December 5, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 27

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with regret today that I rise to inform the House that the North Coast of Labrador has lost one of its most

respected elders and one of its beloved sons. Uncle George Sheppard, at the age of ninety-one, passed away in the

community of Postville yesterday.

Uncle George was a man who fished for sixty-six years. He was also a trapper. He was a leader in his community;

and at times when we felt that the fair share of wealth did not come our way he was always one to say that there

were people who were worse off than we were.

Perhaps one of the most amazing things of his career was at the age of eighty-three years old, he walked thirty-five

miles in snowshoes from Postville to Makkovik and raised $5,000 for the Janeway.

Mr. Speaker, as we go through some difficult times on the North Coast I am sure that all of us can draw strength

and courage from Uncle George. Certainly, I am honoured and humbled to have had, and known, such a friend as Uncle

George Sheppard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, society has long been aware of the health risks associated with smoking. There is irrefutable evidence

to link smoking with heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, cancer and a host of other health-related problems.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's ministerial statement - there is an opportunity in the introduction of a bill to give an introduction

by the minister on a specific bill that is on the Order Paper before this House, and the ministerial statement

is not the time to do that and use up valuable time of the House. There is an opportunity; it is on the Order Paper.

When the bill is introduced I will be delighted to hear what the minister has to say. I have looked through the

bill and certainly support an issue that is there, but this is not the proper time to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair certainly does not know what is in a bill and certainly does not know what the hon. minister is going

to present here today. I am sure that we have had, in the past, ministerial statements dealing with issues that

are on the Order Paper and in the House.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, society has long been aware of the health risks associated with smoking. There is irrefutable

evidence to link smoking with heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, cancer and a host of other health-related

problems.

According to the National Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health, smoking kills nearly 1,000 people in Newfoundland

and Labrador every year, claiming more lives than all other cases of preventable death combined. About eighty of

those deaths can be attributed to second-hand smoke.

It is clearly evident that individuals often start smoking in their youth - and then have tremendous difficulty

breaking free from this destructive habit.

In recent years there has also been a greater understanding of the negative effects of second-hand smoke on the

health of the population generally - particularly our children, who often have no choice but to be exposed to this

danger.

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, government passed the Tobacco Control Act and the Smoke-free Environment Act. These pieces

of legislation were designed to reduce or eliminate smoking in a variety of public facilities and limit young people's

access to tobacco products.

These legislative initiatives, coupled with ongoing campaigns to educate the population about the dangers of smoking,

have had a positive effect. However, many young people continue to gain access to tobacco products and many restaurant

patrons and others are still being exposed to second-hand smoke against their wishes.

In recognition of our responsibility to protect our citizens from the risks associated with second-hand smoke,

and to discourage our young people from acquiring this dangerous habit, I am introducing, on behalf of government

today, legislation that would amend both the Tobacco Control Act and the Smoke-free Environment Act.

With respect to the Tobacco Control Act, government is proposing the following: to provide for an eventual ban

on the sale of tobacco products and tobacco accessories from pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador; to require

photo identification of any person actually or apparently 19 years of age who wishes to purchase tobacco or tobacco

products; to include convictions under the federal Tobacco Act as prior convictions when considering the judicial

consequences of violations to the provincial Tobacco Control Act; and finally, to amend passages of the Tobacco

Control Act to provide greater clarity as to the intent of the provisions.

As indicated, Mr. Speaker, I will go into more detail when the bill is actually introduced and we will have a full

debate.

With respect to the Smoke-free Environment Act, we are proposing: to provide for a complete ban on smoking in restaurants

and other public places frequented by children, to become effective January 1, 2002; and also, to increase the

enforcement option available to inspectors by providing them with the ability to issue provincial offence tickets

to violators of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, these proposed amendments are supported by the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, whose more than

fifty members include the Lung Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Newfoundland

and Labrador Medical Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Health Boards Association of Newfoundland

and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmaceutical Association, the Association of Registered Nurses of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Faculties of Medicine and Nursing at Memorial University, and many other groups.

After consultations with the community at large, we also believe these amendments are supported by the vast majority

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, we believe our children have a right to enjoy a smoke-free environment during the critical years of

their development. In fact, we believe all our citizens deserve to be protected as much as possible from the negative

effects of smoking. I am proud to bring forward these legislative amendments on behalf of government, which are

the latest in a series of initiatives designed to reduced the negative effects of smoking and provide for a healthy

environment for all Newfoundlander and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My caucus and I will support any initiatives that will improve the health of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We have seen and looked at the bill that was circulated here yesterday. I will put forth my particular comments

at the appropriate time, when the bill is circulated here and our members have it, and when we have the debate

in the House under the appropriate readings to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The changes to be made to the Tobacco Control Act and the Smoke-Free Environment Act are in some detail, but in

general I want to be on record as saying we support the measures to control the tobacco environment, particularly

with respect to second-hand smoke.

I am a little concerned that government has chosen to delay the implementation of the smoke-free environment for

public places frequented by children to January 1, 2002, instead of May 1, 2001, as recommended by the Alliance

for the Control of Tobacco. The minister says eighty deaths are attributable per year to secondhand smoke. Is he

saying that we can allow this to go on for a year from January 1, rather than implementing this right away?

When the Tobacco Control Act was brought in, in 1994, we supported that legislation and, in fact, at that time

felt that it did not go far enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: We ask the minister to reconsider the implementation date and move it to May 1, as suggested.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today with regard to the introduction of the Province's new Health

Care Cost Recovery Act. Every year over 45,000 Canadians die -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order with respect to the nature of Ministerial Statements, and in particular this statement.

I know this issue has been raised previously by my colleague, the House Leader, and yesterday by the Leader of

the Opposition. This statement clearly states that the minister is rising to introduce the Province's new Health

Care Cost Recovery Act. It is certainly the practice of this Legislature, and I feel certain in saying almost any

Legislature in the country, that when a piece of legislation is introduced it is the obligation and the duty of

the minister who sponsors that piece of legislation to, in fact, appropriately introduce it and speak to it at

that time. It raises a question, once again, about the whole nature of what is taking place in Ministerial Statements

in this House.

Yesterday, we were almost ninety minutes in this Chamber dealing with the issue of Ministerial Statements. I refer

again, if I just may, very briefly, to rule 348 and rule 350. Under §348, it states, "Under Standing

Order 33(1) Ministers may make a short factual announcement or statement of Government policy...". Under §350,

it states, "The Speaker has emphasized that both the Government and Opposition contributions should be brief

and factual."

What we saw yesterday was abuse of these privileges.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: His Honour indicated yesterday that we have no rules under our Standing Orders; however, it is

my understanding that, in the absence of such rules, we adopt the principles and the procedures and the recommendations

as found in Beauchesne's rules, as found in Sir Erskine May, for example; what are the practices and the precedents

already established in our own House of Commons in Ottawa. These are the practices, I would respectively submit,

that ought to be taken into account in the absence of our own rules.

I would ask that His Honor give this issue serious and due consideration, take the matter under advisement and

give all of us, as legislators, the opportunity of knowing forthwith what the rules and procedures are in this

House with respect to ministers standing up, wasting the people's time, and giving information which is untimely

and inappropriate under the circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there is no wasting of time when we are talking about matters -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be given the courtesy of being heard. A member is entitled to be heard,

and to be heard in silence in this House at all times.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no substance to what the hon. members are saying. Probably the only

point worth commenting on is that it should be brief and it should be factual. Again, the tradition of this House

- I can tell hon. members that what happened yesterday is not long by comparison to some of the Ministerial Statements

that I sat under in this House many times.

Mr. Speaker, the tradition is there for long statements but I, personally, do not subscribe to that. I believe

that the statements should be reasonably brief, that they should be factual, and this is what the hon. ministers

are doing today. They are factual and they are relating to policy, policy that the government intends to pursue.

Mr. Speaker, outside of that there are nor restrictions, no limitations, placed on Ministerial Statements. I would

suggest that they are all in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just to clarify what the Chair had said yesterday when this point of order was raised, the Chair indicated that

while we do not have anything specific in our Standing Orders, if we don't have that, then, of course, we go to

precedent. The precedent in this House, since I have been here, is that ministers have made Ministerial Statements

which have been fairly lengthy on occasion, and on other occasions they have been very, very short. As well, of

course, many, many times the statements have dealt with policy and dealt with legislation that has been before

the House.

The Chair rules that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Every year over 45,000 Canadians die as a result of tobacco related illness. In Newfoundland and Labrador alone,

two people die every day as a result of illness caused by smoking. Government has incurred health care costs on

behalf of thousands of individuals.

The negative effects of tobacco products on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have placed a great financial burden

on government in the provision of health care for people who have suffered illnesses due to tobacco use. Initial

estimates indicate that tens of thousands of dollars are spent in this Province each year to treat people who have

become ill due to smoking cigarettes. Government believes these costs should be borne by the tobacco industry.

Due to the insurmountable difficulty of proceeding with thousands of individual court claims, the proposed Tobacco

Health Care Cost Recovery Act will provide an alternative method of claiming reimbursement of those costs. The

bill will allow government to take direct legal action, on its own behalf, against the tobacco companies for the

recovery of tobacco related health care costs.

The Province will issue a statement of claim for the purpose of seeking the recovery of health care costs from

the tobacco companies. The bill, once it becomes law, will facilitate government's court action.

Newfoundland and Labrador has also entered into a collaboration agreement with British Columbia to share legal

research and other information related to potential claims against tobacco companies. We are also encouraging other

provinces to take legal action, and several have shown interest in what this Province and the Province of British

Columbia are doing.

The government will also work with experts from Health Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society and Physicians for a

Smoke-Free Canada in preparing this action.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States, tobacco companies have paid state governments in excess of $240 billion as a

result of legal actions commenced by state governments to recover health care costs from these companies. It is

time that the tobacco companies assumed their obligations to Canadian provinces, including our own, for the costs

incurred by the health care system in treating tobacco related illnesses.

With the introduction of this bill, the tobacco companies will be put on notice that this Province will be seeking

reimbursement for amounts expended by the health care system for treating illness which is the result of tobacco

use. It is with this sense of purpose that I bring this legislation forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will be happy to participate in debate at the appropriate time and to adequately make a response on this side

of the House when this particular piece of legislation is appropriately introduced, as it should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only encourage the government to proceed quickly with this particular initiative. Other jurisdictions have

taken some missteps, particularly Ontario, with an ill-conceived action in the United States and some problems

with the B.C. legislation, so I am glad to see that government is working with the Province of British Columbia

and I hope we can move forward quickly on this. I look forward to a debate on the bill in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure to stand before the House today to update hon. members on the progress of a business that

is establishing a new operation in our Province.

One of the focuses of my Department of Industry, Trade and Technology is investment attraction and we work with

companies from around the world to show them the business advantages of operating in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We promote our highly skilled and very loyal workforce, our strategic location as a gateway between the rest of

North America and Europe, and our cost-competitive location, among other things.

These and other factors were recognized by an international company that has its North American corporate office

in Vancouver. That company is Hospitality Marketing Concepts, and I am pleased to inform hon. members that it is

opening a customer contact centre in Gander, which will create 200 new full- and part-time jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: In addition to these immediate benefits, I am sure that there will also be many economic spinoffs in

Gander and the area.

The company plans to be operating by January of next year, and will hold its grand opening in Gander at that time.

Hospitality Marketing Concepts operates fourteen customer service centres throughout the United States; the one

opening in Gander will be the seventh and largest one in Canada. The company was formed in 1988 and is a leading

provider of club membership programs for prestigious hotels and other businesses in international and domestic

markets.

Mr. Speaker, this company operates in a fast growing, job intensive industry, and one in which we must compete

with many other jurisdictions.

The incentive package we negotiated with the company is competitive with those offered in other areas. The provincial

incentives will be in the form of a wage rebate on gross payroll, which will be up to a maximum of $250,000.

The incentives will come into effect only after the jobs have been created and verified and employees have been

paid.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: We have negotiated a fair deal for the Province - one that will benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

through job creation and other economic spinoffs.

I would like to conclude by acknowledging the support of several groups and individuals that made this happen.

First of all, I would like to recognize the excellent work of NETWORK Newfoundland and Labrador, a private/public

partnership between the provincial government and NewTel which has been very successful in the five years it has

been working to attract customer contact centres to our Province. In addition, many other groups and individuals

have played a major role in making this happen, including the economic development department of the Town of Gander,

the Human Resources Development Canada office in Gander, Mr. Dave Dyer of Resource Development Associates and,

of course, my own staff.

This announcement signifies a strong partnership of people working together to create opportunities, and to achieve

success.

I am sure that this company will be pleased with its decision to locate in Central Newfoundland. With our friendly

and qualified people, our strategic location and many other advantages, we have proven that Newfoundland and Labrador

is an excellent place in which to do business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, prior to coming to the House.

It is always good to see companies set up here in this Province. We do have a qualified workforce; we do have tremendous

things to offer in this Province. I would like to give my stamp of approval to any company who sets up here, but

prior to doing that we want to see this company last, we want to see this company do well here before we give it

our final stamp of approval. We have seen many companies being brought here by the provincial government, some

of them did quite well, some of them did not. We do not have to mention any names. We do not have to look too far

into the past to see which companies did or did not do well.

It did not say here whether or not the companies received EDGE status. That is something I would have liked to

have seen in the ministerial statement, whether or not this company did receive EDGE status; because many of the

companies that have been brought here, lured to the Province, have received EDGE status.

Again, we applaud any initiative by government to bring a company to this Province, to employ people here locally,

and to give economic spinoffs. We will await giving final approval, and our final stamp of approval and applause

to this company to see how well it does here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased to see that the community of Gander, its residents, and areas will potentially have some

employment in the community as a result of this project. We hope - recognizing that the minister was equally enthusiastic

some months ago in promoting another call centre in St. John's - that they have done a thorough job of checking

out companies who are receiving these subsidies.

I would add one concern, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the attraction to Newfoundland is not one of those attractions

that is promoted by Industry Canada on its website on call centres which notes the attractions for Newfoundland

and Labrador as having the lowest minimum wage in Canada. The new industry minister's website has this on it as

an attraction to come to Newfoundland. I hope that is not reflected in the wages that this company intends to pay

in this Province.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, at this time, to acknowledge the White Ribbon Campaign, an annual event which has spread across Canada,

the United States, Australia, Europe and Central America, as a symbol of opposition to men's violence against women.

The campaign which began on November 25, concludes tomorrow on the 11th anniversary of the massacre of fourteen

women at Montreal's École Polytechnique.

I am wearing a white ribbon as a personal pledge that I will not commit, condone or remain silent about violence

against women. I am also encouraging all members of this House to make this same commitment. Female members are

encouraged to wear purple ribbons, which is the colour normally designated for anti-violence.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to working with communities to eliminate violence. A vision

that will see the people of this Province living in safe, caring communities where there is an inherent respect

for each other, and where violence is unacceptable.

While the White Ribbon Campaign remains dedicated to reaching men and boys with a message of non-violence, it also

continues to encourage fundraising for women's shelters, rape crisis centres and transition houses.

I am please to support and commend the White Ribbon Campaign and reaffirm government's commitment to addressing

violence.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important issue and an important statement. What the minister is saying is reflected, perhaps on a daily

basis, in our court system more and more where - in our courts, certainly in this Province, and in particular in

our provincial courts, judges treat this issue very seriously. They treat these allegations very seriously. In

almost all cases, as far as I understand, the courts usually call upon what is known as a victim impact statement,

so that the seriousness of the allegations can be brought forward in a very public way. It is an important issue

and I think it requires the attention that the minister has given it, but I would just go one small step further.

It is okay to recognize the fact that fundraising is important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - but government must also show a commitment in real dollars and cents and resources for these

shelters, rape crisis centres and transition houses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few short seconds; I will say that I support the White Ribbon Campaign but it requires action, not just

words. We have an abysmally low conviction rate for sexual assault in this Province and we have twice the national

reporting average, yet we are the only Province who does not have a fully-funded centre to do crisis and intervention

work.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in the area of awareness, I want to bring to the attention of members of the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

- a flyer being distributed by Piper's Department Store which has on its advertising: For the child in us - assault

rifles with sparkling lights and realistic sound, an M-16 on sale for $2.99; along with a lot of other toys, mostly

guns. To indicate that this is for the child in us, that we should have an M-16 assault rifle - the very weapon,

I think, that was used in Montreal on December 6, 1989. This is being distributed in our Province today by a department

store.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, today we join with others throughout the world in officially launching the International

Year of the Volunteer, as declared by the United Nations' General Assembly. The International Year of the Volunteer

will provide a unique opportunity to highlight the achievements of millions of volunteers worldwide and to encourage

more people globally to become volunteers.

I am pleased to inform you that I will join with volunteers from throughout the Province and the country at an

event this evening, hosted by the Community Services Council, Volunteer Canada and the provincial government, to

officially declare 2001 as International Year of the Volunteer.

Mr. Speaker, as Lead Minister for the Province's Strategic Social Plan, I am pleased to have the opportunity to

acknowledge and pay tribute to the contributions of volunteers and the voluntary sector that form such an important

part of the social and economic fabric of the Province. The Strategic Social Plan grew out of extensive consultations

with the people of this Province,

many of whom were volunteers, and who continue today to work toward making the vision, values and goal of the Strategic

Social Plan a reality at the community level.

Mr. Speaker, community service agencies, municipal governments, school boards and school councils, the boards of

health, regional development boards, and a host of other organizations, both formal and informal, comprise the

volunteer base of our Province. There has always been, and there will continue to be, a need for our voluntary

sector; therefore, I am also pleased to announce that the Province has taken steps to officially recognize the

contribution of volunteers by striking a Volunteer Service Medal. A selection committee will choose the recipient

each year beginning in 2001.

I am pleased to announce the members of the Volunteer Service Medal Selection Committee. They are: Wayne Trask,

Chair; Hon. Justice W. Mahoney; Joan Pinsent from Stephenville; George Saunders from Bishop's Falls; Isabel Watts

from North West River; Dr. Axel Meisen, President of Memorial University; and Gary Norris, Clerk of the Executive

Council.

In keeping with the themes of the Strategic Social Plan of educating, planning and building community capacity,

I am also pleased to announce that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be allocating $100,000 to the

Community Services Council to support a range of initiatives throughout 2001 to celebrate locally, throughout all

of our Province, the many volunteers in our Province, and to further promote volunteerism.

I know that I have the support of my hon. colleagues in extending to all volunteers in the Province a sincere thank

you for a job well done!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement in advance. I, too, would like to extend

a sincere thank you to the many volunteers throughout the Province. It is a wonderful idea to be striking the Volunteer

Service Medal in recognition of them.

We have people, as the minister mentioned, throughout the Province who are volunteers, such as in the volunteer

fire departments throughout our municipalities. We have people who work as volunteers throughout the health care,

in community services organizations and crisis centers. At this time of the year we have a multitude of people

who are working in food banks. Especially this year, from what I am hearing from the people at the food bank, the

demand is exceptionally high. I would like to sincerely thank those people who provide food to people who, with

the high cost of home heating fuel, have to now make the choice whether they will buy fuel or buy food.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, applaud any initiative that is undertaken to acknowledge the efforts and the worthwhile cause of volunteers

as they contribute to the communities in which we live.

In addition to the ones that are highlighted there, of course, we also have many volunteers taking

part in sports

for young people, which contributes significantly to their physical and mental well-being. I think they have to

be acknowledged as well.

In addition, of course, there are many other areas in the Province where people volunteer out of necessity, sometimes

in organizations that should be funded by government rather than being performed by volunteers in areas such as

crisis shelters. While we acknowledge that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: I think it is important to acknowledge volunteers in any way we can.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. In recent weeks he has talked about how he would reintroduced

a child advocate, would not close any more hospital beds, committed to more open and accountable government, and

more transparency. I will give him a chance again today to put his words into action on the floor of the people's

House of Assembly.

The people of the Province want to know, Minister, about the agreements that you, the former minister, signed with

Hydro-Quebec, namely the Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract, the shareholders agreement, and the agreement

on the sale of 130 megawatts of recall power. You indicated in your Ministerial Statement yesterday that you have

requested CF(L)Co's Board of Directors to release it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He had the statement. I do not believe you did; I think he did.

You were going to request CF(L)Co's Board of Directors to release it. We have on record the CEO of Hydro saying:

These agreements will never - and I repeat - will never be released.

The question for you is: These people work for you. The shareholders of the company are the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. Stop hiding behind Hydro. Why won't you release those documents today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. First of all, I will correct him. The Chairman of Hydro and the Board

of Directors do not work for me. They work for the people of the Province of Newfoundland. They are appointed by

the people's representatives and they have the responsibility to properly manage the affairs of the company for

the benefit of the people of the Province.

Hydro, the same as any other utility in North America, in all businesses, follows a practice of not making commercial

documents public, and that is for a very good and valid reason. In the utility industry, if those documents are

generally made public, then they form a basis or a floor for other negotiations that the utility may enter into.

In this case we have asked them to consider whether or not it is appropriate, if there is no persisting commercial

reason at this time, to consider releasing them. The Hydro board is meeting on Friday, I am advised, for its regular

meeting, and will, in fact, consider that issue.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is unbelievable. The former Premier indicated that all agreements would be released in a timely

fashion for everyone to see. In Hydro's 1999 annual report, here is what it says: Those agreements changed the

nature of the relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, with respect to CF(L)Co, from

the majority and minority shareholders respectively to that of joint venturers, whereby Hydro-Quebec now has veto

power to directors, has veto power over the majority of the board; but the minister, on the August 30, said: No,

that is not so.

How are we to know, Minister, who is telling the truth: the annual report of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or

you, if you do not table those agreements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should indicate to the House, if he wants to talk about truth, that the

word veto is not in the Hydro statements. What you are dealing with is a member who does not understand the meaning

of the word veto. A veto is an unfettered right of an individual to either give or withhold consent. There is no

veto given.

What has been agreed to is that all of the directors, including one from each of Hydro-Quebec and Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, will have a say in what the decisions are in certain matters. Most of those rights already

exist at law in either the

Canada Business Corporations Act - there is a specific by-law 23 of the company,

section

20, which sets out a whole series of issues on which the concurrence of either two-thirds or three-quarters of

the majority of directors has to be obtained, which necessitates the consent of Hydro-Quebec which owns more than

two-thirds of those shares. Finally, there is common law or judge-made law,

interpretations which say that the

majority owner of a company does not have the right to dispossess a substantial minority shareholder of certain

rights and interests in the operations and distribution of funds of the company.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, what is negotiated in the current agreements is not only the fact that Hydro-Quebec

and Newfoundland Hydro have a say, but also that the right to have a say is fettered by their obligation to act

in the best interest of CF(L)Co and, secondly, that they have to maintain the assets of the corporation in good

and substantial repair in accordance with common industry practice.

There is no unlimited veto right, and the Opposition member should apologize for using an incorrect term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What is patently and apparently and blatantly transparent is your unwillingness to give the people

of this Province the facts of the matter, tabling the agreements which they deserve. You have no right to deny

them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this. In his statement yesterday - this will tell you the type of spin of information

that this crowd here are trying to put on us. Here is what he said yesterday with respect to the Guaranteed Winter

Availability Contract. He says: In addition, the resale of - the Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract will bring

$1 billion into the Province's revenues.

Now, let's get to the truth. Is it not true, Minister, that agreement expires next year? Isn't it also true that

you have no other customer, that you have to renegotiate with Quebec for the remainder of that; and, in fact, isn't

it true that you are counting money that you do not already have?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is right in the fact that the agreement expires in March -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: - but he is wrong in terms of the benefits that flow to the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Most people of the Province recognize that the greatest detriment to Newfoundland and Labrador in the

agreements that were entered into back in the 1960s and 1970s, was a fact that it was a long-term contract taking

us out, in fact, to the year 2041. What this government did was to say that we would not enter into a long-term

contract for the sale of the 130 megawatts of recall power.

There are good and valid reasons for this. We wanted a three-year term, first of all, so that the power could be

recalled for use in Labrador, if it were necessary, and, secondly, because markets change.

I can assure the hon. member that in the second term of this sale of power we will, in fact, realize more money

than we did in the first three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has come forward. Then his statement yesterday, saying we will

get an additional $1 billion, is not true, because it is not already there. They only have an agreement up until

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, the minister has made a big deal about how much money we will get out of the winter availability

contract. Let me ask him this today: Isn't it true that this year on winter availability, the recall of power,

we will not get back as much money because the equipment, some of the transformers and the cable itself, is down,

and the downtime will ensure that what you have projected we will get this year we will, in fact, not get? Can

you confirm that for me today?

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

MR. DICKS: What I will confirm to the hon. member is what everyone in this Province knows. Despite all the efforts

of his predecessors, the Tory government, not a single extra nickel came to the Province as a result of their expenditures

on two unsuccessful court cases -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: - on blowing two holes on either side of the St. Lawrence back in 1975, prior to an election. What this

government has done -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: If he should like, I would be delighted to table a news release indicating that the members of this

House spent and approved spending of $51.7 million for the project at Gull Island, with some dissension at first

that was eventually approved by his predecessors in this House.

Clearly, the issue here is that the people across the House from us are in a position where they want to try to

denigrate the achievements of this government. For the first time since this contract was entered into, we have

achieved additional benefits. The guaranteed winter availability will return to the Province $1 billion over the

course of the life of the project to the year 2041. The sale of the recall will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: He is right, that is not the right amount. It will be more than $1 billion because over time we will

realize increased sales and increased value for it rather than less. The $1 billion figure is a conservative one.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I have to ask the question: Isn't this the same minister - the minister who now lectures us on court

cases - who was part of a select Cabinet committee on trans city hospitals, that gave away about $30 or $40 million

extra dollars? Isn't this the same minister who, at one time, was the Minister of Justice and made decisions that

we had to compensate in excess of $60 million to $70 million?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Isn's this the same minister who is trying to lecture me and people in this House today on the basis

of law suits? Come on, Minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, they are playing fast and loose with the people's money, with the information -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Minister, isn't it a fact that over the life of this project, because the equipment at Upper Churchill that runs

and creates the power, because of the downtime that we are now experiencing, that we are anticipated to experience,

because of the age of the equipment - it is going to realize and it is going to cut into the profits that we are

getting, and that your anticipated revenue is nothing but a spin and is nothing but anticipated, and it is not

now money that you have in your pocket? Isn't that the truth, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously does not know much about the running of corporations, businesses,

or utilities. This ordinary maintenance occurs anyway. What we have is an additional $1 billion in gross. What

he is talking about are expenses or expenditures that would incur in the normal course of operations. Had we not

had the $1 billion these expenses would have been incurred anyway. It makes no difference for our bottom line on

the return to the Province.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

It will be a very direct question so all can understand. If you believe that we are wrong - and you possess the

knowledge because you and your former buddy over here, the Minister of Health, were the ones who signed the agreement,

from the direction of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Sorry, I should not say that, not former buddy - maybe former buddy, I don't know.

If you believe that what we have said in the last six weeks and what we have asked in this House today, and will

ask again tomorrow, is so wrong then why don't you just table the agreements for everyone to see how wrong we are?

If you will not, why not?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province realize that the Opposition's duty is to oppose whatever government

does. It is unseemly, however, that the hon. member keeps taking a persistent approach.

When we table things that he demands, and when he says they contain this, that, and the other thing - and when

that is not, in fact, the case - when we disclose the documents he then says: Well, if it isn't in these documents,

it is in another document. It is an old trick; and I can assure the House that we have given to the people of Newfoundland

an assurance that when commercial dealings with Hydro Quebec are concluded - and they may be at a stage where we

can release some of the documents - we will release them for public view. That is contrary to the practice but

we feel it is in the public interest to do so.

What we have asked the board to consider is: If, because of the change in negotiations, it is now appropriate to

do so, to do so at a sooner time. We would be delighted to have those documents see the light of day so that people

can see how ridiculous the hon. member's positions are on these matters.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. The lack of ambulance service at the Health

Care Corporation is having a very serious affect on people's health; and in some cases, minister, jeopardizing

their lives. There are six ambulances with the corporation but there are only four in use some of the time. Often

there are only two in use, depending on the time period. The ambulances just cannot keep up with the workload created

by having to serve about 200,000 people when you consider the universities and colleges, in addition to the area

they serve. There are only about half as many ambulances per capita as to many comparable sized cities in Canada.

Why, Minister, are you providing a lower level of service than ministers in other provinces are providing to their

people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are providing levels of services in Newfoundland and Labrador today, in the year 2000, that are above and beyond

any level of service that was provided previously, particularly when the other group was the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We have made continued, steady, and regular improvements in health care funding in the last five

years in particular. Mr. Speaker, the service levels are continuing to improve.

I do understand, on an operational basis, that the particular representatives of the ambulances at the Health Care

Corporation, and the management group, have had a liaison committee that have worked at these issues for the last

several months; and they have agreed to a budget proposal that they are putting forward for consideration in the

budget process. They all know, everybody knows, that each of the jurisdictions here in Newfoundland and Labrador,

like elsewhere in the country, will have limited capability to increase some funding for those items which are

reinstated some $21.5 billion over the next five years, largely for health care expenditures.

There is a process that has been gone through. This one of about three or four dozen issues that will come forward

to the government just from the Health Care Corporation of St. John's alone; not counting those which will come

forward to the government for consideration from all of the other corporations in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

from the health and community services boards which provide health services not related to hospitals and institutions.

We are anxious to receive the proposal that has been worked on by the management personnel, representatives of

the paramedics, and the ambulance operators. We will see if we can address that as one of the priority items in

the budget for next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are waiting about fifteen months to get an answer from this government. You have closed, since 1989, 1,300 hospital

beds creating extra, I might add, pressure on the ambulance services in our Province, and you have not responded.

Why do patient after patient have to wait hours at hospitals for an ambulance with a health care worker getting

paid overtime to stay with that person beyond their regular shift? This is a common practice. Minister, you are

being penny-wise and pound foolish.

One lady waited for nine hours last week and never did get an ambulance to get transferred to the Miller Centre.

There are long waits at cardiac and catheter labs, at the cancer clinic, and at numerous areas within the health

care corporation. They cannot get the service. Does the minister realize that an extra ambulance would cost as

little as sixty-some hundred a month extra? It would be cost-effective, and not only that, but improve the quality

of health care here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me state again, we expect in the budget process, that we are now in the beginning stages of -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the critic feels he has to yell and scream. That is his usual approach.

As per Stephenville; I guess it is the flavor of the day, would be the phrase for the health critic. What ever

the group is, that comes forward on a particular day, he supports their cause.

Let me remind everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador about the record of the critic for Health and Community Services.

Just with respect to Stephenville, there was a report in the Atkinson Report that suggested there should be twenty-five

bed facility in Stephenville. The health critic was crying out that the report be released because he supported

the Atkinson Report and wanted it implemented.

MR. SULLIVAN: What report? I didn't see it!

MR. GRIMES: You did indeed, and you can check The Western Star and other papers saying that exactly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to withdraw his statement that I could not support a report which

he blatantly hates and his predecessors hated for two years!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I ask the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I know he does not want to hear what I have to say because it is embarrassing to him. I understand that.

The issue was that he claimed he knew there was a recommendation in the Atkinson Report calling for a twenty-five

bed facility in Stephenville. He called for the release of the report and he demanded that it be implemented as

it was. When the government announced that we were building a fifty bed facility in Stephenville instead of a twenty-five

bed facility, he complained that we were overbuilding. He came out with the argument that we should not be doing

that, we were overbuilding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: When there was an issue with respect to a kitchen not being included, he claimed then that we were

under building because he wanted to support the workers who wanted the kitchen built on that particular day. So,

he has already turned himself inside out five or six times on that issue, just like he is doing on the other issue!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is that type of nonsense and untruths that have the people in this Province worried about the type of government

they are getting here. Complete inaccuracy, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Ambulances are busier than they ever were. The closure of beds at Western Memorial Regional Hospital

is resulting in more patients coming into St. John's. They have to be transported by ambulances from the airport

to the hospitals here in the city. Ambulances are continuously being diverted to hospitals which are farther from

the source of where they pick up a patient. There is a continuous shuffling of patients going on from hospital

to hospital. It is like shuffling cards in a deck because it is going on so often, I might add. The system is underfunded

and in chaos.

The question I ask: Will you put an immediate stop to this counterproductive chaos that your government has created?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me try to give the serious answer that I tried to give the last time, until he started shouting. We do expect

about twenty-five, thirty, maybe thirty-five serious requests from the Health Care Corporation of St. John's alone

in the next budget process, one of which is an approved ambulance service. We expect that. We know that there is

a proposal which is being developed by the representatives of the workers themselves, and also by management, and

it is in the process. We also know that we are going to have another 200 to 300 requests for improved services

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We, Mr. Speaker, have a very limited capability to answer a call for those improvements. We have said that, with

there is a real limit as to any improvements and advances that we can make because there is insufficient money.

Let me finish with this, and I have made the offer before to my critic. If he is serious and if he really thinks

and believes and knows in his heart that he can put together a proposal to answer every single request that has

been made - just like he did today, and promised that he would do what this particular group wanted, because they

were here today, and just like he did last week with another group, because they met with him and he promised to

fix their problems - if he has those answers, I will make the offer again of stepping aside from this job and I

would encourage my colleagues here to immediately name him the Minister of Health and Community Services -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - and he can come over here and answer the questions and realistically deal with the situation, instead

of crying wolf every day and pretending that he is everybody's friend, and pretending that he has all the money

in the world and all the answers. I would gladly step aside and let him do the job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. For many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians this year, the

arrival of winter means making the choice between food and fuel. Every time the price of home heating oil rises,

this government reaps a windfall, at the expense of overtaxed consumers such as our pensioners. Other provinces

are planning to cut taxes or provide rebates to relieve this pressure on our consumers. Is it not time, I ask the

minister, that the Province with the highest gas taxes in the country, namely this Province, follow suit and offer

some relief to those who rely on home heating fuel?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will not speak for the tax reductions because that is the purview of my

hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, but I will say to the hon. member that he should (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: If the minister cannot speak to the question that was asked, then sit down and the Minister of Finance

can get up and answer it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said several things and I can correct some of those things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the honorable member said several things. First of all, the thing that needs to be cleared

up is that there is a windfall to government. There is no windfall to government because the government is also

a consumer of fuel, both fuel in its vehicles and fuel to heat its buildings. In fact, there is substantial additional

cost to us. There is no windfall, because just as everybody else in the Province is experiencing additional expenses,

so are we.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, or the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Mines and Energy, the former Minister

of Mines and Energy, whoever wants to answer it. High gas and fuel prices hit consumers in the pocketbooks in many

ways, not the least of which is by raising the cost of the numerous goods that travel this Province as freight.

High freight costs are also hurting local exporters and local jobs. I ask whatever minister, when he knows that

half the price of a litre of gas is tax, three-fifths, I say to the minister, of the tax is provincial, and every

rise in gas prices does mean more money in government's pocket, when is this government going to stop profiting

off people's misery and start giving some badly needed tax relief to the consumer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard of Friday free-for-all but I had no idea there was such a thing as Tuesday free-for-all when it came

to Question Period.

MR. SULLIVAN: Fuel is certainly not free, I tell you.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is not free. The hon. member is absolutely right; petroleum products are not free. That is

really the genesis and the real point of the question that the minister, or the member, raises - the member who

wishes to be a minister.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to the increased pricing of the gasoline that we use,

of the home heating oil that we use, of the diesel that we use in our various activities in life, it is zero per

cent driven by the increase in provincial fuel taxes and 100 per cent driven by the cost of petroleum at the OPEC

producers level. Therefore, the issue is not a taxation issue. It is a product pricing issue at the production

over that. The nations of the world outside of those who produce petroleum products have no control over the price

of the product as charged on the world market. Therefore, we have no ability to correct what the hon. member alleges

as being a tax issue in the Province.

The fact of the matter also is this: With respect to home heating oil, which he just raised, there is no provincial

fuel tax on home heating oil. I do not know how many times we have to say that. There is zero cents per liter of

tax on home heating oil. The only tax that is adjusted when the price goes up is the HST and, for the member's

information, as compared to last year, today - one year ago, as compared to today - there is 1.2 per cent increase

as a result of HST only.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: This is clearly not a taxation issue. It is a petroleum products pricing issue. It is a worldwide

issue, and if the hon. member has the ability to influence and help us get it down, we would be happy to have his

help on that account.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A considerable portion of the cost of home heat in this Province, whether it be through home heating fuel or electricity,

is the 15 per cent HST that the Minister of Finance puts on home heating fuel. Will the minister give some relief

to the people of this Province, particularly those on fixed income, seniors and other, by initiating a rebate of

15 per cent of the cost of home heat to consumers in this Province?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your tie?

MR. DICKS: Danny Williams gave it to him. It is a Christmas gift from Danny Williams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I understand that the hon. member will soon have a new boss who will give a whole new meaning to

the concept of bags of money. That is going to hit you pretty soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the only expression of understanding or concept that I can express to the hon. member

with respect to my knowledge of bags of money is a $4 tie. That is as good as I can do for you.

MR. DICKS: You spent too much on it, Lloyd.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: My frugal colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, suggested I spent too much on my tie. I will

take that issue up with my wife, I say, on your account.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the issue that is raised by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is an important

issue and is a serious issue because it has to do with the cost of petroleum products. It affects seniors, and

it affects everybody equally in terms of the consumption.

The fact of the matter is that with respect to revenues as a result of the pricing increase in petroleum products,

we are probably this year going to be out of Treasury about $10 million in costs or lost revenue as a result of

this issue as well. So, in terms of suggesting that we have an increased ability to refund HST money, the opposite

is quite true as opposed to the concept that he puts forward.

This year our Department of Work, Services and Transportation is incurring about $5 million to $6 million extra

in costs because we are a large consumer of petroleum products. We clear the highways, heat buildings, plow the

roads, and that sort of thing. In addition to that, we are seeing a significant decrease in consumption of the

product, and thereby less revenues are coming into the Treasury.

Contrary to the concept of having the ability to give back money, we are indeed, as a Treasury, out money as a

result of this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make note - I should have done it yesterday - of a rather important event.

The Vice-Chair of Committees, the Assistant Chair of Committees, is Mrs. Hodder. This is the first time that we

have had a lady in the elected position in the Speaker's Chair, or in the Speaker's office, in that position, so

I thought we should congratulate her.

[Applause]

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill entitled,

An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco

Related Health Care Costs.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs."

(Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the second occasion today, I guess.

In regard to this particular piece of legislation, Bill 41, the purpose, of course, of its creation is in regard

to recovery of health care costs. The illnesses caused due to tobacco smoke, of course, are well known, and the

American states were probably the leaders in this initiative of recovering from tobacco companies the costs that

their treasuries incurred as a result of health costs incurred as a result of smoke and smoking. In Canada, the

forerunner of this type of legislation is in the Province of British Columbia.

You have to commence the process by putting the proper legislative framework in place in order to initiate a statement

of claim. That is the purpose of this bill, to set that legislative foundation upon which we can take a claim,

as a province, against tobacco companies to recover these heath care costs.

There are several very important provisions of this act. They are all important, of course, but the major focus

or the main provisions deal with the direct action provisions. This act will provide government with the ability

to sue manufacturers of tobacco products to recover for those costs, and it permits government to take the action

in its own right and is not dependent upon a right to sue on behalf of or in the name of any particular individual.

Also, the action is taken on an aggregate basis on behalf of the population of insured persons here. It protects

the privacy of the individual while at the same time allowing us to recover for the whole group. As in any statement

of claim that one might initiate, proof of your claim is essential. The act provides for proof of the aggregate

claim based upon evidence relating to the group as a whole.

The act creates certain presumptions on the legal issues of exposure and causation. On such matters, tobacco manufacturers

who have committed wrongs must present evidence that their activities and the products do not lead to increased

smoking and do not cause harm.

When government has proved that: number one, the manufacturer has breached the legal duty; secondly, that exposure

to tobacco causes disease; thirdly, that the manufacturer sold the product in this Province, it is presumed, under

this legislation, that the manufacturer caused exposure and disease. This, of course, is subject to proof by the

defendant manufacturer that its activities did not cause such exposure or disease. It is also an important provision

of this act, a joint and individual liability. It ensures that the common law principles of joint and individual

liability are applicable to government's action. Joint liability arises where more than one manufacturer acted

together, or where one manufacturer acted on behalf of another in committing a tobacco related wrong.

The act also ensures that statistical and epidemiological evidence is admissible in an action against tobacco manufacturers.

It is worthy of note that it has a limitation period of two years. Once the Province proclaims this legislation,

after it is enacted, our statement of claim must be initiated within two years. There is also a very important

provision concerning market share liability and the apportionment of liability amongst the defendant manufacturers.

Mr. Speaker, in

summary, this is a novel and innovative piece of legislation for this Province. We are following

the course of other jurisdictions, particularly that of British Columbia. There was some concern, initially, with

the British Columbia legislation in that certain provisions of it were struck down by the British Columbia Court

of Appeal. Those provisions have been deleted and amended in British Columbia. They have, in fact, reentered and

had their bill enacted in that Province. They expect to an issue their statement of claim in the near future. Likewise,

once this bill becomes law in this Province we have two years to initiate the statement of claim, but we certainly

anticipate that it will be done in the short order rather than in the long course.

Again, in

summary, our Treasury incurs millions and millions of dollars of costs each year as a result of illnesses

related to tobacco smoke. The intent of this legislation is to recoup from the defendant tobacco manufacturers

the cost that we incur in that regard. I think that is a very noble aim. I will leave it at that, for this point,

and second reading.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity, just for a few minutes, to respond to the introduction of Bill 41,

An Act

To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs.

I share the overall sentiment of the Minister of Justice and I share the sentiment from the point of view that,

obviously, the time has come when governments have to take seriously the impact that tobacco has on the general

population. Obviously, the statistics speak for themselves.

To use a legal phrase, in terms of tort law - which I am sure the minister is very familiar with - the doctrine

of res ipsa loquitur, I suppose, is the phrase and doctrine that perhaps this act tends to be relying upon; particularly

when it talks about statistical evidence, and particularly when it talks about population-based evidence. It seems

to me what this act is proposing, is to introduce to a court the type of information and type of evidence which

is perhaps novel in the sense, that built right in the statutes, there are some guidelines which a court, and a

judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, ought to consider on the overall issue of evidence. In other

words, this type of statistical or population-based evidence, in the statute itself, gives direction to a court

as to how this evidence ought to be received. I would think that when the minister speaks about some new provisions,

that this is indeed, one of them. In fact, he spoke particularly on that point.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks of a reverse burden or a reverse onus. So it seems clear that again,

by virtue of this legislation, we put the onus or the burden on the defendant to show that its conduct, its behaviour,

its obligation or its duty has in some way impacted upon or was a direct cause, or perhaps even an indirect cause,

of the burden placed upon society as a result of tobacco usage.

It is interesting to note that the definition

section outlines the type of tobacco products that this particular

piece of legislation will have jurisdiction over. It refers to cigarettes, loose tobacco intended for incorporation

into cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, nasal snuff, oral snuff and a prescribed form

of tobacco. It tends to be all-inclusive, I would suggest, and indeed incorporates perhaps any form or any derivative

of tobacco that may be available on the open market.

Mr. Speaker, one observation I have for the minister is upon the issuance of the statement of claim - and I concur

with the minister, that this is something that ought to be done relatively quickly; obviously within the two-year

period that is pointed out in the legislation. I think this issue came up before when there was a previous ministerial

statement, if I remember correctly, of approximately a year ago when the minister stood in his place and, I think

for the first time, gave notice to the public at large in the House of Assembly, that this legislation was forthcoming.

I remember at the time either discussing with the minister or raising the question with the minister: Upon the

issuance of the statement of claim, why don't we simply wait and see what the outcome of such legal action may

be in other Canadian jurisdictions? We could, I believe, as the agreement already suggests - I understand there

is an agreement, minister, and you can correct me if I am wrong, with the Province of British Columbia in terms

of joint efforts with respect to research and preparation of pleadings, and preparation of documentary and evidentiary

or objective testimony and so on. There is an agreement between this Province and British Columbia.

The question I asked at that time and I repeat the question: Why do we not wait and see what the outcome is in

that jurisdiction, or indeed, any other Canadian jurisdiction, before we embark upon what potentially could be

very costly litigation to the people of this Province in the pursuance of our own legal action? So, it is something

that, maybe as we move along in debate and maybe in further reading of this particular bill, the minister could

make some comment as to what our role is vis-à-vis the Province of British Columbia. Why is it that consideration

may be given or may not be given, as to simply waiting to see what the outcome is in other jurisdictions?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that some of the provisions have already been tested at the Appellate Court level

in British Columbia. Obviously some of the corrections have been made. Some of the anomalies have been corrected

in the legislation in British Columbia so therefore this legislation appears to adopt an improved and corrected

bill as is found in the jurisdiction of British Columbia.

In

summary, I would say to the minister, we certainly agree with the thrust and the spirit of this act. I would

be curious to know, once the statement of claim is issued, why it is necessary to embark on immediate and costly

court proceedings. However, the spirit of the legislation is important and to follow other jurisdictions, particularly

in the United States in this particular area, as a result of following their example and their practice the people

of this Province may indeed be the recipients of some real compensation to help in offsetting the incredible cost

of cigarette smoking to the public at large.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and speak for just a few moments in support of this particular piece

of legislation. As the minister said in his opening comments, it is the second time this afternoon that he has

introduced it.

We on this side have been following what has been happening in British Columbia. Our critic has certainly kept

us apace of the progress that has been made in that province, and he, himself, has an interest in making sure that

our caucus is kept informed of this particular matter on a continuing basis.

We believe that tobacco companies have to accept responsibility when they manufacture a product and then that product

causes hazards to people by its consumption. The tobacco industry is no different than the food industry. When

we have things that are made and manufactured, put onto the supermarket shelves, if they happen to be wrongly made

or are contaminated in some way and cause illness to people, then the people who are affected by that particular

product have a right to expect compensation. There is not much difference between someone going into a supermarket

and buying a product - and having a right to assume that it is safe - and a young teenager going into a store and

buying cigarettes because teenagers believe they are going to live forever, that nothing can harm them. They do

not see the risk to their health that is posed by their consumption of tobacco and tobacco products.

We are saying to the people who manufacture goods for our consumption - whether it is the clothes we wear, whether

it is the cars we drive or the food we eat - that there is a responsibility on the manufacturer to assume that

these items are safe for our consumption. We know that research shows that the tobacco industry has had great reluctance

in acknowledging their responsibility when it comes to saying publicly that tobacco is harmful for your health.

It has taken a long time for the tobacco industry to acknowledge that they manufacture a product that is hazardous.

We, on this side, are saying that if we look at our health care costs, if we look at the cost that is borne by

taxpayers all over the world, in particular, we are speaking of Newfoundland and Canada; we are saying to the tobacco

industry you must be responsible. Just like we are saying to the people who manufacture our food: if you do not

do a good job you are expected to accept liability for the contaminated food that you might sell. If you are manufacturing

any kind of thing that is sold to the general public - it could be cribs for babies or clothing that children wear.

All of these things have guidelines and rules that say if you do not abide by those guidelines then you can expect

some consequences and you can expect to be found liable. What we are saying in this act is that when tobacco industries

go out and manufacture products that are hazardous to our health, they have to be responsible and liable.

As a former educator, I know what it is like to see all those teenagers outside of a school. I taught in a school

environment where there were nearly 1,400 students. You can imagine that if we only had 10 per cent of them who

were smoking on a regular basis we would have 140 students smoking every day, but we know it is much higher than

that. When we see that kind of consumption among our youth - and by saying this today I am also applauding initiatives

of the government to try to get our young people to stop smoking. When you look at the impact on the long-term

health of these people, when you see what is happening to people as they get older, we are saying to these industries:

You have to accept the responsibility for the hazards and dangers that you present by the manufacturing and sale

of your product.

We, on this side, want to support it. We think it is commendable. Again, I want to acknowledge and thank our critic

for keeping us appraised of the initiatives that are going on, and particularly the ones in British Columbia, and

also to thank the minister, because I know he has done a lot of work on this particular matter. I know that when

we were doing the Estimates last year, this came up in the Estimates and there were some comments at that time.

It is nice to see that he is moving forward with this particular initiative.

We want to say to the minister that this is a step in the right direction. Let us combine our efforts and tell

the people who manufacture these products that they cannot do it and not expect to have any consequences. If you

sell a product that is hazardous, you can expect that we as a people and we as taxpayers are going to expect you

to bear a fair share of the responsibility for the hazards that you create.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; if he speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue raised by the hon. Member for St. John's East concerning why

we might proceed on our own rather than await the outcome of the B.C. decision, first of all, it was not a year

ago that I commented on this act. It was some time more recent than that, in April of this year, that I actually

initiated the first statements concerning the introduction of this bill, and at that time indicated that we hoped

to have it ready for introduction in the fall sitting, which we have been fortunate enough to accomplish.

I guess there are arguments one can put forth either way concerning a wait-and-see approach, or a piggyback approach;

however, one has to appreciate that, in preparation for such a massive case, not only is it very time-consuming

and very expensive but the preparation of the factual case that you need to prove will take quite a substantial

time and it has to be based upon the particular statistics from within your own province.

If the manufacturing companies are true to form, we can probably anticipate that this statement of claim will be

vigorously contested. If that happens, we could easily find ourselves years down the road before we ever got started,

and if we did then start we would have to start with our statistical formation of our damage model.

It was felt most appropriate because we have a different type of society. Size wise, we have a very homogeneous

society versus British Columbia, for example, which has a large immigrant population, so the studies and the statistics

that you are going to need in your damages model are quite different in proving your claim.

I think it is not only quite innovative from a provincial point of view to have this type of legislation; I think

it is also good for us as a Province to be trailblazers rather than mere piggy backers.

It is a problem that has been with us for some time and I think we, along with British Columbia, from the other

side of the country, are taking the initiative to get this started. We hope, in fact, that the other jurisdictions

in this country will get on side so that if there is a united front, as it were, from all provincial jurisdictions

towards the manufacturing industry, it probably would even be more beneficial to the cause of recovering health

care costs in this country.

Yes, we do feel it is important for us as a Province, in this most serious issue, to pursue it on our own, and

not to simply await the outcome from some other province. Our legislation may be mirrored after their legislation

but out factual circumstances are quite distinct and different, and it is important that we commence this cause

of action not only in a timely fashion but also to get the necessary statistical information we need done in a

timely fashion to ensure that, if there is going to be recovery, we can recover and have it in our Treasury sooner

rather than later.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 41)

MR. LUSH: Order No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 10.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act." (Bill 38).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just take a few brief minutes to introduce the amendments to the Smoke-Free Environment Act that are contained

in Bill 38. These are all part of initiatives by the government, in conjunction with the Alliance for the Control

of Tobacco, to accomplish a couple of things: first and foremost, to try and limit access to tobacco products for

the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador; and, secondly, as is the main feature of this particular bill, to try and

restrict the number of circumstances and places under which members of the general public are exposed to environmental

tobacco smoke or second-hand smoke.

There were some advances made in 1993 and 1994 with the tabling of this particular legislation that moved to some

smoke-free spaces. Arenas, recreation complexes and so on have been smoke-free for several years now. We have had

some voluntary compliance in the Province, most notably with the operators of the malls here in St. John's, who,

in this current calendar year, on May 1, 2000, voluntarily went to smoke-free status for malls in and around St.

John's. There have been others in the hospitality business, particularly restaurants, who have voluntarily declared

their establishments to be smoke-free, because they have bought into the argument of the harmful nature of environmental

tobacco smoke, second-hand smoke, and they have, for their own purposes, decided to try to create a competitive

advantage in the marketplace, in certain restaurants and food establishments, by declaring themselves to be completely

smoke-free.

There has been work done with the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco in the last year or so to look at the industry

with respect to bars and restaurants, and also to examine public view as to where the general public of Newfoundland

and Labrador would like the government to go next in this whole issue of a smoke-free environment to the greatest

extent possible.

It is clear that the general public of the Province firmly and squarely support the notion that establishments

that serve food should become smoke-free completely, and also that in areas where children under the age of nineteen,

under the age of majority, are legally entitled to be at any point in time, they should not be exposed to environmental

tobacco smoke.

Those are the two main features that comprise the amendments that are contained in this particular bill, Bill 38.

First and foremost in

section 5 - the language is there that people can read - the intent and effect of it is that

it will have food establishments, restaurants in Newfoundland and Labrador, declared by law to be completely smoke-free

and, secondly, in public places where a person shall not smoke because those places are open to persons who are

under the age of majority.

The real content of this bill is contained in clause 5, to indicate that restaurants - it does not extend to bars,

lounges, night clubs, bingo halls and so on, to that extent where children are not normally present at this point

in time. That is a matter for another debate on another day, and I am sure the debate will continue. Today it is

abundantly clear that the people of the Province, and all of those people who are basically a part of the Alliance

for the Control of Tobacco, do support the concept of going smoke-free for food establishments, restaurants, and

also in public places where children are allowed to be present and are normally present at any time during a day,

a week, a month, or a year.

The second clause, clause 2, puts particular onus on the owner, the employer, or person acting on behalf of the

owner or employer, to ensure that persons refrain from smoking in the food establishment; so, there is an onus

placed on the owner/operator, or anybody else representing them at that point in time, to see that there is compliance

with this legislation within their establishments.

The third piece which is significant is contained in clause 3, where it indicates that the inspectors who would

be looking at the enforcement of this particular legislation, the same ones who do it today, would be given the

power to issue tickets for offences rather than to go through court proceedings where they would have to swear

and suggest that someone had violated the law, go to a court and have it proven and so on so. If it is clear, it

will be much like speeding tickets and violations under the Wildlife Act. Right now the inspectors themselves,

and law enforcement officers, will be given the right to issue tickets upon seeing the offence actually being committed

in an establishment or in a public place where smoking is supposed to be prohibited.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there are some regulations in clause 4, talking about the signage, talking about the proper

definition of what an eating - a food establishment is, how that is distinguished from a pub, a restaurant, a lounge,

a bar, and we will work with the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador representatives in the next year to make

sure that those regulations are the proper and appropriate ones to make the distinction that the act and the new

bill tries to make as clear as possible.

Finally, clause 5 indicates clearly that it is the intent of the government for us to work with the industry association,

to work with all of those involved, for the next calendar year of 2001, to make sure that we have the regulations

properly drafted, to make sure that the proper issues around notice, signage, enforcement and so on are fully fleshed

out in that year, to make sure that the operators of bars and restaurants - restaurants, I should say; bars are

not included at this point - and other eating establishments have a full year to start accommodating their businesses

to the fact that they will be completely smoke-free. There are some business issues that they would like some time

and have requested some time to address, and we will give them a year in which to do that.

In the meantime, throughout that year we fully expect that there will be continuing and growing voluntary compliance

with respect to this legislation within the food services sector, and that people should expect that to happen

in the Province in any event; but, on January 1, 2002, the law of the land will be that there will be a prohibition

with respect to smoking in restaurants, eating establishments, and other public places where children are permitted

to be by law.

With those few words, by way of introduction, I look forward to the commentary that will arise in the debate and

I look forward to the passage of this bill, hopefully, after full discussion of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted. I have been trying to get the minister now to address those things here in due course rather than

earlier today. He did now what he should do now. We didn't need all of that gibberish.

I indicated that we had an opportunity to look at this bill. We received it and went through it yesterday, and

we support the initiatives taken in this particular bill. People should not have to be subject to second-hand smoke.

One thing I want to say to the minister, in particular, is that when this is enacted he might not be in that position.

If he is not, if his government is there, they should - after January 1, 2002, when this comes into effect, there

should be a stepped-up type of supervision or enforcement initially, because during that particular period I think

it is necessary to make sure that we do not allow any violations from day one, because once it creeps in it is

more difficult to control the situation.

I know from my experience, and I am sure from the experiences of other people, when you are in restaurants, I do

believe they respect the smoking and non-smoking sections. That is being done, but it is not the answer. I never

agreed, from day one, that you solve a problem by going halfway with it, and designating areas, because people

walk through an area, they breathe, they take in the smoke, and we should not have to be subject to it. In areas

of food establishments, especially eating and having to inhale smoke in the process, it is not healthy. It is not

conducive to your health, and it causes severe and sometimes fatal diseases as a result of that. In particular

here, the protection of children - children should not have to be subjected to it, and I feel we have a responsibility,

as legislators, to ensure that children are not subjected to it.

We have a right to protect them from that smoke in public places. Their parents have a right, I guess, to impress

upon them within their home and their environment, but when they go out into public places and food establishments

we have to be extra cognizant of the dilatorius effects of smoking and protect them from that.

We certainly endorse this aspect of the legislation. We have seen the untold cost on our health care system due

to smoking. We know government takes in a tremendous amount of money in taxes. We take in some $80 million a year,

I think it is now, in this particular budget. That is a lot of money to be taking in, but the cost to the system

is far greater. If we didn't have any smoking whatsoever, we would lose $80 million in revenue, but we would probably

gain hundreds of millions in our health care system. That is interesting. Even though under the previous bill,

actually, is probably a more appropriate place to make the comments, I would love to see an analysis, a study,

done in the system to look at diseases and treatments, and a reporting system that would show the effects of smoking

or other environmental basic carcinogens and other things in the environment, to know what the costs on the system

are.

This particular legislation protects children and also protects adults. When I go into a restaurant I like to sit

down in a smoke-free environment. I am sure many other people do, especially people that do not smoke. Anybody

who desires to smoke, they have a right, as long as it is not going to interfere with the health of other people

in public places. In their own private place, I guess, there are certain rights that individuals have. Respect

those rights, but not at the expense of others in public places.

Appropriate reference, I think, is made to appropriate signage and that is important. We need a phase-in period

- I agree with that - and one year is long enough. One year is plenty of time, by January of 2002, to have this

particular legislation come into effect. During that time, I am sure, government will do the necessary advertising,

notifications and so on to people, and the proper signage in those establishments, to let them know that effective

January 1 smoking cannot occur in such public places.

I will certainly conclude my comments by indicating that I support it. It is an initiative that is overdue. I supported

it when legislation came here a few years ago to make it 50 per cent, I would have supported it 100 per cent at

the time, and I support it now. The faster we get it through and into effect the better. One year is probably fair,

giving notice on legislation that is going to basically affect - an owner is going to have to deal with customers

with the proper notifications. I am sure government will have a plan over the next while, through their community

health boards and other avenues, to get the message out to people, so that it is not just incumbent on these owners.

I will just say once again, in conclusion, to the minister, in case he missed it, that during the initial period

when this comes in it is important to have a closer inspection and enforcement of services there to make sure that

it gets off on the right foot and we do not have any particular abuse of that. Being able to issue tickets, I think,

is a positive thing, because it cuts down on a lot of unnecessary time and costs associated with it, and going

through the procedures in court. That is positive. If someone contests it and has a case, well, obviously, they

have the right to take it to that level.

I support this particular piece of legislation, and with that, I conclude my comments on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a couple of questions that I have about this particular bill. One is: What type of fines will be levied?

There is already some legislation out there that addresses this, legislation pertaining to smoking. While some

restaurants and some public places are observing it, I also notice that a lot of the patrons of some of these public

places do not observe it because there are well aware that it is not being policed that much. One of the things

I would like to know is: how severe will the fines be and how many inspectors will we have out there? Because there

are a lot of places, as I said, where you go now and the no smoking signs are up alright - they are complying with

the law in that fashion - but in terms of ensuring that the patrons of these particular establishments observe

the law, that is another thing.

As my colleague said, it is important that children be kept out of places where there is smoking, but this is important

for adults as well. It has been demonstrated in the last little while that second-hand smoke is responsible for

a lot of diseases. Women who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to get breast cancer. Second-hand

smoke affects people who have emphysema, who are asthmatic and certainly second-hand smoke contributes to lung

cancer and to emphysema and to other lung ailments that people have.

This particular legislation will prohibit smoking in food establishments and public places that are frequented

by children. I know that in bars it is a little bit more lax. One of the concerns that I have - there are places

that I go and one place I particularly like to go is the St. John's Curling Club. While they observe the smoking

legislation there and the signage is up, because of the fact there is a bar in that establishment, there is still

a good portion of that particular establishment where smoking is allowed.

In this day and age it is correct to make all places accessible to all people. There are people out there who are

physically disabled, and this is a visible defect, and we make these places accessible to people who are physically

disabled, and well we should, but what about the people who have disabilities that we do not see. What about people

who have emphysema and what about people who are severe asthmatics? When you look at those people you do not see

the disability that they have, but to put a person who has a lung disease in a place where there is smoking is

the same as putting a person in a wheelchair at the bottom of ten flights of stairs and expecting them to get there.

These places just are not accessible. I know this because some members of my family have asthma and I know that

the places we can frequent socially, like the St. John's Curling Club and other places, are very limited which

make them inaccessible to us. I would suggest that there are many, many people in the Province who are prohibited

from going places because of the smoking legislation and the lack of the enforcement of the smoking legislation.

I am glad that this act will be enforced by January 1. It cannot come soon enough. Actually, I would like to see

that time period advanced to six months, if possible, because there are very many people out there and it is a

topic of discussion pretty well everywhere you go: Oh my, I could not stay there because of the smoke. So, I look

forward to the enactment of this bill. It cannot come soon enough because, as I said, there are many, many people

of the Province to whom places are inaccessible because of the smoking. I look forward to learning what fines will

be levied and how many inspectors there will be out there to really put teeth in this very, very, very good legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very happy to speak on this particular piece of legislation,

An Act to Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act,

Bill 38.

This piece of legislation is, I think, well intended and it certainly reflects what the general population of this

Province is saying. I do note a couple of things about it. I do note that, as my colleague, the critic, has said,

we are going to take a year to familiarize the various food establishments about the new act. I also note that

we are going to be prohibiting smoking in food establishments and public places that are frequented by children.

I would advocate that we should be prohibiting smoking in food establishments and in public places that are frequented

by anybody; by people in general.

Mr. Speaker, while I know that we have a greater sensitivity to the health of children, and I would totally agree

with that, I also note that smoking is bad for all of us regardless of what age we are. I happen to believe, in

that regard, the piece of legislation does not go far enough.

I do note, going into a restaurant on Kenmount Road just a while ago and being told there were two lineups, one

for the smoke-free spaces and one for the people who were smoking. I did note that the people who wanted to have

smoke-free had a lineup of perhaps fifteen people, but you were willing to go into a smoke space, your lineup was

practically nil. I was really perturbed by this because obviously the number of spaces made available for smoke-free

clientele were far too few. So I wrote the national chain and complained about it. They wrote me back a letter

and said, yes, they would talk to the local management, and they also gave me two complimentary tickets to go back

to the restaurant again.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe that all restaurants should be smoke-free. I could also tell you that in the school

where I became principal in 1986 we had the first junior high school in the Avalon Consolidated School Board that

declared itself to be smoke-free. Back in the mid 1980s, schools were not smoke-free places. As a matter of fact,

in the 1980s it was not unusual to go into a staff room in a school and find the place was quite smokey. Many staff

rooms in our school in the 1970s and 1980s were known as places where you would go and they were not always as

healthy as you would think they might be.

In the mid 1980s, in the school that I was connected to, we made our school smoke-free everywhere. There was some

resistance to that at the time, but after a while everybody accepted it. I remember the advocate in Mt. Pearl for

a smoke-free environment was the current minister of employment. Her advocacy, when she joined the Mt. Pearl council,

and I will acknowledge here in a public forum, that she was a strong advocate for smoke-free spaces in Mt. Pearl

while she was serving as the deputy mayor. I was the mayor. We did make some significant changes. We did have some

resistance, and when I say some resistance she looks across the House and smiles, because we can tell stories of

going up against some of our colleagues who were not exactly in keeping with our thought processes on that particular

topic, but it was the right decision. Nowadays you look back on it and say, you know, we could have been arguing

about these things in the late 1980s, but we were. We were arguing about making public spaces smoke-free. I do

remember when the Mt. Pearl Glacier was built we wanted also to have that one a smoke-free environment. We had

some resistance to that, but it was accepted, and nowadays nobody questions it whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we have to not only look at food establishments where children are patrons, but

where anybody is. I would just say, to my trend of thought, that this particular piece of legislation does not

go far enough in that regard, because all of us should care for our health, and we should not be obligated to go

into a restaurant and be exposed to any second-hand smoke whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, in that regard, I should be bold enough to say to the minister, even coming into this building at

times, we have to be somewhat consistent. I have a right to come into this building and not have to walk through

a wall of smoke. While we have an entrance at the front of the building that is smoke-free - but as you know now,

MHAs do not park down that way anymore. They have changed that and perhaps it is a good idea. I would much rather

park out here. Nobody should have to come into a public building, like Confederation Building, and have to walk

through a wall of smoke to get into it.

Mr. Speaker, I am also advocating for the fact that the time has come for us to - not only just to say that this

building is smoke-free, but for us to say to people that if you want to smoke, you are going to have to move away

somewhere. Maybe we should do like they do at the Health Sciences, have a kiosk or something. I do not know what

the answer is, but I am saying that I would like to come into the building and not have to walk in through a wall

of smoke on the way. Yet, at the same time, I know there are people who work in this building and find themselves

unable to go through the entire day without having a cigarette. I am aware of that, and I say to the minister,

we should be able to find some resolution that reflects the rights of these people to have a cigarette if they

wish to, but at the same time, those of us who do not smoke and do not want to be exposed to it, have a right as

well to come into the building without having to be exposed to secondhand smoke.

I do note as well, I say the minister, that I was reading somewhere the other day that the State of California

is also now looking at legislation that governs the outdoor smoke environment. I am not totally familiar with it

but I did read a little

article on it. It is pretty progressive and very forward in its intent.

Mr. Speaker, with these comments I commend the minister and acknowledge that this is another step in progression,

and I am sure that five years from now we will look back and say: Why didn't we do this a long time before now?

It is progressive. It is forward-looking and because it is a topic I have some interest in, I totally and completely

support it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if I could with leave, I want to bring to the minister's attention

section 3. I could

have done this in committee but I am going to do it now, if I could.

section 3, where the minister talks about: "may commence proceedings, which may be in the form of a ticket...".

I just wanted to say to the minister, this is not a bad idea except that we have to have some idea as to what kind

of range of tickets we are looking at because if we have tickets that are in the $10, $50 or $100 range, we are

really not going to be effective. Also some provision that after so many tickets there is a court procedure that

would follow from that - with the possibility as well as having a statement made in the public forum, a public

statement, saying that after you have had so many offences then there will be a statement made of those places

which are consistently found to be in non-compliance with the law. Well, we will know because if it goes to court,

all court documents are public anyway. At some point or other we do not want those tickets to be meaningless pieces

of paper. It is like, in some cases, when we were charging $5 tickets for parking downtown. It was cheaper to pay

the $5 ticket than it was to pay the parking meter all day. I will say to the minister, if we are going to be effective

we have to make sure that the ticketing system has some teeth in it.

Thank you very much for the consent to make these points.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the last comment made - I am sure, if I looked a little more closely, I would probably even have

the information here with me; but before we finish at third reading certainly I will have the issue of the dollar

amounts of the ticketing. I believe that is in the legislation now for violations of current environment smoking

spaces to legislation.

Secondly, the issue of repeated offences and some public disclosure; I will check that, Mr. Speaker, to make sure

it is clear as to exactly what is happening because it is important.

I believe that the debate and the points made reflect the mood of the Province at this particular point in time.

I fully understand that there is certainly a wish to continue to move forward with respect to - even the issue

of walking through an entranceway, even external to a building, because there is a preponderance of smoke still

in a fairly confined area, that some people would like for those kinds of issues to be dealt with at a future point

as well.

As we know, there will be a continuing debate in the Province with respect to nightclubs, lounges, bars, bingo

halls, and those issues. Full expectation is that at some point in the future there might be a requirement for

another further amendment or two to this particular piece of legislation. We have made great progress since the

middle of the 1990s. We are continuing to move forward. I believe it is an area where we are continuing to reflect

the wishes of the vast majority of the people of the Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made during the debate and would move second reading of the bill

for consideration of the House.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act," read a second time, ordered referred

to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 38).

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

MR. LUSH: Order 11, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 11.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act. (Bill 39)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is with pleasure that I stand on behalf of the government to commend Bill 39 to the attention of the

House for second reading and debate, The Tobacco Control Act.

With these amendments we will follow up on the work done since the middle of the 1990s, in 1994 and 1995, where

the second piece, as we have indicated, of the tobacco reduction strategy - one

part is to try to have more of

a smoke-free environment so that people are not exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

The second issue is to try and find ways, legislatively and otherwise, through voluntary compliance whereby we

restrict the access of young people, under the age of nineteen, to tobacco products. The law in the Province today

does restrict - and has for five years now - the sale of tobacco products to minors, to people who are under the

age of nineteen. There has been some success with that, however, there is another issue that will be dealt with

at another point in time where it is legal to possess and actually smoke tobacco products at the age of sixteen,

while it is illegal to purchase them under nineteen. This is an issue that we will probably deal with at another

point that hasn't come to final conclusion and resolution yet.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a couple of things with respect to the Tobacco Control Act that needed clarification,

and they are contained in Bill 38. One is a minor matter of indicating that tobacco papers, the papers for rolling

loose tobacco, are considered to be a tobacco accessory and are covered under this act for the ban of sale to someone

under nineteen. As you will see later in the piece of legislation, the ban of the product in pharmacies themselves,

which is one of the key features here.

It also talks about clarifying - now that we have had four or five years experience with the legislation - the

basis on which an inspector may enter and inspect the premises of a retailer but now also a wholesaler. An inspector

before could only inspect at the retail places, but can now also inspect the premises of wholesalers of tobacco

products.

There was an issue, as well, before where certain offences were committed under other pieces of legislation that

did not count as a prior offence under the Tobacco Control Act. The understanding of everybody involved in the

enforcement of it is that the intent is to have any violation of a tobacco act or regulation, whether it be a federal

act or a provincial act, count as a prior offence with respect to any further offence. That clarification is provided

in this piece of legislation. If you are found guilty under one piece of legislation, if you end up in a court

proceeding again with another violation, the first violation will count as a prior conviction for purposes of racking

up fines and penalties, and so on. So we are trying to be more strict with the compliance.

It also goes further, on the administrative side, to suspension of a licence when there has been violation of the

act, from two months to three months. This provides uniformity with penalties that courts may impose under this

legislation. The inspectors are, for further clarification, able to remove a licence from the actual premises rather

than just say that the licence has been suspended or removed. It is actually taken physically from the premise

so that there is no physical evidence left at all in the retail

section to suggest that they have a right to sell

tobacco products.

A couple of the bigger issues that are contained however, is the fact that we do want, at this time, to further

empower those people and further enable them to enforce the notion that you have to be nineteen years of age to

buy and purchase tobacco products in the first instance. Some of the retailers have had difficulty in determining

whether or not they should even ask a person for an ID because they might look like they are twenty-two or twenty-three

years old, and some people are offended by being younger looking, even though they are older and being asked for

unnecessary identification. That is always an issue.

For further clarification, it is now time to move to a photo ID being the requirement. The same requirement that

applies for the purchase of alcoholic beverages and the entry into restricted places like bars and lounges. This

act says that to purchase tobacco products, as of the passage of this piece of legislation, hopefully before we

rise for Christmas, that the law will come into effect that to purchase tobacco products the retailers will be

expected to ask for a photo ID, the similar IDs that are now acceptable for the purchase of alcoholic beverages.

That clarification is in this piece of legislation.

The other big piece that is here is the fact that in working with the pharmaceutical association, they, a couple

of years ago at their own convention, passed a motion and tried to implement a voluntary compliance with the notion

of not selling tobacco and tobacco related products in our pharmacies because of the contrary nature and contradictory

nature of the messages that a health care establishment, like a pharmacy, would be selling a product that was known

to be injurious and dangerous to your health.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) I forget which one it is now.

MR. GRIMES: Shoppers Drug Mart. Imasco, as I understand it. Imasco was an actual owner of Shoppers Drug Mart. I

do believe there has been a change in ownership.

One of the big issues was the fact that the large tobacco consortium actually owned a pharmaceutical chain right

across the country. So they did lead some resistence to the voluntary compliance to ban the sale of tobacco products

from pharmacies. In fact, many of the pharmacies have voluntarily complied with this already - several have. There

are many others who would like to move in this direction but they cannot get the full compliance on a voluntary

nature of their membership. They have been working with us to put forward this piece of legislation to have it

necessary by law to ban the sale of tobacco and tobacco products in pharmacies.

The only issue remaining is that because there are some business impacts - there are large revenue streams in any

retail outlet associated with the sale of tobacco and tobacco related products - the pharmaceutical association

and their representatives have asked us to give them some time to make some business adjustments so they can offset

the loss of revenues from tobacco products with other products that they might put into their pharmacies and stores

to keep their business whole so that they do not sustain large business losses and large cash transaction losses

in their establishments. That is why there is one loose end left in the piece of legislation.

section 5(2), which says: This

section - which bans the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies - comes into

force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. So, the Cabinet will continue to work with

the pharmaceutical association to select the appropriate date on which that ban will actually come into effect.

I can tell the Legislature and the members that the pharmaceutical association themselves have worked out a time

table where they would like to take three, four or maybe even as long as five years to move to the total removal

of tobacco products from their premises. We differ in opinion with them. We would like to see it happen much more

quickly than that. We will have the remaining discussions with them in the next few months to try and see if there

can be some agreed to compromise that would see tobacco products removed and banned from pharmacies within the

next year or so. That piece of work is left to be done. All the rest of the act, all the other provisions, including

the photo ID and the other changes with respect to administration of the current work of inspectors in wholesale

and retail situations for the sale of tobacco products will come into effect immediately upon passage of the act,

and the pharmaceutical ban will require further consultation; but hopefully with the passage of this piece of legislation

the House of Assembly will empower the Cabinet to choose the date on which the ban finally comes into full and

total effect. They would like for us to implement a phase out which we will certainly discuss with them and then

get to a total ban at what would preferably be an agreed to time which is not five or six years, or four or five

years, but maybe just a year or so.

With those introductory comments, Mr. Speaker, again I look forward to participation in the debate by members opposite

and any others who are interested, will take any notes in terms of the issues raised and see if we cannot proceed

with this particular piece of legislation under The Tobacco Control Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I reserved the right to do it during the appropriate time on the legislative agenda, and I will take

advantage of it. Maybe I should take time, now that we are on a health matter, to correct the minister's misinformation

on Stephenville, just for his ears. I do not know if he knew what I said, or whether he was deliberately giving

a different twist to what I said. If the minister would like to hear about this important health matter, I am going

to let him know very shortly. He is getting advice there now. I want to tell him what I said. Maybe he listened

to, I think it was a CBC program of about ten minutes on the radio on the Stephenville thing. I want to set him

straight. I did not really want to use up too much time at Question Period to do it but I will tell him now. We

are on a health matter.

I said that I would like to see the Atkinson Report. It is reported that it said for a smaller hospital and plan.

I said, whatever size is suitable for the area, I do not know; but, I said, if government are building a size that

is larger than the area needs then we are going to spend too much money in bricks and mortar and costs and we are

going to have less to give services. So, you might build an (inaudible) if it is not needed and you might end up

not able to open all the beds, like you did with the trans city hospitals all over the place, like they are closing

them all over the place now. It is not prudent use of our taxpayers' dollars.

I hope the minister - I am sure he knew. He just wanted to put that little twist on things to give a different

perception. Anyway, I will get back to this bill now that I have done that. I am sure he is delighted now. He now

knows the truth, so I hope he will now speak