May 10, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No.

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville; the hon. the Member for the

District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of

Gander; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; and the hon. the

Member for the District of Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate Them Days Inc. on their thirtieth

anniversary celebrations that are being held, as we speak, in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay today, Mr. Speaker.

Them Days staff and committee have worked hard over the last thirty years

preserving and documenting old ways and early days in order to keep the history

- the rich history, I say, Mr. Speaker - of Labrador alive. This is done by

recording, documenting, researching and performing oral and written interviews

about issues of importance to the people of Labrador. The people of Labrador

have come together to share their stories, photos, and have contributed to the

success of this organization.

On March 15, 1975, Dr. Doris Saunders was hired as the editor and worked hard

for more than twenty-five years ensuring this project continued. She is to be

commended for her time and dedication to such an important part of our rich

Labrador heritage.

Them Days began as a Labrador Heritage Society project in 1973, with the

intention of producing a single publication. In 1984, Them Days Labrador

Archives began. Quarterly publications are available throughout the Province.

Them Days continues today to be a non-profit organization, and I ask all members

to wish them every success today on their anniversary, and success in the years

to come.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a group in my district who have worked hard to

ensure that today's technology can be utilized in rural Newfoundland to

educate the youth of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the hard work of the local volunteers and the recent

injection of funding from the federal government, St. Francis school in Harbour

Grace can now use a state-of-the-art greenhouse to craft together

entrepreneurship, learning technology, and the agricultural industry. Mr.

Speaker, the twenty-year-old greenhouse has been used to grow everything from

shrubbery to tomatoes. They have recently partnered with Spruce Hill Research

and Experimental Farm in Heart's Content to begin teaching young people about

the farming industry.

Mr. Speaker, the greenhouse will now become a focal point for getting

students involved in entrepreneurial opportunities in the agricultural sector in

the area. Other schools in the region are also involved in the project through

Web casting in classes such as Biology, Chemistry and Enterprise. In a very

short time this program will be available on the Web, giving access to students

worldwide. Mr. Speaker, the recent development of these facilities shows the

agricultural excellence which exists in the Conception Bay area, and I am very

proud that these facilities will continue to teach our youth its economic

importance in the area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to congratulate St. Francis School in Harbour

Grace and all involved in working toward this initiative for their hard work in

ensuring that the agricultural industry remains strong in the Carbonear-Harbour

Grace District.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize

the life-saving accomplishments of two brave and dedicated Newfoundlanders.

Mr. Speaker, just recently Mr. Howard Greene and Clayton Stratton of Gander

were recognized by the Provincial Lifesaving Society for their efforts in saving

the life of Mr. Percy Chaytor in July, 2000, who had slipped and fell into the

cold and churning waters of the Gander River.

Mr. Greene, having seen the mishap, attempted to reach out without falling

into the river himself. His many attempts failed until Mr. Stratton arrived on

the scene in a small boat. Through some creative work by both of those heroes,

they were finally able to reach Mr. Chaytor. Upon getting close enough to help

and keep an eye on their own safety, they risked their own lives by leaning over

one side of the boat in an effort to balance it while Mr. Chaytor climbed

aboard. These efforts of five years ago have not been forgotten, as these fine

gentlemen have been honoured by the Lifesaving Society of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in

congratulating Mr. Howard Greene and Mr. Clayton Stratton of Gander for their

heroics in a time of great peril.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I rise today to recognize two students from

Fortune. Brian and Nicholas are art students and were named among the top fifty

inventors in Canada for their efforts in the Scholastic Young Inventors'

Contest.

The Scholastic Young Inventors' Contest ask student to think outside the

box when entering the competition. They can consider all sorts of machines,

objects or gadgets - either outrageous or realistic - that could meet a variety

of needs. Once a student settles on an idea, they then sketch and label their

creation and write a short paragraph describing how their inventions work.

Brian's entry was an automatic hammer that could be activated by pressing a

button. Nicholas submitted his idea for a magna hand glove which can lift large

objects. Both entries caught the judges' attention and for their efforts,

Brain and Nicholas received a microscope, four science books and a science

resource book for their classroom.

Art teachers at Lake Academy, Andrea Stuckey and Cecil Forsey, encouraged

their students to participate in the Scholastic Young Inventors' Contest.

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

congratulating Brian and Nicholas on being named among the top fifty inventors

in Canada and expressing our appreciation to their teachers for working with

their students in taking advantage of this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of how our teachers make a

difference in the lives of their students.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a student from my

district whose work has recently won a provincial speak off.

Adam Lynch, of Ascension Collegiate won a speak off presented by the Dalton

Assembly Fourth Degree Knights of Columbus out of St. Francis High School in

Harbour Grace on March 20. Adam placed first in this competition and went on to

represent the Dalton Council in the provincial speak off.

Mr. Speaker, at this Province-wide competition, held in Grand Falls-Windsor

at St. Joseph's Parish Hall on April 23, Adam, once again, placed first and

earned a trophy which will be kept in his school for one year. He also won a

plaque and a cheque in the amount of $500.

Mr. Speaker, Adam's parents, Calvin and Sherry Lynch of Upper Island Cove

are so very proud of their son's achievements. The speech entitled: A Response

to Margaret Wente's Article, was a tremendous piece of work for this budding

scholar.

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

congratulating Adam Lynch on his recent achievements in public speaking, and in

thanking the Knights of Columbus for providing the opportunity for students like

Adam to develop their skills in the field of public speaking. Maybe a student

like Adam one day will take up the very seats we occupy here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of a new wage

subsidy program that has just been introduced by the Department of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment - NL Works.

NL Works offers profit and not-for-profit employers with a wage subsidy to

create new positions. This, in turn, provides individuals with valuable work

experience and skills to improve their attachment to the labour market. The

program is open to income support clients who are non EI eligible or unemployed,

or under-employed individuals who are non EI eligible and actively seeking work.

Mr. Speaker, NL Works is a combination of the department's three separate

wage subsidy programs streamlined into one core program. With it comes a number

of improvements for clients and employers.

For this year, government has invested $1.8 million in this program, a

$250,000 increase from last year's funding of wage subsidy programs. This

increased funding will see approximately 450 new positions for clients this

fiscal year.

One core wage subsidy program is less confusing for clients since it involves

a single application process.

The program also offers increased flexibility in the duration of wage

subsidies. Employers choose the number of weeks they want to apply for under the

seasonal and long-term components. This change allows NL Works to be responsive

to local labour market conditions and needs. The new program also offers a

higher wage subsidy rate which may encourage employers to pay higher wages.

Combining our wage subsidy programs into one program is a decision based on

numerous surveys and consultations with employers and other participants

involved in our previous wage subsidy programs. Feedback from clients, employers

and HRLE staff on how we can improve our wage subsidy programs form the basis of

NL Works.

Mr. Speaker, NL Works is one example of the overall redesign of the

Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment in an effort to simplify

and improve services for clients.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Normally, we would be in a position to respond or the critic would be in a

position to respond, but I guess somehow the wires must have gotten crossed and

we did not receive an advanced copy or any copy of the minister's statement.

So we would reserve any comments we might have until we have had an opportunity

to read it. We would reserve the right to comment at that time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Unless the Government House Leader has some other suggestion

that we have a formal opportunity to respond set down, I could respond now if

there is not going to be a formal opportunity at a later date.

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

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

It is common practice and courtesy that any ministerial statements in the

House dealing with a direction or policy of government, obviously, be provided

to the Opposition and the New Democratic Party at least, no later than, one-half

hour before. Obviously, there has been a mixup in this case, where it was not

provided. I can only offer my apology because this has been a standard practice

that both sides have operated under.

So, if we take in the suggestion made by the Leader of the NDP and by my

colleague, the Opposition House Leader, we will make sure you have copies. It

will get to you now, you will have them. When you feel it is appropriate to make

a formal reply, we will certainly provide the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the hon. House today to inform hon. members about the success of a

rising local high-tech company, Cathexis Innovation Inc. of St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I am just going to ask if we can hold off the ministerial statements.

Obviously, you did not get the two ministerial statements today.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, relax,

there is no ill motive or ill intention to why you did not get them.

MR. REID: That is what you say.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is exactly what I say, because I know it to be the

truth, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. If we can, we will just

suspend that statement for today and we will get it tomorrow. I will find out

what happened.

I do want to assure the House, and certainly my colleague the Opposition

House Leader, that obviously it was just a mixup today, and I appreciate you

saying there is no problem.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Natural Resources Minister was scheduled to provide an

update to the media after the meeting with Abitibi on Friday here in St. John's,

but it was cancelled at the last minute. Since then we have learned that Abitibi

asked government for approval to develop two power projects on the Exploits

River, with the benefits going to the Stephenville operation, and the minister

informed the company that the matter would have to be presented to Cabinet. On

May 4, when I questioned the minister on this very issue, he stated that those

discussions would not take place until Abitibi would guarantee government a

two-machine operation in Grand Fall-Windsor.

I ask the minister: Did you get the commitment from Abitibi for the two

machines at the Grand Falls mill or did government sell out to the company,

because layoffs happened yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Government

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me correct two things. First of all, there

was no scheduled media update. That was provided yesterday out there. As a

matter of fact, I was prepared to answer questions on it yesterday, but they

were not forthcoming.

Let me say this to you, the member opposite - this is a serious issue for the

people in Central Newfoundland - put forward a private member's motion about,

will we uphold the spirit and intent of Bill 27 which requires a two-machine

operation in Grand Falls-Windsor in 2010. We haven't gotten to debate that

motion yet, for a very good reason: because government is committed to upholding

the legislation, Bill 27, which requires the company to operate a two-machine

operation in Grand Falls-Windsor until 2010. Government has informed Abitibi and

the public and this House, that if they fail to live up to that legislation our

only obligation and responsibility would be to revoke the licenses associated

with that legislation, which represent about 60 per cent of the wood supply for

Abitibi.

On the power purchase agreement, it was only two or three weeks ago that the

Leader of the Opposition was up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister - I know it is a very important question - if he

could complete his answer quickly.

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

Two or three weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition was condemning myself

and the Premier for not moving forward on trying to solve issues with Abitibi.

What we announced yesterday was that we had begun negotiations with Abitibi with

respect to a potential power purchase arrangement - and I emphasis potential

power purchase arrangement - for two remaining projects on the Exploits River,

for their operations in Newfoundland and Labrador which include Grand Falls and

Stephenville, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the Minister of Natural Resources was taking a tough stand with

Abitibi, as he should. His direct quote in Hansard on Wednesday, May 4, was: We

are not into any discussions or formal negotiations with Abitibi on power

because, first and foremost, before we would even consider that, Abitibi must

commit to a two-machine operation at Grand Falls, and, until they do, we will

not be discussing this with Abitibi.

Yesterday, the minister broke his word. Your discussion with Abitibi on

Friday was about power for the Stephenville mill, and you have since directed

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to begin negotiations with Abitibi for a power

purchase arrangement on the Exploits River.

You say you are protecting our resource and our jobs, when, in the public and

in dealings with the company, you are dancing to their corporate drum. Minister,

you are double-talking. How can the people of Central Newfoundland believe you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Government

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear and emphatic. There is nobody

on this side, and in particular myself, responsible for the file on behalf of

the government, who is dancing to Abitibi's drum. The only drumbeat that we

wish to dance to is to save the current operations in Grand Falls-Windsor and in

Stephenville so people can go to work each and every day. That is the only

drumbeat that this government is interested in, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what I did say yesterday, and what I will

continue to say, is that we will do whatever we have to, within reason, what is

reasonable and what is fair for the public at large and for the communities

affected, to ensure that there is a viable newsprint industry in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

What I did say yesterday, so the member for Grand Falls-Windsor understands

clearly, the negotiations with Abitibi with respect to two power purchase

arrangements are for their operations in Newfoundland and Labrador, which

include Stephenville and Grand Falls. That is the fact of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds members that both the last question and answer exceeded the

usual one minute. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that commitment includes the two-machine operation.

This question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour

and Employment.

Just over a week ago, Abitibi-Consolidated announced that there would be

labour reductions at the Grand Falls mill, and yesterday fifty-six people got

layoff notices with no incentives from the company for early retirements.

Last year, there was a five-year contract signed with Abitibi and its

workers, and one of the key components of that contract was job security and

bumping rights. Without those bumping rights, people were sent home yesterday

and others were left to grieve the layoff notices.

I ask the minister: Is she aware that there had been no consultant with the

union prior to yesterday regarding the reduction of up to 150 mill employees and

close to the same in the Woodlands Division?

I would also ask the minister: When will she get involved and investigate

this matter, both with the company and the union, and can she assure workers at

the Grand Falls mill that all aspects of the contract will be upheld?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her questions.

It is a very serious issue when we deal with this number of layoffs in any

particular area of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is labour legislation that needs to be followed, and I

just want to assure the member that the Labour Relations Agency will work within

the Labour Standards Act to make sure that the process was followed

appropriately and any steps necessary will be taken in this matter.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I asked the minister to commit full accreditation of all

mammography units in the Province but he did not see this as an important issue

to women's health in Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask him today to tell women

which mammography units are not accredited in our Province, so that they can

make the choice on where they want to have their testing done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, and Acting Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The President of the Canadian Association of Radiologists, the President of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Radiologists, and radiologists from

the Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority who sit on the board that does

accreditation, all have indicated that there is no danger. They are safe for

anybody to receive one.

Some of the problems encountered, I will make reference to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: If they would like to hear an answer, we just committed to

put four new digital ones in place. Some of the problems in full accreditation

are space requirements that do not affect the safety of the service provided.

That has been indicated by all authorities.

I am not an authority on it, but I do take the advice of the Canadian

Association of Radiologists, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of

Radiologists, and the doctor from the Regional Integrated Health Authority who

sits on that board that gives accreditation. I take their advice a lot more than

I would take it from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was not about safety. It was not about mammography units blowing

up. It was about giving women a choice of knowing which machines are accredited

and which ones are not, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, obstetrical services in this Province are being jeopardized by

government's lack of stability and commitment to health. We have a report that

recommends, right now through the Hay Group, the closure of obstetrics services

in three rural hospitals in the Province. We have a very serious situation at

Gander hospital where there is no obstetrician right now. Women's health is

being compromised, and I ask the Minister for the Status of Women: Will she

intervene on behalf of the women of this Province so that they have a

dependable, quality health-care service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, and Acting Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The obstetrician who has left Gander has created a void at the moment. There

are going to be locums who provide that service. For that Gander hospital, they

have recruited two who are going to be here next month and up in the practice in

Gander, in that area.

The Regional Health Authorities are providing the best quality service. They

are active in recruitment. In fact, the commitment is given. They are coming

here next month in Gander and they will back to two. They have only had one just

recently. Unfortunately, the choice is not always the Integrated Health

Authorities. If someone leaves, for whatever reason, or if someone decides they

want to go somewhere else - there are a variety of reasons why somebody may

leave, but they are trying hard on the recruitment effort. They are very

successful in getting two now, and they are going to be here next month.

Hopefully, the service that will be provided will be up to the numbers that have

been traditionally allocated in that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister for the

Status of Women is not speaking up for the women in Gander and on the Northern

Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that patients of prostate cancer are

being delayed for radiation treatments for up to six months. I ask the minister

if he can tell me why there is such a delay for this treatment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, and Acting Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Regional Integrated Health Authorities are working with all aspects in

waiting lists. Why it is specifically delayed for that period in prostate, I

cannot give her a specific answer. I will follow up on that answer, but we do

know that we made significant commitments in our Budget this year to improve and

reduce - actually in surgeries - reduced by 30 per cent in money committed this

year, when the biggest infusions of money in health care in the history of our

Province, in numerous areas also, not only in that - in proper prevention and

proper promotion aspects is our biggest infusion in public health also.

So we have done a whole array of things in this year's Budget to address

some of these specific problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions were not related to surgery, I say to the minister, it was

related to radiation treatment. I have had a number of inquiries from patients

from rural areas who have been waiting at least six months, showed up in St.

John's ten minutes before their appointment, were told that their radiation

treatments were being cancelled.

I would like to ask the minister: Is it due to wait lists? Is it due to lack

of equipment? Is it due to lack of human resources in our hospitals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, and Acting Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are in the process right now of setting up - we allowed money in the

Budget this year to increase the treatments, to work on weekends. They are in

the process of scheduling now to stay on weekends and to work extra hours to be

able to deal with the wait list for radiation treatment in our Province. So,

there are steps being taken. There is money allocated in this year's Budget.

It has not been there in some time, that we are going to bring people and work

longer to be able to deal with waiting lists that are out there. A lot, I might

add, waiting lists that are way too long, way beyond certain standards in

certain instances and trying to get treatment. We are trying to reduce that. We

put money in the Budget. That government was fifteen years and allowed the list

to get to where it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

FPI, supposedly, a flag ship company in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador have treated the people of Harbour Breton with contempt and disdain.

They left the community without giving their workers a severance package or

proper layoff notice.

I ask the minister, has he formally written the company to have them redress

these two deplorable decisions and give the workers the financial compensation

they are owed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last, I guess, six or seven months since

FPI announced their intention of closing their operation in Harbour Breton, we

have had a number of discussions with the company, both on Harbour Breton

specifically, and on their proposed income trust transaction, generally. I can

say today that we have had discussions with the company about possible financial

compensation - I guess, for lack of a better word - for the people of Harbour

Breton as it relates to the closure of the operation. It is also our

understanding that the FFAW, the union representing the workers at Harbour

Breton, have made application to the Labour Relations Agency on notice period as

it relates to the closure of their operation. We await the decision of the

Labour Relations Agency on that matter, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, many of the people impacted by the announcement

of FPI are between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-five. They would benefit

from an early retirement package.

I ask the minister: Has there been any written request to the federal

government regarding a retirement package for the older workers at the Harbour

Breton plant?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, there has not been any correspondence between the provincial

government and the federal government on an early retirement program. As I have

said in this House on many occasions before, and outside of the House, we are

interested in participating in an early retirement program, but, Mr. Speaker, we

want an early retirement program that results in the people who are left in the

plants being better off than they were before the early retirement program is

engaged in. We are interested in that concept, Mr. Speaker. We have indicated

that on numerous occasions over the past couple of years, and we are still

committed to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, since the announced closure of the Harbour

Breton fish plant by FPI, the unanswered question for the Town of Harbour Breton

has been: Will there be a quota allocated to the community?

My question to the Minister of Fisheries is: Has there been an official

request made to the federal government on any quota for Harbour Breton by the

provincial government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the committee from Harbour Breton and the

member when we met with them earlier today, we will support quota acquisition

for the people of Harbour Breton and the people of the Connaigre Peninsula.

There has been a discussion between myself and the federal Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans, Geoff Regan, on this matter. As we said to the people of Harbour

Breton before, the exact details of the amount of quota, the type of quota, the

species of fish, there is a discussion that has to take place on that matter.

There is a business plan that the people of Harbour Breton, through their IAS

Committee, are working on currently. Mr. Speaker, as we said before, once that

process is completed we will support the people of Harbour Breton in their bid

for a quota for their future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, that was related to the people this morning.

When that is done, you can be sure we will support the people of Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a question that was given to me by Leo Baker, one of the fish plant

workers of Harbour Breton. I don't know the answer, and I am just asking it

for the minister.

There has been a long history in the fishery in Harbour Breton. This is not

the first time a company has pulled up stakes and left the community. Mr.

Speaker, BC Packers left, Fishery Products and Fishery Products International,

but their quota stayed with the community.

Now that FPI has decided to leave and take their quotas with them, Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: Why has FPI taken their quotas out of Harbour

Breton, something the other three companies were not allowed to do?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Because he let them, is the answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Don't talk so foolish, Gerry.

In response, Mr. Speaker, to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo: They didn't

take the quotas -

MR. REID: Change it. Change the legislation today. Change it right here.

We will vote (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

Colleagues, I am asking for your co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune to

ask the question, and I recognize the minister now to reply, and I would ask all

members for their co-operation.

The hon. the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo might be

interested in playing to the people in the gallery. The Member for Twillingate

& Fogo might be interested in playing politics with the people of Harbour

Breton, but I am not going to engage in that game.

We said from the beginning that we would do everything in our power to help

the people of Harbour Breton. We have come across financially to the extent that

we have been able thus far. Before this is all over, we will come through for

the people of Harbour Breton. We will come through in trying to help develop the

aquaculture industry down there. We will come through and help them to find

quota for their community.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day we are interested in finding a future for

the people of Harbour Breton, not playing politics like the members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members that in their presentations they should not make reference

to persons who are visitors in the galleries.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Yesterday, in an effort to resolve the ongoing crab dispute, the President of

the FFAW, after engaging in a consultation that the government said it was going

to, talking to fish harvesters, crab harvesters and processors, came up with a

very comprehensive proposal that would end the dispute and get the crab fishery

to commence within twenty-four to forty-eight hours, and also offered

alternatives.

I want to ask the Premier: Is he looking for a solution to this situation?

Will he sit down with Mr. McCurdy and the FFAW to try and find a solution to

this outstanding dispute?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we did receive, yesterday - the Premier received, and I

received also - a copy of a letter from Mr. McCurdy outlining some options that

he thought were worth pursuing. The letter was essentially the same as the

discussion that we have had with the FFAW over the past number of weeks in

trying to find a resolution to this impasse.

Mr. Speaker, at this point we are in the process of drafting a response to

Mr. McCurdy. I am not going to say much more on it than that right now. I will

also say that I had a discussion with Dave Decker, the Secretary-Treasurer of

the FFAW, earlier today.

You know, we are interested in trying to find a solution to this, so that

people can get back on the water and processing plants and plant workers get

back in operation. To the extent that is able to be done, we will be doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Premier. In addition to the eight propositions set

forth in the letter, there is also an alternative suggested as another way to

guarantee the regional balance and also protection against predatory pricing and

ensure the prompt opening of the fishery.

Will the Premier acknowledge, or say here in the House today, that he is

backing off from his strategy of confrontation with the FFAW and the crab

fishermen, and that he is prepared to actually sit down and try to work out a

compromise that can get the fishermen back on the water and get this industry

going?

Will he actually work for a solution? Or, is he still going to say, well, we

are writing back and forth and we are hoping something will happen. Is he

committed to finding a solution that will get this industry going?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Fisheries has just basically answered

that question. We received correspondence from the FFAW yesterday at, I think,

around 1:00 o'clock, a very detailed letter. A reply has been in a draft form.

Myself and the minister have already met on that on two occasions this morning.

The minister has been in contact with officials of the FFAW.

This is not about backing down. We are in the process of trying to find a

solution to the fishery problems in this Province. The solutions, as I have said

before, have to be stable and sustainable, and that is what we are attempting to

do.

With regard to our policy, and the policy that is put in place, we stand by

that policy; but we are, in fact, preparing a detailed response to the FFAW.

Hopefully, it will be this afternoon. If not, it will be first thing tomorrow

morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why is the Premier so worried about being seen as backing down? We are

looking for a solution that is going to put thousands of fishermen back on the

water, put fish plants working. It may not be exactly his plan, but if it is a

plan that is going to work, why won't he accept it instead of worrying about

being seen as backing down?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

We have only time for a short answer, with the time allocations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The problem with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

is that he has been knocking around with the Member for Exploits too often. They

seem to think alike. He is putting words in my mouth, talking about backing

down. The two of them actually stood up a few minutes ago to ask a question and

I thought they were going to go in tandem - one would ask the first half and one

would ask the second half.

This is not about backing down. This is about the future of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we are doing this. We are trying to make

it stable. We are trying to protect the people, as I said before, who are on the

bottom of the totem pole, the people who are going to be hard done by a

mismanaged fishery. This is what it is all about. We are here to try and do the

right thing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not about backing down.

It is about doing the right thing, and we are going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in today's edition of The Telegram the Premier is

quoted as saying that he will allow his caucus members to have a free vote on

our private member's motion tomorrow without repercussions. This motion,

tomorrow, will remove the production quota system from the table, as proposed by

the government, while the Premier's promised consultations take place.

I ask the Premier now to confirm here in the Legislature what he has said

publicly in the media, that his caucus will be permitted to vote with the wishes

of their constituents tomorrow without being punished like the Member for

Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do now is bring politics into

this whole issue again, trying to sort of cast aspersions on the Member for

Placentia & St. Mary's and upon our caucus and everything else, but we are

just not going to play that game. That is not what this is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is a bigger, more important issue here. The issue

here, of course, is the sustainability of the fishery in our Province, and

issues that are important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Having said that, the hon. member is familiar with the rules of this House.

Tomorrow is Private Members' Day. Private members participate in that debate

and then they vote in that debate. There can be Division and they can be asked

to stand in that debate, but our caucus is solid on this. We stand by the

principle of raw material sharing. We stand behind the Minister of Fisheries. We

stand behind the decision of Cabinet and the decision of government, and we will

follow that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: To try and make petty, political points at the expense

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, even that is below you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the personal attacks from the Premier. It means I am getting to

him, as usual.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier again, for greater clarity - this is not about

politics; it is very serious - he has said that the issue of income trust for

FPI is so important that he put it to a free vote. I suggest the crab impasse is

so important, let's put it to a free vote instead of standing up now and

telling your members how they have to speak and vote tomorrow. I ask, for

greater clarity, Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier allow the Members for Trinity-Bay

de Verde, Trinity North, Bonavista South, Bonavista North, Windsor-Springdale,

Burin-Placentia West, and Terra Nova, to speak up for their constituents and

vote with their constituents in that vote tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You left out Twillingate & Fogo in that list. It

will be interesting to see what the Member for Twillingate & Fogo intends to

do. The co-op is not too pleased with his actions and his non-appearance, and

the fact that he is not around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. The Premier is in the

process of replying.

I recognize the hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I know there are going to be a lot of interesting

questions asked tomorrow. It will be interesting to hear how your own members

react. With regard to our position here, none of my members have been told how

to vote. They will appear tomorrow -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No. Their position is very clearly on the record. They

support the position of government. They have stated it time and time again, and

presumably they will state it tomorrow. If they change their minds overnight,

well, so be it, but they are prepared to do what they have to do. They will

certainly be allowed to do it because it certainly will not be my position, that

I am going to go in and tell them what to do. Is that the answer you want?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: What a change. What a change since the old silver bullet

drove up and flew up from Houston.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask again about a real free vote, because the Premier has

said he believes in free votes and he will allow a free vote on an income trust

for FPI, another fisheries issue. Will the Premier allow a genuine, real free

vote tomorrow so that Cabinet ministers - like the Member for Bay Verte, the

Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, the Member for St. John's South and the

Member for Ferryland - can stand up and speak out on behalf of the people who

elected them to come to this Legislature and vote as their constituents want

them to vote?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised a good point on the income

trust, as the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune was in a meeting this morning

when we met with the people from Harbour Breton. We had a very good meeting with

the people from Harbour Breton. It lasted over an hour. There were three

ministers present, myself and staff. We heard their concerns, which were very

eloquently pleaded by the people who represented them. We heard them loud and

clear. We are prepared to work - as the Minister of Fisheries said - toward

solutions.

With regard to presenting a business case. We are prepared to make

representation on quotas. I personally phoned the Member of Parliament, Mr. Bill

Matthews, as soon as I got our of that meeting. We made a commitment to the

member that we would also contact the federal Minister of Fisheries with regard

to quotas. We are doing everything we can.

With regard to an income trust, we indicated this morning that will come

before the House of Assembly, if it is appropriate. There will be a free vote

and because we are concerned about the complexities of it, we will make sure

that we are looking out for the interests of Harbour Breton, Fortune -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for one brief supplementary and one brief reply.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the FFAW proposal from yesterday, in writing, which all of us

have seen, it guarantees competition while ensuring regional quotas. It is only

a one-year pilot project that will last for just a few short months and it does

have the support of both fish harvesters and fish processors.

So, I ask the Premier, in the meetings that you and the minister have had

this morning: Why is it that you do not just now agree to let the fish

processors, fish harvesters get together like they obviously have, start the

crab season so half-a-billion dollars worth of economic activity can start

happening right here in Newfoundland and Labrador like they want it to happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we have indicated before, we are in the process of preparing a response to

a very detailed letter, a three-page letter, which I have read through very

thoroughly myself time and time again. We have had consultations on it. We are

preparing a response and as soon as we have a response, we will certainly send

you a copy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill,

An Act

To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 32)

I give further notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord

Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 31)

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 37, I give notice that a following substantive

motion - and I understand this will actually be debated on our Private Members'

Day, Opposition Private Members' Day two weeks hence:

WHEREAS the Speaker of the House of Assembly has not applied the rules of the

House equally to all members; and

WHEREAS the Speaker of the House of Assembly has extended the power of his

position without the authority of the House; and

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on the Speaker to

operate within the confines of Standing Order 1(1) and Standing Order 1(2) and

convene the Standing Orders Committee when otherwise necessary.

That is seconded by the Member for Exploits.

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

Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act.

(Bill 28)

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999

And The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 29)

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. (Bill 19)

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under our rules, normally, if a person is going to raise a point of

privilege, it should be done at the earliest opportunity. I just give notice at

this time - I have not yet - I do intend to make a point of privilege, but I am

in the process of compiling the necessary research in order to do it properly. I

just give notice at this time that I would certainly like to make that point. I

do not want someone suggesting later that I did not do it at the earliest

opportunity, but it is not possible to do it right now because I do not have all

of the necessary information in order to make that point of privilege properly.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, and President of Treasury

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions relating to

the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 25)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Guarantee Of Loans To Local Authorities.

(Bill 23)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly.

(Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill

27)

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill

26)

Thank you.

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

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

On behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I give notice that

I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Law Society Act, 1999. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that I had called petitions, but I saw, after I mentioned Orders

of the Day, several members rising. I recognize two members who were standing.

The Chair will go to the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on

a petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in The Straits

& White Bay North. Mr. Speaker, this petition is with regard to health care

in that particular area, and the amount of debt that has been accumulated by the

new Grenfell-Labrador Health Authority.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this region have not taken a great deal of comfort

in recommendations that have been outlined in the HayGroup report;

recommendations, Mr. Speaker, which would see the total demise of the health

care system in that region as they presently know it.

Mr. Speaker, the HayGroup itself recommended that obstetric services,

gynecology, psychiatry, radiology and pediatrics be removed from this particular

facility, be removed from that health care region, thus jeopardizing the health

care as we know it in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, the HayGroup also made recommendations with regard to obstetric

services, gynecology services and day surgery services in Stephenville and Port

aux Basques as well. We witness in this House of Assembly, the Member for St.

George's-Stephenville East stand in her place and say that government would

not accept the recommendations in the HayGroup as they related to obstetric

services in Stephenville because she was protecting the interest of women's

health. Well, Mr. Speaker, the women in the Northern Peninsula, the women in

Southern Labrador, feel that their health issues are every bit as important as

those of the women in the member's own district, Mr. Speaker. They feel that

government should act now, should remove those recommendations from the table

immediately, so that they will not have to fear losing these services in the

months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I think their fears are founded because they are right now under

a health authority that has a $14 million deficit; a deficit that government is

asking them to pay down from existing revenues; a deficit that they are forcing

the boards to get under control with no new money forecast, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, the only way that they can balance the books is to be able to cut

services.

The people in this area want a commitment. They want a commitment from the

government that says that the integrity and the services of their health care

system in the St. Anthony region, the Northern Peninsula, the Southern Labrador

area, are going to be protected and they are going to be looked after, just like

the commitments they made in the Stephenville area in one of their own member's

districts, Mr. Speaker.

I feel that the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East acted purely in

the interest of her own district and in the interest of herself, and not in the

interest of women in this Province, because she failed to protect the services,

or even speak to protect the services, for women in the Northern Peninsula. To

me, Mr. Speaker, that shows that she was looking after her own self in her own

district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some of the

members of the Trinity-Bay de Verde District, and the petition reads as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador;

WHEREAS the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has announced a program of

raw material sharing in the crab fishery; and

WHEREAS this plan will stifle competition, increase the power of crab

processors, and reduce the value of fishing enterprises; and

WHEREAS the Dunne Commission confirmed that most fish harvesters and crab

plant workers strongly oppose this type of regime; and

WHEREAS the program was announced without addressing the substantive and

reasonable objections from plant workers and harvesters as promised by the

minister on February 4, 2004, and without providing full debate by all

interested parties as promised in writing by the minister.

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

to reverse the decision of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

implementing raw material sharing in the crab fishery.

Mr. Speaker, I want to present that on behalf of the constituents who passed

that petition on to me in a meeting we held on Friday, just so I could fill my

obligations here as a member in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise to present a petition on behalf of some 1,100 petitioners from

the District of Bonavista North. These were collected over just the last few

days, and again call upon the government to postpone and delay the

implementation of a production quota system until the promised consultation -

promised in writing, by the way, never to be forgotten - promised in writing by

this government, that we would never, ever, introduce this new system unless we

came and spoke to all of the people who are involved, all the stakeholders,

first and foremost, and then only to have the minister admit here in questioning

last week that he only wrote the letter last year this time because he wanted to

get last year's fishery started so he promised them consultation before this

year, and he had no intention - none whatsoever, obviously - of having that

particular consultation.

These 1,100 petitioners, Mr. Speaker, go a bit further and they actually

petition as well that they call upon - and here are their words: We do hereby

petition our Member for Bonavista North to speak on behalf of his constituents

and call for an immediate end to his government's plan to implement crab

production quotas for the crab industry.

Eleven hundred names collected in just the last two days. I know the

constituents were here this morning wanting to meet with the member. I don't

know if they arranged a meeting or not. That is what they drove in from

Bonavista North this morning to do. Eleven hundred collected in the last few

days only from a handful of communities in the district, not even the full

district.

Again, tomorrow, in the free vote, we are asking for an opportunity for them

to stand up and speak for their constituents. I think, Mr. Speaker, these

constituents in Bonavista North, through this petition, are speaking loud and

clear, that if their member is bringing any message to a caucus on their behalf

it is: Please live up to your promise. Please cancel this program until we have

the consultation. We will find out tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, I guess, whether he

will say anything or whether he will try to duck like the Member for Trinity-Bay

de Verde just did and say: Well, I am going to present the petition because that

is my obligation to do so. Tomorrow there is an opportunity to speak up for the

constituents, speak on their behalf, because they elected each and every one of

us to be here, and then vote without any recrimination by the caucus or the

Premier. He stated it here again today: Every member can speak and vote as they

wish. We will see whether or not any of them speak and vote as their

constituents wish, as the 1,100 constituents from Bonavista North right here,

asking their member specifically to stand up, speak on their behalf, and do one

very simple thing; just ask the government to keep its promise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I , too, have a petition. This petition is from residents of a number of

communities in the Province, La Scie, Snooks Arm, Harbour Round, all of whom

call upon the House to urge government to only impose production quotas if it is

agreed upon by the FFAW and the processors as recommended in the Dunne report.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that is being presented, and a number of

members have done so. All of these people, who are concerned about what is

happening in the crab fishery, are, in fact, looking for a solution that meets

the conditions of the Dunne report and meets the democratic conditions of having

a proper consultation with people before imposing a solution.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether to be encouraged by what I heard today

from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Premier or to be

discouraged. They say they have a letter and they are going to answer it. I

heard Mr. McCurdy on the radio today say that these are our proposals, we do not

have to accept all of them. These are our basis for discussions. Let's sit

down and try and work it out. In fact, in the letter itself he has an

alternative, saying: Look, if you do not like number one, we have an alternative

here to meet the goal of regional sharing.

What I heard was that we are going to prepare a detailed answer to the

letter. What do we have, some kind of an exchange of letters going on? These are

participants in the democratic process. These are unions, Mr. Speaker, who have

represented workers. Mr. McCurdy has been in as a union leader for the past

twenty-five years, just about. They have their negotiating committee. They have

people who are knowledgeable of this industry and how it works. The crab

processors, they have been involved in these discussions. They not only have the

agreement of 40 per cent of the buyers, or buyers of 40 per cent of the crab,

they also have contacted individual members of the associated fish producers who

say that they find it acceptable, although they are officially supporting the

ASP organization.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that there is something on the go here that the

processors and the fish harvesters can live with. There are references

throughout this proposal to the objectives set down by the Minister of Fisheries

in terms of regional sharing, in terms of some control over how much fish might

be available for various plants. It seems to be heading in the direction that

the government wants, Mr. Speaker. Instead of saying: Well, yes, we are going to

sit down and talk to them. We think this is the basis for a good, solid

discussion and we will try and find a solution. What we hear is, we are going to

write them a letter. The Premier takes pains to insist we are not backing down.

So, I do not know, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: But I do hope I am wrong, Mr. Speaker. I hope that it is the

basis for discussion. It is being put forth as a reasonable compromise. It is

being put forth as the basis for discussion, and I hope the Minister of

Fisheries and the Premier will actually sit down and try and hammer out the

differences to see if they can come up with a solution instead of writing

letters back and forth, which does not seem to be necessarily aimed at finding a

solution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition again today on behalf of the residents of

Harbour Breton:

Whereupon the community is asking that FPI's fish quota, that has been

traditionally processed in Harbour Breton, stay there.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I learned this morning in a meeting that

we had with the people from Harbour Breton and the Premier and the committee,

talking about how FPI, as a company, treat people differently. In Nova Scotia,

when they laid people off in one of the businesses recently, they gave every

person who left the company a severance of $10,000. One of the people who got

that severance was a former resident of Harbour Breton who worked in Nova

Scotia. Here you have a company - the Newfoundland people here, the people of

Harbour Breton, who have given their lives to this particular company, they

leave the community. They leave without giving the people a severance. They

leave without giving the people a proper notice. They should have given them

twelve weeks of notice and paid them thereunto. The reason why they say they did

not have to do that is because the plant is dilapidated. Occupational Health and

Safety will not allow them to go into the building, therefore they are off the

hook. Now, can you imagine, a flagship company in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, one of the companies that is supposed to have shown leadership in

the Province, to do that to people who have worked for them for ten, twenty,

thirty-plus years. Mr. Speaker, it is really galling to realize that is the type

of thing to happen.

The other thing that I did not find out until today, Leo Baker - and the

final question that I asked to the minister earlier. I did not know that when

British Columbia Packers or BC Packers left Harbour Breton when they were

producing herring and other groundfish, when they left their quota stayed.

Fishery Products, the old Fishery Products company that was Newfoundland owned,

when they left their quota stayed in Harbour Breton. The old FPI company, when

they left, like many of the other communities, they left their quota there. Now,

FPI, the flagship of the groundfish industry in Newfoundland, a company that

people in Newfoundland looked up to in a sense as being, as I said, a flagship,

a company that you had respect for, that you had admiration for, just left and

they are taking their quota with them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the thing about it is, I do not know, at the end of the

day, whether FPI will ever leave a portion of their quota for Harbour Breton but

I am saying this, there should not be any company the size of FPI, the stature

of FPI, a company like that leave Harbour Breton and leave the people penniless.

There should be some shekels shaken out of their pockets so that the ordinary

people, the ordinary workers in the community of Harbour Breton should, at

least, have some redress at the end of the day. That is what you see the people

who came in, in busloads, from Harbour Breton today to come here to put - as Mr.

George said when we met earlier this morning - a human face on it. The community

is going through a crises situation. There is devastation here and the company,

FPI, cannot be off the hook. They have to be responsible for some protection

(inaudible) in this community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the fish harvesters, I would

say, in the entire Province, but this one that I have today is, in fact, on

behalf of fish harvesters in Bonavista South, in particular from Open Hall and

Bonavista.

I shared this petition with the Member for Bonavista South, but he did not

feel comfortable in presenting it because it came from me and not directly from

them.

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker, that she

did send the petition over to me and asked me to present it. I say to people in

this House, and to you, Mr Speaker, that this member will present any petition

that comes to him from his constituents, but he will not stand and present

petitions that are presented from the opposite side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: That was exactly what I said, Mr. Speaker. I said, I understood

that he did not feel comfortable presenting it because it came from me, but that

I would present it on their behalf. That is exactly what I am doing today. He

just confirmed what I said.

This petition is on behalf of fish harvesters in Open Hall and Bonavista, and

other fish harvesters in the Province, people who are finding themselves in a

difficult situation because of the stubbornness of this government and their

failure to acknowledge that they have not listened to people who are being

impacted in such a negative way by the policy that this government is putting

forward, as if they are the only ones with the answer when it comes to fish

harvesting in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

What we are facing here today are not just fish harvesters, but their

families. We are talking about small businesses in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, and my colleague from Fortune Bay just talked about the impact what is

happening in Harbour Breton is having on that rural community. That is an

example of what is going to happen in all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador if,

in fact, the government does not back down, or - not back down, but understand

and appreciate what the fish harvesters are saying about the impact that their

failure to listen to the fish harvesters will have on the economy of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are talking half a billion dollar industry here, and obviously you know

that it is not just the half a billion dollars that will be realized as a result

of the fish that is being caught, but when you look at small businesses that

benefit from fish harvesters, and the supplies that they purchase, when you look

at the boats that are involved, when you look at all of the people who need to

buy groceries in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, what we are hearing today is

that people are going out and shopping, not having the money to buy what they

normally would buy, so clearly the impact is far-reaching.

Again, we are asking the government, and the fish harvesters are asking the

government, to listen to what the FFAW is saying in particular. They have put

forward a proposal that they feel will solve this issue, where they will be able

to get back out on the water and will know that the fishing industry will be

able to go forward knowing full well that it will be in the best interests of

everyone involved, including the entire Province. We are not just talking about

rural Newfoundland and Labrador here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Day, I assume.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, the hon. the Minister of Environment

and Conservation to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Wildlife Act. (Bill 13)

Motion 6, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation

Act. ( Bill 18)

Motion 7, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In

Public Places And The Workplace. ( Bill 20).

Mr. Speaker, Motion 2, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee

of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Respecting the Imposition of Taxes

on Tobacco. ( Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: For clarification, the Chair will do the first readings on

Motion 4, Motion 5 -

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Motion 5, Motion 6 and Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5, Motion 6 and Motion 7.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Environment and

Conservation shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Wildlife Act. ( Bill 13)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Environment and

Conservation shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act," carried. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Wildlife Act. ( Bill 13).

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the

said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. ( Bill 18)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,"

carried. ( Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act. ( Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the

said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

"An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The

Workplace." (Bill 20)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Health and

Community Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The

Workplace" carried. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a

first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In

Public Places And The Workplace." (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the

said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I was moving with too much speed, I say, Mr. Speaker. I

apologize for that.

Before I move motion 2, I do want to move to motion 10, to move pursuant to

Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and motion 11,

to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move motion 2, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Respecting the Imposition

of Taxes on Tobacco, known as Bill 5.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing Order 11

the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 10.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

It is further moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the

House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 10.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn to consider certain

resolutions pursuant to motion 2.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR : Order, please!

The resolution and Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

The hon. the Minister of Finance, and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill proposes to amend subsection 9.(1) of the Tobacco Tax Act and to

put into effect certain increases in the tobacco tax rate that was announced in

the Budget on March 21 to come into effect actually at 12:01 a.m. on March 22.

It is traditional on Budget that these come into effect immediately after

midnight the day that they are in the Budget. What it does, it increases the tax

on a cigarette by one cent, from sixteen cents to seventeen cents. It increases

on fine cut tobacco per gram, increases it from twenty cents to twenty-five

cents.

One of the purposes of doing this is not based on revenue. It is a part of

our strategy on smoking cessation. It is in keeping with our tobacco reduction

strategy that is being promoted through the Department of Health; initiatives

that we are moving forward on. It is very much so - with reference to

legislation even being introduced here in this House, too - on extending the

smoking ban in public places to include bars and bingo halls. It is also,

hopefully, a deterrent, the higher price, especially with youth who are price

sensitive to items and to cigarette smoking, that it may allow them the

opportunity never to have to take up smoking. Once somebody gets addicted to

smoking, it is very, very difficult to be able to kick the habit. Tremendous

amounts of work have been done in trying to get people to break the habit. It is

much easier if they did not pick up the habit in the first place. While taxation

is not the only method to do it, we will have an opportunity in another bill to

be able to discuss the strategies that are in place this year. Particularly with

public health, the largest investment in public health in our history, $2.4

million; wellness strategy, dealing with smoking and numerous other aspects

beyond.

This bill is very straightforward, very direct in its application. There are

three parts: 9.(1) is (a), (

b) and (c). (

C) has not changed from the previous

part. It is still on cigars. It has not changed the percentage of tax there. The

only change is to increase it from twenty to twenty-five cents a gram on fine

cut. Last year, if you remember in the Budget, we increased it from fifteen to

twenty and now twenty to twenty-five cents. That is a significant increase. A

sixty-six-and-two-thirds percent increase in fine cut tobacco in the last two

years because there is still a fair discrepancy between the amount on each

particular one on fine cut, in a roll-your-own cigarette and on the ones that

are purchased and done at a factory on a commercial basis.

Actually, what it amounts to is about two-and-a-half cents on roll-your-own

because, I guess, with new technology, with rolling your own now they can put up

to twice - you can get two, basically, out of a gram as opposed to one before.

Now, you are finding there is a significant amount. You get twice as much. What

would go into one cigarette now can be put into two. In other words, that really

equates to about two-and-a-half cent a cigarette if you look at it, basically,

on fine cut. There is still a fair gap there. We figure it is important to move

up this proportionately to bridge that gap there as a deterrent for people who

are smoking.

It is fairly straightforward. I will say it is going to result in revenue.

While there is a reduction in smoking, we anticipate there is an increase in

revenue there; it will accompany it despite that. The amount of revenue will be

around $9.6 million. Roughly, $6.4 million should come from one cent on the

regular cigarettes that are, we will say, commercially produced, and around $3.2

million should come on the fine cut. That will be about $9.6 million in revenue

on that item, even though there is a reduction in consumption. Last year when we

raised it, the same amount, there was five cents on fine cut and one cent, there

was an increase in revenue but a reduction in consumption.

Of course, in keeping with areas that are border areas, like, for instance,

Labrador West - one of the complaints they had in Labrador West - in fact, when

I was in Opposition I spoke in Labrador West to a Chamber, and one of the

concerns was people were going over to Vermont. They were buying, not only

cigarettes, but they were buying their groceries and everything else and

business had a negative effect. I promoted that at the time, pushed it, and the

government of the day did, I must say, kept their rate on a par with Quebec. If

Quebec has an increase, we will move it up in the border communities in Southern

Labrador and in Labrador West to reflect, basically, what it is. We do not want

to lose other business and so on because of this single particular item there

across the border. So, it is sensitive to concerns in the regions that were

brought up. In fact, I made a significant issue of this back, I think it was

1997, when it got raised and the government of the day did respond and brought

that in. We have also considered those sensitivities and it will not change

there unless the Quebec rate changes and then they will move in line with the

Quebec rate. That will be the intention.

So, I think it is very direct, very straightforward. There is not much else I

really can say on this. I do not intend to go into, at this particular bill,

discussing the program or smoking because I think that is more appropriately

addressed in the banning of smoking in public places, in our wellness strategy

through health and numerous other initiatives in that area. This is a way to

increase it because we feel that tobacco has a very negative impact on the

health of people. Environmental tobacco smoke is dangerous. If we can reduce

consumption of that, I think it benefits everybody in our society. It is very

important that we take the initiative. We did increase taxes. Some might say:

Well, why don't you ban it? Well, it is technically not an illegal substance.

You can utilize it. There are a lot of other ills in society that are not

healthful to individuals. They do not promote good health but, you know, they

are not a substance that is on a ban substance.

Price of that in the market, maybe that is another issue. There are people

certainly struggling with it, trying to reduce their consumption on it and deal

with those areas. We felt that we did need to move in that direction. We did it

last year. We did it this year. While it does, indeed, get more revenue, we have

been fortunate because we have been able to put more revenue into health care

this year. We have been able to put $113 million more into health care.

Fifty-nine-and-a-half million of that will flow through from federal money.

Basically, that was in the First Ministers' Meeting but there is a significant

investment beyond that. Another forty-three million roughly,

forty-three-and-a-half million beyond that we have also invested on top of that.

So, that allows us to get extra revenues to allow flexibility to put into

programs, like in public health; in the promotion to prevention and educating

people; to put money into a school program this year; right and proper eating

down in schools; what food should be in schools. That is all part of our

strategy in health we are developing this year; and physical education in

schools. There are numerous areas for better health, better activity that is

channeled - there are initiatives in this year's Budget to deal with a lot of

those things, I guess, that are probably more appropriate to talk about under

some other piece of legislation. But, generally, it is a part of a money bill.

It has been the basis of a finance bill. There is revenue associated with it but

there is also, I think, positive effects on people's health as it starts to

increase because it does promote reduction in consumption. I think that is

important.

With that, Mr. Chair, I think I have covered the points that are in this

bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased today to stand and respond to the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board on Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

As the minister has stated, he claims the only tax in this Budget this year

is the increase in tobacco tax, but I think he is leaving out the fact that

there is another increase, and the other increase is the cost of registering a

property, a mortgage, from $25 to $100 as a minimum fee. He has not stated that

one.

Governments in the past, and I am sure this government, will agree that the

two most likely areas to collect taxes in any particular budget is the increase

of alcohol or cigarettes. It has been in our society forever, that people will

not object to those increases because only the people who wish to smoke or wish

to drink will actually be affected by this, so the societies in great numbers

will not be affected.

What I would say to the minister, he is saying that the tax imposed will be,

like in the case of cigarettes, point seventeen cents on every cigarette. That

is the increase, and he said himself it would be a cent, basically, per

cigarette, and two-and-a-half cents on roll-your-own. In the case of cigars, a

tax of 125 per cent of the manufacturer's suggested retail price on a cigar,

and the tax shall be rounded to the nearest one one-hundredth of a cent.

These prices are already in effect, so today it is after the fact that we are

talking about this piece of legislation. It already went into effect on March

22, the day after the Budget. The Budget was passed last night.

The minister said there will be approximately $9.6 million derived from the

increase of tobacco prices in this Province. That is a fair chunk of money, $10

million in new revenues coming from this area. We all know, it is a well-known

fact, that there has been a great increase in young smokers in our Province.

Anyone only has to look at the recent stats that came out from the Canadian

Cancer Society. Smoking, lung disease and heart disease are in the top three of

deadly diseases in our Province, and indeed all over the world, so, when you

look at the effects of what tobacco smoking does to our people, you can hardly

object today to tobacco prices being increased.

It was interesting as well that the minister said he is also - or the

Minister of Health and Community Services is also - bringing to this House, in

unison with this particular piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that

will ban smoking in bars and bingo halls. Of course, there is quite a delegation

that has come to government over the past six months that have their own

businesses, particularly those in bars and clubs and bingo halls and so on, that

have been working, I guess, with government to either stall or slow down this

legislation, but it appears today that this legislation will be passed before

this House closes for the spring.

The minister has already said, too, that in the bill that is going to come

before us from Health and Community Services - I think it is Bill 18, I am not

quite sure - that a lot of the measures in that particular bill will be

prevention.

I would be curious to see what the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board has decided to do with that extra $10 million that is going to be

derived from this particular revenue generator. He mentioned that there is going

to be a push to make sure that children in the schools have a better eating

program, and it was only in this particular last Budget, March 21, that the

provincial government decided to cut the annual donation to Kids Eat Smart. That

is a program for young people in schools all around the Northeast Avalon. It was

always funded to the tune of $500,000 per year, but this year government has

seen, in their wisdom, to cut that program to $250,000. These are the kinds of

questions I would like to ask the minister, why government decided to reduce

that Kids Eat Smart program, to cut it in half.

He also mentioned that there was extra money put in the health care budget

this year. We know that the extra money that came to Health and Community

Services this year were basically federal dollars. There was a health care

agreement that was signed in early fall by Premiers right across Canada, and

that resulted in roughly $36 million for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador to use towards its health care budget. There was another agreement

signed that would guarantee this government, over the next eight years, a

minimum of $70 million for new equipment, and the reason for this commitment

from the federal government to provincial governments across Canada was that all

governments made health care their number one priority.

There was a move afoot by the federal government to respond to the Romanow

Commission that took place all over this country about two years ago. One of the

recommendations that came out of that Commission was that we ought to do

something about waits for surgery, waits for treatment, and waits for diagnostic

imaging. All of these were important factors for people right across the

country. For that reason we can expect, as a provincial government right here in

this Province, that over the next eight years we can make up our budget every

year knowing that we will have at least an extra $70 million to put in our

health care budget designed for improvements, upkeep, and replacement of

equipment that is here in our health care facilities all over our Province. That

is a good move. I am sure it will put a lot of people at ease all over the

Province, knowing that our equipment is going to be up to standard. Although, in

recent days there have been questions raised about our mammography equipment in

various centres throughout the Province. There has been a bit of confusion as to

who is right and who is wrong with certifying and accrediting that equipment.

I think it is incumbent upon our Minister of Health and Community Services to

provide a list to women in this Province so that anyone going for mammography

screening will have a clear indication of which equipment is safe to use. We all

know women who have mammography screening can be involved in a high dose of

radiation, which is not good for anyone, particularly for those that are in

their reproductive stages. I know that women all over this Province want to know

how safe our equipment is. I believe that the Minister of Health and Community

Services, the acting minister, should seek to get that information out to the

general public as soon as possible because there are all kinds of people waiting

for tests. Most women, when they decide to have breast screening done, have to

wait probably anywhere from two months to six months. For those wanting to make

those decisions today, I think it is important for this government to make sure

that becomes a priority, and put at ease the concerns of women across our

Province.

It is interesting that, when you look in our Budget for this year, the

Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board has ready lowballed most

of the revenue that we are going to be getting from unsourced funds. When you

look at, for instance, the tobacco tax, last year there was $102 million in

revenue from tobacco tax, this year it is going to be $112 million. He is basing

it on the premise, I guess, that people are going to decrease their smoking

habits.

There is another one that is alarming that I would like to ask the minister

about when he come back into the House. Last year there were revenues of $105

million on sales of liquor and this year the minister is predicting that there

will be $99 million in revenues from the sale of liquor. Some of these are

lowballed when we know, in fact, that based on the increase alone, we can expect

more revenue to be generated from the sale of alcohol and tobacco in our

Province.

What I would say about this legislation is, it is straightforward. There is

nothing complicated or untoward with it. The minister has stated openly that he

is increased cigarettes one cent and two and a half cents on roll your own

tobacco. It is a measure, although he might say, to prevent smoking, it is also

a measure to generate new income for this Province.

What I would like the minister to tell this House and to tell me is what he

intends to do with this $10 million. There are all kinds of urgent priorities in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador that need this $10 million. I think of the

decrease in our teachers for this year coming up and the fact that a lot of

schools in rural Newfoundland and Labrador will be subjected to looking into a

computer monitor to get their social studies course, the core curriculum for

Grades 9, 10, 11 and 12. It would be important if the minister would take that

$10 million and put it back into education, so our children in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador would have a fighting chance to compete with children

all over Newfoundland and Labrador when they go on to post-secondary colleges

and universities. That is one suggestion for the minister.

I would like for the minister to consider taking that $10 million and putting

it into our roads in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. People are almost to the

point now where they are paying an enormous amount of money just for car repair,

just to get to and from larger centres for the basic services. These are just

two ideas, and there are all kinds of ideas to spend this extra $10 million.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problem with this particular piece of

legislation. In saying that, there were only a couple of questions that I would

like for the minister to ask. With that said, I will now take my seat.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to make a few comments on Bill 8, particularly as it relates to

other areas of issues within the Province as well. I want to say to the

minister, I acknowledge his comments on the increase in tobacco tax as one that,

hopefully, will discourage smoking and certainly cause people to have a second

look because of the cost of tobacco.

Mr. Chairman, the minister also made another important comment, that this was

a good, public health policy measure. I want to say to the minister, there are

other things in this Province that require good, public health policy matters as

well. When we talk about raising money, Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about

the money that would be raised from this. I also want to relate that to another,

what I would call, health issue in the Province, and that is the gambling monies

that come into this Province from the VLT machines throughout the Province.

I want to say to the minister, that his government, during the recent Budget,

talked about putting a freeze on the number of VLTs in the Province with a view

to reduce them by 15 per cent over the next five years. Mr. Chairman, that has

been circumvented by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation because what they have

done in recent weeks in this Province, is looked at the number of current VLTs

that probably contain a game called Keno. I would suspect that the VLTs which

contain that game will be part of the 15 per cent that will be removed.

Since then, Mr. Chairman, they found a way around this because, as we speak,

they are installing televisions free of charge to clubs in this Province and

they will be introducing a new gambling game called Electronic Keno in this

Province. I say to the minister, that is shameful! To say in the Budget that you

are concerned about gambling, that you are going to do something to address the

problem, and allow now a new form of gambling to come into this Province so that

not just one person will be able to play the game, but everybody in the club

will be able to play at the same time because there will be a draw continuously

every five minutes of the day and night. The minister should stand in his place

and condemn that action, and this Province should not take

part in that program.

Mr. Chairman, the Province of New Brunswick and the Province of Nova Scotia

have refused to allow Electronic Keno into their provinces. They have done that

for good reason, Mr. Chairman, because according to the experts that they took

advice from - and I doubt very much if our Province even consulted people in the

addiction field to find out and ask them their opinion on what that would do to

gambling and people with gambling addictions in this Province. Mr. Chairman, New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia said no to Electronic Keno in their provinces. One of

the experts in Nova Scotia made a submission to the provincial government and

stated that Electronic Keno is expected to increase the number of suicides by

problem gamblers in their province, by six or seven a year. That is a high price

to pay, I say to the minister, for a tax grab or money grab from Atlantic Lotto.

The other interesting thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the representatives for

our government, for our Province on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is the

Deputy Minister of Tourism and the Deputy Minister of Finance. Now, I do not

know what the relationship is there, Mr. Chairman. By having the Deputy Minister

of Tourism, you would honestly think that this is a fun thing, something that

people would come into the Province and play as a sort of form of recreation.

Well, it is far from that, Mr. Chairman, it is far from that. I would suggest to

government that maybe they should have the Deputy Minister of Health on that

committee. Someone who can look at new things that the Atlantic Lottery

Corporation want to bring in and someone who has a feel for what that will do to

the health of people in our Province. Mr. Chairman, this is a prey upon the

vulnerable in our society. We are all predisposed to some degree or another on

having addictions and the people who are predisposed to having gambling

addictions are the ones that governments prey upon to get as much money as they

can from them once they become addicted.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister needs to address this because it is

a bit hypocritical, I would say, to stand on Budget Day and say: We recognize

and we are concerned in this Province about problem gambling, and we are going

to do something about it. We are going to put in $750,000 of new money to

educate people on the problems of gambling and we are going to use some of that

money to treat people who are addicted to VLTs; at the same time, when they say

they are going to roll back the number by 15 per cent.

As I said earlier, it is very hypocritical. I want an answer from the

minister as to why, on one hand, he can say he is concerned, he can say that

they are going to freeze the number of VLTs, he can say that they are going to

roll back the number that presently exist, and on the other hand, Mr. Chairman,

they can allow a new form, just as addictive, according to experts in the field,

a new form of gambling to come into the Province, use it as a cash-grab on the

backs of the people who have problems and still feel comfortable about that.

There is something wrong with that, Mr. Chairman, something drastically wrong

and it should not be allowed to happen. The Province of New Brunswick and Nova

Scotia did the right thing. They said: No, this is not something that we want in

our province that will make life harder for people who live here and have

gambling addictions, who probably do not even know now that they have gambling

addictions.

The other thing the minister should be aware of and should be concerned about

as well is the effect that this will have on social organizations in our

Province, like Lions Clubs, Kinsmen Clubs, church groups and other groups that

run regular bingos, because I believe this will have a negative impact upon them

and their ability, through charities and fund-raising at a weekly bingo game,

that this will directly impact upon their ability to continue as they have in

the past. I think this will have a negative effect upon them and the minister

should be instructing our representatives on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to

say no to this. If you notice, there was no fanfare about this. This was done

under the cover of darkness. It was done without any PR whatsoever. Now,

downtown St. John's - I am not sure about others areas of the Province but I

know downtown St. John's, I have been told that these Keno machines are

already in operation and they are in operation in other parts of the city here

as well. There is no doubt, that will spread through the Province.

I think it shameful, after all of the facts, all of the evidence that we have

in this Province where people have lost their life savings, have lost their

families, have lost everything that they worked for, and sometimes, Mr.

Chairman, even their lives. For us to capitalize on the agony and anguish that

has been caused to families in this Province, and expand what is already a

serious problem is certainly something that this government should be ashamed

of, and they should instruct Atlantic Lotto to remove that game from this

Province because, in fact, we are trying - what the government should be saying

is that we are trying to curb the number of people who are addicted to gambling

in this Province and we certainly do not need games that can reach this number

of people at one time, to have that kind of misery inflicted, in addition to the

VLTs, to people who are suffering from addictions. All of the experts in the

field agree. They agree that these machines are equally as addictive as the VLTs.

Mr. Chairman, the Public Accounts Committee, which I have a copy of here from

the Government of Nova Scotia, the Public Accounts Committee that is made up of

all parties in the Legislature in Nova Scotia, had experts come in to talk with

them about the effects that this may very well have.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the concerns that were raised by the experts

are very, very alarming, and I think that this minister should instruct the

Atlantic Lottery Corporation that this is not something we need in this

Province. We survived quite well without relying and being addicted to gambling

revenues for many, many years. We have new money coming into the Province today

and it is not good enough, I say to the minister, that monies should be raised

through this method. Not only are we raising money but we are indeed trying to

further the gambling industry so that the Province can rake in more money than

they are already collecting from people, because the most money that is

collected from gambling revenues are collected from problem gamblers. It is not

people going out for a night and putting some money in a machine, and doing that

once or twice a week. That is not where most of the profits come from. It comes

from people who have problems, who are destroying themselves and their families.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I think that is totally shameful and I think the

minister has to be answerable for that because - I am not sure if he presently

is, but I do know, from looking at the Board of Directors of the Atlantic

Lottery Corporation - the Deputy Minister of Finance is indeed a person who sits

on that committee, along with the Deputy Minister of Tourism. Again, Mr.

Chairman, I say that maybe the Deputy Minister of Health should be a member of

that committee so that he can relate to the problems that are being caused.

I say again, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to look at new directions for

public health policies in this Province, gambling is certainly one of the things

that needs to be looked at and needs to be curbed, not expanded as the Atlantic

Lottery Corporation is doing at the present time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Labrador West that his speaking time has

expired.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did have a few other things to say, but I will certainly have an

opportunity to do that later.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words on this legislation,

An Act To Amend The

Tobacco Tax Act, by increasing tax on tobacco to raise an additional $9.6

million. In doing so, I want to thank and congratulate the Member for Labrador

West in raising, again today, as he has done in the past, the issue of the

problems with the gambling industry that this government and the previous

government have been participating in, in a very large way, proposing to raise,

for example, this year $114.5 million.

I want to tie the two together because I think they are related here. We have

the Minister of Health, who also happens to be the Minister of Finance - he is

the Acting Minister of Health - talking about this not as a revenue measure,

although he says it is going to be $9.6 million, but he is saying the real

purpose behind this is to increase the deterrence for smokers and to decrease

consumption. These are commendable objectives, and those objectives I support

wholeheartedly, but I want to ask him whether or not the $9.6 million is going

to be added to the campaign against smoking, is going to be used to convince

young people not to start, is going to be part of a don't start smoking

campaign in our high schools and our elementary schools, is going to be used to

assist people who are smoking to be able to get access to the patch.

Mr. Chairman, I hear stories of people who want to get medications to stop

smoking, and are on social assistance and cannot get access to the patch because

the department of social services says: Go buy it out of your allowance. They

will not give them additional monies to pay for anti-smoking measures.

Why doesn't the Minister of Health, who happens to be the Minister of

Finance, say that should be available to anybody in the Province who cannot

afford that treatment? Because it does cost money, Mr. Chairman, whether it is

the patch, Nicorette, or whatever other anti-smoking campaign or programs are

available. They should be available through a government program and some of

that, or all of that, $9.6 million - if he is not interested in the revenue, Mr.

Chairman, he should be turning around and using that extra $9.6 million to, in

fact, further decrease the consumption of tobacco by assisting people to quit,

by having an effective anti-smoking campaign in the schools, and by continuing

to support, and increase the support, for such groups as the Alliance for the

Control of Tobacco.

Mr. Chairman, I know there are other measures that this government is going

to undertake this year that are going to assist in decreasing the consequences

of second-hand smoke, and I look forward to debating those in this House, but we

do have an extra $9.6 million as a result of this measure that could be used to

act as a deterrent in this regard.

While we are at it, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is concerned about

decreasing the amount of tobacco being consumed in the Province because of its

addictive nature, because of its health consequences, then surely we should also

see some equally strong measures to deter and to help those who are addicted to

gambling. This is where my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, is coming

from when he says that this government, instead of doing that, in fact, is

allowing one of its Crown corporations, or partly a Crown corporation - we own a

part of it; we own a quarter of it, or whatever share of it we own - the

Atlantic Lottery Corporation is actively pursuing and exploiting problem

gamblers in Newfoundland and Labrador. I say that, Mr. Chairman, because I

understand the studies that have been done show that almost 40 per cent of the

revenue - these are studies done in Alberta, in Ontario and in Nova Scotia - of

the gambling corporations actually come from between 6 per cent and 7 per cent

of the gamblers, the gambling population, and this is the same percentage, Mr.

Chairman, that are categorized as problem gamblers, those who have an addiction.

These people spend between $7,000 and $10,000 per year on gambling, Mr.

Chairman, at great cost to their bank accounts and to their families. That is

only an average, so obviously some people are doing even more.

Other statistics, Mr. Chairman, which show how bad this problem is, indicate

that, in fact, gambling among both higher income and lower income households is

on the rise. It is increasing, Mr. Chairman, and the security of families is at

risk as a result of it. The real victims, according to a study - and this is a

study done by a professor at Saint Mary's University in Nova Scotia, Dr. John

MacMullen - the real victims, according to this study, are those from lower

income earner categories, less educated, and elderly citizens.

Now we have the victims of this gambling addiction that the individuals have

and the governments have, are in fact people who are less educated, people who

are elderly, people who are lower income residents of these provinces. So, Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister of Finance wants to identify a social problem that

needs to be fixed, then problem gamblers is where he should be placing some of

his effort, and if he is collecting additional revenue here maybe he should be

finding ways of reducing his revenues from gambling. Instead, we see pretty well

a flat estimate, $117 million to $114 million, down by $3 million. I do not know

why that was suggested, because there has been no real effect of reducing the

number of machines in the Province as a result of the policy, not until the end

of this year.

There are ways that can be undertaken to, in fact, decrease the amount of

money lost, even by addicts, in gambling. There are ways of doing it, Mr.

Chairman, that could provide some kind of deterrence, that could provide

protection for players. There are five that are identified in Dr. MacMullen's

study. He talks about player protection measures. He talks about sequestration

practices. That means, obviously, making it harder to get at some of those

machines. Consumer awareness, that means advertising of the dangers. Advertising

controls; instead of allowing Atlantic Lottery Corporation out there encouraging

people to gamble, there should be some sort of control on that; and,

precautionary prevention.

These kinds of measures could assist in decreasing the number of people

gambling. Actually, the controls that could be placed on these machines, in

fact, are being used to do the opposite. Instead of discouraging people from

gambling, in fact, these machines are programmed to encourage the people to

gamble, to encourage people, who are problem gamblers, to keep spending their

money and losing their money. Until the Atlantic Lottery Corporation starts

introducing measure that are going to protect problem gamblers - there are lots

of ways to doing it; there are lots of experts who could do it - what we have,

really, is the exploitation - these are Dr. MacMullen's words - the

exploitation of vulnerable consumers, or vulnerable customers he calls them, not

consumers; the exploitation of vulnerable customers.

That is what the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is doing with the full support

of this government, Mr. Chairman, who are raking in the revenues to the tune of

$114 million this year, $114 million of people's money, 40 per cent of which

comes from problem gamblers. Now, if that is the kind of revenue that this

Province wants to run its programs on, then I cannot support that. There has to

be some accountability here, and I am looking to this Minister of Finance to

stand in his place and respond to these concerns, because these are real

concerns that ordinary, everyday people in this Province are facing every day

because they are faced with the loss of income, they are faced with the loss of

their bank accounts, they are faced with desperate financial circumstances

because they have fallen victim to the gambling machines and the addiction that

results, or problem gamblers that result.

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Finance - and I have lots of respect for the

Minister of Finance. He stood in his place earlier and talked about the

importance of reducing the amount in the consumption of tobacco, a very laudable

goal, but they should be equally attentive and equally aggressive in trying to

reduce the number of people who are losing their bank accounts, who are losing

their homes, in some cases, as my friend from Labrador West has pointed out,

losing their very lives because they cannot face the prospect of having to deal

with the fact that they have lost all of their money and are now desperate and

have been failures.

My friend from Labrador West has read into the record of this House a letter

that was found after a young woman from Corner Brook had, in fact, killed

herself because she could not face the consequences of having lost so much money

as a problem gambler. This is a very real, a very important, a very cogent

social problem in our Province today, and the victims of this are, for the most

part, lower income earners, less educated people, and elderly citizens.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I ask the Minister of Finance and Minister of Health to

address those concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

If the hon. minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We are in Committee, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Chair apologizes. The minister will not be closing debate. We

are in Committee.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the questions on this bill, I would assume he is talking about the

Tobacco Tax bill, would that be correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, because the questions pertaining to the bill -

anything pertaining to the bill are very straightforward. We increased -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did not take it as being within the context of this

bill I mentioned. We increased cigarettes by one cent; fine cut tobacco by five

cents a gram. We did not change it on cigars. That is what it went up. The

revenue from that is $6.4 million, I think I said to the member earlier. Based

on cigarettes, it is three point two on that. Now, it is a part of our strategy,

of our whole wellness strategy, our cessation program with smoking. It is one of

the initiatives. It is not revenue based on that but we have indicated it is a

part of the whole health plan and we followed through in health with significant

areas in it, too. But, as to the bill, on its initiative, it is very

straightforward. It is a finance - the context of this bill is a revenue thing.

I give notice on a smoking and aspect bill and banning it and all the aspects of

it. I certainly do not mind some questions, but the questions - I took them to

be - were outside the context of this bill. If he has questions on that I will

either answer them or I will defer them to an appropriate time when I can answer

them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know the minister was not able to pay full attention to my remarks when I

spoke, so I will just repeat some of the things that I said and ask him direct

questions.

I was praising the minister for his motives in reducing the amount of

consumption for smoking and praising him for the fact that even though he is the

Minister of Finance, he does not really need the money. He is not doing it for

financial reasons. So, the question was: Is he spending the $9.6 million that he

is going to get on further reduction of consumption by supporting a major

program, an additional major program to convince young people not to smoke in

the first place? Is he putting the money into ensuring that anybody, for

example, who is in receipt of income support has access to non-smoking programs

or smoking cessation programs?

We hear stories all the time about people not being able to get access to the

patch or not being able to get non-smoking programs because they do not have the

money. They are being told by social workers to spend your income support money

on it or spend the money you are saving on cigarettes, all of those kinds of

answers being given, and the minister is picking up an additional $9.6 million.

Is he prepared to use that money - since he does not want the money. He is

saying he does not want the money. He is doing it for higher motives, and these

motives I agree with.

I am asking him: Is he using that additional money to provide for more

non-smoking campaigns, greater advertising campaigns, further support for the

Alliance for the Control of Tobacco?

This is in addition to the legislation. I have no problem with the

legislation. I welcome the new legislation on second-hand smoke in bars and all

of that. I am just saying, in terms of the money, if you have the $9.6 million,

are we going to see an additional $9.6 million worth of activity in helping

people to stop smoking, in convincing the public, the children, not to start, et

cetera, or is he going to keep the revenue anyway, even though his aim is

actually to deter people from smoking?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance, and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did not say we do not want the revenue. I want to clarify that point. I did

not say we do not want the revenue. We get income tax. We get HST. We get

tobacco tax. We get numerous taxes. I did not say government does not want the

revenue. What we will use it for, and what we have done in this Budget - I will

say to the member, we have used $53.5 million, new money into health, over and

above the $59.5 million that channelled through this year in federal programs.

Out of that $53.5 million new dollars, $23.2 million in total - $23.2 million is

out of the $59.5 million, actually.

We have used money to put into programs; $2.4 million into public health.

Wellness strategies, part of the promotion of proper health. Food in schools for

example, the healthy foods in school program. We have looked at the prevention

of certain asbestos injurious to your healt