December

10, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 33

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping today that the Deputy Premier has

had a good night's rest and is, perhaps, going to be more receptive to answering

some questions I have on the issue I raised with him yesterday. I will try not

to make them questions that require details on their plan because I know he will

want to try to avoid that by simply saying, `You will know soon.'

Let me ask him a question related to federal transfers to

individuals under programs like U.I. and so on - the program they are talking

about, presumably, proposals to replace those transfers with their new Income

Security Plan. I am sure he would agree with me that federal transfers bring

hundreds of millions of dollars into the Newfoundland economy. One-third, I

guess, or more, of the personal income spent in this Province every year comes

from transfer payments from Ottawa, and transfers to individuals are obviously a

very large part of Newfoundland's economy.

Now if, for example, there were to be - and he indicated

yesterday some people may get less - a 10 per cent reduction in the overall

transfer payments to individuals, that would reduce disposable income by $150

million to $200 million a year in this Province. So, since the government have

already approved their plan in principle, can I ask him if he has done the

arithmetic that would be required, and ask him specifically, is it possible that

federal transfers to individuals will decrease as a result of the government's

new plan? As Finance Minister, how does he expect that might impact on the

provincial economy? Can I ask him if they have, in fact, done an economic impact

study and, if so, would he table it in the House?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, certainly, a very significant

amount of money comes into this Province in terms of transfers to persons,

moreso than even transfers to government. The federal government are currently -

obviously, they have to review the amounts they spend, and are trying to find

areas, obviously, to save money.

I have no idea, at this point in time, what the federal

government plans to do in terms of transfers to provinces. I suspect we will

know about that sometime in January, but certainly, at the latest, by the middle

of February. It is difficult to answer a question when we don't even know, at

this time, what the federal government plan to do, if anything, about transfers

to individuals and transfers to provinces in the years ahead. All I can tell

them is that on Tuesday, all the details will be released of what we envision to

be an income security program and that program is not devised to save money. The

concept is based on what is best for the people of the Province and how to

handle the tremendous problems we now face in very difficult times, so the

objective, from our point of view, is certainly not to save money. I don't know

what the federal government are going to decide in terms of transfers to

individuals, therefore, I find it very difficult to answer his question.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I will try to

make it a little less difficult for the Deputy Premier to understand. I

understand his argument about what the federal government will do in transfers -

they have put together a plan that has been worked on for several years. Dr.

House has worked on it for quite a while. The Cabinet here, provincially, has

approved the plan in principle and it has been submitted to the Prime Minister.

What I am asking him is: Will their plan, their proposal, provincially, have any

effect on the reduction in federal transfers to individuals? Is that the concept

of the plan? Because yesterday I asked him some questions and he indicated that

was the concept, to replace some of these other programs. I am assuming, Mr.

Speaker, that government has done some arithmetic, and done some economic impact

studies associated with this particular plan.

The point I am trying to make to the minister, as Minister of

Finance, is that if there is a reductions in the federal transfer payments as a

result of this proposal, for example - not what they are going to do on their

own, but as a result of the government's proposal - a 10 per cent reduction in

the amount of personal income coming into this Province in the form of transfers

to individuals could reduce the province's own source revenues by anywhere from

$40 to $50 million, and surely, he would have some concerns about that. Has he

done any studies that would tell him what the impact of the government's

proposal, your proposal, would have on the provincial revenues? Has he done any

studies along those lines, and if he has, would he table them in the House so we

could have a look at them?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it wasn't that the leader's

question wasn't simple enough. He doesn't have to struggle very hard to ask

simple questions. The problem was that his question was too simplistic, and

there is a difference between a simple question and a simplistic question.

Mr. Speaker, to talk about effects on transfers to persons,

as I said, I don't know what the federal government are going to do in terms of

transfers to persons; therefore, I can't determine what effect it will have on

this Province in terms of the federal government and the decisions they make.

In terms of his question, specifically, about our proposals,

I have already answered it, and I would suggest to the hon. member that he not

go out and use his scare tactics. He is now talking about a 10 per cent

reduction in transfers to individuals. I suppose he will go around the Province

over the weekend and say, `Government plans to reduce transfers to individuals

by 10 per cent.'

I say to the people of the Province, and members opposite,

wait until the details of the program are provided on Tuesday, and then

everybody will know. I refuse to deal with this very serious problem in such a

simplistic way, and in such a piecemeal way, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to respond to the personal attacks of the

Deputy Premier - it is not my style.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to frame the questions in such a

way that the Province's Minister of Finance could be able to answer, because

they relate to the Province's finances. So I am trying to make them as simple as

I can, for that purpose, I say to the minister.

I am not saying there is going to be a 10 per cent reduction.

I didn't say that. I said there could be, because you said yesterday there could

be a reduction in the transfers. You said yesterday, `Some people will get

less.' So we are trying to ask you a general question.

Let me try another one. Yesterday, the minister agreed that

the government's plan is going to guarantee a minimum income. He did agree

yesterday, that is the concept of the plan, did he not? Also, people then would

be expected to supplement that income through other employment. Now, that is the

concept of the government's Income Security Plan. I am surprised the Member for

St. John's South is not aware of that. In other words, the key to the success of

the program will be the availability of these other jobs that people can then

attach to after they get this minimum income - understand?

Now, we all know the job creation performance of this

government is pretty dismal, so I want to ask the Deputy Premier: Have they

taken into account the problem that we have with unemployment in this Province,

and is there some way the Deputy Premier can guarantee the people of this

Province that those other jobs are going to be available for them so that they

can make a living for themselves and their families, can he guarantee that?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in his

preamble, the Opposition

Leader pointed out the danger of getting involved in those discussions when

there are various objectives that the Opposition has in mind. He has stated that

I had already said that there was going to be a reduction, now, Mr. Speaker,

that is entirely false, entirely false. In answer to a question I said, some

people could lose, some people could gain and as an example I said: somebody who

makes $100,000 a year does not need any support, so that is a very simple

example.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Employment and labour

Relations deals with this issue on Tuesday, I believe it is Tuesday, it will be

obvious to everybody what this government is proposing to the federal government

and it will be, I am absolutely certain, in the best interest of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when the details are released. Again I will say

to him, I am not going to deal with this issue piecemeal; this has to be handled

properly and it will be handled properly by the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations at the proper time next week.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some questions for the Minister of Finance.

The Minister will recall that about a year ago, almost a year

to the day, December 17 actually of last year, we passed two amendments, one to

the Tobacco Tax Act and one to the Gasoline Tax Act, done here very quickly;

actually it was done on the 18th because on the 17th the House sat all night and

it was the next morning in fact that the bill was passed.

MR. ROBERTS: Parliamentary 17th (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Parliamentary 17th, that is right, but by

the clock and calendar, on the 18th, because we sat all night. Those bills, Mr.

Speaker, were distributed during the course of the early morning and were

debated about an hour later and we made mention at the time that we had very

little time to study those bills and consult with the industries -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - that were affected, and so, Mr. Speaker,

we now find that those bills, in effect, the government are now producing

regulations in accordance with those bills to change the system of collection of

taxes on tobacco and gasoline, so that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. member.

MR. WINDSOR: - wholesalers will be required to establish

trust accounts to deposit the taxes immediately, long before it is even sold by

the retailers, the minute that it leaves the wholesaler. Would the minister like

to tell us what is he actually proposing to do, are we talking about daily

deposits, are we talking about weekly deposits, what impact is this going to

have on that particular sector?

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

MR. BAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, is

correct in part of his analysis. Last fall there was a bill passed - there were

two bills passed - one having to do with both the Gasoline Tax Act and the

Tobacco Tax Act that made allowance for trust accounts for deposit of tax. Very

briefly - if, Your Honour, would indulge me - when wholesalers sell tobacco or

gasoline to the retailers, at that point in time, they collect the gasoline tax

and the tobacco tax. Large amounts of money are involved because there are only

very few of these wholesalers; gasoline and tobacco tax wholesalers. So large

amounts of money are obtained and are involved here. For instance, I suppose an

average tobacco tax wholesaler would probably collect $500,000 worth of tax in a

month. So we are talking about large amounts of money. These amounts of money,

up till now, even now, become part of the cash flow of these companies. So, in

any given month, for any given company, there is perhaps $500,000 of taxpayers

money that is being used in cash flow and the use of that money is anywhere from

fifty odd days to a few days depending on when it is received.

In the case of bankruptcy of some of these large companies,

provincial government falls behind other creditors in terms of the ability to

collect the tax money. So in the last year we lost a considerable amount of

money just through a couple of unfortunate occurrences, a couple of

bankruptcies. What we intend to do is to take the tax -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing both the question and the answer

when members are talking across the House.

MR. BAKER: What we intend to do is require that these

particular wholesalers, when they collect these large amounts of tax money,

peoples money, that they put them in trust accounts so that they could become

available daily.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that those bills allowed for

regulations and those bills have not yet been proclaimed because the

regulations, specific regulations, have not been finalized. We have had a lot of

discussions with the tobacco people and the gasoline people. I have heard their

submissions, they have explained to me the types of problems it would create for

them, and we are now currently trying to put together regulations that will

soften the impact on them but certainly not eliminate the impact on them, soften

the impact on them and at the same time guarantee that the people of the

Province get their tax money.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister was

given quite a bit of leeway in his answer. I hope in my next question I can get

the same. Because I want to say to the minister that what it amounts to is that

private enterprise is financing government and that they have to use their line

of credit or borrowing or whatever to pay that to government, put it into a

trust fund, long before it is collected at the retail level. So they have to

come up with that money. They are paying it in advance. Taxes are not due until

the sale. The minister is now deeming that the sale takes place at the wholesale

level.

MR. BAKER: That was done before. That part was done

before. Wholesalers have been paying the tax all along.

MR. WINDSOR: Wholesalers have been paying the tax, but he

had until the 20th day of the next month. In other words, he had what normal

business has, what government takes, thirty to fifty days to pay their debts.

The minister is now saying tobacco and gasoline wholesalers will not get the

normal thirty to fifty days' time to pay their debts that other people have.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister make an amendment to the act

so that the taxes are actually payable when collected by the retailer? It

shouldn't be too difficult to make the regulations so that the taxes are due

then. Let me also ask him this, there are cases, as there have been in the past,

where product has been lost, stolen, damaged, and eventually never sold, will

the minister put into his regulations a provision so that wholesalers can get a

rebate on taxes that they've been forced to pay up front, or at least the

minister is proposing to make them pay up front, but that they never actually

collect. At the moment there is no provision for them to get a rebate.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will explain again. These

monies we are talking about are not monies that are normal debts of companies.

These are not bills owed by the company. The hon. member has it wrong. These are

monies belonging to the people of the Province that are due to the people of the

Province and we are saying they must immediately be turned over to the people of

the Province. It is as simple as that. I believe I do not have the right to take

millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers money and in effect provide

interest free loans for a month and a half, or whatever it happens to be. I

don't feel I have that right. So when the taxes are due, which is at the point

where the wholesaler sells to the retailer, that is the point at which it

becomes due, then we would like to avoid the loss of tax money. We would like

that taxpayers money to be placed in the consolidated revenue fund where it

belongs so that we can provide better services in this Province. Mr. Speaker, if

we lose a million dollars of taxes that is a million dollars somehow that has to

come out of our health care system or our education system, and is not fair.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, if

wholesalers are forced to pay their taxes up front, that is a cost that has to

come out of the pockets of the consumers of the Province, eventually. It is

going to be passed along. I say to the minister, the cost of the product that is

provided to the retailer by a wholesaler is also money that is due and owed to

the wholesaler. Does government think that they have a special right to have

preference over other debtors of anybody who may run into difficulty here? He

wants his taxes up front, Mr. Speaker, before they are due. Taxes are due when

products are sold in the marketplace, not at the wholesale level.

Will the Minister of Finance consider this, since he seems so

determined to do this. Would he consider accepting a bond in place of cash up

front, so that people don't have to finance this $500,000 or $1 million a month

to pay the taxes up front? Would the minister accept a bond in lieu of that, as

is done in the Province of Qubec, so that this burden is not placed on

wholesalers and ultimately consumers of the Province?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. This being Human Rights Day, I

think it is important to ask questions about the protection of senior citizens

under our Human Rights Code. Our Human Rights Code doesn't provide for

protection against discrimination on the basis of age, in accommodations, in

public services, in harassment, in discriminatory publications. I would like to

ask the minister why our Human Rights Code does not protect senior citizens or

does not provide for a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of age?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for the quality of my voice this morning. I have

some kind of a sore throat but in any event the issues that are raised by the

hon. member's questions have been matters that have been discussed in meetings

between myself and officials of our department and representatives of the Human

Rights Commission, and those that are speaking on behalf of, and representing,

senior's groups in the Province. The matters are currently being studied in

terms of how they are viewed and dealt with, not only across the country but in

other jurisdictions around the world. We have committed to that group that when

we have those kind of studies complete and the information available we will

have a look at whether or not there should be any changes in the legislation

relating to protections in the Human Rights Code in Newfoundland and Labrador,

further protections with respect to the matter of age.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Human Rights Association and others have asked for changes to be made to the

code and other provinces protect against discrimination against senior citizens.

Can the minister on this Human Rights day commit to the House of Assembly that

he will in the next session of the House bring in amendments to the Human Rights

Code to protect against discrimination on the basis of age?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, while I cannot give that

commitment today, as I indicated in the previous answer, in meetings we have had

with representatives of people who are in the seniors category and are very

concerned about additional protections that they think are warranted and

necessary on the basis of age in Human Rights protections, we have indicated

that the matters are under study and if there are - as a matter of fact the

question I asked again is, if these protections are warranted why is it that

they have not been there in the past because that is an obvious starting point?

The answers to those questions will be forthcoming at a point in time and then

the government will make a decision as to whether or not there are real needs to

put further protections in the Human Rights legislation.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to

the Minister of Education. Over two years ago the Department of Education

commissioned a study entitled A Long-term Capital Plan. This study was designed

to compare schools and facilities in this Province with national standards, to

analyze the life expectancy of schools and to recommend consistent approaches to

school maintenance problems in the Province. The minister received results of

this study some months ago and will the minister today comment on the findings

of this study, and will he table the study in the House?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to comment

on it today or to table it today, but all in due course it will be made

available to the public. Today is not the appropriate time.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this study cost the taxpayers of

this Province over $250,000. The study also included a comparative analysis of

all learning resources, equipment in each school as well as equipment and

learning resources in all twenty-seven school board offices in the Province.

Each school board was assured that the data for each specific board would be

analyzed and when the study was completed the data for each board would be

communicated and available as a resource for the planning division of that

board. To date not one single school board has heard one iota about the studies

results. Where is the study and why is the minister so reluctant to share it

with the taxpayers who paid for it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member, have a

little bit of patience. I cannot comment on whether or not it cost $250,000. I

will have to have that verified, however, it was a very extensive study, Mr.

Speaker. It is a tool which government is going to use to try to address some of

the ills which the previous administration allowed to build up in this Province

over a seventeen year period. It is being analyzed, it is being studied and all

in due course it will be made public. The way hon. members talk, you know, you

have to go and do a report and before you get a chance to receive it or look at

it they want us to go and send it out on the front page of the Evening

Telegram . They want to make political points out of everything, Mr. Speaker,

and I understand that. That is, I suppose, part of the political process when it

is abused, but hon. members should learn that when the group here who came in in

1989 were the Opposition, when we were over there we had patience. We used to

ask very sensible, reasonable questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: As a matter of fact, I would be quite willing

to make available for the hon. Member for Waterford Kenmount, a seminar - I

would ask my colleague from Port de Grave to conduct a seminar - to teach hon.

members how they should behave as Opposition members. I think it is long past

due, Mr. Speaker, and I am prepared to do it whenever he wants it done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his

Grade III lecture. I want to also note that the minister's refusal to share the

information with duly elected school boards will not help to solve the capital

needs of our schools in this Province.

It is common knowledge that our schools are in very poor

shape, and that the schools are not treated equally in terms of equipment and

learning resources available to students.

I say to the minister: $250,000 for this study which is on

the shelf, and not being used, or not being available to the people who made it

possible for the document to be prepared, that $250,000 - if we are not going to

use it - could have put 2,500 families with $100 each at Christmas this year, or

it could have put 10,000 new books in the school library.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Why will the minister not stand and apologize

to the taxpayers for not using the information readily? It has been available

since December of 1992. He has had a year to do the study.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, you talk about penny wise and

pound foolish. The hon. member gets up and brings the roof down about $250,000

which is not put on the shelf - which is indeed being evaluated - and he screams

about what that could do for the system.

Did the hon. member ever stop to think what $24 million lost

in Sprung could do for the school system of this Province, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question this

morning is for our friend, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: The Evening Telegram reported on

Thursday that government intends to have a private contractor renovate the

Prince Phillip office building at their own cost. The government would then rent

the building from the contractor under a ten to fifteen year lease. Why would

government rent a building it already owns? Why not do the renovations yourself?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: We do not have the money, Mr. Speaker.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Any sensible contractor would borrow the

money needed to renovate Prince Phillip Place, and amortize the loan over ten to

fifteen years. Government will end up paying the principal and interest on the

loan, the cost of maintenance over the lease period, plus a reasonable profit

for the contractor.

How is it possible that such a scheme will save taxpayers

money?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, I say that you `could borrow'. You could

borrow, sir. It would not cost less for government to renovate the building. You

would at least save hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of dollars in

profit over the ten to fifteen year lease period.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member now

realizes there is a by-election coming up, but I can assure him, Phillip Place

will mean nothing in the District of Placentia.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to make the

point that going for public proposals and using public sector money to renovate

Phillip Place will cost the taxpayers more money. I say to the hon. member, if

government was to go out to borrow $6 million, and pay interest on it for the

next ten, fifteen, or twenty-five years, it would cost the taxpayers a lot more

money.

So we are making the decision in the best interest of the

taxpayers, and we are making sure that the taxpayers of this Province are

protected, something that the former administration did not do, and if they had

done it over the last seventeen years we would not have the problem of borrowing

money to renovate Phillip Place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's answer rings somewhat hollow. Now it could be

after last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh, I hear the Member for Eagle River again.

He is about as sharp as a bowling ball. He is never any sharper (inaudible)

today.

Anyway, I am sorry, Sir, your answers ring hollow. All you

are doing is having a private contractor borrow money for government and it will

end up costing taxpayers much more than if the government themselves borrowed

money, because they get better rates. Isn't this really some tricky bookkeeping

that will cost taxpayers dearly just to make it look like you are reducing

borrowing? Being a decent man yourself, I am throwing it at you, have another

look, Sir.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we saw a lot of tricky

bookkeeping over the last seventeen years when hon. members opposite were in

government. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it takes the people of this

administration to try to figure out all the tricky things that went on for

seventeen years, to try to straighten out the mess that the former

administration left. If they had been one-quarter as wise as this

administration, we would not be in the debt of $6 billion to $7 billion. The

decisions we make are in the best interest, not only of the people today, but

the people of the future, and that is our greatest concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

public galleries, forty-five culture and heritage students from Eugene Vaters

Collegiate, accompanied by their teachers, Wayne Vincent and Rick Canning, and

as well, I would like to acknowledge in the gallery the presence of Mr. Tom

Curran, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit

Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, No. 2." (Bill No. 60)

By word of explanation, Mr. Speaker, this is the bill that

will make changes to the border taxes in Labrador - both Southern and Western

Labrador.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, in my absence yesterday, I

understand, questions were asked on the Fisheries Loan Board by the Member for

Grand Bank; I don't have a copy of Hansard but I believe I know roughly what the

questions were. The hon. gentleman suggested that the Fisheries Loan Board is

harassing its borrowers for payments and seizing houses and other assets.

The response, Mr. Speaker, is that the Fisheries Loan Board

conducts an individual assessment of its borrowers who are behind in their

payments and if it is determined that they have the ability to pay, they are

expected to pay in accordance with their ability. Borrowers who have the ability

to pay their loan obligations and refuse to do so are submitted to the executive

boards for legal action authorization. Borrowers who are approved for legal

action are advised of the board's intention to take legal action and are given

sufficient time to offer an acceptable repayment arrangement before the loans

are submitted to the Department of Justice for the initiation of legal action. I

should point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is not, I repeat, not the policy of the

Department of Fisheries to seize personal residences. I think that might have

been inferred in the hon. gentleman's question.

The 1992-'93 interest forgiveness program for direct loan

program borrowers, was approved subject to the interest forgiveness being

provided to the extent that 20 per cent of the gross fishing income is

insufficient to cover the interest charges. Accordingly, interest forgiveness is

reduced by 20 per cent of the gross fishing income, however, if the fisherman

does not have fishing income, the total interest charges are forgiven. So, Mr.

Speaker, what that is saying, in effect, is that in cases where the assignment

of catch, the 20 per cent reduced from the fisherman's earnings and applied to

the interest of his direct loan, is not adequate to cover the full amount, then

the government will write off the balance.

Regarding the direct loan program borrowing, 1992 interest

relief of $600,000 has already been provided to borrowers and the 1993 interest

relief will be processed in the New Year when the board obtains fishermen's 1993

gross fishing income. Regarding the Loan Guarantee Program, which is a program

guaranteed by the banks, the 1992 interest forgiveness for 192 borrowers

totalling approximately $2.6 million have already been processed and forwarded

to the chartered banks for allocation to fishermen's loans. The board is

presently processing additional 1992 interest forgiveness cheques totalling

$352,000, recently approved by government, for the remaining sixty borrowers.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: My point of order is that, given the noise

level in the House this morning, the Minister of Education, who took notice the

other day of my question requesting him to table the Saunders Report of Public

Libraries, may not have heard the Speaker call Answers to Questions for which

Notice has been Given. I would like to give the minister another chance now, to

table the Saunders Report on Public Libraries, which the government has had for

five months and which not even library board members have seen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Petitions

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

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

I rise this morning to present a petition from a constituent

school and I will read the prayer of the petition that I have been asked to

present.

It is to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland, the Legislative Assembly. The petition of the undersigned students

of Eugene Vaters Pentecostal Collegiate states: `We are opposed to the proposed

government model to restructure education in this Province, since we believe it

will lead to a dismantling of our denominational school system as presently

protected by Canada's Constitution,

Section 93, Term 17. Furthermore, we

disagree with the premise of this model that our present school system is

responsible for the educational woes of this Province. The petitioners

respectfully request that the hon. House vote to reject the proposed model and

return to negotiations with church leaders.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: On behalf of the 258 students at Eugene

Vaters, who have signed this petition, I table it in the House today.

I want to take a minute or two, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the

students' petition that we have just read. I, too, want to welcome the students

from Eugene Vaters who sit in the galleries today. I understand they are coming

for an extended period. They are going to spend three hours with us and that

will give them ample opportunity to see the whole gamut of how this august body

operates and the fine work that it does. I hope that their stay is enjoyable and

educational.

I have had a fair degree of contact with the school that

originated this petition, inasmuch as, I guess, I started my political career

there as a school committee member thirty-odd years ago, as I mentioned in the

House the other day. But beyond that I want to say a few words regarding the

institution, itself. I believe that if we examine the high schools in the

Province from which this petition originated, you would find, as a result of the

examination, that Vaters is probably indicative of and represents most of what

is good about education today and most of the positive elements that we could

accrue to the present system and form of governance that we have in education.

It is a school that is denominationally run, of course, as are all of our

schools, but it is also very much a community and neighbourhood school, having

catered, over the past twenty-five-plus years, to the needs of the children who

live in that area of the city, and it has done an excellent job.

I should commend them also for their significant interest in

and leadership in the advancement of the co-op education program in the

Province. I might say this also about them, that they are the first school in

Newfoundland, as of this year, that have developed a co-op education program in

co-operation with Memorial University. They are piloting a project in co-opting

with the University and with business that I am sure will be the forerunner of

many others that will exist throughout the Province in the years ahead. So I

commend them for that initiative and for being the first in that regard.

I should say also that the students who originated the

petition I have just presented, are really doing what the government, the

Premier, has asked the people of the Province to do as a result of the dialogue

that is now going on with respect to the restructuring of education, and that is

to become involved in being heard, having their voices heard, in the whole

discussion of what is happening. So, I congratulate them for taking the

initiative, the interest in education and for developing the petition that I

have presented. I want also to say that these students have, certainly, an

interest in what they have done for two or three reasons: First of all, they are

the clients of the present system. They are the children who are studying today

so that they will be adequately prepared for the labour market and for the

business world of tomorrow. Secondly, of course, they are undoubtedly going to

be the future parents of children who will be available to the system for

educational purposes in the future. Whatever model we develop, whatever comes

out of the discussions at the end of the day, the children, might I say, of

these young students will be the ones who we will be benefitting or otherwise

hurting.

MR. SPEAKER: The member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: By leave? Thank you. I want to say that

the contents and the prayer of this petition, Mr. Speaker, are basically all

summed up in the last sentence. The prayer of the petition basically is that we

respect the rights of the classes of people we have now, and that at the end of

the day it is important that we develop a model that will continue to respect

and enhance those rights, and that will also improve the quality of education

that we provide to the student, and that will also improve the quality of the

student that we produce at the end of the day.

The spirit and the prayer of this petition is that we get

back together, that we start talking together, that we continue to negotiate

together. I am very pleased to support the petition and to have the opportunity

to present it in the House on their behalf this morning. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the students on

their initiative in speaking out on the issues that affect the basic structure

of the school system as it currently exists in this Province. I want to note for

the record and for the students' information that when this matter was debated

in principle on Wednesday, December 1, on a private member's resolution, the

caucus on this side of the House voted against the principles outlined in the

government's model.

The policy of the Progressive Conservative Party has been

stated very clearly. We recognize the desire for reforms, we recognize that

there have to be greater efficiencies in the education system. We fully support

all efforts to promote efficiency and the sharing of services. We encourage the

initiatives which are already under way in this Province. However, the

Progressive Conservative Party will not support non-consensual changes to the

constitutional rights of churches.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we believe a consensual

agreement between the churches and the provincial government on the

restructuring of the school system can be achieved if all stakeholders become

active participants and if all concerned are willing to focus their collective

efforts on the need for compromise.

We must show, Mr. Speaker, a willingness to find the common

ground. It is crucial that we accent our tradition of negotiation and

compromise. There are obviously divergent and strong viewpoints and profound

philosophical differences between the two models for restructuring, but there

are also many areas where there can be mutual and satisfactory agreements.

Today, I ask both sides of the House and both sides of the issue to show respect

for the validity and for the sincerity of the different approaches to the

restructuring of the educational system.

This is not a time for inflexibility, not a time to play

posturing games, not a time for the minister to limit his compromising attitude

to crossing a few `t's and dotting a few `i's, not the time to wait for the

other side to yield, but a time in which to show genuine Christian charity and

respect. Each side in this restructuring process should be able to identify

those areas of flexibility, as well as those areas where it is deemed necessary

to hold on to matters of principle. I believe that if the minister is willing to

offer an olive branch, he will find his counterparts more than willing to engage

in meaningful dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, we must not only do the right thing we must be

perceived as doing what is right for our children and our grandchildren.

It would be easy and simplistic to blame all the troubles in

our education system on its denominational structure. As I said last week in

this House, we cannot blame the persistent underachievement in student

performance identified in the government's model, directly or indirectly, solely

on the denominational structure. That would be unfair; it would be unjust, and I

have not seen any substantive, empirical data to draw such a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen many changes to the education

system in the past thirty years. These have been achieved through dialogue,

through compromise, respect for the validity of the other person's opinion. Our

education system is better today than it was thirty years ago.

I asked the minister this morning, in this House, to be a

facilitator of change, to reflect on the rigidity of his approach, to identify

the areas of commonality, and to show aggressive leadership in making the

restructuring process a positive and futuristic exercise that respects the

constitutional rights of our citizens, but which also addresses the government's

need for efficiency and for a higher scholastic student achievement.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I stand today and proudly

support this petition which was presented. I have not heard any other members

support this petition.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, asks government and church to

continue to negotiate. Actually, the petition is asking us to do what we are

already doing - negotiations are continuing. There will continue to be

reasonable give and take on both sides, because we are bent on reforming the

education system of this Province for the benefit of all of our children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: The students from Vaters: I can certainly

accept the advice that they are passing along, because Vaters, for all intents

and purposes, is the school of the future.

The Seventh-Day Adventist is the school of the future. I will

tell you why. You go into Vaters today and you will find that half the students

are not Pentecostal - there are Anglicans; there are Roman Catholics; there are

United Church people; there are non-christians; there are other people in that

school. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are talking about. We are talking

about an interdenominational school system, like Vaters.

Some days ago, we heard a teacher in the Seventh-Day

Adventist school describe her class. There are 300 students in Seventh-Day

Adventist schools in this Province - only 100 of them belong to the Seventh-Day

Adventist Church. Two hundred are from Roman Catholic, United Church, Anglican,

and all the other churches. That is what we are talking about, and their

teacher, in a very lovely speech that she gave on the radio, spoke about how

they understand each other. Seventh-Day Adventist students talk about the Roman

Catholic religion, and the Roman Catholics talk about the United Church

religion, and she gave an air of understanding - a school that I would like for

my children to attend, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what we are talking

about.

We are talking about an interdenominational system where

people of all faiths and all religions, christian and non-christian, Protestant

and Catholic, Moslem and Jew, can sit down together and understand each other.

That is the kind of system we are talking about, and the people of Vaters, when

they say negotiate - the hon. member who did such a magnificent job of

presenting this petition today, go back to them and tell them your government is

indeed, as always, willing to discuss this issue - to negotiate - and there will

be reasonable give and take.

I almost detect a premise throughout the Province today that

somehow government is blaming all of the problems of the education system on the

denominational education system. That is not the case. Just read the model. It

says quite clearly that our effort to restructure is simply one step of many.

There are 211 recommendations in the Royal Commission. We are only talking about

twenty-odd here. We are trying to restructure the system, along with other

things.

The denominational education system is not totally to blame.

Duplication, which, in some cases, is encouraged by the system, is to blame;

spending money two and three times over when we could spend it once and do the

same job - these are the things. One of the causes among many others is that of

denominational education. The hon. member on the other side of the House tells

us not to stop - to negotiate, not to be concerned about our own pride and all

this sort of this thing. I agree with him. We have to negotiate and find the

best possible system for our children, and we are going to do that, Mr. Speaker.

To hon. members opposite, I also say, don't stand up and wet

your finger and hold it up to see which way the political wind is blowing. Don't

try to make cheap politics on this one. This administration believes that what

we are about will succeed in the end, not because it is political or expedient,

not because somehow it might get us re-elected. We believe that in the end we

will achieve the reforms. Do you know why? Because it is the right thing to do.

When something is the right thing to do, all the powers of hell cannot stop us

from doing it. We are going to reform education with the co-operation of the

people and the churches of this Province, because in the interests of our

children of today and the future, children yet unborn, it is the right and

proper thing to do, and we are going to do it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on

behalf of the residents of my district, Menihek, with 1,447 signatures to this

petition. The prayer of the petition is:

`To the hon. House of Assembly in Parliament assembled, the

petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Menihek.

Whereas the

health care service, which is a provincial government responsibility, is below

the provincial standard in Labrador as compared to health care services provided

on the Island; and

whereas Labrador residents are transported by air at

considerable expense to health care facilities in St. Anthony and St. John's for

most surgery and specialist care and treatment;

whereas Labrador residents have

only approximately 250 of the approximately 800 positions under Grenfell

Regional Health Services, and obviously are not receiving their full share of

health care tax dollars from government; wherefore the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador begin immediate development of a regional health care

centre for Labrador residents to be located in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and

government appoint a health care board from amongst Labrador residents separate

completely from the GRHS board.'

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition and sign

it in support of the prayer and intent of the petition. Health care is a very

important service that should be delivered by the provincial government in all

parts of this Province, and we all, at one time or another in our lives, are

going to be needing it.

The 1,450 people who signed this petition are concerned about

the quality of health care if the government proceeds with what some people

perceive to be the intent the government has with re-organizing health care in

Labrador, specifically under the regionalization plans they are going ahead

with. The regionalization plan that a lot of people see occurring would be that

the GRHS would deliver all the health care services and administration of health

care facilities in Western Labrador, and indeed, all of Labrador and parts of

the Northern Peninsula.

The residents of Western Labrador, specifically, see this as

a giant step backwards. They have recognized the contribution that the Grenfell

Health Services has made to the delivery of medical care to Labrador residents,

but they also recognize that the needs today and in the future of Labrador

cannot be served best by the administration of health care facilities and

delivery in Labrador through the GRHS. They recognize that a local board in

Labrador, administered in Labrador, centred in Labrador, and facilities centred

in Labrador, not on the Island portion of the Province, is what should be done

in Labrador.

The idea of having regionalization, a regional governing, if

you will, of hospitals, is a good one. It is a sound idea. It puts the actual

administration of a facilty, a group, or a number of facilities under a regional

board, Mr. Speaker. We agree with that. The concept of having the hospital in

Labrador City administered from St. Anthony would, geographically, create a

similar type of problem as having a hospital in St. John's administered from

Charlottetown - just to put in perspective the size of the land we are talking

about, Mr. Speaker, because that is what we did in the other regionalizations.

We considered land mass, size, not just population. There are only 30,000 people

living in all of Labrador and 75 per cent of that 30,000 people live in the

communities of Labrador City - Wabush, Churchill Falls, North West River, Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, Mud Lake. That would comprise about 75 per cent of the

population of all Labrador. So it makes sense that regionalization in Labrador

would have the facilities, the administration and the hospital, a regional

hospital itself, located centrally in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. This makes sense,

Mr. Speaker, because times have changed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave, if I could just clue up, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, at one time, transportation was

mainly by boat and, of course, St. Anthony was a logical place for boats to be

going in and out of, because most people who worked and lived in Labrador lived

on the Coast of Labrador and they could flow down to St. Anthony in boat, but

now that we have air transportation and the transportation of specialist service

coming into Labrador and patients going out, we feel we would be better served

by having the facility located in Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition by the Member for Menihek.

Today, with increasing costs and demand for maintaining service in health care,

I think it is very important that government take a very serious look at the

most efficient method of delivering health care services. Regardless of where

you live in this Province, I think it is important that people have an equal

access to our health care services, and that the people in Labrador have an

equal right to the same level of service as people here on the Island portion of

this Province. That hasn't been happening and government has not necessarily

been spending its money in a most efficient manner. We are at the stage in the

Province now where there is a regionalization, a drawing of community health

boards and hospital boards across the Province, and this government proceeds to

review and establish boards without any solid financial or economic foundation

behind it. There has been no cost analysis done of the most efficient way to

deliver this service, how we can get more service for the same dollar. We are

going on a gut feeling - the minister indicates it is just basically a gut

feeling, that by consolidating certain areas, he is going to save dollars. That

may very well happen in an urban area where there are many major institutions

providing health care service, but in Labrador where 30,000 live - this petition

is asking that Labrador be set aside as a separate region and that health

services provided in Labrador be regionalized and they be given a level of

service that is on par with other areas in the Province. It is very expensive,

air ambulance services with specialists and so on going into the Labrador areas,

moving people out to the hospitals in St. John's and St. Anthony and wherever

else the surgery could be performed. Why has the department not moved to do a

very comprehensive, cost analysis of how dollars are being spent in health care

in this Province so that people in all areas of the Province can have the same

opportunity to avail of the same level of services. We have happening in this

Province right now a rationing of health care services; there are clinics only

open for certain times of the year, they are telling people when you are

supposed to get sick, when you are going to be hospitalized, we have rationing.

In Labrador, in Forteau for example, a clinic opened - well a

year ago it was built, it has not opened yet, they are now advertising for some

positions, it may open in January of '94 and with $100,000 to operate it when

they needed $250 so they could not open. Building clinics and building hospitals

across this Province, and it has happened in the last few years, we have four

now, that are sitting there with $25 million of public funds and they cannot

open because of no operational money.

This government is building facilities a year or two in

advance of when they can operate them, and we are talking about efficiencies and

borrowing and capital cost and the finances of carrying $25 million. I think it

is important that government take a very serious look at health care. There is

an increasing demand on health care services, we have an aging population

occurring, people are living to be much older, close to eighty years of age now

as opposed to forties, fifties and sixties; we are going to have an increased

cost of providing health care to the elderly people, and I think it is more

important that we get health care more into a community base and into smaller

community health boards rather than institutionalizing and increasing health

care boards in the Province.

People are well equipped to be able to take care of their own

health and have input into it but they need an avenue, they need a government

that is co-operative that is going to listen and to look at ways that are going

to be able to cater to the long-term health care cost of people in this

Province. We are going down a road that is getting narrower and narrower because

this government has not done any comprehensive, long-term planning for health

care. They established and proposed seven boards in the Province without even

doing a cost analysis of the total cost savings. They do not know how many jobs,

they do not know how many dollars are going to be saved, they do not know if

there is going to be any improvement, it is just a gut feeling.

Well if you are going to restructure a business or an

organization or a company, there have to be some benefits identified by doing

that and this government has not established in any way how there is going to be

financial savings, how there is going to be improved services, it just has not

been done. We have hospitals sitting there in Port Saunders that cannot open -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - it has been ready since June -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: the member was so far off the point, he

hardly mentioned the petition which is basically to have a separate health care

board for Labrador. He is basically ranting and roaring over there in his usual

style, consequently we were unable to grant him leave to continue with that

nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I too, was listening very carefully to what

people are saying in Labrador and I want to correct a couple of points that the

hon. Member for Menihek made. He indicated that health care services in Labrador

West were below the provincial average. That is not so. Labrador West is

well-served by comparison to other parts of the Province including areas in the

Member for Ferryland's district. Trepassey for instance, which is just outside

your district, there is no hospital there and it is far away from the nearest

hospital yet Labrador West, Wabush has a hospital so, we should push it for the

right reasons.

There are certain other points you have to keep in mind as

well. One is that, this is not an easy problem to resolve given the shortage of

funds; we could build a regional hospital in Goose Bay to take the place of the

Grenfell Hospital I suppose in St. Anthony, but right now there is a tremendous

facility in St. Anthony, a wonderful facility, one of the finest hospitals in

the Province and, do we sort of half-close that one and build a brand new one in

Goose Bay? I am not saying we can't or won't, I am just saying that these are

some of the things that have to be solved.

Basically, what we are talking about here is a governance

issue. Should Labrador have its own regional health care board, and as I

mentioned earlier, we will be holding discussions with people in the northern

region which includes Labrador, to see what the appropriate move is in that

direction, so I am looking forward very much to receiving further petitions on

this issue and also to carrying out discussions later on with the people. Our

plan, as I mentioned, was first - we have a regular procedure for establishing

these regional boards and we will in due time consider this one. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we begin with the third

readings which are Orders 2 through 23 inclusive. When they are dealt with - and

I understand there is agreement between both sides of the House to deal with

them - we will then go on with Order 25, which is the Newfoundland Volunteer War

Service Medal Act and that will be second reading debate, Sir.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered

passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper.

A bill, "An Act Respecting A Smoke-Free Environment In The

Workplace And In Public Places In The Province". (Bill No. 1) reprinted.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Control Of The Sale Of Tobacco

To Minors". (Bill No. 7) reprinted.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act". (Bill No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary

Education Tax Act". (Bill No. 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". (Bill

No. 34)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act". (Bill

No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991".

(Bill No. 32)

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law In The Province Respecting

Rail Service". (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill No.

37)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgment Interest Act". (Bill

No. 43)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Statutes Act". (Bill No. 31)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Criminal Injuries Compensation

Act". (Bill No. 29)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act". (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act". (Bill No. 27)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City of St. John's (Loan) Act,

1978". (Bill No. 51)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Youth Advisory Council Act".

(Bill No. 38)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal Certain Obsolete And Spent

Statutes". (Bill No. 40)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Social Services

Act". (Bill No. 35)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act". (Bill No.

41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Nursing Assistants Act". (Bill

No. 44)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Alcohol And Drug Dependency

Commission Act". (Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Colleges Act, 1991". (Bill No.

55)

MR. ROBERTS: Order 25, a speaker who stands in the name

of my friend from Gander.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Order 25.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Newfoundland Volunteer War Service Medal". (Bill No. 42)

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

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

introduced a fair number of bills into this House in the last five years but I

don't think any of them has given me as much pleasure as to introduce this

particular piece of legislation. It is simply titled, "An Act Respecting The

Newfoundland Volunteer War Service Medal". As members know this medal has been

struck and has been distributed for a number of years. However, Mr. Speaker,

there were a number of significant omissions when this medal was first struck. I

would like members to recognize the fact that at the beginning of the Second

World War the Newfoundland Government called for volunteers to fill many roles.

As a matter of fact great numbers of Newfoundlanders came forward and

volunteered to serve in that war. One of the first roles to be filled was the

Forestry Unit, where individuals volunteered to join, went overseas, and served

in the Forestry Unit. This is even before they were able to sign up in other

branches of the forces and to serve in other ways.

We all know of the risks taken by people who were in the

regular forces and the valuable role that they played, and it is well

recognized. We all recognize, for instance, the valuable role played by those in

the Merchant Marine, who were on convoys through very dangerous waters carrying

very dangerous cargo. When to go overboard meant fairly certain death.

The original war service medal, Volunteer Service Medal, did

not include the Merchant Marine, did not include the Forestry Unit. The person

who is responsible for having this bill in the House now to make changes that

perhaps should have been made quite some time ago is a member of the Forestry

Unit, Tom Curran, who happens to be sitting in the gallery today. Tom wrote a

book, entitled They Also Serve . About four years ago, in a meeting with

Mr. Curran and some other people, I was given a copy of that book. I recommend

it to all hon. members who are interested in Newfoundland history in general,

and who are interested in the history of the war effort in particular.

One thing that you realize when you read that book - and

everything is very well-documented in Mr. Curran's book - is that in terms of

contribution to the war effort the Foresters were second to none. That they

performed a very vital function, and in fact, as members of the Forestry Unit in

Scotland were leaving and going to join the British forces, they were pleaded

with to stay where they were because they were providing a tremendously valuable

service to the war effort. Their function and their presence was absolutely

essential.

Mr. Speaker, it is light of that, in light of the persistence

of Mr. Curran and some of his fellow workers and members of the Forestry Unit,

that this bill was developed. It has taken time. It has taken about three and

half years unfortunately, but a number of things had to happen. We first of all

had to be very sure of our data. We had to be very sure that we knew exactly

what we were doing and were doing it for the right reasons. So there had to be a

considerable amount of research done. Also we had to talk to other groups who

were affected by this change in legislation and we had to make sure that they

understood the changes that we were proposing, that they understood the reason

behind it, and that they approved of making these changes.

It has taken some time, unfortunately too long, but I'm very

pleased to finally introduce this bill into the House of Assembly. It provides

for the awarding of a medal to every person, as it says in

section 3(a), "who

volunteered and served in units or organizations raised or maintained as the

contribution of the Dominion of Newfoundland to the allied war effort, namely,

the British Imperial Forces, the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit, the

Merchant Navy and the Newfoundland Regiment, or, a unit or organization

prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council...." So it is pretty well

all-encompassing.

At the same time, in terms of volunteer service medals you

don't give two, so we eliminate anybody who has received a volunteer service

medal from another country.

An awful lot of Newfoundlanders, Mr. Speaker, joined the

Canadian Armed Forces, and served in the Canadian Armed Forces during the war,

and got the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal. We are not going to duplicate that

by also giving the Newfoundland Volunteer Service Medal.

There will be established a board, known as The Volunteer War

Service Medal Advisory Board, to handle any unusual occurrences, any disputes

that might arise as to eligibility and so on, and that will be set up. These

will be the experts, both from the Forestry Units, from the Canadian Legion,

from the Merchant Marine, and other experts who will make final decisions on

eligibility and that kind of thing; but I do not think there is going to be a

lot of dispute. I do not think there is going to be very much dispute in terms

of eligibility, because a lot of very extensive research has already been done.

The description of the medal is on the final page of the

bill, and of note is the bottom part of that. "The medal is fitted with a bar."

That bar, Mr. Speaker, will denote the unit that the individual served with,

whether it be the Merchant Marine, whether it be the British Imperial Forces,

whether it be the Forestry Unit, that bar will designate the

section of the

armed forces that the person served in during the war.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say a great deal more about it.

It is a very important piece of legislation, and will give the volunteer service

medal to a lot of people who, for so many years, have wanted to receive the

volunteer service medal but have been barred from doing so by the nature of the

previous legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second

reading of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to have a

few words to say on this bill.

All too often, I guess, the impression is left with people

that the Opposition merely exists to attack, criticize, and oppose the

government. While that is a major role of an Opposition, at least to pick out

flaws in government policies and so on in the hope that they may be improved,

there are many occasions when the Opposition have supported initiatives and

legislation of the government never heard tell of, but there are lots of times -

legislation yesterday went through this House which we supported and agreed

upon.

There is certainly no hesitation on our

part in supporting

this legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I want to go even further and commend

the government for taking this initiative. I am a little bit familiar with the

issue, because it has been around for a long, long time. It was around when we

were the government. I remember, when I was Minister of Forestry, receiving many

representations from those who served overseas, the overseas foresters in

particular, as one group, as well as the others who were interested, but that

particular group made several representations.

My recollection of the problem we had at that time was that

the Royal Canadian Legion, Provincial Command was not totally supportive at the

time. Of course, what we wanted to try to do was make sure there was agreement

and support by the Provincial Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. It appears

now that after many years, I guess, of talking about this matter, that the Royal

Canadian Legion, Provincial Command, are prepared to support it, and that was

the real hang-up.

So I commend the government on taking this initiative. I

congratulate them for finally pulling it off, and I commend the minister because

I know that he has been involved in this thing, because anybody who has made

representations to me have always said, as well, that they have also been

talking to the Member for Gander and hopefully, through co-operation and

involvement and support from us and so on, this might become a reality.

I spoke to the Premier about it quite some time ago, and he

assured me that it was under way and that plans were under way. So I simply want

to take this opportunity to say that we support this legislation. Also at the

same time to congratulate the government, commend the government, on pulling

this off, because it is a very important thing for a lot of people in this

Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too want to join in

supporting this legislation. It is going to give a lot of quiet satisfaction to

a large number of people who so far have been unrecognized in the form of a

medal.

In speaking to this bill, it has been a long time coming,

from the end of the Second World War till now, and no doubt many people who

would qualify for a medal in fact have passed on. It is unfortunate that it

takes such a long time to recognize the contribution of people, and a very

important contribution during war service. I say it is very unfortunate that

previous governments allowed the fact that one group wasn't supportive to

prevent them from taking action and insisting that recognition be given to those

who also served during the war.

I want to mention the Forestry - the minister has mentioned

the Foresters. I think that they deserve a lot of recognition for their

assistance during the war effort, in particular, as the minister pointed out,

recognized by the forces themselves and saying: don't come to the regular

forces, stay and do the important work you are doing in Great Britain as part of

the Forestry Unit.

I also want to speak about the Merchant Navy. I think it is

commonplace amongst those who have been involved in the Merchant Navy to know

that the fatality rate for those in the Merchant Navy was far greater than in

the regular navy. Merchant Navy seamen often wanted to sign up for the regular

navy because it was safer. It was safer to be on a warship and a battleship in

uniform than it was to be in the Merchant Navy. Your chances of getting killed

or drowned were far greater in the Merchant Navy than they were in the regular

uniformed service. I think that is a - as I say, it is a commonplace amongst

those who are familiar with the Merchant Navy and members of the Merchant Navy,

but it is a fact not well known by the general public. So this is a recognition

that is very deserved for the Merchant Navy as well as the Foresters, and long

overdue.

I also know that people who served in the regiment locally

also offered their service. It wasn't as complacent as some people might think.

Even in operating ferry services in this Province it wasn't, as we know, a safe

occupation in those days. The dangerous waters around this Province have been

established many times over now in connection with applications for pensions

under the federal veterans act. It has been established that there were

dangerous waters in Notre Dame Bay and Conception Bay, as we know. The sinking

of ore boats on Bell Island, the loss of the Caribou in the Cabot Strait,

indicate that Newfoundland was very much a part of the dangerous activity, or

site of dangerous activity, during the Second World War. Local volunteers who

were involved in the militia, the home defence force, also faced a possibility

of dangerous activity, and made a contribution that was significant and ought to

be recognized as well.

I join with the Leader of the Opposition in saying that this

is a government measure which all sides of the House can support. I would urge

speedy passage and congratulate the government on bringing this in, as I say,

late, but better late than never.

Perhaps in his closing remarks, Mr. Speaker, the minister

might want to outline what the qualifications are under the Merchant Navy

definition that is contained in the act. There is a reference here to a number

of command papers for the conditions of award of the 1939-45 Star. It might be

helpful for the minister to explain to the House for the purposes of the public

to know what and who might be included in that definition of Merchant Navy and

who might be left out. Does it leave out the people who served in Newfoundland

coastal waters or does it only include those who were on overseas trips and the

definition of overseas, does that include Canada or just overseas across the

Atlantic to Europe?

I don't know if the minister is able to answer those

questions right now but if he would tell us what are the conditions of the

1939-45 star which includes the Merchant Navy. Does it include the coastal

waters of Newfoundland or does it only include trips between Newfoundland and

overseas including Canada or does it require you to have an overseas duty on the

Merchant Navy from here to Great Britain or across the Atlantic? Does the

minister know that? If he does perhaps it would help the members of the public

who might wish to know whether they could qualify as a member of the Merchant

Navy. With that one point or one question, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the New

Democratic Party fully supports this legislation and welcomes it being brought

before the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will only delay for

a second. Like the other people ahead of me, it is a worthwhile bill, a great

bill and everybody in their lives wish to be recognized. While there were

stumbling blocks over the years, I congratulate the Member for Gander for the

initiative and the other people he had to gather around him over the years to

get it through.

We all know about people in all walks of life who fall

through cracks and this is one kind of a crack that is going to be filled. I

just want to make note here, just in case he is not familiar with it - there was

a triangle run out of Great Britain past Norway to Russian through Murmansk and

the Russians only gave out a few medals a few years ago and not all the

Newfoundlanders - I don't know if the minister is familiar with it - there were

a number of people that were not recognized. We should cover all bases and if

anyone has information, feed it to the right source so that nobody is left out.

I know of an individual who was in the Merchant Navy, had been captured by the

Japanese and imprisoned and he was not eligible for anything. He went through a

hard time for the rest of his days. So probably in some cases where we know of

Newfoundlanders who went through hard times, who were never accommodated,

probably a letter from the government to the people would be nice as well with

the medal. Thank you, Sir, and congratulations.

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

If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would very briefly

like to thank the opposition for offering their full support for this piece of

legislation. I think it is very important to the individuals involved that we

have that kind of support and we would like to thank them.

There will be, obviously in response to the Member for St.

John's East, there will be some instances of dispute as to who is covered and

who is not. We thought that we had better word the bill as broadly as we did and

then allow the advisory committee of experts to make final decisions on the

limits - as to the limits that he talks about and he mentioned some examples. So

rather than government make those decisions we decided to leave it to that

committee that will probably have seven members on it - it is described in some

detail there - and they will make that type of decision. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it

gives me tremendous pleasure to move, at this point, second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland

Volunteer War Service Medal," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 42)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Sir. Order 26, Bill No. 46, An

Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, my friend the minister again.

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

Tobacco Tax Act". (Bill No. 46)

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it does not give me

quite as much pleasure to introduce this bill. As a matter of fact, it does not

give me any pleasure at all but, Mr. Speaker, this has got to be. In this

Province right now we are experiencing smuggling at levels, I guess, that we

have never experienced before. In terms of this particular act, I suppose we are

probably losing upwards of $20 million a year in terms of smuggling of tobacco

and tobacco products. So, Mr. Speaker,

whereas it does not give me pleasure to

introduce this bill, it is a bill that is extremely necessary and signals an all

out war on smuggling activity in this Province. This is the beginning, the first

step, or the second step. We've already increased surveillance, Mr. Speaker, and

we've already made sure that in the very near future some new equipment will be

in place to make apprehension of smugglers easier. This is a legislative step to

declare war on this smuggling activity.

This activity robs everybody. It affects all of the basic

services that we must provide to the people of this Province, that government on

behalf of the people of the Province must provide. It affects every single

service. It affects our hospital system, it affects our educational system, it

affects the money available to provide basic social services and basic

necessities. It affects the money available to provide proper justice in this

Province. The activity of smuggling, and to go a step beyond that, the activity

of actually purchasing and using smuggled products, the consumption of smuggled

products, is a crime. It is a crime against every single Newfoundlander and

Labradorian.

The federal Minister of Finance in a recent speech indicated

that hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens in this country

have signalled the withdrawal of their consent to be governed by this type of

tax evasion. Unfortunately these same people who will avoid paying the taxes

haven't withdrawn their demand for services. That becomes the problem. They

haven't withdrawn their demand for services. It is incumbent upon us to do

whatever we can to try to control and limit as much as possible, and if possible

stop, this activity that is a crime against every single person in the Province.

This particular bill, I will just very briefly go through

some of the key clauses and then we can have our discussion. I'm sure that

members opposite can't argue with the principle of the bill. They may argue with

some of the clauses but they can't argue with the basic principle of the bill.

Clause 3 of the bill for instance would amend the act to

require that persons bringing tobacco into the Province in certain regulated

amounts have a permit to do so. That persons who transport tobacco in the

Province carry certain documentation respecting the tobacco that is being

transported. That a person not sell or give unmarked tobacco or packages of

fifteen or fewer cigarettes to another person. That is not a smuggling issue but

a different issue. That tobacco be marked and stamped in accordance with the act

and that the marking and stamping of tobacco be carried out by persons with the

necessary permits to do so.

Clause 6 of the bill, I am just skipping over some of them,

would allow the minister to directly authorize a person who is not an inspector

under the act to carry out the duties of such an inspector. Clause 7 of the bill

would amend the act to harmonize the search and seizure provisions that require

a warrant with the search and seizure provisions of the act that do not require

a warrant.

Clause 8 would amend the act to allow for search and seizure

of contraband tobacco without a warrant in certain circumstances. That will also

provide for the means of disposing of contraband or other seized goods of

persons dealing in contraband and provides the means for an innocent person to

regain possession of his or her seized property if in fact that happens.

Clause 10 of the bill would amend the act to make it an

offence for a person to deal in contraband tobacco and would provide specific

penalties for that offence, including fines and imprisonment. It might be worth

a couple of minutes just to go over some of the details in

section

Section

10 says:

"The Act is amended by adding immediately after

section 68

the following:

`68.1(1) A person who purchases, possesses, acquires,

transports, stores or sells contraband is guilty of an offence and is liable on

summary conviction:

(

a) for a 1st offence, to

(

i) a fine not less than $200 nor more than $10,000, or

(ii) imprisonment for a period of not more than 2 years, or

(iii) both a fine and imprisonment....'"

The second offence the amounts go up. Not less than $500, not

more than $50,000, and with the same conditions attached. For a third or

subsequent offence, a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000.

In addition to these penalties, Mr. Speaker, subsection(2)

says that, "... a court shall order the person found guilty of an offence under

this

section to pay an additional fine equal to 5 times the amount of the tax

payable...." That is in addition to the previous fines. Subsection (3): "In

addition to the fines imposed under subsections (1) and (2), a court shall order

a person who defaults in the payment of those fines be imprisoned...." So, Mr.

Speaker, that is -

MS. VERGE: What about whipping?

MR. BAKER: Maybe if the hon, member opposite was doing up

the bill, she would include that. We did not.

Mr. Speaker, clause 10 of the bill outlines the penalties. I

would like to mention that in addition to these penalties there are quite broad

powers in terms of seizure. The seizure of anything to do with the contraband

tobacco can simply be seized by the Crown and held for a while and then disposed

of, and the money put into the general revenue account of government, the

consolidated revenue fund. So there are some major changes and a major piece of

legislation to try to control the smuggling.

It goes on. Subclause 12(1) of the bill would amend the

Gasoline Tax Act to permit the minister to cancel the retailer license issued

under that act where the holder is convicted of an offence under this act. So we

will then be able to cancel licenses issued under the Gasoline Tax Act if a

person is convicted under this act.

Clause 14 would amend the Liquor Control Act to permit the

minister to cancel that license where a person is convicted under this tobacco

tax act. Clause 15 would amend the Retail Sales Tax Act to permit the minister

to cancel the registration certificate for RST of a person or company that is

involved in the smuggling activity in terms of this particular act.

So any licenses, these licenses issued by government, will be

cancelled for people convicted of an offence under this act. We feel that it is

vitally important to do this, and we feel that this will have an impact on what

is happening in this Province in terms of the smuggling of tobacco and tobacco

products. We feel that it is necessary because, as I indicated earlier, it

affects every person in this Province, every man, woman and child in this

Province, by taking money that rightfully belongs to them and leaving us short

in many areas of endeavour that we badly need to have extra funds.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it doesn't give me great

pleasure to do this. I wish we didn't have to do it. I wish this activity wasn't

happening to the extent it is. Unfortunately it is, so we must introduce this

type of legislation to try to control that activity.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak

briefly to this piece of legislation. As the minister says, it is difficult not

to agree with the basic principles of the bill. The minister talked about tax

evasion. That is really what we are talking about here when we are talking

smuggling. Talking about bringing product into this Province and avoiding

taxation. In the case of alcohol and tobacco, of course, we are talking huge

percentage of taxes on that product. What, probably 50 per cent, and probably

more, of what you pay is taxes.

MR. BAKER: Forty-five per cent.

MR. WINDSOR: Fort-five per cent on tobacco, and on

alcohol how much is it?

MR. BAKER: I'm not sure.

MR. WINDSOR: A little more than 50 on alcohol, that is

right, so we are talking a very, very considerable difference in the price of

the product at the wholesale level before taxes and after taxation. It goes a

little further than smugglings, it is a whole attitude, as the minister touched

on briefly, of people who don't think that they are breaking a law, as the

minister said, people who would never ever break a law but yet will be involved

in consuming even products such as this where taxes have not been paid, and

perhaps knowing they are breaking a law but because it is government, because we

are getting away from paying a bit of taxes, it is okay. That whole attitude

goes throughout society as it relates to government or getting anything from

government, they think they are getting it for nothing, they seem to forget that

you are getting it from the taxpayers, it is coming out of their own pockets

because they have to pay it eventually, government only redistributes the public

purse and if you are defrauding government in any way -

MS. VERGE: Like even some Members of Parliament.

MR. WINDSOR: Even some Members of Parliament. They would

not do that, I would not suggest that for a moment. But, Mr. Speaker, if you are

avoiding taxes you are breaking the law and in the end analysis you are hurting,

as the minister quite correctly said, all of us, everyone who pays taxes. We

would not need laws if everybody were law-abiding citizens we would not need

laws because everybody would voluntarily pay their taxes. Unfortunately, laws

tend to restrict those of us who are honest, law-abiding citizens more than

those who seem to have an endless supply of ways to get around paying taxes and

to avoid some laws.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to argue with the measure,

the minister is trying to cut down on the tremendous loss of revenue, legitimate

revenue, we may not like the level of taxation that we are forced to bear on

tobacco and cigarettes. Perhaps if we did not lose this $20 or $30 or $40

million dollars a year, then for the legitimate consumers of these products we

could lower the tax rate a little bit, maybe prices will go down. I hope I live

long enough, Mr. Speaker, to see taxes reduced so that prices to consumers on

alcohol and tobacco go down; tobacco I really couldn't care less about, but

alcohol I must confess I do partake of from time to time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that there are some concerns

here. This legislation, although we must agree with the principle I think,

perhaps it is a little severe I say to the minister. Some of the penalties

imposed here are incredibly harsh and I realize that if you break a law, you

break a law, but one has to look at the severity of the penalties that are here,

and compared with other penalties that are imposed by society on people who

break laws today, and we see every day, persons who are involved in, even in

some violent crimes, in crimes against women and the penalties that are imposed

on those people when convicted, in many cases are less severe than the penalties

here, so I would have to wonder in my own mind, it is a matter of degree. I do

not have a quarrel with providing penalties for persons who break the law here,

but I do have a slight problem with the degree of severity of the penalties that

are being imposed.

People could lose their houses, their cars, airplanes, boats

and in the case of what the minister just mentioned, somebody who is selling, he

is not involved in smuggling but who receives and sells contraband could lose

their liquor licence, their retail sales tax licence, their gasoline tax

licence, in other words, they could be literally put out of business.

MR. ROBERTS: That is the idea.

MR. WINDSOR: That is the idea.

MR. ROBERTS: If you knowingly sell contraband, you are

out of business.

MR. WINDSOR: If they knowingly do it, I can accept the

fact that penalties are required and they should be reasonably severe, but as

this reads: on a first offence, a person who makes a livelihood selling gasoline

and sells tobacco as a sideline, could lose his livelihood, could lose his

business for one small offence. It may be a small amount and I see no

flexibility here in this, perhaps it will be in the regulations, perhaps the

courts will use their judgement in applying the laws. I wish I had as much

confidence as I would like to have, that our courts supply good judgement in

applying laws, and this is one thing that perhaps we, as legislators, as people

who make laws tend to forget from time to time. We assume that the courts are

going to use good common sense in applying the laws and apply them in accordance

with the sense that we, as legislators had, the intent, but as we heard

yesterday, the courts do not necessarily concern themselves with what we

intended. They will read the words in that law and apply it quite literally,

unfortunately. The effect of that is that many times the law is applied in a

manner that is quite contradictory to what we as legislators had intended. We

could give some examples of that, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the severity of some of

these penalties, that a person could be fined $10,000, put in jail for two

years, whatever, for a simple use or possession of contraband product. Obviously

it would have to be proven that that individual knew and willingly participated

in that activity. I would hope that there is some flexibility here, that for a

first offence it would be a certain amount, and a second and a third offence. So

that those who are habitually breaking the laws obviously should be dealt with

much more severely.

I'm a little concerned about bringing product into the

Province. Maybe the minister can clarify. Perhaps by regulation this will be

dealt with. What is the situation of a person bringing a carton of cigarettes

with them back to the Province if they go out, of tourists coming in. Tourists

may be coming in for two or three weeks and may stock up three or four cartons

of tobacco in their motor home or their travel trailer or their car, or

whatever, when they are coming in. How do we deal with that and what are the

limitations on that? What problems might that possibly present for us? Are there

any guidelines laid down? Does the government have any or is that something that

will be prescribed by regulation? Because I would hate to think that we couldn't

bring back with us a carton of cigarettes when we come back from vacation or

whatever.

I don't think that is the intent. Perhaps we need to know.

Maybe there needs to be laid down some stipulation as to how much one can

legally bring in. As there is today with our customs laws. If you are coming

back into Canada bringing tobacco products or alcohol products, that there are

strict limitations on how much you can bring back without paying duty and taxes

on them. Maybe that is something that needs to be looked at.

I'm a little concerned about clause 8 where one can search

and seize without a warrant. Perhaps there is a requirement. Maybe it is

necessary that there be a tremendous amount of flexibility here, but it sort of

goes against the normal powers extended to officers who are enforcing these

laws, that they can search and seize without a warrant. I can appreciate there

are times when it is just not physically possible to get on a timely basis, but

it is the sort of law, sort of provision, that is open to abuse by law enforcers

who are less scrupulous, let me say, than we would hope they would be. Or over

exuberant in the carrying out of their duties. That is an area that one would

need to be concerned about.

I think that is about all that I want to say about it. Again,

it is not the principle as much, it is just some of these - the fines, the

prison penalties, the taking away of licenses, meaning the termination of one's

livelihood. We do have families that are dependent on that. I think these

penalties are a little severe for the crime. Even though I appreciate that

severe penalties may well be necessary in order to curtail the tremendous loss

of revenue that we are seeing now, and to eliminate this contraband product

coming into the Province. It would appear to be quite severe, Mr. Speaker. Thank

you.

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

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

the Minister of Finance telling me to sit down. He doesn't want to, I guess,

hear what I have to say to him this morning, because I guess why I want to have

a few words on this bill, and I don't think there is any doubt that this

legislation will affect more of my constituents than any other member in the

House. I think. I say to the minister now. The minister now is getting ready to

impose a fine upon me, now, because I'm the member representing a number of

people that he is trying to deal with here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, he is down on the Burin Peninsula, I can tell the minister. I'm not really

sure what he is up to today. I doubt if it is anything to do with tobacco, or

anything like that.

The minister again, you know, Mr. Speaker - this is a vicious

attack, I say to the minister, upon the culture and tradition of the Burin

Peninsula. Culture and tradition of the Burin Peninsula. Vicious attack by the

minister. Hobnailed boot attack again from this Minister of Finance. He is

trying to come down hard now on a few people who flick over to St. Pierre and

Miquelon to get a drop of Christmas cheer and to get a few cigarettes. Now, that

is what the minister is doing, and the fines he is going to put on those people

are absolutely staggering I say to the minister, absolutely staggering.

MR. FUREY: Do you have my case of wine?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology wonders if I have his case of wine. One of my friends brought it in

from St. Pierre for the minister and put it through customs in Fortune. I paid

the duty on it and then the minister paid me. The name of the wine was what

struck me kind of funny. The minister asked me to get him a case of wine so I

said what kind of wine would you like? He said the name of the wine is Fleury. I

said Furey. He said, no, Fleury. It was the only wine that came close to his

name. He says it is great wine and others who have had some of it say it is

great.

MR. FUREY: I gave you a bottle of it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you did not give me a bottle I say

to the minister. You did not give me a bottle of Fleury. You see there was a

go-between me and the minister and I have a feeling that the bottle of wine I

was suppose to get ended up somewhere else.

MR. FUREY: I gave it to Tobin to give you.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, my God, if you gave it to the Member

for Burin - Placentia West to give me make no wonder I have not seen the bottle

of wine.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. People realize, of

course, how this thing started out. I guess it was back years ago when people

really did it for their own personal consumption. They would go to St. Pierre

and bring back a drop and a few cigarettes because they could not afford to get

it any other way. The people living in the area of the Burin Peninsula could not

afford to get their supplies any other way and they did it on a very small scale

then. That is basically how it started out. Then governments increased taxes on

alcohol and tobacco and before too long, with the entrepreneurial spirit of the

Burin Peninsula, as the member for Humber East so rightly points out, people saw

a great opportunity here to make a good buck, and that is what has happened to

it all, the enterprise culture of the Burin Peninsula. The only growing

industry, I say to the Minister of Finance, the only growing industry in the

Province he is now about to put the boots to, to cut it out altogether. I have

to say in all sincerity to the minister, because we dealt with a similar piece

of legislation in the spring and early summer, increasing fines for those caught

smuggling booze. I follow very closely the news down there and some of the fines

have been very, very large recently. I know one in particular was $22,500.

AN HON. MEMBER: Small potatoes compared to -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know where the minister is coming from

but I guess what I am saying to the minister is, and my own feel for it is, that

the increase in fines is certainly going to have the desired effect that the

minister wants, I think, seeing what is happening here now, because a very big

part of the trade is tobacco. It is very obvious for people who do not know, but

for people who live there and know what is going on it is because it is light,

easy to handle, easy to transport, and all that stuff. It is easier to deal

with.

It is a very interesting situation when you look at it all

because at one time the alcohol would be brought across in glass bottles but now

it is all plastic. It is interesting to hear some of these people tell the tales

of it all because there is no rattling now. They can throw it around and all

this stuff. Surveillance has increased substantially, as the minister knows, and

has become far more effective and sophisticated. It is interesting to hear how

those who participate in this illegal activity are able to get around it all. It

was last Christmas, actually, at the Liberal Christmas party that the Premier

told me he was going to cut out smuggling on the Burin Peninsula. Of course I

said to him, that is a big statement.

MR. ROBERTS: I told him he would have to be here for

fifty years as Premier.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I say to the Minister of Justice

that could pretty well be. At that time I said to him: you really do not know

what you are taking about, you really do not understand the situation. He said:

oh, yes I do, Bill, and I am going to cut it out. I said: Well how are you going

to cut it out? He said: Well, we will do certain things. I said: Like what? He

said: We will put up a big radar. I said: A big radar; what will the radar do?

He said: Oh, it will pick up the vessels. We will put other vessels out -

enforcement surveillance vessels. I said to him: It is a pretty big,

sophisticated business these days, and if you had surveillance vessels half a

mile apart, I would say, if you had any number of them all along the South

Coast, half a mile apart -

AN HON. MEMBER: It would not work.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it will not work. Those boats that

they use today will come through there, and they will not see them coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people have been drowned this

year (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: This year, you know, I say to the

minister that I should knock on wood, because I do not think there is anyone

this year, but almost every year, and around the Christmas time - and, of

course, that is because of bad weather -

MR. ROBERTS: Almost (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Exactly, Sir. Small boats go out and put

too much on board, and take chances in a little bit too rough weather. Of course

they get into trouble when they come back with the load and try to get to land.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course they are moving at night.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes.

The minister is right. There has been a significant loss of

life over the years involved in this, and every year about this time there is

usually an occurrence of one, two, or three people who drown, involved in this

activity.

Having said that, it has not deterred it. You know the risk

involved always, and particularly to life, but it has become far more

sophisticated. The boats are better. The motors, the engines that they purchase

- it is unbelievable.

I live in the district and I drive the district. I drive from

Fortune to St. Lawrence, and I see the boats pulled up, and on occasion I see

some of the boats performing, and I will guarantee you... I saw one a few months

ago, when I was going down to St. Lawrence, and on the top of the hill in Lawn,

overlooking Lawn harbour, and there was one coming into Lawn harbour. I do not

know what speed it was going, but it was frightening, and these are the kind of

vessels they are using, boats and power.

Of course, they are just as determined that it is not going

to be cut out as the government is to cut it out, and I guess that is what gets

a little bit frightening to me, as a resident from down there, and as a member.

Of course, the thing is, I know most of them because I have grown up down there

all my life. I know them personally. I rub shoulders with them every weekend. If

I go to a function they are there. If I go out to a bar they are there, and they

are just as determined to keep up this activity as government is to stop it, but

I guess what frightens me about it is the type of machines they are now using -

the power - and it has gotten so large scale. We know what happens to anything

when it gets so big. Any illegal activity that gets so big, we know what

happens. There is so much money on the line, so much at risk.

We had an occurrence a few weeks ago in St. Lawrence where

officers were physically assaulted, beaten up, when they confronted a family -

three or four brothers - with some contraband liquor. I guess my worst fear is

that it is going to get more serious, and perhaps more serious soon, because

when you stop people - it is like last week, I think, they found $86,000 worth

Fortune - Hermitage and I were talking about it a couple of days ago, and just

inside of Fortune, I think it was last Sunday night, they confronted a driver in

a truck. It had $50,000 plus in the truck, and this guy drove the vehicle off

the road - intentionally drove it off the road - and he jumped out and took off.

They arrested him, but these are the kind of things that are starting to happen,

and I guess my worst fear, one of these days, is that we are going to have a

police officer, or police officers, or customs officer or officers, going to end

up being hurt pretty badly or even killed over it, because the amounts of money

now on the line are so large. As we know, it has gotten enormous - millions and

millions of dollars.

That is the worst fear I have about it now; I just hope

something doesn't happen that is very serious and we see loss of life one way or

another, but particularly with someone who is carrying out his duties as an

enforcement officer.

Now, I want to say to the minister on the fines aspect of it,

that based upon the offense, the first, second or third offence, I would say a

lot of them would choose prison, they will end up in prison. Of course, the

downside of it to the Province, to the Crown, is the cost associated with that,

of keeping them confined and in prison and so on, so that is another aspect of

it all.

Another point that came to mind - only last week, actually, I

was having a chat with a customs officer from down in the area. All of this -

and I don't know if members understand this, but all of this contraband booze

and tobacco that is being brought into the Province is going out through the

Province. It is Canadian distillers who are supplying this to St. Pierre et

Miquelon. It is the very same stuff that you and I could go down on Elizabeth

Avenue now and buy off the shelf - the very same stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in all cases.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not in all cases. What do you mean, not

in all cases?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, isn't there rum coming into St.

Pierre that is against (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I don't think so. The same suppliers

(inaudible) NLC, which is mainly Schenley and these people, are the people who

sent it into St. Pierre et Miquelon. I think it cost something like - they pay

about $2.50 to $3.00 a bottle for it, I say to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, about three dollars maximum. Of course, what happens then,

is the people go out from the Burin Peninsula and buy it for nine or ten dollars

a bottle and come back and sell it for eighteen or twenty dollars a bottle. It

is the very same liquor that you go down to the liquor store and take off the

shelf that we pay thirty-one or thirty-two dollars a bottle for. The same people

who supply the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation send the booze into to St. Pierre

et Miquelon and a lot of it goes through the customs terminal at Fortune - $2.50

and $3.00 a bottle, the very same stuff.

So, I guess, the point I was going to make to the Minister of

Finance is the staggering amount of taxes on this stuff. Again, you have to

question why would we allow it to go out there at three dollars a bottle so that

then our people - I know it is illegal to go out and buy it back for nine or ten

dollars a bottle and come in and sell it for eighteen or twenty. So that is just

so members understand what is happening - the very same stuff. I asked him to

try to get me the detailed figures on it - which he said he would -because I

would be quite interested in seeing the specifics on this. Sorry?

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, a good question. As a matter of fact, the Newfoundland

Liquor Corporation, last year, told Schenley that if they didn't cut back on the

supply to St. Pierre et Miquelon that they would probably consider not dealing

with them. So really, what they did was put St. Pierre et Miquelon on a quota.

MR. ROBERTS: You know what happened then, don't you?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know what happened - that is what

I am going to tell. I mean, what happened was that the suppliers in St. Pierre

immediately got on to American suppliers, contacts, and before long you saw

those different types of bottles coming around and different brand names. I

forget what some of them were, Jenkins - I forget the other couple of names but

it came in from the States. So you know, either way, they are going to get the

supply, anyway. So that is what happened. The most popular brands, of course,

are the kinds that we can buy off our liquor store shelves here, quite

naturally, because that is what our people buy. But on the Burin Peninsula, of

course, not too many buy rum or whisky off the liquor shelves, in all sincerity.

They did a story on the Grand Bank liquor store a few years

ago, they showed the clerk in there and they referred to him - he said he was as

lonely as the Maytag repairman. That is another concern, because there are three

or four people employed there and, of course, they are always very, very worried

about their job prospects.

Those are the few remarks I wanted to make on the bill. As I

said, coming from the area of the people who are going to be most affected, I

just thought I would have a word on this and try to skate through it as best I

can, trying to express some sympathy for the hundreds of constituents involved

in illegal activity but yet, coming down on the side of enforcement and not

condoning illegalities, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very brief and I won't be nearly as interesting as

the Member for Grand Bank.

Yesterday, when we were discussing the bill to control the

sale of tobacco products to minors, two questions arose which weren't covered by

that legislation, one, banning the sale, within our Province, of kiddie packs -

cigarettes or tobacco products in small quantities. The Minister of Finance

pointed out that that session is dealt with in the legislation that is currently

being debated.

The other question is vending machines. The Social Services

Committee recommended that Bill 7, the bill we were doing yesterday, be amended

to restrict tobacco vending machines, cigarette vending machines, to licensed

premises where minors are not permitted access.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Bill 46 does deal with the first

question. Clause 6(4) says: `A person shall not sell, give, possess, mark, or

stamp a package of cigarettes that contains fifteen or less cigarettes.'

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it would be preferable to amend

that to outlaw packages containing nineteen or fewer. I believe the minister

said yesterday that packages come in fifteens, tens and fives, so there is no

point in specifying nineteen or fewer, but the evidence before the Social

Services Committee is that there are very few places where packages of nineteen

or fewer are permitted anymore, and that in our context, Quebec tobacco

manufacturers are making packages of fifteen, ten and five, specifically for the

Newfoundland market.

These small packages are now outlawed in Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick and PEI, so if manufacturers are packaging fifteens and tens for the

Newfoundland market, should this bill pass, what is to stop them from coming up

with packages with sixteen or eighteen? So, to plug a potential loophole, I

would suggest that we change this to outlaw packages of cigarettes with nineteen

or fewer.

The second question is vending machines. I would suggest, as

the Social Services Committee unanimously recommended, that this bill be changed

to restrict cigarette vending machines, or tobacco vending machines, to licensed

premises where minors aren't permitted access.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak briefly on this bill. It obviously has two

aspects to it - one having to do with an attempt to control contraband tobacco

certain forms unavailable in the Province. I am referring here, of course, to

the prohibition in selling cigarettes in packages smaller than sixteen

cigarettes.

I think if we are going to seriously control the use of

tobacco by minors, then we can't have a situation where official legal retailers

of tobacco products are in a prohibition situation with respect to minors and

yet, for other reasons, tobacco products are readily available to minors through

the same black market that makes tobacco products available to adults.

Here in this city it is very easy to buy boxes of tobacco.

This is uncut tobacco, or unrolled tobacco, rather, that can be bought in

packages unstamped, as it were. Contraband tobacco can be bought quite readily,

quite easily, in this city. Anybody who wants to get their hands on it can

certainly do so. There are contacts in virtually every bar. If you wanted to

find out how to get it, it would be very easy to do so.

If we are going to be serious about controlling the

contraband tobacco and the illegal trade, we do have to take measures to make it

more difficult for these tobacco products to be so widespread as to be

accessible to children as well as to adults. So I welcome the change in clause

6, subsection (4) of the act, as amended, I guess contained in clause 3 of this

bill. I think that is a good provision. We had been promised throughout the

hearings on the Tobacco Control Act that this measure would be taken in a

revenue act; we see it here, and I am pleased to see that that is the case. I

also acknowledge the minister's statement that if, indeed, tobacco and

cigarettes become available in packages of sixteen, seventeen, eighteen or

nineteen, that he will amend the act to prohibit them, as well.

Selling cigarettes in packages of twenty, in fact, is unusual

in this country. I think it is perhaps only in Newfoundland that they are

popular at all; in most provinces, packets of twenty-five are the norm for

cigarette sales and only a few packets of twenty are sold here in this Province.

Probably, for reasons having to do with the economy, packets of twenty became

the norm and are more popular here than other size packages, but I have seen

examples of packs of less than twenty, the so-called kiddie packs, in packages

of five, being made available, but there is also, still, Mr. Speaker, a very

consistent practice of selling loose cigarettes. I saw it myself only the other

day in a store here in St. John's.

MR. ROBERTS: Isn't that unlawful under the Child Welfare

Act?

MR. HARRIS: Well, actually, the sale of cigarette papers

is unlawful under the Child Welfare Act, but we just changed it yesterday to

make it presumably lawful under the Child Welfare Act because it is not outlawed

under the new Tobacco Control Act. But selling cigarettes in less than twenty to

anyone - selling loose cigarettes in a store I believe is already unlawful but

it is done on a regular basis, and we have examples of that daily. I think if

you walk into any store, particularly the small corner store, you will see

people able to buy a loose cigarette; I think they charge twenty-five cents

apiece for them, now, maybe fifty cents, I don't know.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture has

had the same experience as I had; while you are waiting to be served you will

see somebody come in and put down - give me two cigarettes, give me three

cigarettes, and the person behind the counter has three or four different brands

available: `Which kind do you want? Okay, a couple of those, a couple of those.'

That is illegal, but it goes on, and I don't know to what extent the government

is going to take measures to prevent that. Because that is the form in which

cigarettes are made available to minors quite often and, of course, as long as

there is contraband tobacco and contraband cigarettes available, they are also

going to be made available to minors.

I am sorry to see that there are not greater controls on the

other types of tobacco products being made available to minors, Mr. Speaker,

because what we were told and what I have been told by young people, themselves,

is that rolling your own is also very common amongst young people, because it is

sometimes easier to get access to tobacco from parents or from homes and that

sort of goes around amongst the kids, but they still need papers and other

paraphernalia to be able to smoke. So, once again, it is not being done out of

any heavily moralistic view, Mr. Speaker. This is not a morals issue, really,

although some people think it is; really, this is an attempt to prevent young

people from getting hooked, because once they do when they are thirteen or

fourteen or fifteen - and I see the Member for St. John's South nodding; I think

he and I probably both were hooked by the time we were fifteen. You know, you

start smoking when you are ten or twelve or fourteen and you do it every day or

once a day because that is the habit you get into, and by the time you are

fifteen or sixteen it becomes a regular habit and it is very difficult to stop.

Some members in this House are still having difficulty trying to stop, so it is

not out of morality although, obviously, we are concerned about the health of

young people.

MR. MURPHY: It causes other problems.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, it causes other problems. We are

concerned about the health of young people. They do not have the wise decision

making that adults may have even though they know of the dangers, so anything

that can be done, Mr. Speaker, to help in making it less accessible to young

people to smoke I am in favour of, and certainly, I think, as the Member for

Grand Bank has said, we have a raging underground illegal economy going,

particularly in the South Coast, with tentacles all over the Province. As the

member says you can buy contraband tobacco in St. John's any day of the week and

if I had a mind to, it is 11:20 now, I would say by 5:00 o'clock this afternoon

if I wanted to buy contraband tobacco - and I know of no particular source right

now, but I bet I could come back here with half a dozen boxes of tobacco from

probably two or three different sources by 5:00 o'clock this afternoon because

that is the nature of the trade. It is causing problems because other people are

suffering.

The Minister of Justice says that government does not have

enough money to look after victims of crime, and yet if we had the legitimate

revenue from tobacco sales perhaps it would not be necessary to do away with the

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. We see that these things all