December

9, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 32

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House

of Assembly to recognize a very important event in the history of human rights.

Tomorrow marks forty-five years since the first signing of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. In 1948, the United Nations

unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common

standard of achievement for all peoples and for all nations, large and small.

Mr. Speaker, in honour of this universal declaration, the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador proclaimed the Human Rights Code, along

with other jurisdictions in Canada and other nations who have proclaimed human

rights legislation. The provincial Human Rights Code, which is enforced by the

Human Rights Commission, prohibits discrimination in the areas of employment,

services and accommodation on the basis of race, religion, religious creed, sex,

marital status, physical disability, mental disability, political opinion,

colour or ethnic, national or social origin. Age is protected in employment.

Harassment on the above noted grounds and sexual solicitation is also prohibited

under the Code. As a matter of policy, Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Commission

also accepts complaints of discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual

orientation and family status. The Human Rights Code requires employers to pay

equal wages to males and females who perform the same or similar work.

The Human Rights Commission, Mr. Speaker, has been

established to administer and enforce The Human Rights Code. In so doing,

complaints are investigated and attempts are made to effect settlements. To date

this year, the Commission has received 187 complaints, an increased figure over

last year which can be attributed to the Commission's efforts to promote,

through education, an awareness of human rights. I might add as well that in

March of this year, the Human Rights Commission joined forces with the

provincial government on an awareness campaign in an effort to move the battle

against sexual harassment into the Newfoundland workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all the members of the House of

Assembly and the citizens of our Province to promote the observance of human

rights as a shared responsibility and to reaffirm our commitment to eliminate

discrimination in all its forms. I am pleased to bring to the attention of hon.

members that tomorrow is the 45th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration

of Human Rights by the United Nations, and to mark the celebration of

International Human Rights Day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This minister has just made his once a year statement

mouthing platitudes about human rights. To mark International Human Rights Day

for 1993, we should have the minister on his feet introducing in this House of

Assembly, amendments to our provincial Human Rights Code to correct the flaws in

the provincial legislation and remove the gaps.

We should have the minister rising to introduce a bill to

ensure that our provincial human rights legislation complies with the

Constitution of Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in

Section 15,

guarantees rights and freedoms without discrimination. The courts have ruled

that human rights legislation which denies protection to gays and lesbians is in

contravention of the Charter, yet the minister responsible for Newfoundland and

Labrador human rights legislation has failed to add that protection to our

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said, "As a matter of policy..."

our Commission accepts complaints on the basis of discrimination on the grounds

of sexual orientation, but in such a case the onus would be on the complainant

to surmount a legal challenge by the offender that the commission lacks

jurisdiction.

Other parliaments - the Parliament of Canada and provincial

Legislatures - are moving to ensure their legislation complies with the Charter.

Why is this minister, why is this government, dragging their feet?

Also, our provincial Human Rights Code doesn't adequately

protect senior citizens. The minister himself says that the Code deals with

three areas: employment, services and accommodation. There is no protection

against discrimination on the basis of age for our senior citizens in the areas

of services and accommodation. When this was raised by the G.A. Frecker

Institute on Gerontology last spring the minister said he didn't know about the

problem -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - but that he would look into it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS. VERGE: Now, this is many months later -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: - and the minister is seriously deficient in

his duties (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for St. John's East

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I join to commend the

sentiments of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations with respect to

the Human Rights Code and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights being signed

forty-five years ago, at a time when human rights throughout the world are still

threatened in many countries. I do have to say that in advanced countries like

Canada we expect governments to do more, and we would expect this government to

amend the Human Rights Code to protect from discrimination against gays and

lesbians on the basis of sexual orientation. We would also expect this

government to have an employment equity program in hiring to guarantee an equal

number of men and women to be hired, for example, in the police recruitment that

is going on right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: We would like to see other employment equity

programs to guarantee those human rights and practices.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to an issue

that I raised a couple of days ago dealing with the government's plan for some

sort of income security program. The reason I want to raise it again today is

that as a result of it being raised a couple of days ago in the media we have

received a number of enquiries, as you can imagine, from people out there who

are wondering what this is all about. They would like to have some idea of what

is involved. So I want to ask today the Deputy Premier - I don't know if he was

here on Monday past but I asked questions of the Minster of Employment and

Labour Relations and he confirmed that the Provincial Cabinet had in fact given

its approval to such an income security plan, which apparently has been prepared

by the ERC, and has also submitted that proposal to the federal cabinet or at

least to the Prime Minister - I guess that was the first time that it went to

the federal government.

Now the reason I am asking the Deputy Premier is because in

the Premiers absence the Deputy Premier would be responsible I suppose for

allaying concerns dealing with the overall economy of the Province. An income

security plan, as we all would guess at least, is intended to replace a number

of existing income support programs like unemployment insurance and social

assistance. So I would like to ask the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance,

if he can tell us specifically what existing income support programs or any

other transfer payments to individuals would be replaced by this new plan,

transfer payments to individuals?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly because of a

lot of things that have been happening in this Province - especially because of

what has happened to the fishery or chronically high unemployment levels outside

of what is happening in the fishery - that we are examining mechanisms, as he

describes, in terms of income security for all people in the Province. I cannot

answer his questions specifically simply because the first step has not been

taken. We had discussions with the federal government at a variety of levels,

not only to the Prime Minister but at the officials level as well. The first

thing that we have to determine before we even look at the possibilities that he

talks about, the first thing that we have to determine is what should an income

security program consist of and what should be the basis of it? And what

benefits should it provide to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? That first

step hasn't been taken, and hasn't been finalized; therefore, we can't get on to

the second step, which is then to see what happens to the current programs.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize the Deputy Premier was away for a few days, but we

understand that the Cabinet has already approved, in principle, the plan.

Therefore, the question I asked was a pretty simple question: What existing

income support plans, like unemployment insurance and social assistance, will be

replaced under this plan? Surely, he should be able to answer that question, but

maybe he doesn't want to answer the questions - I don't know; but we are not

prepared to sit back and avoid asking the questions simply because he doesn't

want to answer them.

Let me ask him a supplementary, then. The central premise of

an income security program, or plan, is that there would be a guaranteed minimum

income. That is the central premise of an income security plan - a guaranteed

minimum income that people would have and that they can supplement with earned

income from other employment. That is the central premise of such a program. I

want to ask the Premier: Is this, in fact, a feature of the plan that they have

approved in principle in Cabinet, and if he can tell us, what area are we

talking in terms of the minimum income that would be guaranteed - what dollar

area are we talking about?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, a guaranteed annual income is the cornerstone of the

whole program and we have, as Cabinet, approved in principle making the approach

to the federal government and starting negotiations with the federal government.

There are not a great number of details that can be released

now, but whichever details can be released, that are firmed up, will be made

public in due course.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we realize that. We understand

they are going to make details public in due course - next week, and all that

kind of stuff. We understand all that. We have heard it before. I am asking him

some pretty basic questions, which surely the Deputy Premier should be able to

answer to give the people some idea of what we are talking about here.

Let me try another one. Can he tell us, in view of the fact

that jobs are pretty hard to come by in this Province - I think everybody would

agree with that - and depending on who you listen to, the unemployment rate is

21 per cent, or upwards of 63 per cent, depending on who you listen to, as I

say, so I want to ask him this, and this is a basic question again: Under the

new program that the government has already approved in principle - their plan

has been approved in principle, worked on by Mr. House and so on - how many

people would have to survive off that minimum income, because they won't be able

to find other employment opportunities because of the job situation, and will

these people, in fact, under this new plan, get more or would they get less from

the new program than they now get under the existing income support programs,

like U.I. and all the rest?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the specifics you mentioned, I guess some will get

more and some will get less. The point is, we will be releasing, in the very

near future, all the details we have available, and it will be released as a

whole. Obviously, the job of the Opposition, I suppose, is to try to, first of

all, go public and get out some individual facts and then they can twist and

generate public opinion against, and so on, so that is obviously what is

happening. We would prefer to do the sensible, honest, straightforward thing,

and release the whole plan as far as it has gone, which is not very far, release

the whole plan at the same time so that people can judge on a fair basis the

whole concept and not just a couple of little segments of the whole plan that

hon. members can then take two or three days to twist to their benefit. Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition obviously knows that I am not going to

fall for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. minister.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You didn't miss much,

I can tell you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, you didn't miss very much at all because he

did not really say anything. I want to say to the Deputy Premier, I understand

that they don't want to give out any information and they want to continue to do

these deals behind closed doors and in back rooms, because that is the way they

have traditionally done things. It was the leader of this government, his

Premier, who said on a historic occasion about three years ago during a

constitutional debate that deals of this magnitude should not be dealt with in

the back rooms by ten or twelve people, so I hope the Deputy Premier will

remember those words because they certainly ring hollow.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let me get to my final supplementary.

Having chastised us and imputed motives and everything else he did say, for once

he did confess that some people will get more, and some people will get less, so

we finally got one little bit of information on this program. Let me ask him

this final question. Many of those who are lucky enough to get jobs in this

Province are seasonally employed, as we all know, we all represent people like

that, and then they receive U.I. during the off-season, so I want to ask him how

his plan would affect those people and their incomes. For example, is it

possible that some people will get less than they now get from U.I.? Is that

possible under their plan? Is it possible that some will not even be eligible

for any of the income support under the new plan that is being offered? Is that

possible?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose, when the whole thing

is released, people will then look at it and see where they fit. I would take an

extreme, I suppose, where somebody who makes $100,000 a year certainly would not

need income support. That is an extreme. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman

that what he do is wait until he sees the whole program. The people in the

Province can look at it and see where they fit in, whether they gain, whether

they break even, or, in some cases, whether they would lose. When the whole plan

is available, everybody will be able to judge for themselves.

I would like to respond to the Leader's opening comments

about some nefarious schemes being plotted behind closed doors. I would like to

remind the Leader of the Opposition that, indeed, many plans are made behind

closed doors. I will say that to the people of the Province. Plans are made

behind closed doors. The hon. member knows that the discussions of Cabinet are

held behind closed doors - they have to be. Plans have to be made behind closed

doors. But we will make obvious to everybody exactly what is being discussed,

exactly what our intentions are, in detail very soon, within the next few days.

Everybody will be able to judge for himself. I would like to say to the hon.

member that he talks about some kind of a deal. Well, there is no deal. This

will be a discussion paper so that everybody can see and comment on what is

being planned and have proper input and so on. We have not finished discussions

with the federal government. That may or may not happen.

Things will unfold in due course. There will be ample

opportunity for public response and so on. There will be ample opportunity for

the Leader of the Opposition to pick out his little bits here and there and go

around and try to turn public opinion against a guaranteed annual income. There

will be all kinds of opportunities for the Leader of the Opposition to do that.

It is a long winter and I assure him that he has time available. I'm sure he

will go around the Province trying to convince people that a guaranteed annual

income is not in their best interests. I'm sure he will do that.

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

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

absence of the Minister of Fisheries, I have a question for the Acting Minister

of Fisheries. Letters have gone out - we are getting calls to the office telling

us, fishermen around the Province have received letters from the Fisheries Loan

Board saying if they haven't paid up their dues, their payments to the Loan

Board, in thirty days, their vessels are going to be repossessed. I'm wondering

if the Acting Minister of Fisheries could respond to that and explain for the

people of the House and for the fishermen out and about the Province why the

Loan Board is being so harsh on these fishermen at this time when, in essence

their fishery is closed?

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to say to the hon. gentleman that

I don't doubt that these things are happening, that there are certain people who

are being pressured for money from the banks, whether that be money that was

guaranteed by government through the banks, and probably some people are being

pressured by the Fisheries Loan Board, the ones who have direct loans through

the Fisheries Loan Board.

If the hon. member has any specific circumstance that he

wants to deal with, he can see me at any time and I would be glad to look into

it. I will say to him that there are instances where money that is owed must be

collected. There are instances where there is a certain amount of forgiveness

given, and so on. I would have to deal with each case specifically. Certainly,

where money is owed and where it is legitimately owed and where there is an

ability to pay, then the money must be paid.

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

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

A supplementary to the minister. Fishermen are really being

harassed around the Province, I say to the Minister of Finance and the President

of Treasury Board. Fishermen are being given a very hard time by banks and the

Loan Board. As a matter of fact they have threatened to move in on their cars

and their homes and so on, so it is a very serious situation and I just want to

ask the minister: has government given any consideration, in light of the fact

that fishermen are required to pay back 20 per cent of earnings; we now know of

course, that their earnings are substantially reduced because of the closure of

certain fisheries; so even though they are still paying 20 per cent of their

earnings, it is not enough, Mr. Speaker, to pay the interest payments is what I

am saying, and are still being in a delinquent position, so, is government

considering, in light of the fact that they are still paying 20 per cent of

their earnings but their earnings are much less now because of the closure of

fisheries, is government giving any consideration to an adjustment in that case,

to help fishermen I guess, make ends meet and come out of this?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have given a great deal

of consideration to this problem and I understand the problem that exists around

the Province in terms of the fisheries loans. However, ultimately I suppose,

because of the nature of the problem, decisions will have to be made on an

individual basis rather than a group basis. We have made some decisions on a

group basis but ultimately there is a process in place that allows decisions to

be made on an individual basis. I think if the loans are with banks for

instance, there is a process whereby the individual and the bank sit down and

try to work out arrangements. If they can't be worked out then it comes to

government, so there is a process in place where government will have a chance

to examine each individual circumstance, but I say to the hon. member, that in

some cases help is warranted, but in other cases help is not warranted.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I thank the minister for his answer, Mr.

Speaker, but there is a great deal of concern out there and a lot of problems

amongst individual fishermen, that the 20 per cent still leaves them coming

short even though they are paying their 20 per cent.

I understand there are supposed to be some interest relief

cheques or payments made or are in process of being made, and as a matter of

fact, I have had a few calls as well to the office and different members on this

side particularly, have had representation from fishermen wondering if and when

those interest relief payments will be made and I am wondering if the minister,

when he responds, could he sort of indicate in what kind of situations those

interest relief payments are made? I mean it is not carte blanche, so could the

minister give the criteria under what conditions the interest relief payments

are being made, and when fishermen can expect to get them?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is

correct and I will undertake to get the exact information made available to the

hon. member and maybe even table it in the House tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

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

I would like to direct my question to the Minister of

Environment and Lands.

Last week, the minister gave a response, not an answer to a

question I had put with respect to the emissions at Come By Chance oil refinery.

I was not really concerned about what is going on in other jurisdictions but I

am more concerned with what is going on in Newfoundland, so again, I ask the

minister, why government chose not to do the monitoring themselves but to have

an outside group do it, please?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you.

At the time, actually this government was not in power, Mr.

Speaker. When the monitoring of Come By Chance was set up, it was under the

former government and I inherited the Compliance Agreement that was made at that

time, and that Compliance Agreement did include the monitoring of the company by

itself with the Department of Employment and Labour Relations double-checking.

It has not been an entirely satisfactory process I would have

to say, and I have done a good deal of thinking about it and consulting with

colleagues across Canada on the issue, and again, as I mentioned yesterday or

the day before in the House, it is a matter that varies from jurisdiction to

jurisdiction and from company to company within provinces. Some provinces

actually will ask the company to hire a third party to do the monitoring and

that will be paid for by the company, but the most common practice is to have

the people responsible, monitor themselves; have them responsible for their

environmental situation and for governments to check from time to time.

Now because of the concerns that have arisen over Come by

Chance and the fact that the Compliance Agreement that was put in place by the

former government was not rigid enough, I have made sure that we double-check

and make sure their monitoring systems are working properly. Not only that, I do

have the information downloaded as frequently as it makes sense so that we can

see if they are keeping within compliance. They actually were not complying, and

we were able to find that out very easily not only by monitoring, but by

computer (inaudible).

I am sorry if it takes a long time, but you do not just deal

with oil refineries in a simplistic manner, so the St. John's East Extern Member

will have to bear with me, even if I do go on a bit long about it, but that is

the nature of oil refineries.

It is possible that in the future we may change that

approach, but I tend to think that we should encourage responsibility for

environmental matters among the owners. I do not believe in this sort of command

and control approach that is so popular with the NDP, and supposedly with the

Tory government. I think that every individual, every company, should be

monitored in their own environmental behaviour.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, a

supplementary.

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

Having the people monitor themselves is like asking prisoners

to guard themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: That government has been in power now for

five years and, Minister, you have stated that there have been complaints of

health impacts in the area. A doctor living in the area has stated that people

in the area are getting sick from the stench from the refinery. Does the

minister agree, because the monitoring is being done by outside parties, people

will have to wait longer to find out if the emissions are indeed a health

hazard?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: We do not want to get mixed up, Mr. Speaker,

with the stench and the emissions. They are two different things.

The stench that people are witnessing out there this summer

is from hydrocarbons that are not adequately burned. The company has ordered

materials that will take a couple of months to come in, that will control this

particular problem. It involves putting in special filters. It also involves

putting a cover on a machine called an API separator, which separates oil from

water. That is where the odour is coming from, and that is how it will be

controlled. Cold weather will also see that these odours are not as readily

transported in the area.

SO 2 also produces an unpleasant odour, but the

company is now using a sweeter crude, which means that it is lower in sulphur

content and, as a result the SO 2 is now almost in a situation where

it is controlled. We are not having the problems with it.

Again, there has been a sulphur plant set up out there which,

when the SO 2 reaches a certain proportion as it goes into the

atmosphere, this plant kicks in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. COWAN: They hate the truth, you know. It is a

terrible thing when a minister gets up and knows a few answers. It is very

difficult for them to listen.

Anyway, when the SO 2 reaches a certain level, the

sulphur plant kicks in and converts the SO 2 into a solid substance

which is then not harmful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, a final

supplementary.

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

The minister has stated that the company has completed all of

the actions that they were required to do by an order she gave last March, and

yet the smell is still out there. I ask the minister: Will she take the bull by

the horns and set a definite time frame for the Come By Chance Oil Refinery to

put an end to the stench, the stink, the nauseating smell, emanating from the

refinery?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Or will the people living in the area

eventually be asked to buy gas masks? Is that what we are coming down to, or do

we have to wait for snow to fall to kill the smell?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To my critic from St. John's East Extern, I have met with

Glenn Mifflin, who is the Chief Financial Officer of that particular operation.

Actually, my officials will be meeting with him again next week. Because the

House is sitting, I cannot sit in on the meeting, but I will be certainly

interested in what goes on. At that particular meeting he did give me dates as

to when I could expect the API separator to be covered and the carbon filters to

be put in place. He did give me dates but I don't have those dates with me. They

are contained in some information in my office but my officials will be checking

to just see how the company is coming along in meeting those particular

deadlines which they have set for themselves with our approval.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, is the minister and his

department considering any changes to the Workmens' Compensation Act or enacting

or bringing in new legislation affecting that act?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the immediate

point in time there are no drafts of changes anywhere in the system in terms of

Legislative Council or any of that nature that would lead to an immediate change

in the act before Christmas or shortly thereafter. However, there are a number

of outstanding items still remaining from the last legislative review that were

referenced, that did not get covered in the changes that came into effect on

January 1, 1993, and they are still under consideration.

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

Kilbride.

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

would like to ask the minister about the Workmens' Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

My understanding of the appeal tribunal is that it is an independent arm that

will judge cases - Workmens' Compensation files on individuals who have been

turned down - and in an unbiased fashion, judge cases that they themselves would

see should not have been turned down. I say to the minister that the appeal

tribunal itself, is ineffective as it now exists, the Workmen's Compensation

Commission has every right to overturn and review the decisions made by that

independent body and in doing so go against the very reason why they were

established. I ask the minister: Can he confirm or will he look into legislative

changes dealing with the Workmens' Compensation Appeal Tribunal to make its

decisions final and binding upon the Workmens' Compensation claims?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question does

identify one of the remaining issues actually that is under consideration,

because it is clear that two things are occurring, while the appeals tribunal is

handling more appeals more expeditiously than they have ever done before, there

are still some complaints about the time. However, the fact is that they are

handling, on an annual basis, twice if not three times as many appeals in a year

as they have ever done before while individuals still have delays. The other

issue that arises is that there is, within the current legislation, a provision

which allows the Workers' Compensation Commission to review again decisions of

the tribunal, in the event that the tribunal itself would give a ruling that

would extend or go beyond the existing policy which is not their mandate. From

time to time there does arise a disagreement between the commission and the

appeals tribunal as to the extent of the mandate. That issue is being reviewed

at this point in time, by myself and other ministers, with respect to whether or

not we will bring forward legislation in the new year to do exactly the type of

thing that the hon. member says, which is to make the appeal final so that there

would not be another review by the commission itself and to try again to

expedite even further the time delays that people experience in the appeals

process.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I

would like to deal with a couple of points the minister has raised. In dealing

with the legislation that from time to time the appeal tribunal goes beyond its

mandate - clearly the legislation if the minister does not know this, clearly

the legislation says that the appeal tribunal itself cannot go beyond the

legislation that is governed by him and his department.

Secondly, I would like to say to the minister that the time

frames that Workers' Compensation is dealing with expeditiously the number of

cases - while it takes in excess of eight months to a year for a claim to go

before the appeal tribunal, if that appeal is decided in the favour of the

person who is filing and Workers' Compensation decides to review it, it will

take at least another eight months - we are talking almost a little over a

year-and-a-half while -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is commenting, he should have a question at

this point I think.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. In the extension, can the minister say

when exactly will he move expeditiously himself? Will he move quickly, so that

thousands of people who are affected right now without any income whatsoever can

have some hope not only for Christmas but for future years as injured workers?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The matter is

currently under review, as I indicated in answer to the previous question. I've

also discussed at some length with both - well, I guess three interested

parties, for sure, and a fourth, the tribunal itself. I've had discussions with

the full membership of the tribunal about their future role and the parameters

in which they will operate. I've addressed the issue with the Board of Directors

of the Commission itself. I've addressed the issue as well with representatives

of injured workers, because there are two or three associations of injured

workers that have sprung up in the last few months, largely because of their

frustration with time delays. We admit that. While the tribunal is doing more

work there are still individuals who are dissatisfied with the period of time

that it takes.

I've also expressed and discussed the matter with

representatives of the unions and the Employers Council, from the point of view

of looking to whether or not single arbitrators, for example, might replace the

tribunals and would that in fact speed up the process. However, I can tell the

hon. member that in the discussions that I've had there, there is not unanimous

opinion as to whether or not that is a good move. There are certain people I've

discussed it with who have pleaded with me to keep the tribunals in place and

not have single adjudicators.

Those kinds of issues are currently under discussion and we

would hope to have legislation here at a future sitting of the Assembly to deal

with those issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, having served in the House only

eight years, I think this is where you table reports. I would like to table the

report of the Recovery Commission for this year.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the reports of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Public Service Commission for the years 1991-92, and 1992-93.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: I would like to report on the Social

Services Committee. Bill No. 44 has been reviewed and approved for passage

without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for Which Notice has

been Given.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, on Answers to Questions, I am

wondering what happened to the report on public libraries?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the hon. member knows, the procedure is that if you wish

to ask a question, you should ask it in Question Period. This is only a time

period for -

MS. VERGE: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I have a

petition to present.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: This is a petition of men and women of the

Northeast Avalon, residents of St. John's, I say to the Member for St. John's

South, Paradise, Topsail, and St. Phillips. The petition reads, `We, the

undersigned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, object to the government's

recent action in appointing all men and no women as adjudicators for the Police

Complaints Commission and we petition the House of Assembly' - that means all

the members - `to take corrective action to ensure that the panel of

adjudicators has an equal number of women and men.'

Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically support this petition. I have

signed it, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: A point of order, Me. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, yesterday, the hon. member got

up with the same few names and presented a petition. Now, after she presented

the petition some hon. member -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

What is the member's point of order?

MR. MURPHY: The point is that the hon. the Member for

Humber East, yesterday, retrieved a petition from the Page and signed it. Now, I

refer Your Honour to

Section 90, Page 31 of the Standing Orders of the House

that says a petition to the House shall be signed by the member.

MR. SIMMS: That is what she did.

MR. MURPHY: That was yesterday. The petition was on the

Table and had to be brought back to the member to sign it, so I suggest that the

petition was out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the member has a point of order with respect to

yesterday's petition, I don't know that the proper time to bring it up is when

the minister is speaking on a current petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was no point of order. The Member for St. John's South

could have easily found out by asking the Clerk or one of the other table

officers about yesterday's petition. In fact, I signed the petition before I

presented it, before it was tabled. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, that is really

irrelevant to the question at hand which is the need to take corrective action

to ensure that the Police Complaints Commission panel of adjudicators has a fair

number of women and men.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House, the bill

sponsored by the Minister of Justice, does not permit the necessary corrective

action. The act as it exists provides for six members. The government appointed

six men, five residents of St. John's and one from Corner Brook. The amendment

allows the Cabinet to enlarge the panel to nine, to add three members, and that

would permit a maximum of three women, so we would end up with six men and three

women.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has responded to my

representations on the subject by dismissing my comments as silly. Now, I don't

mind the - I can't say I don't mind, but I am not surprised by the Minister of

Justice putting down what an Opposition member says, but I am not the only one

calling for gender equity. The Premier himself wrote the provincial Advisory

Council on the Status of Women, on the subject, and I will quote the Premier: `I

assure you, it is government's policy to appoint, where possible, women to

alternate discretionary appointments until their representation is at least 50

per cent.' End quote. Now, it is perfectly possible for the government to find

dozens of qualified and suitable women to serve on the Police Complaints

Commission panel of adjudicators.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is more important that

this panel have 50 per cent women than just about any other board or commission

that is filled by discretionary Cabinet appointments because of the nature of

the cases to be heard by the adjudicators. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

the same as most police forces, is heavily dominated by men. The force didn't

even accept applications from women until about twelve years ago. We know

complaints voiced in the past, before we had a complaints commission, were, in

many instances, by women pointing to insensitive police behaviour or police

response to complaints because of police ignorance of or indifference to the

situation faced by women in a sexist society.

So, Mr. Speaker, I heartily endorse the petition and join

with the petitioners in appealing to all members of the House of Assembly,

particularly the members opposite, I say to the Member for Fogo, the Member for

Exploits and the ministers, to take corrective action to amend the Bill before

the House of Assembly to allow the Cabinet discretion to appoint twelve or more

members to the Police Complaints Commission so that there can be gender equity

and so that there can also be a balance in terms of geography. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say a few

words in support of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member

for Humber East.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many names are on it?

MR. SIMMS: How many names? There are tens and tens of

names on the petition, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't realize that it made any difference if there are....

I say to hon. members, if people wish to express their point of view through a

petition and ask their MHA to present one, whether there are three names, ten,

fifteen, or 5,000, then the member has a responsibility to present that petition

to the House.

Mr. Speaker, to get to the specific point contained in the

petition, it seems to me that these people and others, who perhaps have not even

signed petitions at this stage, who have expressed interest in this issue, are

trying to understand and figure out why a government which, on the one hand, has

a policy, as I understand it, articulated by the Premier on occasion, which says

that they should try to appoint to boards at least enough women to reach their

policy of 50 per cent. In fact, here is what he said exactly: `I assure you, it

is government's policy to appoint, where possible, women to alternate

discretionary appointments until their representation is at least 50 per cent.'

Now, if that is the stated goal and policy of the government,

then I cannot understand why the Minister of Justice and the government don't

follow their own policy, because these are certainly discretionary appointments.

The minister had acknowledged that they had a made a mistake initially when they

appointed all men - six, I think it was, in the initial appointment stage - and

then he publicly acknowledged that they had made a mistake. Then he said, in

order to correct the mistake he was going to bring in an amendment to the

legislation to allow him to appoint three more people and he indicated they

would be women.

That doesn't do anything to reach the goal and objective that

the government has of making the board gender equal. Why doesn't he bring in an

amendment to appoint six more instead of three more, and appoint six women? Then

you would have gender equality, six men and six women, on a board or a

commission or whatever it is going to be, which in fact doesn't meet together

all the time. They are farmed out to them one at a time, cases one at a time.

I think the Minister of Justice would be doing a great deal

of justice, in fact, to this issue, if he were to say: Well, maybe we will amend

the legislation to allow for the appointment of six more people and try to get

six women to serve in this capacity. I think that would be a reasonable response

to this kind of criticism and it would certainly be a big response and a big

step forward for the government in attaining its own goal, and its own policy,

stated publicly on many occasions.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is tomorrow. Oh, I see, yes. Tomorrow, it

being Human Rights Day, would be a fantastic day to make such an announcement

and such an appointment.

Mr. Speaker, one final point that I want to make - in

speaking to the petition and in support of it - to the minister, is this: There

are a number of people who have mentioned to me that, in their view, it is not

absolutely necessary and essential that the people filling these appointments be

lawyers. Now, I don't know, I am not a lawyer, so I don't understand the law, I

am not trained in the law, the minister is; but there are people out there who

believe there are others, who perhaps are professionally trained in some other

fields; I don't know, social work

MS. VERGE: Labour management.

MR. SIMMS: - labour management or whatever, who might

also be able to fill these positions because, as I said, they probably may only

get a case, I don't know, a couple a year - Who knows how will it be spread out?

So, maybe the minister, if he intends to speak to the petition, could sort of

respond to that question. I have had it put to me personally and I would like to

know, myself, why that could not occur.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a few words with

respect to the petition, let me first of all respond to the hon. gentleman from

Grand Falls, the Opposition Leader, when he asks why they should be lawyers. I

said this in the House before but I am happy to say it again.

The adjudicators under the statute have a very significant

degree of power. They can hire, fire, discipline, refer for counselling, refer

for further study, whatever, any police officer who comes before them. It is our

judgement, it is our belief, having looked at these matters, that these should

be entrusted to people with legal training. It is almost certain that the

proceedings will involve lawyers in the sense of representing, on one hand, the

commissioner's counsel - remember, the commissioner has carriage of the matter

and will engage counsel - and on the other hand, one would assume the police

officer whose conduct is under scrutiny will choose to be represented by

counsel. So it is simply our judgement, I believe it is a correct one, I have

heard nothing to the contrary, I accept that there are people who take a

different viewpoint, but I would simply say to my hon. friend, that in my

belief, in our belief, this is different from a labour relations matter where

one is settling, how much one should pay an hour or whether a given course of

events is a breach of a collective agreement or not.

MR. SIMMS: But, at the same time, the commissioner,

himself, is not a lawyer.

MR. ROBERTS: The commissioner is not a lawyer, but the

commissioner does not have the power, I say to my friend, if he remembers the

legislation, to decide these issues. The commissioner's role is to receive them

MS. VERGE: He decides whether a matter goes forward or

not.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. and learned Member for Humber East,

for once has got it right, the commissioner's role is to decide whether matters

should go forward or not, and that is a matter of judgement and a matter of -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Harris is eminently

qualified to do the things which he has done and is doing including the Police

Complaints Commission, or commissioner's job. He is also a very, very good

labour relations person. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one other point;

I have only two or three minutes. Those who sign the petition, I have no doubt

subscribe to it and agree with it, I have no quarrel with their belief, I may

not agree with their belief but I accept it as being genuine.

We have taken corrective action, which is what the petition

asks for. We have not made equal and we are not going to, Mr. Speaker, We do not

believe in quotas, in matters such as this, any more than the Tory party doesn't

believe in quotas. Mr. Speaker, the Tory party didn't lay down a rule that

one-half of its candidates would be women. In its discretionary appointments, as

opposed to nominations, the Tory party has not said one-half are women; this is

just arrant, blatant, hypocrisy.

If I were to go into the hon. the Leader of the Opposition's

office, I will wager my member's indemnity against his and they are equal in

value; mind you, we give more different worth for them but they are equal in

value. I will wager that I won't find 50 per cent of his advisers are female and

50 per cent are male, this is just blank, blatant, rank, arrant hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday or the day before, I called the

conduct of the hon. Member for Humber East `silly'. I was wrong. Her conduct

today is `sillier', and if she keeps this up, I will have to go to the

superlative, because she is being superlatively silly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: That is worse than being lashed with a wet

noodle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I would say the hon. lady's lungs are

getting better.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking at the

Hansard, and I notice how superlatively well my stand-in, the gentleman for St.

Barbe, did yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: And I must say, it has been suggested to my

friend for Gander and myself that we should absent ourselves from the House more

often.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: It seems there appears to be unanimous

consent for this course of conduct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the order of business for today, before the hon.

lady gets to her wet noodles for supper -

MR. SIMMS: That won't hurt (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I have to say to the hon. Leader of

the Opposition that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the hon.

lady has done me the most sincere form of flattery.

MR. SIMMS: They used that in the sixties.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes it is. It is nearly as old as the hon.

gentleman, but I got here before he did, and in all likelihood, I will be here

long after he is gone, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the order of business.

Bill 45, the Alcohol and Drug Commission Bill; then we will

do Bill 55, and then we are going to address all of the committee readings,

which stand as Orders 2 through 22. That will be a good afternoon's work. We

should be through by 4:30 or 4:40, maybe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes. Dream on.

MR. ROBERTS: We did the hon. gentlemen, the other day,

the courtesy of adjourning a little early to oblige them. We will leave it to

them.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, `nay', carried.

I believe the hon. the Government House Leader indicated that

he wished to call first the second reading -

MR. ROBERTS: Bill 45, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry - Order 25.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The

Alcohol And Drug Dependency Commission Act". (Bill No. 45)

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a routine bill repealing the Alcohol And Drug

Dependency Commission Act, which is now obsolete because the Alcohol and Drug

Commission has been disbanded, and temporarily brought within the purview of the

Department of Health's public health units, and as the regional community health

care boards are established, our intention is to put the responsibility for

alcohol and drug addiction within these organizations.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I can't hear the Minister of

Health, and I am trying to listen because I am planning to speak in a few

minutes. I wonder if Your Honour could get other members to quieten down so that

we can all hear the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I ask hon. members to follow the

Minister of Health with equal interest as the Member for Humber East.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will repeat those few brief remarks, just in case somebody

else didn't hear them. They are words of wisdom.

We have, in the Department of Health, taken the

responsibility for the Alcohol and Drug Commission - have dissolved it - and

taken responsibility for its actions into the Department of Health, into the

public health units, and as the regional community health boards are established

in each region, the responsibility for alcohol and drug addiction will be taken

over by these commissions; so there is no further need for this act and we are

asking that it be repealed.

Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government announced, a couple of years ago, its

intention to transfer responsibility for alcohol and drug dependency programs

and services from a separate commission to regional boards. The minister has

indicated that in the interim the Department of Health has assumed

responsibility. I would like the minister, when he rises to conclude the debate

on second reading, to indicate specifically, region by region, what kind of

board will ultimately be assigned responsibility for alcohol and drug dependency

services. It seems as though the government is proceeding to establish different

types of health boards in different regions of the Province, and that may very

well be a sensible approach because after all there are differences from one

area of the Province to the next, but from what I understand, recently the

minister and his colleagues announced a merger of hospital boards in the City of

St. John's saying that they will leave senior citizens and nursing home boards

intact.

In the summer the minister announced the formation of a St.

John's Area Community Health Board. Has that St. John's Area Community Health

Board been given responsibility for the programs and services formally operated

by the ADDC? What will happen with alcohol and drug dependency programs

elsewhere on the Avalon Peninsula, in Central East, Central West, Western, and

Northern? The minister has indicated an intention to reorganize health boards in

those regional groupings; St. John's, Avalon, Central East, Central West,

Western and finally Northern. I represent Humber East which is in the Western

Region and last week when I asked the minister about the government's plans for

reorganizing health boards in that area, he did acknowledge that he has before

him for consideration a proposal from health administrators in the Western

Region for creating one super board to handle responsibility for all

institutions, hospitals and nursing homes plus community health.

In explaining what is meant by or what is covered by

community health he listed alcohol and drug dependency services. That model is

being recommended by people working in the field of public health in Western

Newfoundland as well as institutional administrators. When I first heard it, I

personally had reservations about the effect of combining responsibility for

public health with institutions fearing that public health would get less

attention than it deserves. That is a problem with our current system but

listening to public health advocates recommend this model I am told that there

may be advantages to public health by working within the same board structure as

institutions and having a say along with institutional administrators on the

allocation of scarce resources. At any rate, I would like the minister to

explain where the programs and services formerly operated by the Alcohol and

Drug Dependency Commission, which is being formally repealed by this Bill, will

end up in each area of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, a related problem that I would like to ask the

minister about is gambling addiction. Over the past several months members would

have heard, the same as I have heard, about many sad stories of individuals

becoming addicted to gambling and losing horrendous amounts of money. There are

individuals throughout the Province who have squandered thousands and thousands

of dollars, who have lost their homes, and who have had their marriages break up

because of gambling addiction. The government owned and operated video gambling

machines which are proliferating in the Province have, as some of us predicted,

exacerbated at a very major way problems stemming from gambling. The Member for

St. John's North may be interested in this. Millions and millions of dollars are

being spent on the video gambling machines. The government take, as I understand

it, from the video gambling machines is in the order of $15 or $20 million and

that represents only about one third of the gross revenue. The total spending on

the video gambling machines in our Province now may be approaching $50 million a

year and that is $50 million being taken out off the economy, $50 million that

is not being spent on food, shelter and clothing.

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Health see gambling

dependency, or gambling addiction, as a health issue, as a health problem,

analogous to substance dependencies, alcohol and drug dependencies? Does the

Minister of Health view gambling addiction, gambling dependency, as a health

issue?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister now speaks he will

close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The alcohol and drug dependency services that were formerly

offered by the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Foundation are now offered by the

public health units of the Department of Health. There are five such units. One

is in the St. John's area, which exactly corresponds to the boundaries of the

Regional Community Health Board. In Central Newfoundland the boundaries of the

public health unit, the way we have it divided, corresponds exactly to the

double unit of the hospital boards on the East and the hospital boards on the

West, and the boundary of the Regional Community Health Board that we will be

establishing shortly in the Central area, and the Eastern will correspond to the

boundaries of the Eastern Regional Community Health Board.

MR. SPEAKER: We are not hearing the hon. minister because

of some conversations at the back of the House. If hon. members at the back of

the House want to conduct a meeting would they please leave the Assembly as I am

having trouble hearing the hon. minister who is sitting considerable closer.

The hon. the Minister.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In Western Newfoundland the same thing is true, that the

responsibilities of the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Commission have been taken

over by the public health unit in that area which will correspond - should we

establish a regional community board for the Western region, it will be the same

boundaries as the public health unit presently occupies. If we merge with the

hospital boards in the Western region then again it will be the same boundaries.

The Grenfell Organization normally looks after alcohol and drug addiction in the

North because they look after the public health units in that area. There is no

problem about anyone being out of line because the boundaries are exactly the

same. I think that will alleviate the concerns that seemed to be raised by the

Member for Humber East.

As far as addiction is concerned, the so-called gambling

addiction, that will not come under the alcohol and drug addiction. The two

names are there, alcohol and drugs are very much different from gambling. There

are many addictions that people have. Some are addicted to the horse races, some

are addicted to this and some are addicted to that, and some play gambling, but

it is rather different from alcohol and drug addiction. We have no plans at this

stage to put it in this area. In fact we have no plans to consider this a health

matter, although there are people who think this is a matter of mental health

What we are trying to do in mental health is to try to define

the boundaries so that we can do it. Mental health is becoming such a broad area

that it is very difficult to deal with it. Everything is a mental health

problem. Someone's unemployed, it is a mental health problem. You have problems

with your spouse, it is a mental health problem. You don't have problems with

your spouse, it is a mental health problem. Everything is a mental health

problem. There are really some very serious mental health problems that must be

addressed by government and these we will concentrate on. A gambling addiction

is a problem that some people have. We have no plans at the moment in the Health

Department to handle that matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister now move second reading?

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Alcohol And Drug

Dependency Commission Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee

of the Whole House, tomorrow. (Bill No. 45)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, would you call Bill 55, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 32.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Colleges Act, 1991". (Bill No. 55)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My friend and

colleague, the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle, the Minister of Education,

is away from St. John's today on government business. In fact, he is in Corner

Brook I believe speaking to the Rotary Club, and no doubt will talk about our

reforms in the field of education. In his absence I will ask the House to

address this Bill and I will move that it be read a second time, in a moment or

two.

The Bill seeks to amend The Colleges Act which is the Act

under which the Colleges of Applied Arts, Technology and Continuing Education,

to use the full title, are constituted throughout the Province. It seeks to make

only two changes. The first is with respect to the membership of the boards of

governors, and there is one of these as we know for each of the colleges.

The provision in the current Act is that one of the members -

and I'm reading now from 13(4) - appointed to the board of each college shall be

a student. Then, not only a student, but the

section goes on to provide that the

student is someone who is nominated by the student association in that college.

So the student body selects their own.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) university.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, that is my understanding. I'm not as

familiar with the University Act perhaps as my friend for Kilbride, but that is

my understanding. I think it was done on my first trip through a man named Percy

Manguela was president of the Student Council, and that is many years ago. I

believe he was from Botswana.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) law school with me.

MR. ROBERTS: Was he? I hope he is a better lawyer than

the hon. lady is, in that case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I wouldn't have thought the hon. lady had

been around that long, because Percy Manguela and I were contemporaries. So that

means the hon. lady and I are contemporaries.

Mr. Speaker, we will get over the linguini and we will go

into the fettucini now. We've run into a problem in the application of this very

wise and prudent provision, which obviously has the support of all members of

the House. The Act says that the students appointed to the boards, chosen as

they are by the student association, shall be appointed for a period of one

year. But in the normal course of events these colleges come together in the

fall, when the fall session begins, and that is when the student association

selects its member, and then he or she - the name comes in to the Minister of

Education who brings it up to Cabinet and it is appointed. But he or she is then

there for a year, and come June may have gone. My friend for Grand Bank has the

point exactly.

All we seek in the amendment is to allow us to make the

appointment in Cabinet for a period of up to one year. So there will be no

substantive change except that the person appointed to the board will cease to

be a member of the board when the year extends, or such lesser period as would

bring them up to the end of an appropriate period.

Then there is another amendment in the Act, and that is to

allow the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to make regulations

respecting an instructor classification system for college instructors. That is

in addition to the act, and it speaks for itself. I would suggest it is

unobjectionable, and thus commend it to the House.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read

a second time.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not have to speak.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the Member for Fogo, I do

not have to speak. That is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: But he wishes to speak.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is right; I wish to speak.

I just have a few comments on this Bill. I think it is a wise

amendment, a wise change, as the Government House Leader has so correctly

outlined, that an academic year is not a calendar year, and a person might not

even last the full academic year, the way things are with student performance,

so it is a very wise amendment, a wise change.

Why I wanted to comment on it, as minister of advanced

studies back a few years ago, I was very involved in the restructuring of the

community college system, initiated some of the changes that have come into

place over the last few years, and was very delighted to do so because I think

the changes were very constructive and have proved very beneficial.

I see the Member for Bellevue over there looking at me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I do not know about that. There were

only two ministers, I suppose, in career development, advanced studies, I

believe, if memory serves me correctly. There were only two of us, so I suppose

if you were one of the better ones at that, well what can you say?

AN HON. MEMBER: You were the better one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I know how the Member for Bellevue

feels about that, because I met him, I guess, just after I was appointed

minister. I believe it was just a day or so after. It was not too long after. He

was coming out of the department and I was going in, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) and you were bringing yours

in.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes.

And he said to me: It is about time they got somebody

sensible over here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now I do not know about that. I would

not go that far. It is like the Leader of the Opposition and the President of

Treasury Board talking today about `behind closed doors'. No one knows what goes

on behind closed doors. We all know that is particularly true about Cabinet,

except those who are in there behind the closed doors. So you cannot talk too

much about whether you were effective, or ineffective, or good or bad or

whatever, because that is left inside the room.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I would like that. The Member for

Fogo is trying to get me away from this very important piece of legislation,

because he now wants me to talk about one of my favourite - I was going to say

`departments'. It was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, my God, no. Perhaps that is wrong,

but under the present minister, I guess, is the problem. As I said yesterday:

Nothing lasts very long under the present minister - now referred to as the

`terminator' - because once anything is shifted to education now, under him, we

know it is not going to last very long; but it was a very positive department -

Culture, Recreation and Youth - and a lot of those divisions are still doing a

lot of good, but the funding has been cut so much, I say to the Member for Fogo,

in the last five years, particularly in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. Recreation, Sport and Fitness

Division is really whittled to the bone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it is. I am sure the minister is

aware of that. They have really been rendered, I guess, ineffective because of

cutbacks. It is too bad, because it is a very, very positive division, and it is

could do so much good for people throughout the Province of all ages.

Getting back to the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to have

a few words on it. I think it is a good move. We all support the idea of student

bodies being represented on the boards of governors, whether at the University

or at the community colleges, so we support that.

In conclusion, with regard to the other changes to the Bill

respecting certification of instructors, we have - our critic, the Member for

Waterford Kenmount, has done a bit of research in this, and talked to a few

people, and basically, I guess, the instructors at the various community

colleges and so on support these changes, so we support it. If they do not have

any problem with it, then why would we have any problem with it? So that is all

we have to say about it.

I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all that I need to say, given

the degree of unanimity, is that I move second reading, and I might as well move

third while I am at it, because -

I move the bill be read a second time, Sir.

On motion, a bill, "An Act to Amend the Colleges Act, 1991,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 55)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we put the House into

Committee of the Whole, please?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the committee to address the

bills in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper, dealing with No. 2,

which is the Smoke-Free Workplace Bill. If I may say a word, Your Honour, with

respect to Bill No. 1 and Bill No. 7 - but perhaps I should let you call the

order first, Order No. 2, if we may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order No. 2, Bill No. 1.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, my friend, the Minister of

Health, will speak on this in a moment, but this bill and the following one,

Bill No. 7, which is the Sale of Tobacco to Minors, were dealt with by the House

in the spring and were given second reading. They were then referred through to

a Legislation Review Committee which I think held quite an extensive series of

hearings throughout the Province, or at least, here in St. John's, and heard

from people throughout the Province. The committee suggested a number of

amendments and the Cabinet reflected upon these amendments and have accepted,

not all of them but most of them. The bill has been reprinted with the

amendments shown in boldface. Now, if the committee is agreeable, I would simply

proposed to move the amendments, because the minister, of course, cannot amend

his own bill under the rules; then, the minister can get up and deal with each

amendment, why we have accepted it and, I assume, can also touch upon the ones

that we have not accepted and give the reasons why. Then, any debate members

wish to participate in would flow from there. If that is in order, Sir, I would

suggest that we proceed that way with respect first of all to Bill No. 1 and

then the same situation arises with respect to Bill No. 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nobody speaking?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am sorry. It is very difficult - I

don't mind members not paying attention to me, I am quite accustomed to that and

I am not paranoid but it is difficult - I say to my friend for Grand Bank - on

both sides when the conversations get such that the two or three of us in the

House who are actually trying to follow what is going on can't hear what is

being said.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the point I made was that these bills were

sent out to Legislation Review Committee and were -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: - and were dealt with at some length and the

committee proposed an extensive series of amendments. The Cabinet are prepared

to accept some of them but we are not prepared to accept others. We have had the

bills reprinted with the amendments shown in boldface, otherwise members would

end up with two bits of paper and be trying to compare apples and oranges and

getting who knows what, succotash, fruit salad or something.

My suggestion, if it is agreeable to the committee, instead

of moving each amendment individually, which strictly speaking is what the rules

would require, is that I simply move the amendments. The minister cannot amend

his own bill, of course, and then the minister will get up and can either go

through each amendment and explain why we have accepted it, or, as members raise

questions, can respond to individual questions. We have accepted most but not

all of the amendments. Most of the ones we did not accept, I think, were

drafting - I look at my friend, he concurs - with drafting amendments and quite

simply, the advice we have from our drafters is different from that which we got

from the committee. We chose to rely upon the advice of our own drafters for

better or for worse; but that is our practice. If that is agreeable with the

committee we can proceed and get on with the debate on the points as to why

we've done what we've done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) agreeable.

MR. ROBERTS: I gather it is agreeable, Mr. Chairman, so I

will move the amendments to Bill No. 1, as they have been placed in the hands of

the Clerk, by the law clerks, and as they are shown in boldface on Bill No. 1 as

reprinted. If that is not a suitable motion, then the Clerk could let me know

and I will make another in due course.

Thank you, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible), he can tell you what we have

done and why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 1 carry? No amendment to

clause 1?

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I am sorry.

MS. VERGE: I missed part of that discussion because I was

out answering questions about public libraries but, what I thought I heard the

Government House Leader say is that the Minister of Health responsible for this

bill, was going to speak off the top, under clause 1 to explain all the

amendments that he and the government are proposing, and before we leave clause

1, it is my understanding that Opposition members will have a chance to talk

generally about the whole bill before we proceed to get into later clauses and

details.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are a number of changes that were proposed by the

committee and the ones we have accepted are in bold type; I will go over the

bold type ones first.

On page 5 of the reprinted bill, the word vehicle is there in

clause 2 (h) (viii), where the word vehicle is in bold type, originally

it was bus and this changes it. I guess in effect it means that any vehicle

including taxis will now be designated a public place; and the next amendment

that has been proposed by the hon. House Leader, is in clause 4, where the

committee had recommended and the Cabinet accepted the insertion of the words,

seating or other . Formerly it read: shall not exceed 20 per cent of the

area normally occupied by the public and the committee suggested that seating or

other be inserted and this is acceptable.

The next amendment is over on page 6, where, clause 5 (

f) reads: a vehicle designed or used for carrying passengers for compensation.

If you look at the original printing of the bill, that was just put in as bus

and again, there is to be no smoking area or room in a vehicle designed or used

for carrying passengers for compensation rather than just the word `bus' and we

accepted that one.

Now under clause 7, you will see the words smoking rooms

under 7 (2), smoking rooms , formerly that was as smoking areas and it

should be smoking rooms. That was an oversight and we thank the committee for

bringing that to our attention. The next one that was accepted is on page 8,

where clause 13, subsection (1) which were the words, or public place,

have been added. Before, it was just smoking in a workplace and the committee

suggests that we add the words `or public place' and that is acceptable; and

then, the final amendment which was proposed and accepted is in clause 15, where

we had proposed that it would be one year - `the act comes into force one year',

but because it has been debated for so long that everybody knows about it, it is

thought that six months would be adequate notice and we are going along

with that.

There are certain other amendments which the committee had

proposed and upon reflection, we thought would be perhaps inadvisable. One was a

clause suggesting that we add at the beginning, `the purpose of this bill would

be to protect the health of persons from harmful effects of secondary tobacco

smoke and to effect the movement toward the creation of a smoke-free

environment.' It was thought that might be unduly restrictive and may interfere

with the actual working of the bill, so we thought we wouldn't put that in.

In Clause 3, it had been proposed that we put in the words:

`except as provided in this Act.' Now, Clause 3 read originally, `A person shall

not smoke in a workplace or in a public place.' Then it said: `except as

provided in this Act.' It was thought that was redundant, because the very next

clause says, "Notwithstanding

section 3...." There was no need of putting in

that one, that would have been just a redundancy if we had added it.

The other one that wasn't accepted was the suggestion that we

would prohibit smoking in food establishments, including the area of licensed

premises where meals are served. As laudable as that is, we thought it was

pushing it a bit too hard to prevent smoking in any food establishment. Now,

there is a rule that there has to be a non-smoking area, but to forbid smoking

completely, we thought was a bit too much at this stage, at least.

There was another one there. In Clause 13: `Nothing in this

Act derogates from the right of an owner or employer to prohibit smoking or from

the right of a person to a smoke-free workplace or environment.' It was thought

that would be a bit confusing so we thought we would leave that one out.

That is about it, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. In the absence of the

Opposition health critic, who is once again home sick, I would like to have a

few words to say about this bill.

I spoke in support of the principle of the bill during the

second reading debate in the spring. I participated with the Social Legislation

Review Committee of the House in examining the bill in detail this fall. I would

like to say that the committee process was quite satisfactory. The committee,

made up of seven members from all three parties, co-operated to seek public

submissions. We were pleased to get responses from several organizations and

individuals, many of whom made oral presentations here in this Chamber, and

others of whom made written submissions.

Most of the people who responded to the committee are health

advocates who enthusiastically supported the measure put forward by the

government but who suggested some improvements. A couple of others, one or two

individuals, argued that the legislation represents an unwarranted intrusion on

individual rights. The committee unanimously supported the thrust of the bill,

and in making our recommendations to the full House of Assembly, which the

minister just referred to, we did draw on some of the advice of health advocates

who made presentations.

Mr. Speaker, the part of this bill that generated the most

controversy within the committee and among the presenters, is clause 4. I draw

to the attention of members of the House who aren't on the committee, who may

not be aware of what is going on, clause 4. Preliminary to clause 4, the bill

establishes the general rule that public places and workplaces shall be

smoke-free. So the general rule is no smoking allowed. Clause 4 goes on to make

an exception by saying basically that the owner of a restaurant, or a food

establishment, as it is called here, is allowed to designate up to 50 per cent

of the area in the restaurant as a smoking area, provided the area is

continuous. Clause 4 also provides that the owners of licensed premises - in

other words, bars - similarly be allowed to designate up to 50 per cent of the

bar area as a smoking area.

Mr. Chairman, there was extensive discussion, within the

committee and at our hearings, about these measures. A majority of the committee

- actually, I believe it was unanimous, all the committee, recommended that in

the case of restaurants, or food establishments, that the legislation be amended

to ban, outright, smoking.

I was impressed, at any rate - I can't speak for other

members of the committee - with presentations that recounted the experience of

the airline industry in Canada. Not so many years ago, basically aircraft

allowed smoking at the choice of the passenger. It was a free-for-all situation.

In response to passengers, in response to consumers, airlines began to try to

restrict smoking. Initially some airlines designated non-smoking sections. Other

airlines banned smoking on flights of more than two hours, or more than one hour

duration. Practically, that was problematic. The part-way measure was difficult

to measure, and difficult to enforce. Within a couple of years the airlines went

all the way and banned smoking totally. This seems to have worked well. Smokers

are managing to cope with smoke-free flights.

Because aircraft are obviously small, enclosed spaces,

smoking anywhere in an aircraft does contaminate the total air space, so it was

proven that there was not much point in trying to separate passengers into

smoking and non-smoking sections, because the people in the non-smoking sections

were being subjected to smoke just the same as the ones in the smoking seats.

Similarly, it seems to me, maybe it is appropriate now to ban smoking outright

in restaurants in the Province.

Restaurant owners have been far ahead of the Department of

Health and Members of the House of Assembly, responding to the marketplace, the

same as the airline industry initially responded to consumers. Most restaurants

in the Province now have no smoking sections, and in most eating establishments,

on arrival, a customer is asked if he or she wants smoking or non-smoking. It

seems to me, we are now ready to go the rest of the distance and ban smoking

outright in restaurants.

Now, in the case of licensed premises, or bars, many of the

presenters said that these places are one of the last refuges of smokers.

Smoking and drinking seem to go together, and the fact is that most bars - the

same as some common room Christmas parties - have thick smoke.

Chairperson, the idea of expecting bar owners to segregate

their premises into smoking and non-smoking areas, it seems to me, is

impractical and unenforceable.

I was one of a minority on the committee - a minority of two

- which recommended that the act be changed to leave alone bars and licensed

premises. Chairperson, it is not because I don't share the goal of the majority

of the committee in wanting to progress toward a smoke-free world. It is not

because I do not share the goal of the majority of the committee of wanting to

reduce the health hazards that are associated with breathing second-hand smoke.

I share those goals very strongly as I indicated when I spoke in the spring in

support of the principle of this legislation but, Chairperson, I don't see the

point of bringing in a law which is practically meaningless because it just

cannot be enforced. The reality in bars - and perhaps the Member for St. John's

South can elaborate on this - there are several of us here who probably have a

sense of personal experience in bars but the reality is that a high proportion

of bar patron's smoke as they are drinking, the reality is that bar patron's are

there to socialize and tend to mix around. There are licensed premises in

downtown St. John's where most people stand - on busy nights it is standing room

only and it just does not make any sense to try to segregate the smokers from

the non-smokers. Chairperson, it is difficult to operate a business in this

Province today. There are many obstacles in the way of small business people.

There are several hurdles that have to be surmounted by bar owners or lounge

owners. I submit that it is really not fair to bar owners to expect them

MR. MURPHY: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Just a few comments, Mr. Chairman. I just

want to remind hon. members that nobody can deny that the Minister of Health is

going in the right direction. I think what we see here is legislation that is

slowly but surely working its way to the understanding that smoking is obviously

extremely bad for ones health. I just want to remind hon. members, in all

honesty, that smoking or nicotine - I have an

article that I read not long ago

in an american periodical, that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, than

heroin. So I say to the hon. Member for Humber East that yes, I agree with her,

that it is basically a way of life for those who go out and socialize. We all

hope that the day will come when nobody will partake of tobacco products, but

that is not reality. It is legal and every government in North American has

legalized tobacco products and we have to be realistic about it.

I say to the hon. member that I disagree with her. I think

that well ventilated areas of food establishments can be designated and I am not

saying 50 per cent but certainly a small amount because there isn't 50 per cent

of the populous out there who smoke. So maybe 25 per cent who would be able to

go into an isolated area that is well ventilated to ensure those that do not

smoke that they are not absorbing second-hand smoke. So I just put that to all

hon. members -

MS. VERGE: What do you think about bars?

MR. MURPHY: I think it is going to be very difficult to

police in bars. Maybe at 8:00 p.m. you can police it and put people in their

sections and so forth and so on but by our own nature, as we socialize and move

around that bar, I think it is going to be very difficult to police but I hope

it can be.

MS. VERGE: Should the bars be in the act at all?

MR. MURPHY: Oh yes, I think they should be. I think we

should try to start a smoke-free area in a bar. I say to you that it is going to

be awfully difficult, by midnight, to police.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I agree, I agree, I agree but I say to all

hon. members, have and show some compassion. As time goes on I think the

Minister of Health will have his wish. The day will come when a lot of us might

be on the other side of the fence rather than on this side but his wish will be

granted and we will see a smoke-free society. At least today we understand that

it is an addictive, a very addictive problem. A lot of people are spending a lot

of money trying to get off cigarettes, through the patches and so forth and so

on, even to the point of hypnosis. So I ask all hon. members to consider this

legislation as it is. I ask anybody who presumes or tells the world that they

have a social conscience to stand in their place and try to amend this Bill

without having some compassion for those who are, obviously, addicted to

nicotine.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: I rise to speak on this Bill because I think

it is a most important Bill dealing with a very common poison that unfortunately

many people are addicted to. It is an important Bill because it deals, not with

smokers, but it deals with non-smokers, people who do not smoke or who have

managed to give it up, who have managed to get rid of this addiction to this

poison, and they are threatened by those who still smoke or those who do smoke,

and that is who we are talking about here. We are not talking about compassion

for those who are addicted.

The Minister of Health just talked about the addictions

branch and how he was changing that, putting it into the department, and all

that sort of stuff, and the Minister of Health has another branch, another arm,

to deal with people who are addicted. We are talking here about people who are

not addicted. We are talking here about ordinary members of the public who have

managed to avoid becoming addicted in some cases or those who have managed to

escape their addiction, and we are talking about what amount of poison are we

going to allow them to suffer? That is what we are talking about.

Now, I want to say something about the process. I think I

will probably be speaking a couple of times on this so I will use this first

opportunity to talk about the process, and I think we had a very good process. I

want to say to the Chair of the committee and to all members who participated in

the committee that I was very pleased with the co-operation that existed between

members of the committee, the Chair, and all parties of the committee to try and

do our best to improve this legislation. I think all hon. members on the

committee would agree that we have made recommendations that would have improved

the Bill. In fact some of these recommendations have been accepted. I am pleased

to see that in fact many of the recommendations have been accepted and these

recommendations will surely improve the Bill. I say that, Mr. Speaker, to

underline my commitment to the committee process and to say how important I

think it is for private members, particularly for government back-benchers to

play a role in the formation of legislation that is for the benefit of members

of the public.

I say for the first time also, Mr. Speaker, that a committee

of this House has heard from school children. Sitting here in this House were

fifteen high school and junior high school children who are going to be affected

by not Bill 1, Mr. Speaker, but by Bill 7. We heard comments on that from the

school children because Bill 7, the one we are going to debate next, was about

the sale of tobacco to minors and the importance of trying to stop young people

from getting into this poisonous addictive killing habit of smoking.

Mr. Speaker, we do see some improvements here. We have heard

some general comments from the Member for St. John's South. I am sorry he is not

in the House to listen to them. Perhaps he is listening to them outside. Perhaps

he has gone out to have a smoke. That might be the case, but I say to hon.

members, and I say it particularly to the Member for St. John's South who knows

something about industrial health and safety, that it is not a simple matter of

ventilating a bar or ventilating a place with smoke in it. We heard expert

evidence in fact from an engineer who was asked about ventilation and spoke

about that. He said that the reports of one study suggested that in order to be

able to reduce the level of emissions from second-hand cigarette smoke in a bar,

to eliminate known carcinogens from cigarette smoke to the level that is

permitted in industry would require you to take all the walls out of the bar and

have a force nine gale. Ventilation is not a solution I say to the Member for

St. John's South.

Now, what do we do with people in bars? I am afraid we are

coming to the point in this Province where we are going to have an enclave, a

black hole. Every place that has a liquor license is going to be a black hole, a

den of inequity. We are going to allow gambling to the point of ruining your

family, to the point of destroying your pay cheque, or whatever cheque you get.

You are going to allow all sorts of evil doing, if you want to call it that.

Smoke to your heart's content, gamble to your heart's content, sin the worst

kind of sin, as long as it is in a bar. As long as it is in a licensed premises

we can do that.

So there is a `buyer beware.' If you walk into a licensed

premises there are going to be carcinogens thrown at you from cigarettes. You

are going to have the bare-breasted women, you are going to have whatever else

is going to be allowed in bars. As long as you have a liquor license. A liquor

license is going to be a license to do anything. If you have a liquor license

you can smoke, you can poison people with cigarettes, you can have gambling and

destroy their incomes, destroy their family, no problem. You can have the

bare-breasted ladies, you can go down to The Cotton Club, and as long as we are

in this enclave of a bar, anything goes. Anything goes as long as you have a

liquor license.

I would say there are very many people who are not very happy

with that. I don't see any reason why we should make special rules for bars when

it comes to smoking. If members of the public want to go to a bar, just because

they happen to have a liquor license, shouldn't mean that they have to put up

with levels of smoke that are dangerous for their health.

I see the Member for Humber Valley going. I'm disappointed

that he has to go. He wants to make an amendment to this Bill. I agree with him.

He wants to make an amendment which suggests that if you are going to have

separate smoking facilities that you have it partitioned off.

We now have amendments here in the Bill that are going to

allow - they are going to allow you in a restaurant or a bar, you can have 50

per cent smoking and 50 per cent non-smoking, or 25 per cent, and there has to

be a dividing line somewhere. If I'm sitting in a restaurant in this seat and

the next person sitting in the next seat is in the smoking section, I'm going to

be inhaling their smoke. It is as simple as that.

MR. WOODFORD: Either you put up a petition or get a gas

mask.

MR. HARRIS: As the member says, you either need a

partition or you need a gas mask to avoid the smoke of someone who is next to

you. That is what we are allowing by this legislation. If we are going to

seriously do something about the poison that comes from second-hand cigarette

smoke, been proven to be carcinogenic -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Proven! Proven in families, proven in public

places. The cancer rates for individuals who work behind bars or in restaurants

is very high. So it is a known carcinogen. Even non-smokers who work in bars get

cancer at much higher rates than anyone else.

What we are trying to do in this Bill - and the Committee

considered all the alternatives, and came up with something which I felt was a

reasonable compromise. That for restaurants we ought to have a rule that says:

no smoking in restaurants. None whatsoever. If you are going to go and eat, go

and eat. If you want to have a smoke afterwards, go outside afterwards, stand

outside and have a smoke, afterwards.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Just for restaurants. Now bars, well, you

know, they are a little different. No, maybe we should have 50/50 in bars. But

for restaurants where people are going to eat - you know, someone wants to take

their family out to eat in a restaurant and have a meal, why should you have to

ingest poison. You are going out to eat for a healthy meal. Why should you be

required to put up with somebody else's poison? That is an amendment that was

recommended by the Committee, I think it was recommended unanimously by the

Committee, and the government to date hasn't accepted it. Perhaps hon. members

opposite would have a different view.

I see the Member for Fogo appears to agree. So at least we

have one on that side, and we perhaps have the members of the Committee. Maybe

there are others who are listening and pay attention to this kind of legislation

that is designed to make this Bill better, and to make the environment of the

Province that people are required to live in, the confined environment, the

environment of restaurants and bars, to make them accessible to members of the

public without having to ingest poisonous smoke, and I hope the Member for Fogo,

when he speaks -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to have a few words on this Bill and I am sure

my friend the Deputy Premier, will want to speak to it.

Members of this House will recall, I recall it fondly, an

incident that occurred back in 1991, was it, I say to the Deputy Premier. He is

not listening to me, as usual, not paying any attention.

I think it was back in 1992, I asked the Deputy Premier when

he brought in the regulations for banning smoking in the building, when was

that, does anybody at the table remember?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: '91?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: '91. The President of Treasury Board in March

of '91 brought in regulations to ban smoking in the buildings and he and I made

a public wager; we publicly challenged each other because both of us were

smokers and the challenge was that we would quit, at least we would certainly

quit in the building because we had to because it was now the law, but the idea

was that we would quit totally.

Now, in a bit of a confession today, Mr. Chairman, I have to

say this. I do not want to tell tales on the Deputy Premier, but I happen to

know personally that the Deputy Premier was very weak and had a lot of

difficulty in eliminating that addiction at that time -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about, anyway?

MR. SIMMS: I am talking about your buddy from Gander, and

in fact-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I will get to that now, and in fact the

Deputy Premier lasted, I think, - oh, oh - I see one of our friends in the

gallery who had a great interest in this issue. He is a non -smoker; he is a

non-smoker, reformed, and there is nothing -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Good for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: -but then as they say -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - they are the worst kinds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I wonder -

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, so the Deputy Premier -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - I think fell off the wagon after about

thirty days -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: -I am not sure about that but it was not very

long.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could just take his seat, until I

announce the questions for the Late Show.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, sorry, Mr. Chairman. I did not hear you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The questions for the Late Show are in this

order:

I would like to have further response to my question

regarding the confidentiality information at post-secondary institutions - the

hon. Member for St. John's East Extern.

I am not satisfied with the answer to my question to the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture and would like to put it forward on the

Late Show - the hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

I am not satisfied with the answer to the question I asked

the Minister of Tourism and Culture today in regards to the tourism agreement -

the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

These are the three questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So as I was saying, the Deputy Premier fell off the wagon in

a matter of days almost, maybe a month. I used to see him out on the front steps

of Confederation Building; I used to see him. We all have our little

idiosyncrasies but you have often noticed the Deputy Premier has a habit of

walking very fast, I have noticed that and I used to see him, I don't know why,

but I used to see him strutting very quickly out the front door of Confederation

Building and I watched him. I used to look out the window on the fifth floor and

watch him; right into his car, and he was not in the car before you could see

the smoke coming out through the windows, puffing, puffing, puffing, and that

was only a matter of weeks, I say to the Deputy Premier.

Now, in defense of my own personal situation, I am somewhat

proud or I was somewhat proud that I lasted nearly a year, nearly a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't fall off the wagon?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I did. Since it is confession time, I

have to admit that a few months before last April, when we had an election call,

I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) drink.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I say to the Minister of Justice, I do

not have the drinking habit too seriously, although anybody who may have

attended our Christmas party last night might have a differing view of that as

well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am sure they are.

Anyway, I fell off the wagon, I guess, more than a year ago

again, but I want to say to the Deputy Premier - now this is a great opportunity

for he and I to renew our vows, if you want - to renew our vows.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I do not want to make any blatant commitments

here today, but I am prepared to suggest to the Deputy Premier that we may - he

and I personally - might want to discuss this, and then maybe come to some

agreement `behind closed doors', which is something that the Deputy Premier, of

course, is very used to doing these days, in the government.

Mr. Chairman, I want to touch on two clauses in the Bill,

specifically, and I want to give my views on it, and my position on it,

particularly in Clause 5, which deals with the issue of smoking areas, or

smoking rooms, not being designated in day care centres, nursery schools,

secondary schools, elementary and primary schools, an acute health care

facility, a retail store, a recreation facility, or a vehicle designed or used

for carrying passengers for compensation.

Now my position on that, personally, is that I support that

clause, even though I am a smoker myself, because I think that it makes eminent

sense that you should not be smoking in a health care facility. It just does not

make a lot of sense. It does not look good. It does not feel good, and of course

we all know that secondary smoke affects people as well. So if I am a smoker, in

my own view, if I am waiting in hospital for some testing, or in to visit, I can

sure wait until the time comes to go outside, go outdoors, and if I have to have

a smoke, do it out there.

So I support that particular clause, and I just want to put

that on the record because I think it is sensible and reasonable, even though I

am a smoker. Let us not forget the purpose of the legislation which is, I guess,

to try to encourage those who smoke not to smoke because it is a terrible

addiction.

The other clause that I just want to touch on briefly is

Clause 4, and that is the issue of the area being designated in restaurants and

bars, which has probably become the most controversial issue in this particular

Bill. That is the biggest topic of discussion, I suppose.

I want to say to the Minister of Health, from my own personal

view - now this is not an official party position. We have not discussed it in

that sense, as an official party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Free vote, is it?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it is a free vote on this one. In fact,

my views differ from those of the Member for Humber East who just spoke a few

minutes ago - on that particular clause. They do not differ on Clause 5. We

agree on Clause 5, but on Clause 4 they do differ.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

So my view on the restaurant and bar issue, I say to the

Minister of Health in particular, for what it is worth - it may be worth nothing

to him, but I pass it on in any event - is that I kind of support the restaurant

owners who tell me, at least, that up until now - and have convinced me - they

have been able to handle the situation themselves. The Minister of Tourism nods.

They have been able to handle the situation fairly well themselves, and I

believe that to be true, as somebody who patronizes restaurants. You usually get

shown to an area, if you want to go to a non-smoking area. If you want a smoking

area they will try to find an area for you for smoking. Most people who go in

could not care less. A lot of people could not care less.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Exactly.

So I say - and I think this is where I differ from my

colleague from Humber East. I think she would like to see it banned totally, and

I think that is what most people would like to see, I suppose, that it be banned

totally, but we have to be practical and realistic too.

My own view is that I think the restaurants should be left

alone, because I think they are doing a reasonably good job on it. There does

not appear to be major pressure. I understand from the hospitality association

that that is similar to their point of view as well.

In the case of bars I have a real problem with that anyway.

Not that I patronize bars, because I don't, not very frequently. But I

understand, having been involved in a family business years back which involved

a bar and the operation of a bar, how difficult it is and would be to enforce

such a regulation as saying: there has to be an area designated for non-smoking.

It is very difficult.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Sorry?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Eliminate booze? I would challenge the Deputy

Premier on that one any day, because I hardly touch the stuff anyway. Only

periodically. I only drink on two occasions. That is when I'm alone or when I'm

with somebody.

In the case of bars I think, as I said, it is difficult to

enforce. Also, from what I understand, from people I've talked to - and I'm no

expert on it by far; the minister would probably be more of an expert in this

area because he has talked to more people about it - the ventilation systems, as

I understand it, are not necessarily easy to obtain, first of all, a ventilation

system that would do the job that has to be done, or that people would intend to

have done. Secondly, as I understand it, it is fairly costly as well.

From those two perspectives I don't know how we can enforce

or insist that bars have non-smoking areas in the bars. I really don't know how

they can enforce or would be able to enforce that particular kind of clause. So

I differ from the Member for Humber East on that, from a personal nature, and I

just wanted to put it on the record, pass it on to the Minister of Health for

what it is worth. In the end, I guess, the House will decide by majority what

position it favours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few

words to say about this particular Bill. As a person who, like the Member for

St. John's South, is addicted to nicotine, who for some thirty-two years has

been a smoker, and as a matter of fact started smoking on Woody Island when it

was very fashionable to smoke. If you were anybody at that particular time you

had to smoke.

I agree with this Bill. I agree with certain parts of the

Bill. I agree with the principle of the Bill. Not in terms of affecting me as a

person, because I've given up smoking 110 times, but the problem is that I've

taken it up 111, and still counting. It is an awful addiction. As a matter of

fact, in the debate about smoking sometimes I get very irritated with some of

the people in terms of what the cost of smoking is.

One of the reasons that we are banning smoking is because of

the tremendous health cost associated with smoking. My understanding is that

last year the Province brought in some $60 million in revenue from a tobacco

tax. If we could eliminate smuggling from St. Pierre and Miquelon we would bring

in another $20 to $30 million in tobacco tax. The health experts say that there

is roughly a $30 million cost to the health care system due to smoking. I always

say in a very joking way, if you can tell me a business that I can start

tomorrow that I can bring in $60 million with a cost of $30 million, I would

start it.

I think the debate should be extended further. As a person

who doesn't consume alcoholic beverages, we never hear the tremendous cost to

society of alcohol beverages. On quite a few occasions I've seen, or come upon,

an accident of an impaired driver, and as a matter of fact some of them very

tragic, where there have been not only tremendous costs in terms of health care,

but tremendous costs in terms of families' lives. The social cost of drinking is

tremendous.

I know people who have lost a child because of alcoholic

beverages. I think there should be a discussion about some of these sins, that

we call sin taxes. I think that alcohol is one that should be restricted to the

age limit in terms of the people being able to buy alcoholic beverages. It

should be raised as well as smoking.

I support this Bill. I've got a twenty-year-old who doesn't

smoke. I've got a fifteen-year-old home, but I'm sure that he has, because his

mother has caught him a few times, even though his father - and as a matter of

fact, the annoying thing when he was younger, he would always complain about his

father smoking but when you get out with your peer group and you get over to

that junior high school - where the Member for Waterford - Kenmount was the

principle - and they are allowed outside the door and allowed to smoke, you

never know what is going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, you should have put a stop to it.

MR. BARRETT: He should have abandoned smoking on the

playgrounds and in the parking lots but, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount,

that is his fault. I support this Bill because of the young people who will come

after us in terms that they will hopefully never get addicted to nicotine.

I disagree with the hon. Member for St. John's East in terms

of his amendment, if it passed, it would eliminate smoking in food

establishments places completely. A person who likes to eat and not drink but

likes to eat a lot - as you can see - there is nothing more relaxing than to go

out for a nice dinner and be able to have a nice smoke afterwards. I would not

be able to support that amendment because of the pleasure that is derived from

those of us who smoke but also I think that if this amendment were to go

through, it would be a tremendous cost to the operators of restaurants. I would

say to the hon. member that most of the restaurants on Duckworth Street and all

those restaurants down there in his district, will close their doors if we pass

this amendment which means that people will not be able to smoke in food

establishment places. So I urge all my hon. colleagues on this side not to vote

for the amendment to Clause 5, which would eliminate smoking in food

establishment places but go with what is in the Bill as presented by the hon.

minister. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the

Government House Leader is getting a little impatient over there. The Government

House Leader wants to get on with business and get progress or report progress

but this is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the Government House

Leader, this is an important topic for many of us. We are talking about smoking

in public places and in the workplace and there are some strong arguments on

both sides but, Mr. Chairman, I have never been a smoker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that is true. I cannot speak with

authority on what it does but I guarantee you one thing, Mr. Chairman, that I

support the thrust of the legislation but I don't think it goes far enough. I

have listened to members quite intently this afternoon talking about the

restaurant situation. Now I don't think there should be any tolerance whatsoever

for smoking in restaurants. I say that in all sincerity and honesty. It just

should not be tolerated. Of course there is a greater understanding amongst

people today, even amongst smokers that they really try to cut down and curtail

smoking when they are in the presence of people eating. In my own case, I have

people come to my house where I have a couple of friends who smoke and they

don't even ask anymore, `do you mind if I smoke,' because they know I do. They

will go outside on the patio somewhere if they want to have a draw after they

have a bite to eat. So there is a greater understanding about that. I don't

think that should even be entertained, I say to members, to the Government House

Leader and ministers, there should be no smoking whatsoever in restaurants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And this argument that people are using

about they will put you in a non-smoking

section but of course we all know what

happens in the restaurants. The first number of patrons arrive and they take you

up one end that is non-smoking and down in the other end is smoking but as the

restaurant fills up you get closer and closer together and if the owner or the

operator of the restaurant is lucky enough before the lunch is over or the

evening meal is over the restaurant is completely blocked. What you have then is

a non-smoking table here and a smoking table here, back to back. What a farce it

makes of it all, I say to members opposite, because if someone is at the next

table, and it is a smoking table, and I am next to them at the non-smoking, then

I, quite naturally, inhale and breathe in the smoke that is coming off the end

of their cigarette and the smoke they are blowing out of their face. So I can't

see how we can honestly stand here, or sit here, and even entertain voting for

smoking in restaurants. I can't understand that.

I would appeal and ask members opposite, who have the

majority -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a free vote on that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would hope that there is a free vote

on such an important issue with the government members. Is there a free vote on

this, I ask the Government House Leader. Is there a free vote on this very

important issue? Because I am sure the majority of members on the other side are

against smoking in restaurants, as well. I am sure they are, and I just hope

they have the freedom to vote the way they feel on this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Against what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Smoking in restaurants.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Totally against it. I don't think there

should be any smoking whatsoever, because regardless of how big the restaurant

is, you get air flow in the restaurant. You get smoke coming your way, even if

you are in the non-smoking section. Then, like I said - I don't know if the

Member for Fogo was listening - when the restaurant fills up, you have a

non-smoking table here, and a smoking table here, so what is the point of being

in a non-smoking area, I ask the Minister of Tourism and Culture? What is the

point of saying, "I want a non-smoking table," when at the table next to you,

four or five people are blowing smoke in your face all night?

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Don't argue too vehemently, now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is the minister saying over there?

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) shut down all the restaurants.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am not trying to shut down all the

restaurants, I say to the Minister of Tourism and Culture, who I know has had

past experiences in restaurants with varying degrees of success.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty-five per cent of the people don't

smoke.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Exactly.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) successful one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, when you left they all folded up.

Mr. Chairman, what can I say?

I say to the Minister of Tourism and Culture, do not tell me

that people are going out to restaurants because they can go out there and

smoke. That is not why they are going to the restaurant.

Let me say to the minister - let me just reverse the argument

on him. How many non-smokers out and about won't go into a restaurant because

there are people in there blowing smoke in their faces? Think about that side of

the argument.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Think about that side of the argument, I

say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I have protection

from the minister? Get up and speak in debate if you want to say something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't sit in your place like a stuffed

chicken and quack and flutter over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if he wants to take

part

in debate, let him stand up and take

part in it, and say he supports the

legislation.

MR. SIMMS: Not be quacking.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Quacking and cackling over there all

day.

Mr. Chairman, bars - people sort of bear leniency to bars.

They think the kind of people who go into bars are more understanding. If they

go into a bar they expect to find people in there smoking. When I go into a bar,

which I do fairly often - I visit a bar or two on the weekends when I am home.

My best friend owns a bar, which I go into almost every weekend, and it is a

rather small bar. I think the capacity is probably thirty-five or forty people.

Now, are you going to tell him that he has to have 50 per cent non-smoking

capacity? So you are standing over here - I mean, I said to him the other day,

`Where are you going to draw the smoking line?' He said, `What are you talking

about?' I said, `Boy, you are going to have 50 per cent of this smoking - ' We

are all in the one little area, Mr. Chairman. What is the point of twenty over

there smoking and the other twenty here, where you can touch everybody?

That is the way I feel about it. I don't think smoking should

be tolerated anywhere.

MR. CRANE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I don't, I say to the Member fo