I would like to say to the House Leader as well, on the

reserves, if you are thinking about the health situation and you are trying to

protect the health of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, then what about

the people on the reserves? There is no taxation. They are not taxed on their

cigarettes or their tobacco. What I am saying is that we are almost on two

levels. I mean are those people allowed to die if it is addressed as being so

health conscious? Are the people on those reserves nothing? Is this why we are

doing it, to tax it so heavily that people just will not do it? How about those

people?

And the other thing about it, how about those people - I do

not know if there any involvement there - but how about those people coming from

outside who can acquire all the cigarettes they like for sale inside.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not supposed to do it.

MR. PARSONS: They are not supposed to do it, but it is

happening this contraband stuff.

I would like to ask the Government House Leader to answer my

query as it pertains to the reserves. What happens inside the reserves, and

outside? What happens in Argentia where cigarettes perhaps are a shilling a

package.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? A shilling?

MR. PARSONS: A shilling, twenty cents. A shilling is gone

out isn't it, and the pennies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, a shilling is still a coin used in some

countries, in England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Austria, but it is still

long ago.

I would like for the hon. House Leader to address some of the

queries that I have as it pertains to the right of individuals to have a certain

place to smoke if they want to smoke, even here in the Confederation Building.

The other thing I would like to ask him about is on the people on the reserves;

are they Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as well? Native people, haven't they

got a right? If we are going to protect the rights of all the other people and

tell them they cannot smoke because it is a health hazard, how about the people

inside those reserves? They do not pay taxes on their cigarettes or tobacco.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. House that I

certainly am not a proponent of smoking, and the only thing I wanted to do was I

wanted to make a point of what I think is wrong. I think that people do have a

right and I do not think that as a Government or as people in this Legislature

that we should dictate the people and tell them, 'okay, you are not allowed to

smoke.' I saw people out around the Confederation Building on bad days, stormy

days, days that you would not put a dog out, and they were out there having a

smoke. So, you are not going to stop those people from smoking, so if you are

thinking about their health, their health could be as much injured out there by

the door around the Confederation Building in that storm, so why not put a place

or perhaps have a couple of rooms in different areas of the Confederation

Building where that person would be allowed to go out and have their smoke. We

are not going to stop them, and if we are talking about the health aspect of it,

then there could be just as much harm from them going out by that door in the

bad weather that we are having. I think that the Government House Leader should

address those points. With that said, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: An excellent job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to join in

this debate to make a few comments on the legislation itself which is to

increase the tax on cigarettes by 1.5 cents per cigarette, thereby raising an

additional $8.5 million of revenue according to the Budget highlights.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with the raising of the

tobacco tax. I do have as other members, a lot of practical personal experience

for myself and others with the habit of smoking and I do want to make a few

comments about that and also, afterwards a few comments about raising

Government's revenue generally.

The increase in the cost of cigarettes, Mr. Chairman, has

been a constant I guess, of governments over the last fifteen years by adding

taxes, I think they call them sin taxes for liquor and cigarettes and maybe even

entertainment from time to time is included in that category, and it seems to be

a habit of government to raise these taxes because nobody can really complain

about them because they are things that we frown upon in one way or the other

either for moral reasons, in the case of both liquor and cigarettes for some

religions or for health reasons or for general reasons of conservatism.

In the case of tobacco I suppose it is particularly a serious

health issue, because the cost of course of smoking, goes beyond the cost of

paying for the cigarettes. We do now know, despite the fact that some people may

not want to believe it, that smoking is a major health hazard. In fact, one

often wonders why people continue to smoke, when you see on every package of

cigarettes now, the most blatant kind of statements such as, 'smoking causes

cancer'; 'smoking shortens your life' and various other warnings that are loud

and clear messages to anybody who is smoking.

I think everybody who smokes knows these things, Mr.

Chairman, they know them, either because they have been told or because they are

aware themselves from their smoking habits, that their breath is shorter or that

they cannot go up and down a stairs as fast or they have coughing in the morning

that is bothersome to them.

But the reason people smoke I guess, is because, as has been

said by previous speakers it is an addiction and people are addicted to the

nicotine habit. I guess that is why people smoke and that is why people continue

to smoke despite the fact that they have these warnings and this knowledge about

the deleterious effect on their health and I suppose, in addition to the

addiction properties, there are also the attractive properties to it and I refer

here to the increase in smoking; there is a group of our population, that is the

percentage of that population who smokes, is increasing and that is young girls

between the - young women I suppose between the ages of thirteen and

twenty-four, in that group of young women the percentage of smokers is

increasing and, Mr. Chairman, this is a function no doubt of sociological

factors, advertising, an attempt by the cigarette companies to increase their

revenues by appealing to that particular group of young people and of course,

Mr. Chairman, that is quite a serious problem for this age group, smoking of

course being a well-known cause of lung cancer and in fact lung cancer deaths

are increasing amongst women and decreasing amongst men.

But I do have a concern, Mr. Chairman, that it is almost

coming to the point now, we just had this year alone, an increase in tax on the

federal level of about three cents a cigarette and now we have another cent and

a half here, there may be coming a point when this tax becomes in fact a burden

upon those who are addicted to smoking, without any relief, without any

concomitant relief being offered, because we do know that the higher the price

of cigarettes, the fewer people smoke and I wonder, whether, if the people who

give up smoking as a result of the higher cost, are in fact, the people who are

hurt more by the higher cost than others.

My impression, Mr. Chairman, and I think it will be supported

by what research there is, is that the people who give up smoking as the price

gets higher may be those who have more choices to make; those who are, perhaps

closer to the middle class and not those amongst the poorer classes who, and the

poorer people who do not have many other alternatives and that you will see that

the people who continue to smoke are people who perhaps do not have any other

alternatives and do not have any other way of fighting against the smoking. So

it is coming to the point I think, Mr. Speaker, that these increases in taxes on

cigarettes may be a bit of a tax on the poor here. Because the middle class

people are more likely to give up smoking as a result of the health warnings and

these cost differentials. And the people who are poorer are likely to continue

to smoke because they have very little other alternatives and they are suffering

from the addiction. I think that you would find that to be the case.

What I would suggest that might be done, along with this

increase in the - and I am not suggesting that we ought not to increase it. I am

suggesting that we ought to be sensitive to the effects that we have on a

population, because this is a tax after all that is going to be paid by a

portion of the electorate, a portion of the taxpayers only, and that only those

who smoke pay this tax. But I think that some of that $8.5 million increase that

we are getting ought to be used to help those who - some of that should be set

aside - perhaps $500,000, perhaps a portion of it. That would be a nice,

substantial proportion set aside to assist those who wish to give up smoking and

have not been able to find a way to fight the addiction.

I know myself, I smoked for many years, probably fourteen or

fifteen years, and for another fourteen or fifteen years of my adult life I did

not smoke. And it was very difficult to give up. It requires a lot of

motivation. It requires two or three failures. And it requires a serious effort

on the part of an individual to give up a habit that is addictive. And it also

requires I think a little bit of an optimistic look at your own future, and have

some hope that by giving up smoking your life is going to be improved and you

are not just going to be getting rid of what many people regard as perhaps one

of the few pleasures they get out of life.

So that requires a bit of effort. But I think as we are

driving up the cost of cigarettes we have to recognize that people are addicted

to this, and this is a physical addiction, itself a health problem. And some of

the initial money that we are raising - the Minister of Health is unable to

spend any more money on health, the cost of health is being driven up by

problems that people get from smoking and others who get side stream smoke - and

I just say a figure like $500,000. You could run a programme on $500,000. Some

of that ought to be used and earmarked for a special programme to assist those

who are smokers and who are going to be faced with these increased costs and who

have a difficult problem to give up.

Some of it may be used, as the Minister of Education

suggested, in encouraging young people not to smoke. Well, I think some of it

should be used to set up a special fund or programme to help those who wish to

give up smoking to find a way to do it. It is a serious problem and we cannot

just say: well, we will raise the prices and people will stop smoking. Because I

think it is the middle class people who might stop smoking for that reason and

people who are dependent upon it physically, emotionally and psychologically,

who might regard it as one of their few pleasures, will continue to smoke and

continue to suffer the financial cost of that. And taking away of course from

other alternatives that they could use their money for, whether it be for their

own families or to improve their lives in other ways.

I do not know how much more time I have, I may be running out

of time. I wanted to talk about that because I think it is a very serious issue.

Government is raising revenue though this tobacco tax act. I think there are

other ways of raising revenue. I do not think that we need to have to have the

kind of cutbacks that we have. The Government has consistently said that that

they could not borrow any money - they were worried about their rates of

interest that we are paying on the bond, the bond rating services. And the

Government of Ontario, faced with far greater problems than this Province had in

terms of the recession, with 180,000 fewer jobs this year as a result of the

recession, suffering more than anybody else, has managed to bring in fiscal

measures which result in an increase to many of the services. Such as the grants

to municipalities, to hospitals and school boards. An increase in basic welfare

payments starting on the first of January -

AN HON. MEMBER: Taxes.

MR. HARRIS: An increase in taxes, of course an increase

in taxes. And an increase in borrowing. Even to the extent of risking their

credit rating. And you are going to get different comments on this Budget, Mr.

Chairman, and you do. But once you get off the editorial pages of The Globe and

Mail where the supporters of Michael Wilson's approach, and the approach of Dr.

Kitchen here, once you get off the editorial pages and get on to the real news,

and I would refer you to the Report on Business

section of today's Globe where

in discussing this issue of interest rates and bond rates the response of the

Vice-President of Standard and Poor -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. Member's time is

up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have to speak

another time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr.

Chairman, I just want to have a few words to say on this bill, following up

along the lines, at least, on some of the comments addressed by my colleague the

Finance critic, who did a marvellous job as pointed out by the Minister of

Education. The first time I have ever seen it. The Minister of Education stood

up in this House for no other reason other than to stand and commend the Finance

critic for his comments and participation and response to the introduction of

this bill. Now I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have ever seen it

before, and I have to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: And you will never see it again either.

MR. SIMMS: - I would be remiss in my responsibilities if

I did not commend the Minister of Education for taking the time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, no, I mean it quite sincerely. I mean to

see somebody just stand and say: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to congratulate the

Finance critic. He did a marvellous job, he made some good points. It was not

partisan. He said, I just had to stand and say it. And I thought that was

marvellous, I say to the Minister of Education. Marvellous. And I commend him

for it. And it is too bad more Members in this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: You got to be joking!

MR. SIMMS: It is too bad more Members in this House, on

both sides quite frankly, did not shed some of their partisanship from time to

time. Now we live in a parliamentary world,-

MR. EFFORD: Yes, and do not forget it.

MR. SIMMS: - I used to say this to the Premier, when

people use to accuse the Premier of always wanting to have things as if they

were in a courthouse, hush, hush. Do you remember first when he came on the

scene, and I used to criticize him for taking that approach because in a

parliamentary process those of us who have had a chance to go around the world,

certainly in other provinces, and maybe sit in on a parliamentary session in

another Parliament, will quickly realize that this Parliament here in

Newfoundland is fairly mild compared to many of them.

MR. EFFORD: Too mild!

MR. SIMMS: Too mild. I share the view of the Minister of

Social Services, now not always. I do not mean that always there should be

bantering and interruptions, because there are times when there should be some

serious debate and discussion. But for the most

part I enjoy the banter. And if

you went and sat in the British Parliament in London, the British House of

Commons, the Mother Parliament that we all have, as Mother Parliament, if you

sat in that Parliament, I mean, it would boggle your mind. I remember sitting

there one time, I say to the Minister of Social Services, I sat in the Mother of

Parliament in England one time and I got the fright of my life, I sat up in the

gallery watching what was going on down below and, of course, in the Mother of

Parliament of London, there are no desks or anything, they have a big table like

this, and everybody has a bench, and those few that can fit into the Parliament

and sit on the benches, everybody else sits outside the House, and I was up in

the gallery listening to this debate, all of a sudden I heard this - Mr.

Speaker, would be interested in it - I heard this big roar, r-o-a-r, r-o-a-r,

and I looked over to the other side of the gallery and there was a chap standing

up in the gallery, he stood up in the gallery and was recognized by the Speaker,

and started to speak, and this was Reverend Ian Paisley, everybody would

probably know who he was. And coming back to Parliament, our Parliament here is

pretty mild compared certainly to the Mother Parliament, and I have been in

every Parliament in Canada, I sat in every Legislature in Canada, including the

House of Commons in Ottawa.

MR. EFFORD: That is what you were doing travelling all

over the world, not working.

MR. SIMMS: When I was Speaker, I say to the Minister of

Social Services, I was working. That was precisely my job and I am sure, if you

ask our own Speaker today, a Member who represents your Party when he is not

sitting in the Speaker's Chair, he will tell you the same thing. It is extremely

important. And I am willing to bet that the Speaker, our Speaker, has probably

been in every parliament in Canada as well, and he has only been there two

years. And I daresay the Chairman, I daresay Your Honour, has been in a

scattered parliament across Canada. I am not sure but I daresay he has. And he

would know too that most Parliaments are pretty wild and there is lots of

bantering.

So when the Minister of Education stands in his place, takes

the time of the House to use a minute and a half to get up and compliment a

Member on this side for the marvellous job he did, I think that is fantastic,

and the Minister of Education should be commended. He should be promoted. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I would not be surprised if one day soon he might

even be elevated to that chair in the sky - wherever that might be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But I have to add this. I am not surprised -

AN HON. MEMBER: On the other hand (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, on the other side, as the Member for St.

John's South would say. I am not surprised that it was the Minister of Education

who stood in his place to make such a comment. Nobody over there really, sitting

back and looking on it now, can be surprised. Because he is that kind of a

gentleman, that kind of an individual and everybody knows it. Now, I would be

extremely surprised if the Minister of Health, for example -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I am going to tell you something. The

Minister of Social Services could not carry the Minister of Health's suitcase

when it comes to partisanship. Now that is saying something, that is a mouthful,

let me tell you. That is saying something. Knowing what we know about the

Minister of Social Services and how political he is, I am telling you now, for

those who do not know, that old Dagger Decker over there is the most highly

partisan individual I have ever seen in my thirteen years in the Legislature.

And that includes a lot of people, let me tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are full of compliments today, aren't

you?

MR. SIMMS: I am, except when I - well, I am just getting

around to the President of Treasury Board, and I do not intend to be quite as

complimentary towards the President of Treasury Board though. You see, the

President of Treasury Board takes a totally different approach to it all, he

sits back and pretends he is non-partisan and non-political. A very cagey

character, a very cagey individual. He pretends - you talk to him about

something political, he says: what? - no, no. I mean, that is the kind of

approach he takes to it all.

But behind the scenes he wields a big stick in that Cabinet

and in that Government. And if there is anybody over there - and I suspect he

might be the only one who has any kind of clout with the king himself - it would

be the President of Treasury Board. I do not think any other Minister - even the

Minister of Education, I really do not think he has much influence on the

thinking of the Premier. I really do not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I doubt it. Well, somebody asked me what

that big podium was out there in the lobby, the new podium. And I heard that it

was the new chair for King Clyde, they were going to put the throne out there or

something. Yes, that is what we have been hearing.

But anyway, there is only one person who has any clout with

the Premier. Only one over there.

MR. EFFORD: Who is that?

MR. SIMMS: The President of Treasury Board.

MR. EFFORD: Oh!

MR. SIMMS: He is the only one who has any clout.

MR. EFFORD: I thought you were going to say the Minister

of Social Services.

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Social Services had a tiny bit

of clout. Perhaps had a bit of clout during the days of the leadership race.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. SIMMS: Because I think he strongly supported the

Premier in his leadership bid, did he not?

MR. EFFORD: Sure.

MR. SIMMS: Of course he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I said he strongly supported the Premier in

his leadership bid, and the Minister of Social Services confirmed it. Of course,

he was not with Wins.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is right. He was not with the Government

House Leader and the President of Treasury Board, and that is where he should

have been.

Anyway, I do not want to be taken aback. I got up to commend

the Minister of Education for taking the time to get up. I also wanted to make a

comment about the bill or at least the issue, tax on tobacco. I say, in all

sincerity, it is one of the easiest taxes for any Government to impose. It is

one of the simplest taxes for any Government to impose because nobody is going

to complain. Even smokers will sit back and say they do not like it, but if you

are going to tax us on anything, tax us on cigarettes and booze, and if we drink

and if we smoke, well then sobeit, we will pay the taxes. But I have to say this

in connection with the issue itself, of smoking, having become a reformed

smoker, so called. One month today - Well, no, it is one month today for me. I

was one day ahead of the Government House Leader, he will recall. He started

8:00 on Monday morning April Fools day, and I started the evening before because

I did not want to be accused of starting on April Fools day like the Government

House Leader. He started Monday morning, and I started Sunday night. So it is

actually a month for me today and I think it will be a month for him tomorrow,

and it is a tough slug. We all know it is a tough slug.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baker has cheated. I think he had a draw

or two.

MR. SIMMS: No, I do not think so. I believe him. When he

tells me he has not, I believe him. But anyway, it is one of the most difficult

things that I think anybody can undertake. I tried it before.

MR. EFFORD: What? Quit smoking?

MR. SIMMS: Tried to quit smoking, yes.

MR. EFFORD: You got more will power than that.

MR. SIMMS: I am not talking about me, I am talking about

other people.

MR. EFFORD: Go away with you.

MR. SIMMS: Unlike the Minister of Social Services, I am

concerned about the people, the masses. I have talked to dozens and dozens of

people, the masses, who are trying to give up smoking, and it is a very

difficult challenge. And I have to say this to the Government House Leader, in

connection with the imposition of the no smoking ban in the Provincial

Government buildings a month ago, I think admittedly it helped he and I for

sure, I certainly can speak for myself, it has helped me.

MR. EFFORD: Do you feel better?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, except I put on 15 pounds in 30 days. I

do not feel good about that. But there are an awful lot of other people in this

building who smoke, there are Members in this caucus, Members on that side who

smoke and I suspect they have cut down a bit because it is hard to keep popping

out onto the back steps and everything like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the cars out in front.

MR. SIMMS: You notice our angel popped into the gallery

to keep an eye on us just to see what we - you notice that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: I am not going to refer to it or anything like

that.

But I say to the Government House Leader, there are hundreds

and hundreds of public servants who still smoke, who still cannot kick the habit

and it is going to be tough for them to do so, but you have an imposition in the

buildings now where they cannot smoke and they have to go out on the back steps.

You see them out there day in and day out, and some of them out on the front

steps, and if you can plough your way through the cigarette butts in the morning

you will be lucky to get in through the door. It is terrible. It is terrible.

And then there is the question of productivity, the whole question of

productivity.

So I say to the Government House Leader that the day will

come when these public servants will no doubt express their concerns about this

and request, perhaps, that some kind of a smoking place be provided. I suspect

that is coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not for me because I say to the

Minister that I have given up smoking. But I would, as one who is trying to give

it up, I would be prepared to support the concept of a smoking room being made

available to public servants or Members or anybody else because I think it looks

terrible. I think it is bad for productivity and I think it looks terrible to

have public servants out on the front and back steps of the Confederation

Building. It just does not look good. I am suggesting that there should be a

room set aside for smoking, and I am willing to think that a lot of Members who

do not smoke, I talked to some in my caucus here, not all of them but a lot of

Members who do not smoke - the Member for Harbour Main just mentioned to me that

he never smoked, and he told me that he would support the idea of a room for

public servants. I just plant it in the mind of the Government House Leader, I

want to plant it in his mind. Not for he and not for I, not for his use or my

use.

AN HON. MEMBER: But for our angel?

MR. SIMMS: Not for our angel's use, because he does not

smoke either. In the first six months that he gave up smoking he put on thirty

pounds. I put almost that much on in one month, that is my big concern. But I

say to the Government House Leader to keep an open mind on it. When the day

comes for that matter to be properly and thoroughly discussed in the Legislature

- and it will come, I can assure him - I hope he will keep an open mind on it.

And not be too -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I am pretty well clued up at

this moment, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SIMMS: No no, I will -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave of the

House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SIMMS: I will come back at it, Mr. Chairman, that is

no problem.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I could not

pass up the opportunity of making a few comments on - especially the hon.

Opposition House Leader and his plea. I have never heard in my life such a plea

come from an individual for his own rights and what he would like to have for

himself personally. Because I am sure the hon. Opposition House Leader was not

crying out for the individuals who sit out there in the cold because he can not

do that himself and use his smoke. And the fact that the productivity we are

losing. Does he suggest that if they moved from the outside steps into a special

room that there would be any less lost off of productivity?

Come on! Now, that is a flimsy excuse. What it is, the hon.

Member would like to see a special room set aside so he could go in there

because he does not want to be seen on the public steps. And I know now he is

especially concerned when he started talking about the excessive weight. Because

if he put on thirty pounds in one month, I can imagine what we are going to be -

we are going to roll him in here at Christmas time when we are sitting down in

the House of Assembly.

MR. SIMMS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: We all know how the Minister of Social

Services sometimes starts rolling on and on and saying everything that comes to

his mind. I have got to caution now. I did not say I put on thirty pounds in one

month. I said our Guardian Angel, the Guardian Angel of the President of

Treasury Board and myself, he put on thirty pounds in one month, or in six

months, rather.

MR. EFFORD: You said you put it on in one month.

MR. SIMMS: I have said I put on fifteen pounds in one

month. And that is extremely important, now. So if he is going to roll on, I

want to hear what he has to say, but get his facts straight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order, obviously.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: I will concede that, Mr. Chairman. I do not

mind about the fifteen pounds in one month. Multiply that times six, that is

ninety pounds. Can you imagine the hon. Opposition House Leader coming in here

in November month? Rolling him in through with ninety pounds? So I suspect that

is the reason why he is asking for the special room, so he can get that weight

off and get it. But there is a lot of will power goes into quitting smoking and

you are not going to do it by the increasing of taxes alone or the increasing of

the problems with health in the people's minds. I mean, you need to take up the

interest yourself and need to know what the impact on your health is by smoking.

I know when I quit smoking eighteen years ago, eighteen

years, I smoked quite heavily actually. And especially when you are out

indulging on a Saturday night to a social, one after another. But anyhow, I saw

a programme on television about eighteen years ago, I remember it was on

Wednesday night, on a documentary, where they had two jars about so big, quart

jars, and they filled it up with wad. And they drew the equal of a 1,000

cigarettes smoked through that the same as of an individual smoker. When they

finished the two cotton wool wads were coated with nicotine. And I had a package

of Belvedere cigarettes in my pocket and I threw them on the coffee table. And I

said: never again. I mean, that is all you need to know, is to realize the

impact of what is happening to your personal self.

So sure people get addicted. But when you see that - and

there is nobody in this House can convince me that it does not have an impact on

the cost of health in this Province. Now, if everybody quit smoking today the

cost of health care is not going to go down in this year's budget. But over the

long term and if people had the good sense not to smoke, then there is no

question about it that in a decade down the road the cost of health care would

have to decrease.

Now, I know the hon. Mr. Chairman does not agree with that.

And he looking over at me and saying: well, that is a lot of nonsense. But I

mean the fact is smoke must pay. But the problem that I have with it, personally

today, is not only the fact that it causes health problems to the individual

smoking, but it is worse for the person who is breathing in the second-hand

smoke. It is affecting my health and that is where I have concerns. It is

affecting my children's health, or people who have no control over it. I was

into a social Saturday night past out in my district, there were about 200

people there. I was just after getting my suit dry-cleaned that afternoon and

the next day I had to take it off and put it back in the cleaners again because

the stink was through it. I do not understand why the individuals would even

consider using the filth and dirt. And considering that it costs us $5.75 or $6

for a package of cigarettes compared to something decent to put in your body, I

mean it does not make any sense.

But I want to reflect on one thing that the hon. Member for

St. John's East said, and that was one of the reasons why I stood up. Because he

said that is was - what was it you said about the poor? That it was impacting on

the poor.

Now that is right to a point, that a lot of the undereducated

do smoke, but it is not fair to say it is impacting only on the poor. But let me

tell you something, if you had seen the number of children in this Province who

I have seen in the last two years, as Minister of Social Services, go to school

hungry, and no food on the table, and to see the parents spending $5 and $6 on a

can of tobacco, or $5 and $6 on a pack of cigarettes I think it is time that we

not only ask them to increase the taxes, and increase the cost of smoking, but

we should do a lot of other things in talking to those people and making them

understand how to manage properly within the income that they have in their own

system. And I would a lot sooner see $5 or $6 spent on food than on cigarettes.

So if the hon. the Minister of Finance can put up the cost of cigarettes to

force people not to smoke, then I have no problems with taking away and

supporting the Minister of Finance in doing that, and that is not the only

purpose of doing it. Taxes have to be increased in order to provide the service

to the people. But at least when you increase taxes you give people the option

of doing something. Now if you put taxes on food or taxes on clothing people

have to have food, people have to have clothes, but people do not have to smoke.

So if they do not agree with the tax, and they do not agree with the cost then

they do not have to purchase cigarettes. But if the taxes were on food or

clothing they could not do without the food and in most cases they could not do

without the clothing. So it is the most logical and sensible place to put it on

alcohol, put it on cigarettes, so it will have the least affect on the people.

When you walk into a liquor store or when you walk into a tobacco store and the

cigarettes there are $6 a pack or whatever the cost they are today nobody has to

spend that money, and nobody will suffer if they do not spend the money, but

they will suffer if they are not able to purchase the food.

So the hon. Minister of Finance is justified in levying taxes

on those sorts of articles, and where an individual has a choice. And unless

some Members opposite could tell us where you could provide services without

increasing taxes then you would not have to do it on anything. But I only hope

that the Minister of Finance, in his wisdom, as long as he needs to increase

taxes to generate more revenues, that he chooses the areas like he chose this

year, and it would be on articles that people would have to make a choice on.

Because when it is put on articles where you do not have a choice then that is

where the most difficult impact is going to be, not only on the rich or the

middle class people, but especially the poor people in the Province, because

they are the people who will find it very difficult to purchase food, and

purchase the essential things that they need to provide care for their families

and themselves in clothing and food and essential things like heat and light or

whatever they need to require for their own environment. But nobody can justify

standing in this House of Assembly and saying it is having a major impact on the

poor because the price has increased on cigarettes.

Now just to note one thing about the Opposition, I get a

great kick out of them when I hear some of the Opposition Members complaining

that the price of cigarettes are gone up. And when I referred to this document

that I tabled in the House some while ago and it was a standing order from the

present Opposition when they were in Government, and the standing order said

please issue a standing order for the supply of tobacco products for the

Premier's private dining room to be picked up on, an as and when required basis,

from April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990, estimated cost, previous employer J.B.

Hand and Sons $5,000. Now make no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that they would be

against the increase in taxes, $5,000, and the hon. the Opposition House Leader

gets up and complains: well after all you have visitors coming into the Province

and you have visitors coming into the country and you need to be able to

entertain your guests. Now I say that anybody who wishes to entertain people by

spending $5,000 on cigars, it is a poor way of entertaining them. I did not mind

as much the purchase for the private dining room, that was not so bad. This one:

please issue a standing order for the purchase of groceries for the Premier's

private dining hall when required on April 1, $10,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. EFFORD: How foolish, $10,000. Please issue a standing

order for dry cleaning of table cloths on and when required, $1,000. Please

issue a standing order for the purchase of fish items for the Premier's dining

room, $3,000. Please issue a standing order for liquor and beer to be picked up

an on and when required basis for the private dining room, various committees of

Cabinet, Treasury Board and so on, estimation of cost April 1, 1989, $20,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. EFFORD: $20,000. Please issue a standing order for

the purchase of frozen and seasonal produce - I guess produce is the vegetables,

lettuce and so on - $1,500.

MR. CARTER: Cucumbers.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, cucumbers. My colleague, the hon.

Minister of Fisheries reminds me that it was cucumbers. So, $10,000, $11,500,

$12,500, $17,500, $20,500 and $20,000, $40,500, should we have to increase

taxes? With mismanagement like that, Mr. Chairman, taxes will have to go up to

pay the debt that this Province incurred.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that

the Member for Port de Grave, the hon. Minister of Social Services, saw fit to

rise and engage in debate because he has spoken about something that I raised in

my speech, and I think that at least the hon. Minister is considering the impact

of this tax on poor people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Does the hon. Member have a point of order?

Perhaps he should raise it instead of bawling across the House like a omadhaun.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I would encourage the Minister of Social

Services to look a little further and recognize that poverty and addictions are

probably pretty seriously related. It is not enough really to say that people

who are on social assistance should not spend $6.00 on a package of cigarettes,

they should spend money on food. I think you have to recognize that there is a

very serious relationship because people who are on social assistance or people

who are poor, people who do have this habit of smoking and are addicted to it

like the Minister of Treasury Board, and like I myself, that we are maybe in a

position of making choices and deciding what is good for us and it is not enough

just to be told that it is not good for you because if that were the case all

you would have to do is tell the people once like the Minister of Social

Services learned his lesson on TV eighteen years ago. If that were enough it

would work for everybody. So there is more to it than that, and I think the

Minister recognizes that, and I think that he would probably be very sympathetic

to a program that if some of this money that is raised could be used to support

such a program, I think he would be sympathetic to that because I am sure the

Minister knows, and I know the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations knows

because she was the author of this report, or she was the Chair of the Committee

on children's schools and poverty that was presented in 1988-89, and she is very

much aware of the poverty rate in Newfoundland by -

MS. COWAN: Is that the CTF one?

MR. HARRIS: That is the CTF one, yes.

MS. COWAN: That is an excellent report.

MR. HARRIS: An excellent report as the Minist