May 6, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 18

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to congratulate Peter

Penashue on making the top forty of Canada's best and brightest innovators

under forty years of age.

This was the seventh annual event which is sponsored by The Caldwell Partners

International. The business and community leaders who sit on the committee

selected forty winners from the record 1,200 nominations.

Peter Penashue received the honour for his dedicated work as president of the

Innu Nation. It was through his leadership and perseverance that the Innu of

Labrador have made great strides in the areas of self-government, economic

development, and other community building activities.

He has been the driving force behind several initiatives to better the

quality of life for the Innu of Labrador. He founded the Innu Healing Foundation

and is currently spearheading a campaign to raise $12 million for recreational

facilities in Innu communities. He continues to raise awareness of many other

Innu issues.

The Innu Nation has made substantial progress during his three terms as

president. This is a great accomplishment for an individual from our Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. The top forty under forty is dominated by corporate

business leaders and scientists, making this accomplishment by a community

leader even more significant.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in

congratulating Peter Penashue, who is a great friend, for the work he is doing

for the Innu people of Labrador and for the First Nations People all across our

country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the residents of Pouch Cove,

Flatrock and Bauline, but, more importantly, the students of these three towns

on the opening of their brand new K to 6 school.

Cape St. Francis Elementary was named by a competition through the students

attending the school. The winners of the competition were: Matthew Whalen,

Jennifer Parsons, Kimberly Parsons, Tara-Lee Shave and Megan LeDrew.

This new school replaces two older schools in Pouch Cove, namely: St. Agnes

and Pouch Cove Elementary. It should also be noted that the Town of Flatrock's

school was closed a number of years ago and the students of Flatrock then went

to Pouch Cove to go to school.

Many people have been working for many years, to get a new school to serve

the students of Pouch Cove, Flatrock and Bauline, and they are very pleased to

have a modern, bright facility which, of course, will greatly benefit the young

students attending the new school.

There was much discussion over the years of the location of Cape St. Francis

Elementary. Credit has to be given to the three town councils, the school

councils of both schools, teachers, parents, the Avalon East School Board and

the government for their co-operation in the final site selection.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to attend the official school opening for

Cape St. Francis Elementary last Sunday, April 28, and to see the pleasure and

the satisfaction of all in attendance. The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation represented the government there, Mr. Speaker.

The students and teachers make a school what it is, and therefore I am sure

that Cape St. Francis Elementary will be second to none in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell

Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a sad note. Recently, a member of

our community, Mr. Herb Wells, passed away at the age of seventy-nine years.

Mr. Wells, who was born in St. John's, joined the Royal Navy in March of

1940 at the age of eighteen years. He fought in the Second World War until he

was discharged because of a combat-related injury.

Upon returning to Newfoundland, he wrote three books entitle: Under the

White Ensign, Comrades in Arms 1, and Comrades in Arms 2. These books

told the stories and experiences of Newfoundland servicemen during the war.

During his life, Mr. Wells worked with the Confederate Association, former

Premier Smallwood, the Sunday Herald and later with the Department of

Tourism as a military historian. Wells also wrote a weekly column on veteran's

affairs for The Evening Telegram which ran for more than 30 years.

Mr. Wells was a kind and caring man judged by his compassion for others. He

helped form a Naval Association of Veterans for those who served in the Royal

Navy from 1939 to 1945. He was awarded the Royal Canadian Legion's golden

anniversary medal in 1976 and the Queen's Medal in 1978.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in remembering his

dedication and his contribution not only to war veterans but to all of those he

has helped over the years, and offer condolences to the family and friends of

Herb Wells.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to thank and commend the Mount Pearl Lions

Club for their forty-six years of devoted and unselfish service to our

community.

On Wednesday evening, May 1, the Mount Pearl Lions Club celebrated the 46 th

anniversary of their Charter which was granted on April 17, 1956.

Mr. Speaker, only one of the original Charter members, Ern Benson, is still

active in the Club. We were all so delighted to see him at the celebrations last

week.

The Lion's motto, "We Serve" is so characteristic and

illustrative of the many contributions Lions have made to Mount Pearl. Since the

Charter was granted in 1956, four of the Club's members: Bud Ozark, Jim Soper,

Stuart Toope and Phil Field have served as District Governor of Zone 41-S2 and

Bud Ozark also filled the role of International Director.

A significant number of Lions, particularly in the early years, were elected

and served as members of the Mount Pearl Municipal Council.

Mr. Speaker, in the past year, the Mount Pearl Lions have been involved in

more than forty-five different community activities, including: the Journey For

Sight, the School Breakfast program at Mary Queen of the World School, Blood

Donor Clinics, Wheelchair Sports and Christmas Food Hampers, just to name a few.

Where there is a community need, you will find the Mount Pearl Lions ready to

step right in and offer a helping hand.

One of the most significant contributions in the past year has been the Club's

commitment of $20,000 over the five years to the Mount Pearl Opportunities Fund.

This fund has been established by the City of Mount Pearl to assist community

groups to offer programs and to encourage youth participation in a wide-spectrum

of activities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Just a moment to continue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Mount Pearl Lions Club is a fundamental

part of our community's social structure and while the Club's active

membership is not as high as it was some years ago, the Club still plays a very

vital role in our community.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all Members of the House join with me in

offering the Mount Pearl Lions Club congratulations on their 46 th

anniversary of their Charter and we wish them continued success in the years

ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour on Thursday, April 11, 2002 of

attending a reception sponsored by the Town of Bay Roberts to recognize its

outstanding athletes for the year 2001.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Yes, Sir, I was.

Twelve-year-old Samantha Mercer excelled in figure skating and volleyball.

Her involvement in Tae-Kwon Do - and I say to my hon. colleague, that is my

preference as well - earned her nine gold medals and two silver medals, three

provincial titles and two national titles to receive Female Athlete of the Year.

Ryan Trenchard was named the Male Athlete of the Year for his excellent

performance in ball and ice hockey, and softball both provincially and

nationally. He also participated in the St. John's Junior Baseball League

playoffs with the Holy Cross team. Ryan also spends time officiating both ice

and ball hockey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to extend congratulations to both

Samantha and Ryan on their outstanding achievements and the recognition they

have received.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, May 3, the Towns of Wabush and Labrador City held their annual

Volunteer Appreciation Nights.

As we are all aware, Mr. Speaker, it is the efforts of volunteers in our

communities that make them such as great places to live. It would be beyond the

capability of any community in our Province to pay - even at minimum wages - the

number of hours dedicated each year, unselfishly, by people who have a desire to

help others.

Mr. Speaker, the Wabush banquet was attended by 254 people. Volunteers were

presented with pins and plaques in recognition of their valuable contribution.

Cathy Auruda was the winner of the Volunteer of the Year Award, named The

Lolly McGreagor Award in memory of Lolly McGreagor who, for many years, was a

tireless volunteer in the Town of Wabush.

Tom Snow, current fire chief, and the late Mike Shea were inducted into the

Wabush Recreation Honor Roll Society.

Irene Woodworth and Debbie Batson received five-year volunteer awards, Dav

Pinksen, fifteen- year and Barry Carter twenty-year awards.

The Wabush evening concluded with an inspiring speech by Miss Teen

Newfoundland and Labrador, Miss Kristen Parsons.

In Labrador City, Mr. Speaker, 300 people attended the Volunteer recognition

evening with a number of awards being presented.

Nathen Bullen and Crystal Burt won the Junior Male and Female Athlete of the

Year award.

Mark Nichols and Lisa Murphy, Senior Male and Female Athlete of the Year

award.

Gary Pinsent and Markita Gallant, the Master Male and Female of the Year.

Barry McLean, Coach of the Year.

Ten year Volunteer Awards were presented to Vida Connors, Legion Branch 47,

and John Angel and Jim Gallant of the Menihek X-Country Ski Club.

Doug House, Robert Martin, Patsy Ralph and Robert Wellon received the

Builders Award, while Alvin Parril was recognized for his special involvement

with the Youth Center.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the Towns of Wabush and Labrador City in paying

tribute to all the winners of those awards and, indeed, all who volunteer their

time in making our communities a better place to live.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon my questions are for the Minister of Mines and

Energy. It should be a pleasant exchange this afternoon, a nice sunny day, and

we had a great weekend in Gander this weekend. We had a tremendous convention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Our new President, Kathy Dunderdale, is in the gallery, and

our former President, Karen Noftall, is in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: So, it is a happy day. I will be pleasant but I will be

probing.

Notwithstanding that

preamble, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the government

continues to mislead the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on the status of

the Voisey's Bay negotiations. In fact, there are too many conflicting

messages.

While the Premier has said a deal isn't close to being finalized, the

Minister of Mines and Energy says that negotiations are in a conclusionary

phase. Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is: Could he please tell the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador who is, in fact, misleading the people. Is

it the Premier or is it himself, the Minister of Mines and Energy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question and I am glad to hear that the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition had a good weekend in Gander. I have to confess, I did not make

it that far this weekend but I did have a good weekend at home. I would assume

that, on both our accounts, it was beneficial for our own purposes.

Mr. Speaker, to the question that has been put: there is nobody misleading

the people of the Province with respect to the current status of the

negotiations with respect to the Voisey's Bay project. The Premier has said,

and I have said, and others have said, that we are getting close to the

conclusion of the negotiations. That does not equal that we are close to

concluding, successfully, discussions for the development of the Voisey's Bay

project.

In terms of time frames, we have been discussing this project, Mr. Speaker,

since last July. We have been negotiating it with Inco. In terms of resolving,

as a basket of issues, the numbers of issues that have to be resolved, we have

concluded most of them; but I have to say to the hon. member, as I have said to

the public, the two or three items that are left outstanding are so fundamental

and so substantially important to the people of the Province that, at this

point, I cannot predict whether or not they will be successfully concluded and

that we will have a project. We will be soon bringing negotiations to a

conclusion one way or the other, but that does not mean that we will soon have a

project. We hope we will have a project. It was our intent, when we went back to

the negotiating table, and it is still our intent, to find a way to develop this

enormously positive and beneficial project for the people of the Province. We

hope that we can come to that type of end to our discussions, but until we get

there we have no project, and until we get there, we don't know what the

outcome will be. So it is premature to talk about many other aspects of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - the program or the project until we get to that point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is for that very reason that the people out there are confused. I mean,

there isn't only conflict or confusion between the hon. minister's

statements and statements by the Premier, there is also confusion with the

message being sent out by the Chairman of Inco; I am sorry, the CEO of Inco, Mr.

Scott Hand. Mr. Hand, a few weeks ago, said that Inco has made significant

progress in negotiations. There are only a few outstanding issues to be

resolved, and the Premier and he have agreed to sit down shortly and hammer out

the final details. In others words, we are very close, shareholders, we are

nearly there, the Premier is just going to finalize it, it is just about all

over.

The Premier, on the contrary, as I have said before, says they have not agree

to sit down shortly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: - and hammer out details, because a deal isn't close to

being finalized.

I ask the minister: Who is misleading the people, the Premier or Scott Hand,

the CEO of Inco? One of them has to be wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nobody misleading anybody. If anybody is confused, I understand that

could be the case, whether it is the general public or some member of the House

- there is no confusion. The comments of the Chairman of Inco can be best

responded to by him. He made those comments with respect to how close we were,

by virtue of his perception, to having this deal resolved one way or the other.

What the Premier has said in response to that is very clear. He said: I hear

what Mr. Hand has said. We have concluded on most of the issues. There are two

or three fundamental ones that we have not finalized. We have no idea, quite

frankly, whether we will successfully or not resolve them, and until we bring

ourselves to a position of knowing whether or not we have a resolution, as the

Premier has said, I think - he said: I have no meeting scheduled with Scott

Hand. I know he has no meeting scheduled with Scott Hand. Today, I have no

meeting scheduled with him. I haven't met with his recently. My officials are

continuing to talk with his officials, and we are moving towards finalizing, we

hope, the negotiations. So we hope it is a successful conclusion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We have no idea firmly, as to whether or not there will be

a successful resolution to this project. The issues and the project itself are

so important to the people in the Province that if we do not get it right, in

our judgement, we will not be bringing forward a project.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We hope we can bring forward a project because we hope we

can get it right for all our benefits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hand has said that he and the Premier have agreed to sit down and hammer

out the details. He is bound by the regulations of the Public Securities and

Exchange Commission. He has an obligation, by law, to be forthright and honest.

Based on the answer, I guess he is misleading the people.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said that one of the two outstanding issues in

the Voisey's Bay deal is the approval of R and D funding for Inco. Yet, Allan

Stubbs, Inco's spokesperson, said in March that federal funding cannot be

approved until a deal has been finalized with the Province. Who is misleading

the people? Is it the Premier or is it Mr. Stubbs, Inco's spokesperon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not about to stand in this Chamber - because it would be inappropriate

for me to even suggest that I have that right or ability - to answer for the

comments of Allan Stubbs or Scott Hand or Peter Jones, all of whom have spoken

publicly on the project. I am not going to speak to or explain for them anything

that they have said. They are the best ones to be asked those questions.

I can say to the hon. member that there are two or three major issues left.

From our prospective, we have said R and D is an important component of the

development of the economy of this Province. R and D, in the context of the

Voisey's negotiations, is obviously something that is an important piece of it

because Inco has said, and we have agreed, that we would like to get a

substantial R and D program going; first of all, to test up the hydromet and

then to be used for other purposes in subsequent years as a might-be

opportunity.

With respect to what they are asking of Ottawa, Inco in Ottawa, for

assistance under R and D or under any other programs that the federal government

have had, these are not our issues. Our issue is to negotiate an arrangement so

that Inco can sign off on coming forward in developing the project. We have said

that we would encourage, support and ask the federal government to give Inco

every due consideration for program-based funding or any other type of funding

that is available on the same basis that they would give consideration to any

other company wanting to do business on an R and D basis in our Province or

anywhere else in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We think that we should not disadvantage ourselves

unilaterally on any basis, political or otherwise, against any project.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: On the contrary, we say Ottawa lend business your support

in Newfoundland on any and every basis you can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, then I ask you - we have two conflicting statements there, one from

Mr. Stubbs and one from the Premier. Can you tell me whether the federal funding

can be approved prior to a deal being finalized or does it have to be approved

after a deal is finalized? Just give me your answer as the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the timing of approvals, with respect to the level of

approvals, with respect to at what point approvals are formally given for R and

D funding out of the federal government, I frankly do not know when it is and at

what point in time it is or will be that they will give approvals, if they in

fact give approvals for R and D on this project.

We simply say to Ottawa, and I say today publicly to Ottawa, in the context

that Inco has said they are up there in the capital city looking for some levels

of assistance and support for the program, I am saying to Ottawa: we would like

to see some clarity brought to what extent Ottawa can participate in the

project. Advise Inco - because we are not participants in the discussion that

they are having with the federal government - of what the conclusion can be

probably to their requests so that we will have greater clarity as to when we

can move forward to conclude negotiations. Inco has clearly said that one of the

two or three things that they want to bring conclusion to is their discussion

with the Aboriginals, the discussions in Ottawa, and then of course discussions

with us to see whether or not we can clear up - aye or nay - the two or three

big issues that are left and see whether or not we have a project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, even though the Premier has indicated that they are not close to

finalizing a deal on Voisey's Bay we have reason to believe, and we have

information and we have indication, that negotiations are being carried on

between Inco and/or the representatives and/or related companies with regard to

contracts for construction and other matters at Voisey's Bay. Does the

minister have any knowledge whatsoever that Inco is negotiating any contracts

with respect to development of Voisey's Bay with SNC Lavalin or any other

related companies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility as a government in

the first instance to try and bring about a resolution of the issues that would

lead, hopefully, to the successful development of the Voisey's Bay project.

What level of activities Inco are carrying on or may be carrying on with

respect to discussions with other agreements that they have to reach with

respect to the federal government, with respect to preparatory work that they

may be doing to be ready to go forward with a project in the event that there is

a successful conclusion, are questions that can only be answered by them and

should appropriately be put to them.

I am not, in the first instance, aware of all of the activities that they are

involved in. I hear a lot of things on the street, quite frankly, as I am sure

the hon. member does, as to who is doing what with respect to preparatory work

to get ready for the project. We take all that as being positive in the sense

that obviously there is a mindset within the corporation, Inco, to hopefully try

and get this deal done. But, Mr. Speaker, until the deal is right for the people

of this Province, there will be no development of a project for Voisey's Bay.

Until we get it to a point where we believe we have a deal that is supportable,

sustainable, defensible and above all, right in terms of the economic outcome to

the people of this Province for the next thirty-plus years, until we get that,

there is no project. Everything else, quite frankly, is academic in terms of

what has or has not been discussed, arranged, negotiated or concluded outside of

our discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: If, in fact, Inco are

treating this as a done deal, and if, in fact, they are out negotiating

contracts or talking to people about possible construction and development

during this summer period in Voisey's Bay, isn't that information that the

minister should know and wouldn't that be important information in finalizing

the negotiation? Because if they think a deal is already done, then you should

know where their head is at if you are going to finalize the best deal for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, I ask you again: Are you saying you don't know, or if you do know, tell

us what you do know with regard to those negotiations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: As limited as it is, Mr. Speaker, in terms of knowledge, I

cannot tell the hon. member today, in a short time frame, all that I do know.

Now I do not know a lot, but I do know some things. I know a fair bit, Mr.

Speaker - with fairness to the question and the hon. member - with respect to

what is happening around this particular file. If, after leading the

negotiations for twelve months, it puts me in a position of not knowing very

much, then there needs to be a replacement.

I know a fair bit of what is happening around the file. I know where we are,

Mr. Speaker, which is my primary concentration and concern with respect to our

negotiations. Whether or not any party, including Inco as the other party to a

commercial arrangement, if we do one, accepts the current circumstance as being

de facto, a done deal, is something that I cannot speak to. But I can tell you,

Mr. Speaker, and tell the people of the Province, through the question that the

hon. member asked, that there is no deal done today with respect to the

development of Voisey's Bay. There are substantial - if few, still substantial

- issues that are unresolved and I cannot predict today with any certainty

whatsoever as to whether or not we will eventually come to an arrangement that

is right for the people of the Province to get this project moving. We are

hopeful we can get it done. We believe the people of the Province are expectant

of us to get it done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: As much as the people of the Province want to see it done,

they want to see it done right; and nobody in this Province, including members

on that side or this side, would want anything other than the best possible

outcome from the discussions on this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing in a world of conflicting

messages and mixed messages out there. Someone is misleading the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is about a question of trust.

If, in fact, the Premier is not being honest about the negotiations and is

misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would ask the minister how

he could expect us to trust them that they will return ore to this Province in

thirty-five years' time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: It simply will not happen.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to speak, as I said earlier, to any comments or any statements

that have been made by anybody else other than this government on behalf of this

project. I think that is fair and I think that is what the hon. member would

expect.

With great respect, I would challenge the hon. member to point out one area

in this discussion that has taken place in this House where the Premier's

comments, and my comments, have been inconsistent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: As far as I know, and as far as I can determine, as far as

I have heard, and unless somebody else can tell me different, there have been no

inconsistencies with respect to what the Premier has said and with respect to

what I have said. We may have used different words to say the same thing, but

essentially we have both said the same thing. There are no meetings lined up

between the Premier and Mr. Hand on this. There have been meetings between Mr.

Hand and myself on this file. There are no current plans to have any meetings

imminently. But, having said that, we do all believe that it is time to get this

discussion, this negotiation, to a conclusion one way or the other.

What the Premier has said, as I have heard him, and what I have said, is that

over the next several weeks, one way or the other, we should bring resolution

and clarity as to whether or not there will be a deal that we will be - if it is

concluded properly - proud to bring to the people of the Province, and have a

good debate in the Province, a good discussion, and a good, clear, free and open

dialogue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - with all of the people of the Province with respect to

the values of a deal if we get it done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Does he remember 2:00 p.m. on December 4, 2001, when he

stood in this House, and the Premier stood in this House, and said that none of

the Voisey's Bay ore in Labrador would leave this Province, and within half an

hour he went outside that House and said just the opposite, that he meant

equivalent ore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: There is an example. What do you have to say to that,

Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, there is any confusion, or no

substantial confusion or misunderstanding, in the minds of the people of this

Province as to what it is we are proposing in terms of trying to get this deal

negotiated successfully. We have said clearly, the Premier has said clearly,

that over the last number of months - I cannot remember December 4 specifically,

only on this account: I know it is the eve of my wife's birthday and I know

that day I would have been shopping for a birthday gift. Other than that, I have

no clear recollection of what I would have been doing on December 4 because I

wanted to make my wife happy on December 5, her birthday. December 4, I was

probably shopping.

Now who said what, exactly, with respect to any other issue, I have less

clarity on, but let me say this: Nobody misunderstands, I do believe,

fundamentally that we are discussing or are prepared to discuss the possible

movement, we have said - the possible movement - of concentrate, providing we

get the right guarantees that it will come back over the life of the project so

that we can get a project going that is right for the people of the Province. We

will not do it if, in our judgement, the deal is wrong, and we will be happy to

present it to the people of the Province if, indeed, we think we get it right

and get it done successfully.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported this weekend that the Minister of Education

is planning to cancel public examinations in Math 3205. Now, I say to the

minister, Math 3205 is not a new course. It has been around for three years in a

pilot project and that sort of thing. It is surprising that it would have to be

cancelled, so I ask the minister: Is it true that you may cancel the exam? Why

would you cancel the exam? And, is it possible that you may cancel other public

exams in other subject areas? Minister, please.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have been advised by the lead math teachers of

each of our school boards, as well as with some board reps, that there is some

difficulty being experienced with the Advanced Math program, 3205. Part of the

issue for us, I guess, is, when you look at the problem we had where we have

strikes in several of our school boards, the students lost a considerable amount

of time; and, in fact, the issues around September 11 as well, and the fact that

text books were not available at the beginning of the school year. Having said

that, Mr. Speaker, what we are finding and what we are hearing from teachers is

that there is a considerable amount of material to be covered in the Advanced

Math 3205 and they are suggesting that maybe they need a little more time. They

have asked us to really give some serious thought as to whether or not we offer

a public exam in that particular subject area only, and I have agreed to do

that. Whether or not we go ahead with it will depend, again, on the

recommendations I get from those who are closest to the students, and those are

the teachers and those in the school board areas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that the teachers have been speaking since early in the

school year, in September and October, and they haven't been listened to; but,

Mr. Speaker, to get to the problem. The problem in math is not the exam but the

math curriculum, not just 3205, but across all grades. The math results in last

year's public exams were a disaster, Minister. Math professors in MUN have

warned -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: - that students are coming to the university without

adequate skills in math, and student performance, Mr. Speaker, on the SAIP in

2001 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. HEDDERSON: - declined since the last time in 1997.

So, I ask the minister: What, Minister, are you doing with the curriculum?

What are you going to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for pointing out the

terrible results we had last year in our exam results, because clearly that

points to the need for new enhanced, improved curriculum. That is exactly the

question he asked me a couple of weeks ago, about the poor results, and I told

him the testing was, in fact, based on the old curriculum, not the new math

curriculum.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have to find a way to ensure that our

students do better on math. That is exactly where we are coming from, as a

department and the eleven school boards throughout the Province. We are working

with a new math curriculum, and there will be issues that we will have to deal

with. There will be problems we will have to iron out as we go along, and that

is not uncommon when you introduce a new curriculum. It is because,

historically, we have had difficulty with math in this Province, with our

students excelling in math, because we have had problems, that we really are

putting an extra effort into trying to see what we can do to see some

improvement in our math scores in this Province.

On the SAIP results, Mr. Speaker, in fact if you look at the results for the

four Atlantic Provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador led.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: But that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. We want our students

to excel. We want them to be better than the rest of the country. So we are

doing a number of things, including introducing a new curriculum, which, as I

said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: - with all other curriculums, when they are new, there are

bound to be problems, but we will work with our teachers and we will iron out

those problems, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the minister, this math

program, 3205, goes back over three to four years with piloting. You have had

your chance. I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the effect on the 800

students who are registered today, when they go to post-secondary, is the big

concern that we have today.

I ask the minister: If the public exams are cancelled in math 3205, how will

the post-secondary institutions compare the math skills of those 800 students

with the skills of other students who write other public math exams? Madam

Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, first let me just correct a number that the member

opposite gave. It is not over 800 students. In fact, it is a little over 500

students, but 145 of them have applied to post-secondary institutions. So those

are the numbers in terms that are taking this particular advanced math course,

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with Memorial. I do

understand they would prefer to see the public exam go ahead in advanced math

3205. However, Mr. Speaker, even if it had gone ahead, they tell us that they

would still offer their mathematics placement program. So, whether or not we

offer the public exam or a commonly written exam administered by teachers

themselves, who taught the material, Memorial will still go ahead and offer

their mathematics placement exam.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Labour.

There have been eighty cases of cancers diagnosed around former workers in

the Baie Verte asbestos mines, twenty-four of those, I say to the minister,

since the year 2000. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg because many

workers have moved out of the Province since the mine closed down in the early

1990s. Unfortunately, workers in the asbestos mines in Baie Verte who develop

certain types of cancers are put through a difficult and lengthy process

fighting for compensation. It is a relentless fight to get compensation for

these workers and their families on a case by case basis but it appears that

Workers' Compensation is not seeing the big picture that the high levels of

cancers among these workers is related to having worked in the asbestos mines.

Given the high number of cancers diagnosed in former workers in the Baie

Verte mines -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. COLLINS: - and the new cases coming forward, I ask the minister, will

she direct Workers' Compensation to implement a policy that has the balance of

probabilities in favour of the workers so that they and their families can get

the compensation they deserve without being put through the hardship and the

stress of fighting for illnesses that are obviously linked to their workplace?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for

his question.

All members in this House would know that safety in the workplace is priority

number one of my department. I have to say that a couple of years ago we did

receive an inquiry from Baie Verte regarding asbestos, contamination and so on,

and we sent in an asbestos consultant who looked at the abandoned mine and came

back and stated to the Department of Labour that there were no ill-effects or no

concerns to the workers because I understand that there has been a business set

up in that abandoned mine since it was abandoned.

The idea or the concern you are raising regarding Workers' Compensation and

miners who feel that they have been contaminated by the workplace at Baie Verte,

well any worker who feels that they have been exposed to a contaminant in the

workplace has to prove their case. There is a legislation in place and also a

policy at Workers' Compensation. The issue (inaudible) today is confirming and

making sure that the actual illness did take place in the workplace, and that is

where it rests today. Unless it can be proven that the illness or occupational

contaminants occurred at the workplace, it would not be approved by Workers'

Compensation Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really cannot believe what the minister has just stated. Given the known

effects that asbestos causes in the workplace, I say to the minister, you are

not even allowed to take it out of your own home. Knowing the carcinogens and

knowing the causes that asbestos has with cancer and given the fact that these

people have worked in an industry where there is a latency period before the

cancer is developed in their systems, I say to the minister, will she not just

send an inspector to the mine, will she commit to a full medical audit of the

people who worked in Baie Verte? The balance of probabilities, I say to the

minister, in Workers' Compensation matters should go to the worker. They

should not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I say to the

minister, will she commit to such a study?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question that is being raised today by the Member for Labrador West is

similar to a question that was raised by Marystown Shipyard, and there is a

study ongoing right now by Marystown Shipyard. However, I have not had any

representation today or any other day from anyone in the area of Baie Verte

requesting such a study.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I must say to the member opposite, I cannot inform

Workers' Compensation Commission to write a blank cheque to any worker out

there who is affected by what they feel is an occupational disease. I have not

had any representation today from any worker, from any union representative, or

otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: So, Mr. Speaker, as it sits today I will not undergo a study

until I have had proper representation from the parties affected.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will introduce

the following Private Member's Motion:

WHEREAS the availability of affordable air transportation is an important

factor in the growth of the economy of this Province; and

WHEREAS the current air service to the Province is expensive and less than

adequate; and

WHEREAS the growing tourism industry in this Province is heavily reliant on

the airline industry;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the federal government to

eliminate the costly air travel fees on passengers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the federal

government to put in place policies which result in affordable and comprehensive

air service to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of

Labrador West. It is addressed to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new drugs for multiple

sclerosis; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides

medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizen's Drug Subsidy

Program and people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 and $3,600 a month; and

WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with

the high cost of these drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs, not

limited to social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people

with multiple sclerosis.

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to

implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for Betaseron, Avonex, Copaxone

and Rebif so that people who do not qualify for assistance under the existing

programs can get financial assistance with these high cost drugs, as is the case

in every other Canadian province, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever

pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have raised this question on a number of occasions in this

House to the minister stating that this Province should have these drugs covered

the same as every other province in this country provides, from P.E.I, Nova

Scotia and right on through to British Columbia. Every single province, other

than ours, provide coverage for these drugs.

Mr. Speaker, the cost that I reflected there, between $1,800 and $3,600 a

month, is high. I think we can all agree that there is no way humanly possible

that a single person, a person working for a living in this Province, can afford

that type of money. The government's answer is: well, we cannot either. We

have a limited amount of money that we have to spend on medicare and we have to

do our best and try to target the areas that we can. The problem with that

argument, I say to the government, is not that the government will not provide

coverage for that drug, because they will. The problem is what government

expects working people in this Province to do to themselves before they will

provide that coverage. For example, if a person is working in a place of work

and making $50,000 a year income, then government requires them to cash in any

RRSPs they may have saved for their retirement; to cash in any education funds

they may have for their children; to spend any savings; to offload practically

everything they own and live like a pauper. Then, after they have done that to

themselves, after they have ruined their families financially, then government

will pay.

It is not a question of whether government will or will not pay, Mr. Speaker,

it is a question of what they expect the working men and women of this Province

to do to themselves and their families before they will pay.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, every other province has it and I am sure that the

conditions in other provinces -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, every other province in the country has it and I think

it is appropriate and about time that the people of this Province do. We are not

asking for carte blanche. We are asking that a system be put in place, and a

co-payment system, based on other provinces, that will go a long way towards

alleviating the financial burden of people in this Province and, even more

importantly, allowing people the opportunity to use these drugs which certainly

can enhance their lifestyle.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on the roads in the District of St. Barbe.

I will read the prayer now.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador:

WHEREAS roads in the District of St. Barbe have deteriorated to the point

where they are becoming impassable; and

WHEREAS many roads in St. Barbe have degenerated so far that they are a

safety risk; and

WHEREAS the roads in the District of St. Barbe support large volumes of

traffic, especially in the summer tourist season;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to commence immediately with improvements to the roads in the District of St.

Barbe.

And as in duly bound your petitioners will ever prayer.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about having bad roads in the District of St.

Barbe is an added expense that the people have to incur there. The roads are so

bad that the mechanical parts are failing, with the damage that is being done to

their vehicles, and this is an expense on top of all the taxes that we have. As

you know, the gas prices and whatnot in other parts of this Province are higher

than we have here in St. John's, so it is very much a lot of added expense.

One of the things we have done on the Northern Peninsula is, we have looked

at tourism as a means to substitute for jobs that have gone because of the cod

moratorium and actually the lack of development such as in the shrimp industry.

So, I would like to point out that those roads are very important to the

Northern Peninsula and to the District of St. Barbe, but yet we have let them

deteriorate considerably.

I believe one of the reasons why those roads have gone so, is that they are

old. Those roads are twenty-five years and older on the Northern Peninsula, so

they have come to the end of their life; but one of the reasons that they have

also deteriorated and are in such bad condition is that there have been heavy

loads on those roads. There have been no scales there, so the trucks have

exceeded their load limits in many cases and that has added to the problem.

As well as that, the shrimp industry happens in the spring, and one of the

things in the spring, with the spring runoff, is that you have the roads in a

very weakened condition. What happens is, this also makes the roads deteriorate

faster because the support is not there as it was. All of this has compounded to

make the roads become worse than what they should have been if they had been

used under normal conditions.

All of the road, all of 430, I guess, is in a very poor condition, but there

are certain places that need attention, I suppose, that kind of come to the top.

Down in Gros Morne, as I said, tourism has been a means by which we were trying

to generate employment on the Peninsula, down in this park which attracts a lot

of people. They come there, and when they see the condition of the road as they

leave the park, it certainly gives them an opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. YOUNG: By leave, just a second?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. YOUNG: I think it is important, as the park is investing money down

there this year, that, if the Province were to continue on and give a better

presentation to the possible tourists who would be coming to the Peninsula, it

would certainly be one place.

As well, I would like to point out, as I have in the past many times, Anchor

Point has been a community that has been out there that has been very fortunate,

in one sense, of having a shrimp plant, but in the other sense of never being

able to open up (inaudible) in the summertime.

The Town of Port au Choix, I suppose, wasn't as fortunate. They have

invested in the community and they have upgraded their community roads, and the

provincial road is the one road that is by far the worst in the community.

I think we need to look at what is happening in the District of St. Barbe and

maybe invest some monies back into the roads there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition as well.

The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly in Newfoundland, in

legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland.

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since

it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this

section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that

vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving schools in the

area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very

difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to upgrade and pave the approximately four kilometers of Route 235 from Birchy

Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition from the residents of Birchy Cove,

Amherst Cove, Upper-Middle-Lower Amherst Cove, Newmans Cove, Kings Cove, Plate

Cove, Bonavista, and the people who normally travel that route from other

communities leading into the Town of Bonavista.

I have had the minister down over this

section of roadway twice, this present

minister. I have had the former minister down over that

section of Route 235. It

is an area that the Town of Bonavista, the largest community, the largest town

in my district - I know I have written the minister complaining about this

section of roadway, how it needs to be upgraded and paved. There have been some

feeble attempts made to deal with this four kilometers over the last number of

years. The

section that is left to be upgraded and paved has already been

ditched, pipes have been installed, and the need now is to have the pavement

replaced by the existing pavement that was put there in excess of twenty-five

years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the residents in that particular area have held demonstrations

over the years. They went out and they have handed out pamphlets. They have

handed out letters and asked for support. I know there have been many letters

that have come to the minister and to the minister's department asking that

this

section of roadway be upgraded and paved, and included in this construction

season.

Mr. Speaker, it has been awhile now since there has been any amount of money

spent in the District of Bonavista South. In fact, I think it was probably three

years ago we did realize ten kilometres of pavement on this particular road,

Route 235. Since that, we have gotten half a kilometre here, 400 metres

somewhere else, a kilometre in another area. It is a situation where the roads

have deteriorated now to the extent where it needs a major amount of money,

major, major funding put into the roads in the District of Bonavista South.

I bring forward petitions from the people in Birchy Cove on Route 235, from

the people in Winter Brook, from the people living in Open Hall, Red Cliff and

Tickle Cove, not to mention the terrible road going out to places like Sweet Bay

and Charleston.

I know we do not have enough money brought forward in order to attend to all

the problems in all the districts, but if we never start, we never finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: So I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will include

this

section of roadway in this year's capital funding to at least give the

people in the Bonavista-Birchy Cove area a decent road to travel over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I believe, has a

petition to present.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise today and present a petition on behalf of 196 residents of the

community of Charlottetown in my district. It is regarding infrastructure for

water and sewer projects.

Mr. Speaker, this a very important petition from the people in that area

because, as of today, the community itself has only 40 per cent of the water and

sewer infrastructure in its community complete. We all know that most

communities in the Province today have some water and sewer infrastructure; if

not, at least half the communities have been completed.

In my district, Mr. Speaker, there are seventeen communities. Four or five of

them have no water and sewer services whatsoever. This is a very important

concern for us. Over the years we have had special agreements with the federal

government under the Labrador infrastructure agreement, primarily, where we have

seen investments of dollars into our communities in northern parts of the

country - in this case in Labrador, which is the northern part of our Province -

to help bring the communities in this region on par with other communities

throughout the Province and across the country in infrastructure. That agreement

which ran out back about six or seven years ago has not been renewed and it is

unfortunate because the federal government refuses, today, to negotiate sectoral

agreements with provinces to address areas in specific locations.

So, while in Labrador we do have a northern agreement or an Aboriginal people's

agreement which deals with infrastructure needs in the Aboriginal communities,

primarily in the Torngat Mountains area and in the Innu Nation communities, that

funding does not apply to communities in Southern Labrador, which is very

unfortunate; because the community I am referring to today, Charlottetown, where

people have submitted this petition to the House of Assembly looking for money

for water and sewer. They are Aboriginal communities, as is most of the

communities in my district, and they are Mtis communities. Unfortunately, they

do not have an infrastructure development agreement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: If the member for Placentia has a question, you can stand up. I

am just trying to present a petition. Could you give me a moment?

Mr. Speaker, these communities are Aboriginal communities but because there

is not a separate pot of money for Mtis communities to deal with

infrastructure and capital improvements, unfortunately these communities get

left out. Although the provincial government has a $300 million agreement with

the feds over the next three years to deal with infrastructure in our

communities, that money is cost-shared money and sometimes it is very difficult

for smaller communities with smaller populations - as is the case in

Charlottetown and all of the communities in my district - to be able to

participate in those agreements in any major way. We are not talking about a

project that will only -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up my comments?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it becomes very difficult for these communities to be able to

participate in those cost-shared agreements. They just do not have the dollars

to be able to do so. So, Mr. Speaker, what they are asking is that we give them

some priority consideration under the funding agreements that we have in place.

Ideally, what works for northern communities in our country is a northern

agreement, a sectorial agreement with the federal government that deals

primarily with water and sewer and infrastructure needs in northern communities.

It is important to note that it costs three times more to put water and sewer in

most of these communities as it does in other areas of the Province and at

substantially higher costs, which really does not allow these communities to

participate.

I ask hon. members to support the community, and myself as the member, to

help them work through this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker, to move that the House resolve into a

Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions respecting the imposition

of taxes on tobacco, Bill 5.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 5,

An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act with a resolution to be submitted

to the Committee of the Whole House in relation to a measure respecting the

imposition of taxes on tobacco.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I rise today to have -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I did not see the Minister of Mines and Energy standing in his place.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, no problem.

CHAIR: If you would.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will gladly sit down and let him be recognized. I will

have a little more fuel to comment on then when he does.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope he does not have any more fueling to spur among - because I do not

intend to light up over this. I simply intend to introduce this on behalf of the

minister who is not here today.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to say much to this bill by way of introduction

other than to say that it is the bill that will give effect to the tobacco tax

increases that have already been announced in the Budget. They have a two-fold

effect, quite frankly, from the Province's perspective. In the first instance,

they are a health initiative to try and help reduce the use of tobacco products.

Secondly, they do provide extra money for the Treasury. The extra money for the

Treasury, of course, is required because this year, as in most years in the

past, we have put extraordinary increases into the health care budget to,

amongst other things, develop strategies that would seek to reduce the level of

participation by usage of tobacco products. Particularly amongst the youth in

the Province, the young people of the Province who, when they get hooked on this

tobacco habit, find a harder time, obviously, to get off it than if they had

never been hooked at all.

The bill really is a bill to give effect to the tax increases. We hope that

they will be effective also in terms of reducing the usage of the product. It

does provide money, as I have said earlier, for the effective implementation of

new strategies with respect to tax reduction usages. We hope that, not only will

the bill have its desired effect of reducing the usage of tobacco products, but

that it will in fact also - we know it will have the effect, maybe, depending on

how the usage goes in the future, of raising additional revenues to the

Province. We are not sure about that because - we would be happy campers, Mr.

Chair, quite frankly, if we found out that there were no new taxes coming into

the Treasury by virtue of the decreased utilization of tobacco products. That

would be the almost perfect outcome in the context of this bill.

If usage continues to be high, we will need the extra money to fight the use

of it and develop strategies to try and work against the use of and discourage

the use of tobacco products. If we ended up with no new money in the Treasury,

we believe we will all be the net beneficiaries of more money in the health care

system and Budget to be used for other purposes rather than fighting tobacco

illnesses and diseases. At best, Mr. Chair, we hope that is the outcome. At

worst, it will generate some new revenues to enable us to continue to fight the

use of the product and to fund the health care system generally.

Mr. Chair, I do not think I need to say any more than that. The bill is very

self-explanatory and I am sure the hon. member on the other side, from

Ferryland, who will speak next in the debate, will be anxious to support this

bill because it is a bill put forward for all of the right and good reasons that

the bill states, and that I have already mentioned, and I am sure that he will

want to give it quick and speedy passage so that we can move on to other matters

of importance to the people of the Province in terms of other legislation that

needs to be debated.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any hopes of having quick passage just when out the door with two statements

made by this minister on this bill. The minister said that he is not sure if

they are going to realize the amount of revenue under this item that they said.

In other words, he is telling us the Budget might not even realize the level of

expenditure that we want. Maybe that is why they want Bill 7.

They are proposing under this Budget that $15 million of new revenue would be

collected because of this bill. That is what the Budget that the Minister of

Finance brought down is saying. The minister is now telling us that he is not

sure if they are going to get that revenue. What does that mean?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what the minister just said, and here is the second

point he made. He said, the purpose of this bill is twofold. One is to increase

taxes for $15 million and, secondly, to reduce smoking.

This bill, I advocate, was not brought in to reduce smoking. This bill was

brought in as a tax measure, and there is not any reference in this bill

whatsoever - I do not see it anywhere - where this bill talks about one of the

purposes or anything with reference to reducing smoking. It is not one of the

purposes. If you want to reduce smoking, this government could have brought in

legislation that bans smoking in all public buildings. In all public buildings,

period! That then would be a bill that is geared toward the reduction of

smoking. In fact, they could make a bill, and change the law, that would made it

illegal for anybody under twenty-one to buy cigarettes. Those measures are ones

that will show the purpose.

There is one purpose of this bill and one purpose only. The purpose of this

bill is for government to reach out and get extra revenues to meet their

mushrooming deficit. That is what is happening. That is the purpose of this

bill. It has no other purpose; it has no other intent. I never heard government

saying before that the intent of this bill is to do that. It was not mentioned

in the Budget Speech. It mentioned that it would realize $14.5 million in new

taxes. Fifteen million, actually, is shown here, not $14.5 million. They are

showing $15 million from the revised amount last year to the new amount this

year in taxes. So that is the purpose of this.

It does make reference, I might add, "Clause 2 of the Bill amends the

Act to allow the regulations made by the minister with respect to the rebate of

tax in Labrador border zones to be made with retroactive effect".

Back about four or five years ago, the people in Labrador were paying tax in

this Province the same as the rest of the Island. I went down to Labrador and

spoke to the Chamber of Commerce. I articulated our policy, what it should be,

on taxation. What was happening, the people in Labrador were paying the same tax

as here when they could drive to Fermont. They were driving to Fermont and

buying cigarettes, coming back with carloads of groceries and other items they

were buying in Quebec, and businesses in Labrador City and Wabush were suffering

as a result of that. I advocated that we had to look at border zones that level

the playing field, and to allow businesses in our Province to be able to cushion

themselves against the effects of losing business from border towns that have

preferential tax rates and lower tax rates in various areas. That was one of the

things. After going there, speaking to the chamber, getting fairly, I must say,

extensive coverage on that, government then were forced to come in with

legislation to bring that into effect, and I support that part. I support the

clause that makes it effective, because we do not want to see towns in our

Province, in Labrador City and Wabush, in Labrador West, suffer because our

government is going to penalize them and not allow them to compete with towns

across the border. So, that

part I do not have any major problem with.

But, to tell us that the purpose of this bill is to be able to reduce

smoking; it is not the purpose. I hope it does something to reduce smoking. In

fact, I really think that young people buying cigarettes - and it is very price

sensitive to young people. The higher the price, there is less access and it is

less likely that these young people would buy cigarettes if they are expensive.

We do not want to see young people getting access to cigarettes that could

affect them for the rest of their lives. We would like people to be at a mature

age, as an adult, to make decisions on their own if they want to affect their

health, but we cannot have young people being put in the position whereby they

will make decisions that could hurt them for the rest of their lives. We have to

be very strong on this on young people. I have said before that we weren't

strong enough. We are not strong enough on this, and I took the minister to

task. We apply a different standard for underage people with cigarettes than we

do with alcohol. We apply a different standard. Government has two different

standards. They are not consistent on this aspect in their legislation and we

said it is a problem to an extent. Now, we do not want to make young people

criminals because they smoke, but we have to be very proactive. At least, on the

other side of the coin, we have to be very proactive with young programs. I know

there is a program now where there are teens against smoking, and hopefully that

will get us a desired result. If we can do it through positive measure, it is

much better than doing it through negative measures to get the result we want.

So, that it important.

The purpose of this bill - don't let government kid you into thinking their

motive behind bringing in this bill is one of concern for the health care

system. It has nothing to do, basically, with its direct intent. It was never

stated by the minister in the Budget Speech. It was brought in for the sole

purpose as a revenue one, and that is why we are debating in this House now as

one that is put forward by the Minister of Finance, and not one brought in by

the Minister of Health and Community Service. Because, if that was the intent of

it, on the monetary side, that is where the bill would occur and we would see

improvements and we would see changes to reduce smoking by young people in our

Province. So, it is a grab.

If you would just take a look at what this Province is taking in, in areas

like cigarettes, in taxes on tobacco. For example, the tobacco tax we are

proposed to take in this year is $80.5 million. Last year, it was $65.5 million.

That is a different of $15 million. Now, it said in the Budget Speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: From $65.5 million to $80.5 million, I say to my colleague,

is $15 million. The budget said $14.5 million. That is what they advocated but

actually they budgeted $15 million more. They said one thing and budgeted for

something different than they said on the revised figures.

When the minister was reading the Budget, on Budget Day - she had a book put

out that had a $500,000 difference than what she read the same day in the

document she produced. She was only $500,000 - and that is a fine lot of money,

but it is nice to be accurate when you already have it in print.

I want to point out, it is not just the tobacco tax, just look at the other

taxes. For instance, taxes that we are taking in in liquor, the liquor

corporation. We are getting $103 million from the liquor corporation on liquor

taxes. We get $80.5 million on the tobacco tax. Lottery revenues, and that is

another huge one, $106 million. Almost $300 million that we are taking in, in

our Province, on tobacco, liquor and gambling; $300 million. A significant

percent of our provincial revenues today are coming in from those taxes. When

you look at the total provincial revenue of $2.2 billion - $300 million coming

in - about one-seventh are coming in, or 14 per cent are coming in under

cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling. That is a lot of money.

One of the points I made is that there should be programs utilizing these

taxes to be able to help reduce the addiction of people from participating in

practices that are detrimental to their health. This government puts in - out of

$106 million it takes in from lotteries they put in $150,000 a year to deal with

addiction from gambling; $150,000 on $106 million. That is matched by the

beverage industry to the tune of $150,000.

One of the points I have been raising and saying is that we should allocate a

certain percent, up to 5 per cent, it does not have to be five right off the bat

the very first year, but if you took 5 per cent of your revenues - the profits

you are making on gambling, as an example - and put that to assist people who

have addictions to gambling, that is over $5 million. I am not saying that we

should put five in this year. We should start increasing it up to - and arrive

in a reasonable period of time as we get programs in place and personnel in

place to be able to offer professional services. It is not too much to ask to

use 5 per cent of the revenue you are taking in on those taxes, about $106

million, to use to help people afflicted with them, because people have lost

their homes due to gambling addictions, families destroyed, their own personal

health has been almost decimated because of certain addictions. Here, in

tobacco, we are looking at taking in $15 million and we only use a pittance of

that to develop programs that are going to reduce it.

Then the minister stands up today and has the audacity to tell us that there

is a twofold purpose to a money bill here; one is to eliminate smoking among

young people. That is a stretch, I would say. That is a stretch I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would imagine. The minister said the sale of tobacco has

gone down. I would imagine that the 70,000 people who left this Province in the

last decade had something to do with the reduction of smoking here in our

Province. I would assume it had something to do with - people in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, who cannot get enough food to put on the table, had

something to do with the reduction of cigarette smoking in our Province. And if

the increased price has something to do with it, that is fine too, but do not

tell us that this has the effect of reducing that dramatically. I do hope that

the price sensitivity in young people is going to be positive that people should

not have to make decisions and should not be in situations where they have easy

access. If they are an adult and they want to make that decision, if they are

going to harm their own health, they want to make that decision, that is a

choice that they will have to make. They should not as young people, as

teenagers - and even people prior to their teenage years have smoked.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the intent of this legislation was monetary, strictly

monetary. It had nothing to do with reducing smoking. In fact, I do not think it

is mentioned in the Budget Speech at all, anywhere in this Budget Speech - I

stand to be corrected, if anybody can find it.

On page nine, the minister said: "One way we could have brought the

deficit down is by increasing taxes. But we are not willing now to risk the

gains we have made to achieve a better economic climate. Tobacco taxes do not

have a direct impact on our economic drivers. They do have a direct impact on

tobacco consumption, particularly on teens who are sensitive to price

increases." She did make reference to that, I will admit that.

"Tobacco taxes have not been increased by the province since 1992." It

is changing. It is now increased and will contribute $14.5 million to deficit

reduction, and hopefully to a much healthier population. It is driven by money

on the deficit. That is basically why it was there. It was put there, because

this government had an opportunity to deal with the health side of it. They had

an opportunity to deal with the health side in legislation before, but they only

went part way - if they were sincere about that.

This is basically a tax grab to try to bail the government out from falling

far short of the money they need to make revenues and expenditures balance in

our budget. We are seeing a $93 million deficit proposed. When the minister

stood and read the Budget in this House that minister knew that Budget was not

right. If we just take one example, Harbour Deep, it has been estimated it is

going to be $5 million. They knew when this Budget was read in March that the

possibility of spending money in Harbour Deep was a real likelihood. In fact,

the deal was pretty well done. They never built that into this Budget. They

never built the $5 million into the Budget and now they do not have approval to

relocate. There is nothing in the Budget to relocate Harbour Deep. This Budget

is not even approved.

I hope that the minister is going to stand and move an amendment to this

figure here to allow for that expenditure. I am not questioning the judgement of

the decision at all. It is not relevant. I am saying it is incumbent on the

Minister of Finance to put before this House amounts of money for debate and

consideration by this House on money that they know they are going to spend. To

not put that in this Budget when they knew it was going to happen is not being

honest. It is not being truthful to the people of this Province and it is

misleading the people of the Province into thinking we have a better deficit

figure than we really have. I say that sincerely because I knew - and I am sure

Cabinet knew and the people knew - when the Budget was read back in March,

Harbour Deep, if it was not a done deal, it was just about a done deal. That is

why it should have been factored in, but it was not. They left that out, and

they are telling us the $93million is now almost $100 million, without that.

That is not being fair and that is not being honest. We should be debating here

in this House - we should have seen it in the Estimates here, those amounts

allowed, but it is not included. It is not the only one that is not included.

Let me tell you, it is not the only one. There are tens of millions of dollars

that are not included. We will see.

On last year's Budget, they have expenditures that they are looking at -

they are looking for one (inaudible) that is not included, an expenditure. They

are looking for money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it will be higher. Wait until the Public Accounts are

tabled in November. Last year you said the deficit was going to be over $30

million and amounts published by -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished. I said last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We will get to it.

What the amount was - what was it, $349 million? - $350 million, that is what

it was. So what? It said it is close to $400 million. It is going to be between

$300 million and $400 million; close to $400 million. It was $350 million on

what was $30 million proposed. That is what it was.

I will make another statement now, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I will

make another statement, that the money we showed in this Budget, the $63

million, will not be $63 million. When we see Public Accounts this fall it will

be an awful lot closer to $500 million. I can assure the minister that. Wait and

see in November when the Comptroller General, employed by this government,

publishes a public account report and confirmed by the Auditor General of our

Province, that that will be the figure. We will have added almost $1.5 billion

debt to this Province in five years; almost $1.5 billion.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is wondering how long I am going to go on. The

Chair tells me that my time is up but I know under these rules we can go ten

minutes back and forth; and I will an opportunity.

I will just sit down and let someone else have a few comments but I will be

back on this important issue again, a $15 million figure here in our Budget that

this government is looking for under this particular bill here.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Ferryland has said, the intent of this

bill is not that we would make it, as the minister tried to indicate, as a

health care initiative. If that were the case, then we, certainly on this side,

would be very, very happy to support it.

As the Finance critic has said, this bill is intended to reach out to try to

get more money. In fact, last year $65.5 million was paid by way of taxes on

cigarettes. This year the government has budgeted $80.5 million. This is a tax

grab. If this were a health care initiative, we would have much content in our

minds in going and supporting it. Mr. Chairman, we know that in this particular

case we should be doing all we can to support health care initiatives that lead

to helping people stop smoking.

Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the budgeted expenditures, I did not see any

additional monies being spent on health care prevention measures. So, we have an

extra $15 million expected to come in by way of extra taxes, but we do not see

the same kind of expenditures in the health care budget in terms of what you are

going to spend extra money on, in terms of trying to get people to stop smoking.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to share with hon. members some facts about

tobacco and the use of tobacco in Newfoundland and Labrador: Smoking kills more

people in Newfoundland and Labrador than traffic accidents, AIDS, suicide and

murder combined. Smoking kills more people than all of these other things

combined. When we say here we are committed to health care, we want to say to

this government that we expected there to be more money allocated from that $15

million extra towards prevention. We do not see it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a money grab.

MR. H. HODDER: It is a money grab. Really, it is a tax on people who are

addicted to tobacco.

Smoking is the most important cause of preventable illnesses, disability and

premature deaths in Newfoundland and also in Canada. Mr. Chairman, smoking is

the leading cause of preventable illnesses; yet, we do not see any of that $15

million extra being allocated to prevention programs. We, on this side of the

House, would be very happy if we were trying to do more to encourage our young

people to stop smoking, to encourage people of all ages to stop smoking.

Mr. Chair, there are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes. I will repeat that:

There are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes. We find that there are chemicals,

for example, like acetone which you also find in nail polish remover. We find

that there is formaldehyde, which is an embalming fluid. We find there is

arsenic, which is a poison. We find that there is turpentine, which is paint

stripper. We find that there is nicotine, which is a pesticide. That is just to

name a few that are listed on the sheet of information which I had forwarded to

me today from the Department of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Chair, we know that cigarettes are very dangerous to health. That has

been a conclusionary statement that is well known, and we would have wanted this

government to put more money into prevention. What they have done instead is

simply take the money in but they haven't put that equal amount of resources

into helping our young people kick the habit and get off the cigarette smoking

practices that they have been into for some time; sometimes as young as ten and

eleven years of age.

The best way to prevent smoking deaths is to keep people, especially kids,

from starting. We know that. We commend governments all over the country for the

initiatives that they have taken. However, Mr. Chair, we know that we need to do

a lot more. We need to do more to encourage young people. We should be doing

more to encourage them not to start at all. For those who have started, we

should be encouraging them with more support for them to stop their smoking

habits.

Every year in Newfoundland and Labrador, smoking kills 1,000 people and over

45,000 Canadians, and smoking kills about 3.5 million people worldwide. I will

repeat that: Every single year, 1,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador die

from the effects of cigarette smoking. In Canada, 45,000 Canadians die every

year because of the problems associated with smoking. Worldwide, 3.5 million

people die every year. Yet, we see this government taking in an extra $15

million this year and not putting one extra cent towards prevention.

Smoking, Mr. Chair, has been linked to heart disease, to mouth, throat and

lung cancer, emphysema and bronchitis. These are the diseases that are so often

associated with cigarette smoking or with any use of tobacco. This is a drug.

Nicotine is a drug, and that drug is certainly the most common drug in tobacco.

Research shows that nicotine is just as addictive for some people as cocaine or

even heroine. It is certainly very, very addictive, and by the time many

teenagers reach the age of seventeen, eighteen and nineteen years of age, they

are already addicted. Adults do not start smoking, for the most part; children

and teenagers do. So when we say smoking is a problem, we know that it is a

teenage problem.

As a former principal of a junior high school and as a teacher in senior high

school, I know and I have experienced the fact that many teenagers want to stop

smoking. They would like to stop. In fact, by the time they are seventeen years

old, they know it is wrong. But many of them, by that time, are indeed addicted

to it. They want help from their schools, from their communities, and from their

government. They want help in stopping this particular harmful habit.

Smokers, on average, lose fifteen years of their life. Research, which I did

before I came here today, varies. The lowest number that I could find for years

lost was fourteen years of life lost because people smoked. Some research puts

that as high as seventeen years. So, somewhere between fourteen years and

seventeen years of life is lost because people smoke. If you look at that over a

normal lifespan of seventy-six years for males and eighty-one years for females,

we can get some kind of an idea of the impact it has on people's lives, on the

lives of their families and on communities.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we know it is illegal to sell cigarettes to

people under nineteen years of age. There have been some improvements in the way

in which the enforcement has been going and the practices that have been put in

place to try to prevent young people from getting cigarettes; however, we know

that they still do. Very often the cigarettes are bought by the people who are

older and often sold to young people in the parking lots of our schools. In

fact, when I was the principal of a school, I know it used to happen just around

the corner from the school. People who were legally able to go out and buy

cigarettes would go out and buy them - they weren't prevented from buying them

- and they would come into the school area -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Just to finish up this thought, if I could.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: They would then come into the school area where there were

large numbers of teenagers - in the part of Mount Pearl where I was the

Administrator there were approximately 2,000 teenagers, in that part of the

community. They would be there in the tunnels or in the areas around the school

and just off the school areas, selling these cigarettes to these young people.

Certainly, there were efforts made to try and stop that, but all we did was just

move the problem from one area to another area.

Mr. Chair, I will have more to say on this throughout the afternoon. We, on

this side, are saying that the extra $15 million should find itself in two

parts, extra revenue - we are not disagreeing with that, but we also saying

there should be more money spent on prevention programs. This is a health issue.

The minister said it was a twofold problem, a revenue generator and also, he

said, the emphasis you want to put on it with health: prevention. When I look

into the expenditures of health, I don't find the balance there whatsoever.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to thank the members on the opposite side for

their support here today, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say a few words on bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, Mr.

Chairman. This, of course, is going to increase the cost of buying tobacco in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, in the bill itself, if you look

at the amount in paragraph 1, it is going to increase from eleven cents to

thirteen-and-a-half cents. That is only two-and-a-half cents, I think, per gram

they are talking about. If you listen to the Minister of Mines and Energy, who

introduced this bill today, they are talking about some $15 million that is

being projected in revenue for the Budget this year.

Now, I have been listening attentively to the Member for Waterford Valley and

the Member for Ferryland, Mr. Chairman, who made some very good points with

respect to this piece of legislation and the Budget itself. The Member for

Waterford Valley talked about the number of people who actually die from tobacco

usage in the Province, in the country, and worldwide, which is very interesting

to listen to. He said - and I certainly believe he knows what he is talking

about when it comes to this because he does a good job in his research all the

time, the Member for Waterford Valley, that is - that 1,000 Newfoundlanders per

year die from tobacco usage, 45,000 Canadians, and 3.5 million worldwide.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines and Energy was on his feet and he said,

basically, there were two purposes for bringing in this piece of legislation.

One, was to discourage the use of tobacco in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and the other one would be, it would be a sideline; the worst that you

could expect would be that they would collect new revenue. Now, Mr. Chairman, if

they were to collect $15 million that is projected for the Budget, fine and

good, but he says himself they might not realize all that money. Then again,

that is going to impact the bottom line of the Budget this year, for 2002-2003.

So, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter remains now, again, that the Budget

that was brought down this year has another major question.

We have had questions in the House of Assembly by the Finance critic. He has

been speaking on the Budget for some time now, pointing out a lot of concerns

that we have with the Budget on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, and

rightly so; because we know, according to the Auditor General and statements

over the past few years, when they said they had a deficit a few years ago of

$22 million, it worked out to be a $250 million deficit. Last year they said

they had a $35 million deficit; the Auditor General and their own auditors

within the government themselves, the Department of Finance, has said it was

$350 million. This year they are saying it is a $93 million deficit. In actual

fact, we now know that before this House, I think, is Bill 7, with respect to

the $200 million that they are looking for; $200 million that is not included in

the Budget.

How can we trust this Administration, looking for another $200 million over

and above the Budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Fisheries is over there now

trying to interject. We have had three speakers in a row, three speakers in a

row on this side of the House, on this piece of legislation, and not one on that

side of the House. So, how much support do they have on that side of the House?

If the Minister of Fisheries is so concerned about this legislation, what we are

saying, let him get on his feet and address this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up, as a young kid, I grew up in a family of

twelve children and our parents, fourteen in the family. Members on the opposite

side might do well to listen to this. Fourteen people in our family, and all of

them, Mr. Chairman, everyone in the family, smoked. As they got older, they took

up smoking. The only one who did not, Mr. Chairman, was myself. I do not smoke

today, and I have never smoked, so when it comes to speaking on this piece of

legislation, I maybe a bit bias with respect to non-smokers, I suppose Mr.

Chairman, but oftentimes when you talk to people who have smoked in the past and

gave it up, these are the people who are more abusive, I suppose, or harder on

smokers today than the non-smokers have been.

When I was a child growing up, and the people in my family smoked, I do not

know why I never did take up smoking, Mr. Chairman, but I remember this: when I

was a very young child, being in a doctor's office and I saw the picture of

two lungs. Two lungs, Mr. Chairman, a smoker's lung and the lung of a person

who did not smoke. The picture of the smoker's lung was black, dirty looking,

dried up, Mr. Chairman, and maybe that had an impact on me.

What I am getting at, I suppose, as the Member for Waterford Valley had said,

we take in a lot of money in taxes for cigarettes in the Province of

Newfoundland - tobacco - and we do not put enough into prevention. That is

certainly what it appears like. If young people could see the impact, maybe, at

a very young age, the impact of smoking on their lungs and their health care -

MR. SWEENEY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is

over there trying to interject, and he is not making a very good point. He is

trying to relate something to this past weekend, whatever that was, something

that is obviously bothering the members on the other side of the House a lot,

because I have heard a lot about it even since I stood in this House today. I

think they are talking about our convention in Gander this past weekend, where

we had something like 600 people out to a dinner on a Saturday night. It seems

to bother this group on the other side of the House a lot, especially the Member

for Gander and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. They are very concerned

about it, and rightly so, Mr. Chairman, because the tide has changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the dinner the Premier had out in Gander.

This bill is a very serious bill. As I said, I have talked about prevention

and how we should be putting more money into prevention, and the benefits that

the Treasury would recoup from that unbelievable, I would think, Mr. Chairman.

There is a lot to be said about this piece of legislation and I will probably

get time during this afternoon to speak to it more often. I noticed, and I do

not know if other people have noticed this, that young female teenagers, I

suppose, around thirteen, fourteen and fifteen years old, seem to be smoking

more now than even the young male teenagers. That is just a personal observation

that I have made over the past few years. A lot of that, I suppose, why they

take up smoking, is peer pressure and what have you.

I remember this picture again - getting back to the picture I saw in the

doctor's office - and if more young people could see the effect that smoking

has on them maybe fewer teenagers would take up smoking.

I do not know if the minister is right, that, by increasing the cost of

tobacco, fewer people will smoke. Because I remember, as a kid, again, going to

the store to purchase a package of cigarettes for my father, my mother, or

whatever the case may be, thirty-eight cents a pack. Cigarettes today are

probably $5 or $6 a pack. I really do not know. More than that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, say $6 a pack. Mr. Chairman, that is fairly

expensive to have a drag on a cigarette, a smoke, or whatever you want to call

it. There are still just as many people smoking. I do not know if that is

correct, though. It seems to me that there are more people trying to give it up.

It is an addiction. It is a very strong addiction, I say. I know a lot of people

who have tried to give it up in the past, have maybe tried five, ten, fifteen or

twenty times. I do not know, but all of a sudden they realize, they make up

their minds, that they do not want to smoke and they cannot give it up. We have

the patch they call it - I see it advertised on television - for people who try

to give up smoking. Maybe it works or maybe it does not. I don't know; I have

never had the experience.

Some years ago, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the previous premiers, Clyde

Wells, when he was in power, brought in - in a hospital where you see so many

people in the Province dying from smoking, or the use of tobacco - these rooms

they had built in certain lobbies or on different floors of the hospital and

they had ventilation systems put in where smokers could actually go into these

rooms and smoke. They spent, I do not know, maybe hundreds of thousands of

dollars to put these in the various hospitals. What happened shortly after that?

They banned smoking altogether from the hospitals, completely, no smoking within

the hospitals. Some people will argue for it, some will argue against. Some

people, I suppose, would say that, if a person has been smoking for forty or

fifty years and they are on their last days, why not let them have a cigarette?

By stopping them isn't going to do anything for them at that point in time.

Go into any of the hospitals, walk into the Confederation Building here, and

you see smokers on the steps. I don't mind it personally when someone is

outside having a smoke - I do not - but, when you walk into a hospital, and the

Health Sciences Centre is one, Mr. Chairman, and you see people outside, they

have intravenous in their arms, pushing around the poles with their intravenous

bags in them, outside having a smoke. It is pretty hard to look at when you see

someone out there trying to have a cigarette, when maybe they are on their last

few days or their last few weeks, whatever the case may be. That is something

that should be looked at. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on these

rooms and they are not allowed to use them any more.

Some people, Mr. Chairman, will make the argument - and I have heard this

from smokers - that they pay taxes on cigarettes all their lives. They might be

paying them for ten years, twenty years, thirty years, forty years, fifty years

maybe -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman, just to say a few more words?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave to clue up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave, to clue up.

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

They have been smoking for forty or fifty years and they say - and this is

the argument that has been made to me, oftentimes - that they have paid tens of

thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes and they have paid

for their health care if they have to end up in a hospital.

I do not know if that is a reverse sense of logic - I do not know, Mr.

Chairman - but they say so. In actual fact, even though they smoke and it is a

burden on the health care system in the Province, 1,000 die per year in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. One thousand. Can you imagine, if there

are 1,000 dying, the impact that is having on the individuals who smoke, who

haven't passed away in a given year, to keep them alive, or whatever the case

may be. They make a case that they have paid for their health care indirectly,

anyway, Mr. Chairman. That is just a point that I wanted to make here.

I think what I will do - I do not want to abuse the time - I will probably

get up again later on this afternoon with respect to prevention and the

different programs now that the RNC have going with respect to advertising in

the stores, and you see the signs and what have you.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) provincial campaign.

MR. J. BYRNE: The provincial campaign, I was going to get into that. Yes,

I will, I say to the member.

See, Mr. Chairman, there we go again. We, on this side of the House, are up

speaking on the legislation, as per usual, and the Minister of Fisheries - he

made a good point that time, by the way, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the

provincial campaign. The anti-tobacco campaign, basically, is what he is talking

about. It was a good point, so maybe he would want to get up and speak to that.

If we don't, I am sure someone on this side of the House will address it. I

think the Member for Waterford Valley was on to that when he talked about

prevention earlier, Mr. Chairman.

With those few comments, I will sit down. I am sure someone on this side will

certainly speak to this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS KELLY: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise this afternoon in response

to Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. I have several reasons to

strongly support this bill, especially as the Minister of Youth Services and

Post-Secondary Education. I think all of us are very concerned about the numbers

of youth who are smoking. We all know that if you do not start smoking, that it

is a very good thing. It is something that is very, very hard to give up. It is

very addictive, very costly to our health care system, and it is something that

many people already, just knowing that we have introduced this bill, and as it

was announced in the Budget, many smokers have, in fact, thanked us. They have

said: Look, because you have raised the price of cigarettes, this will make it

more difficult for us and give us yet another reason to stop smoking.

I know - all of us know - in spite of the arguments that we have heard across

the floor this afternoon, that there is a direct correlation between raising the

price of tobacco and the incidents of people giving up smoking. We know that the

higher the price, the less people who will smoke.

As a nurse, I strongly support this legislation. I remember very well, in my

days, especially as a student nurse, a middle-aged gentleman who was dying of

cancer, and because cigarettes were so addictive, this man lay in his hospital

room hooked up to an oxygen tank unable to smoke. Yet, I remember his firm

request: You know, I am dying, there is nothing I can do now, can you unhook and

take out this oxygen so I can smoke? I remember him saying to his children on

his deathbed: Don't ever, ever do this to yourself. He actually volunteered to

have people come through his hospital room so he could talk to them about the

importance of never taking up smoking.

It is really, really important for all of us to do everything that we can to

discourage smoking. We have some very good programs that government finances

through the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco but one of the most successful

initiatives that this government has instituted is our Teen Tobacco program. We

have been doing research that is directly showing that it is having an impact.

We have to support their initiatives. We have to be able to say we will do

everything possible to help you stop smoking.

I can tell the member opposite, who just spoke, that the taxes that are

collected from any one person who smokes does not begin to cover the cost of

their health care. Just one surgery that would be required for lung cancer would

take many, many levels of taxation. What they pay over a lifetime doesn't

begin to cover one week of the cost to the health care system in a hospital. It

astounds me that anyone could ever stand here and make the case that anyone who

is paying taxes -

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Now, it should be understood here, and clearly understood, the member over

there, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, the Member

for Gander, is twisting words that were said here today. When I was at my place

here today, Mr. Chairman, I clearly said that the (inaudible) been put to me and

it was a reverse sense of logic that the people who are smoking - and these are

my exact words: that people who smoke pay enough taxes to cover their health

costs. I say it is a reverse sense of logic. So please, minister, withdraw those

remarks. If you are going to make a comment to what was said on this side of the

House, please try to be accurate.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: At all times I try to be accurate and if that, in fact, was

your intent, I accept the statement and I certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS KELLY: Well, thank you very much for making that clarification because

it is an argument that is used by many but it does not hold any water. The

research has very clearly been done over the years to show that if you smoke for

fifty years, the taxes that you have paid, even if you smoked two packages a

day, would never cover the cost of what you will cost the health care system

over the years.

So, it is very easy to see why it is important that - it is not very often

actually that you see Health Ministers from across the country and Finance

Ministers from across the country agreeing that we ought to be bringing forth

bills like this to help, especially our young people, to deter them from

smoking. As I have said, as a nurse I strongly support this and as the Minister

of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, I feel that it is very important

for all of us to recognize that this is not being done to raise money for

government coffers. This is being done to deter smoking. This is being done with

the very strong support of many anti-smoking groups in our Province and with the

strong support of school boards and anyone who supports, especially, our

youth-serving agencies. We know that anyone who works in our health care system

well knows the devastation that is caused in families from the scourge of

illness caused by smoking.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand today to say that we have, as a

government, addressed this matter and it is our hope that this will just be one

piece that will help others to stop smoking. Just by raising these taxes this

small amount is not going to have a huge dent on smoking, but it will, I think,

in the long run when combined with other programs, help others to stop smoking,

who are spending too much money on it at great health care costs.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to speak on Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

Again, the previous speakers on both sides have certainly indicated that

there is a need in this Province to address the health effects of smoking. Not

only the health effects of smoking of a particular group, not only the smokers,

but I guess the non-smoker, because we have to talk about secondhand smoke here

as well, and the effects of secondhand smoke on non-smokers. I suppose we have

to look at the ill-effects of tobacco use right through the entire population,

because it is very, very difficult to go through this life without coming into

contact with an environment where there is smoke.

Now in looking at the tax increase - again, some previous speakers have

indicated that perhaps by increasing taxes, it will decrease usage. From where I

stand, that is not necessarily true. Just to depend on an increase in taxes to

deal with this serious health issue is not where you should go.

I would like to talk a little bit about the effects of tobacco and look at

the ways in which you can perhaps make a difference in trying to decrease usage

in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Increasing taxes is not going to

address the problem as we see it.

My colleague from Waterford Valley has already indicated that something, I

believe, to the tune of an extra $15 million will be received through this tax

increase. If it is the rational to use that money specifically for stop-smoking

initiatives or prevention programs or promoting healthy lifestyles, there would

no difficulty from this member in encouraging that kind of dedication of funds

to those specific initiatives.

Also, as an educator, I certainly have seen over the last twenty or thirty

years some patterns developing with regard to smoking. I particularly allude to

- and I will start with the young people. We will look at the reasons why young

people may decide to pick up smoking. Certainly, I say to you to, Mr. Chair, it

has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the cost of the cigarette nor a package of

cigarettes, or whatever. With regard to young people the reasons why they may

decide to pick up this God awful habit rests with the socialization which they

often are involved in; especially, Mr. Chair, at the junior high level. I think

statistics will bear this out when we talk about first-time smokers. Many of

them, if they can get beyond the junior high level - and that would be, I would

suggest, Mr. Chair, approximately twelve, thirteen, fourteen years of age. If

they can get beyond that point and into Level I, which is the high school - I

think again statistics will bear me out - that there is a less likelihood that

they will ever, ever smoke. So, there is a crucial time factor in intervening

with the various strategies and it is not something that you can leave to

chance. It is not something that you can initially say: we will put it in the

curriculum, teachers will talk about it and it will work.

There has to be an intensive intervention strategy put in place, I would

suggest, Mr. Chair, coming out of elementary school in grade four or five and

during those years from grades four, five, possibly even six, right up until

high school, it has to be really driven home. Of course, it is not enough just

to put a program into place. It has to be a program that in some way or another

hits to the very core of why young people would ever want to pick up smoking.

Again, I am not sure if any of my colleagues who spoke before went into it, but

there are any number of reasons why young people may decide to pick up smoking;

may smoke for the first time. One of the reasons simply is the curiosity of it

all. What does it taste like? What does it feel like? Does it make me any

different as a person? Will it draw attention to me? Curiosity. It is very

difficult, Mr. Chair, to stop a child's curiosity. As a matter of fact, when

we look at the curriculum in our schools today we understand that we have

changed our tact and we encourage the curiosity of young people. So, on the one

hand it is very difficult to eliminate curiosity while at the same time

encouraging curiosity.

A second reason, Mr. Chair, deals with the socialization, especially during

those crucial teenage years or early adolescent years of around twelve, thirteen

or fourteen. Let me tell you, as a parent - and I am sure the many parents and

grandparents who are in this House have come to realize that there comes a

period of time in their child's life, whether rightfully or wrongfully, when

they are more inclined, Mr. Chair, to listen to the advice of their own peers.

Very often, very, very often, they will not even attend to - the worst thing you

can do is tell them to do something. Oftentimes they will do the complete

opposite, because it is the norm of their peers. They are more easily convinced

to do something or not to do something by their peers than, I would suggest, by

their parents. So, there is a period of time. This peer pressure has to be

looked at, Mr. Chair, and has to be addressed if we are going to make a

difference with regard to encouraging young students not to smoke.

A third reason, Mr. Chair, as I go down through, with regard to someone

picking up smoking for the first time would have to be an aspect of seeking

acceptance, oftentimes into a particular group. I guess this is like peer

pressure. Oftentimes you will see a situation where someone is kind of on the

outside of a group wanting to be on the inside and using a cigarette or smoking

as a way of gaining acceptance into what they see as that particular group. So,

this seeking acceptance, Mr. Chair, is yet another one.

Fourthly - let's be real about this, and thank heavens the advertising with

regard to cigarette smoking is all but eliminated on our televisions, in our

newspapers, in our magazines, and basically in the media in general; as well,

even in our sitcoms and our Hollywood movies and that.

Whereas ten or twenty

years ago it was not uncommon to see smoking a big part of any production, today

you don't see that. So, that bombardment is not there. The packaging that has

come out is also, hopefully, having some type of an effect, with the messages

contained on it, about it being a cancer causing agent and so forth.

Still, I say to you, Mr. Chair, what the child sees in their environment will

often influence what they do in the larger society. There are still, obviously,

many parents who are smoking out there, there are many adults who are smoking,

and many young people. They see -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave? I will just finish those thoughts.

CHAIR: By leave to clue up?

MS JONES: No leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: No leave?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is my understanding that the Member of Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair denied leave. You have to be in your seat in this House to deny leave

to a member. You cannot do it from any other member's seat. If that is the

case, which I believe it to be the case, Mr. Chair, the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne, unless anyone else is going to deny him leave, still has the

floor.

CHAIR: The Opposition House Leader is correct. The Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is not in her seat.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: That is a correct

interpretation of the rules, Mr. Chair. I

just wanted to say that just about every person, every member who spoke today,

has asked for leave. That was about from petitions right on, from member

statements, everybody on both sides has asked for leave. I just ask hon. members

- we do have time and I believe that we can stay within the confines. If you

just note the number of members who have been extended, we probably add ten or

fifteen minutes to the time every time, and time is precious.

I just ask hon. members - I have no objection to giving an hon. member ten or

fifteen seconds. I have said before, that, when we extend the member time, the

hon. member ought to know that he is speaking with leave of the House and should

not be long.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) no objection, give the hon. member time.

MS JONES: (Inaudible) last week. You didn't give me leave.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: I thank the Government House Leader for granting me leave.

I just wanted a minute, I say to the Government House Leader. I was on a thought

and I just wanted to finish up the thought, knowing full well that I can get up

a little later on and continue on with what I am doing. Again, I thank the

Government House Leader for extending leave to me.

I just want to say, Mr. Chair, that I was looking at the reasons why the

youth of today certainly will take up smoking for the first time. I have talked

about peer pressure, seeking acceptance, modeling adult behaviour, and

curiosity. I just want to finish up in saying that oftentimes the youth of our

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will use smoking as

an act of rebellion,

much like many young people in many generations have done. It is these reasons

that we really have to target if we are going to prevent our young people from

taking that first puff, which is so crucial to establishing that habit which we

need to eliminate.