May 18, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol XLV No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like welcome four students from the Canadian

Citizenship Class at Holy Heart of Mary High School in St. John's, in the

District of St. John's East, with their teachers: Ms Jacqueline Fewer-Bennett

and Ms Kathy Henderson.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the

Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the hon. the Member for the

District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District

of Trinity-Bay de Verde; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; and

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on May 12 I had the pleasure of attending a volunteer

St. Jacques-Coomb's Cove. Mayor Max Taylor and councillors organized the event

to thank community volunteers for their dedication and hard work.

The municipality of St. Jacques-Coomb's Cove, with a population of 700, is

unique with six individual communities making up the municipality. Each of the

individual communities is well known for their concerted effort in making their

region a better place to live.

Mr. Speaker, residents are very proud of their volunteer effort and the

contributions they make. Although unique in their geographical layout, they have

been very successful in establishing and expanding many local community groups.

There is a very long list of individual groups and organizations that exist

in St. Jacques-Coomb's Cove. They include municipal, school, church and

charitable groups that play a real key role in their community life.

On May 12, over 100 volunteers attended the appreciation recognition as

sponsored by the town. Along with messages of thanks and encouragement,

certificates were presented to all volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the council for recognizing and taking the

initiative to organize such an event. It is important for municipal councils to

recognize the efforts of volunteers in the community and encourage their future

participation.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating volunteers in the

municipality of St. Jacques-Coomb's Cove, and all volunteers in the Coast of

Bays region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize National Police Week and give special recognition

to the men and women of our police services here in this Province - the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

May 15 to May 21 has been declared National Police Week and across this

country communities, organizations and individuals are honouring the work of our

police forces. This week gives police organizations across the country an

opportunity to build strong partnerships. Strong communities and strong police

partnership help us fight and prevent crime.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have approximately 730 police officers who

work hard to protect communities and families within this Province. The efforts

every day by our police officers help keep us safe and protect our property. As

well, police today are very active in educating our children in the areas of

drug and substance abuse, child rights, self-awareness and self-realization.

The scope of a police officer's work is greater today than at any other

time in the history of policing. Technology, communication, community relations,

relationship building and many other skills and attributes are required by today's

police officers.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in acknowledging the efforts of the

men and women of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, who serve the public and work to enhance our safety and our

security.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate nine Canadian Rangers in my district who were

presented with medals and framed certificates to commemorate the fiftieth

anniversary of the Queen's reign. They were amongst twenty-nine others in

Newfoundland and Labrador who received this distinction.

The Queen's Golden Jubilee medals are awarded to those who have made a

significant contribution to our country, Canada.

Among those who received this recognition - and I would like to read their

names and communities into the record, if I may, Mr. Speaker - were: Master

Corporal Edward Hancock of Forteau; retired Ranger Richmond Moores of Red Bay;

retired Ranger William Howell of Red Bay; Master Corporal Ian Stone of Red Bay;

Ranger Tom Normore of L'Anse-au-Loup; Ranger Ed Humber of L'Anse-au-Loup;

Ranger Reg Fowler of Capstan Island; Ranger Raymond Dyson of Cartwright; and the

Late Harold Dyson of Cartwright, whose family members were presented with the

award.

These presentations were made at the Capstan Island Community Centre in May

by Captain George of Gander, and I would like ask everyone in this Legislature

to recognize the contribution that Canadian Rangers make in our communities and

to congratulate the twenty-nine individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador on

receiving such a great distinction in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to recognize some outstanding young people from the District of

Trinity-Bay de Verde.

The Trinity Eagles Wrestlers include members from many schools throughout my

district. On April 29, eight students from Woodland Elementary in Dildo

participated in the kids division of a national wrestling competition in Quebec.

During this competition, they placed second overall for all of Eastern Canada.

There was stiff competition during their visit to Quebec; however, this did

not hinder their performance. Each member displayed great sportsmanship and

skill, while proving to be outstanding ambassadors of their school and their

Province.

I ask all hon. members today to please join me in recognizing the wrestling

club coaches, Felix St. George, Todd Philpott and Charlie Bryant, as well as the

team members, which include Brandon Reid, David Clarke, Matthew Elford, Jody

Pretty, Jordan Smith, Shawn Reid, Michael Peddle and Kyle Smith.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, today I recognize Howard Bonnell of Grand Bank.

Mr. Bonnell has been presented with a 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Recreation

Award by the Newfoundland and Labrador Parks and Recreation Association. Mr.

Bonnell, a retired school teacher, was nominated by the Town of Grand Bank.

For over thirty-five years, Mr. Bonnell has volunteered in a wide range of

activities that have made Grand Bank a better place to live. He has been a

member of the Lions Club for thirty-five years and received the Melvin Jones

Award, one of the highest awards within the Lions organization. He served as a

member of the Grand Bank Recreation Commission for twenty-two years, and in 1999

he received the commission's recognition award for his contributions to sport,

recreation and leisure. He was a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Recreation Association for five years. He has served on the Anglican Church

Vestry for six years, chaired the Alternate Measures Organization for four

years, and served as a board member with the Community Youth Network for twelve

years.

Mr. Bonnell has been a councillor with the Town of Grand Bank for eight years

and has served on several committees. He was instrumental in Grand Bank winning

a Tidy Town Award twice. He was also treasurer for the 2003 Burin Peninsula

Summer Games which were held in Grand Bank and Fortune.

In presenting Mr. Bonnell with this award, the chair of the association's

award committee, Gerry Hall, cited the large number of committees Mr. Bonnell

has been associated with as a clear demonstration of the amount of work he has

done for Grand Bank.

In addition to devoting a tremendous number of volunteer hours to recreation,

sport and leisure activities to help others, Mr. Hall said, "Mr. Bonnell

brings a positive attitude, a tireless work ethic, and remarkable expertise to

all his activities. He has established himself as a clear and excellent role

model for recreation volunteers while making extremely valuable contributions to

his community."

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

extending congratulations to Howard Bonnell of Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Ms Meghan Perry from

Churchill Falls, a youth from my district who was the only youth in Lake

Melville to receive the Premier's Athletic Awards. Ms Perry has demonstrated

her ability to achieve at a higher level in the sport of volleyball. This

contribution will assist Ms Perry in her efforts to travel across the Province

for upcoming tournaments, and encourage her to continue to be successful and to

aim high.

As all of you know, the cost of travel to and from Labrador does not always

allow for full participation of all individuals. I am delighted to say that this

has not kept Ms Perry from participating in something she loves so much. Some of

the finest athletes in the Province have come out of Labrador and, with awards

such as these, these numbers will continue to grow.

I ask my colleagues here at the House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to join me

as we congratulate Meghan on her success in the sport of volleyball.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to inform hon.

members about an international scientific conference that will be held in our

Province next month. From June 7 to June 12, St. John's will host the Seventh

International Marine Biotechnology Conference, the only international conference

to focus specifically on marine biotechnology.

The first of these international conferences was held in Tokyo in 1989, and

successive conferences were held in the United States, Norway, Italy and

Australia. This will be the first time that this event will be held in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this conference is expected to attract over 500 delegates from

thirty-five countries. Most of the delegates will be leading marine

biotechnology scientists who will present and discuss recent advances in their

field.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is a

major sponsor of this conference. Newfoundland and Labrador has a young and

growing biotechnology industry and this event will allow for the exchange of

information and the building of relationships between our scientists and

business people, and experts from around the world. This event will also provide

an opportunity for companies to learn about new markets, to establish

partnerships, and to develop technology transfer opportunities.

It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that events such as this will result in the

sharing of ideas and the identification of opportunities for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement today.

The fact that the International Marine Biotechnology Conference is being held

in Canada for the first time, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, is certainly

appropriate, Mr. Speaker, and I applaud the department for the role that it

played in attracting this conference to our Province.

The minister has referred to our young and growing biotechnology industry,

and I think it is an opportunity to showcase, in fact, what we are doing, even

though we are babes in the woods, as it were, in this particular industry.

Again, she says the event will also provide an opportunity for companies to

learn about new markets, to establish partnerships and to develop technology

transfer opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that indeed there will be a large contingent from our

Province, that they will get a chance to network with those leading marine

biotechnology scientists so that they can, indeed, learn from others and help

our industry grow.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, are very pleased to see this conference taking place here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, it is a proper fit for a place like this

Province to advance in the area of marine biotechnology. I hope it does provide

an opportunity for lots of people within the Province to be inspired by the

possibilities that exist to network with other scientists and to get some ideas

that could develop into major industrial activity or other biotechnological

advances for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, concerns are being expressed today in the public by groups,

including the Status of Women, police officers in the Province, and the Privacy

Commissioner, about a new system that permits internet access to the Province's

registry of deeds. These individuals feel that access to personal information is

too easily available through this new system. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker,

we searched for information on an individual in our office who has an unlisted

address and phone number, and found their personal information readily available

through the internet on this system.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Government Services: Is she aware of these

privacy issues that have been raised publicly, and does she have any concerns

that this access through this new system is going too far and invading the

privacy rights of individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, our registry is a public registry. The only

difference now is - this information has always been available - we have now put

it on line so that people outside the overpass, and throughout the Province, can

get access to this information.

My officials have had discussions with the Privacy Commissioner and I do

believe there is some concern. They are looking at individuals who have

legitimate concerns, so they can block out some of this information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Assessment Agency, and even the local telephone

company, have provisions in place currently that enable people to exclude the

release of their personal information publicly should they choose to do so.

I ask the Minister of Government Services again: Why were no similar

provisions included in this circumstance, and are there any plans - I know she

is now finally having a discussion with the Privacy Commissioner - but are there

any plans to follow the lead of other governmental agencies in giving people the

option of having this personal information excluded from publication over the

internet?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the information is, as I said earlier, a public

registry. We do ours by addresses and names. We are the only registry that does

it like that. If we were to do another process it would take another ten years

and $50 million to implement the other system that I think the hon. member is

talking about. We will certainly take it under advisement and work with our

officials and with the people involved to see if there is any way that we can

block out this information when there is a legitimate concern.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the groups that did express concern today about this new system and

the availability of information is the Status of Women Council for Newfoundland

and Labrador. They feel that women, especially those taking shelter from abusive

relationships, can now have their personal information published on the Internet

for anyone to see. This will make it more and more difficult to keep their

addresses and other personal information private as they would like it to be.

I ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, what discussions did

she have prior to this information becoming available publicly online with the

Minister of Government Services, and is she planning to have the concerns of the

women, as raised publicly today, appropriately addressed in the future?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister Responsible for the Status of

Women, we certainly take this issue very seriously. The Women's Policy Office,

and myself as minister, will work closely with Government Services to see what

our options are so that we can protect any women who may feel that they are at

risk.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government's record on rural Newfoundland and Labrador leaves much to

be desired. We have seen cuts in jobs and cuts in services. Their policies have

severely damaged the economic climate and they have no plan for recovery. This

government is clearly abandoning rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: Can she

confirm that of the jobs this government has cut from the public service, over

80 per cent of job losses have been in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? How does

she expect businesses and individuals to have confidence in rural areas of our

Province when the government obviously does not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, one thing we are going to have to get clear,

I guess, in some of the questions is: What qualifies as rural? Because as one of

the members said here in the House recently, that the Codroy Valley does not

qualify as rural.

It is unfortunate when we lose any job anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The job losses this year have been distributed right throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador, to urban and rural communities. There has also been significant

investment by this government in job creation right throughout this Province,

and that will continue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, the minister must agree, because she did not say that she did not

agree, that 80 per cent of the job losses are indeed in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. Contrary to the image that this government is trying to portray, the

news is not good in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Two of the major

initiatives of the previous government are winding down, the White Rose project

is in the final stages and the construction phase of Voisey's Bay is nearing

completion. Thousands of people in our Province will be out of work because this

government has not delivered on any prospects that will see a continuation of

this type of work.

I ask the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: What is the

plan to ensure there will be work opportunities for those thousands of

individuals, so they will not have to leave Newfoundland and Labrador and take

their skills with them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: There are tremendous opportunities in the future, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of Hebron, in terms of Rambler Resources, in terms of the

aquaculture industry, all kinds of opportunities all over this Province. Not

only are the opportunities there, Mr. Speaker, but this government is putting

the tools in the hands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to exploit those

opportunities and create sustainable economies all over this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if the tools are like the fund they put in place

for the aquacultural industry that today not one company has qualified with the

criteria they have put in place. Those are the tools that are not helpful to any

company. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing deteriorating health care service -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: - school closures, teacher reductions, HRLE office closures,

reductions in funding for municipalities, and many other cuts that seriously

impact on people who live in rural areas of our Province.

I ask the minister: What has she done to stand up for rural areas while all

this is happening? How can she sit in a Cabinet, as a minister responsible for

rural development, when the actions of the government so clearly are destroying

rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Two months ago, Mr. Speaker, this government announced its

Rural Diversification strategy and since that, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget we

made available $16 million for people all around this Province to exploit those

opportunities. A far cry from the $2.6 million that was available under the

former Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I would be really curious to see the applications

piling up on the minister's desk from rural Newfoundland and Labrador to take

advantage of that $16 million.

Mr. Speaker, this government likes to present itself as caring about our

cultural heritage. They talk a lot about having pride in who we are as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but the talk needs

to be backed up with action. We have seen this government stand idly by and

allow FPI to walk away from communities like Fortune and Harbour Breton. We have

seen the Premier throw the crab industry into a turmoil. We have seen job cuts

and service reductions that are forcing people out of rural communities.

My question to the minister is: When are you are going to start backing up

your talk about pride in our culture and way of life and help rural Newfoundland

prosper and grow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this government has not walked away from

Harbour Breton and Fortune. We continue to work with FPI on their behalf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it has been said in this House any number of

times, this government will not forsake Harbour Breton, this government will not

forsake Fortune, anymore than we did Arnold's Cove, which the defenders of the

Burin Peninsula did not say a word about, the Member for Grand Bank and the

Member for Bellevue.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to give credence when there isn't any because they

spent more on travel than they spent on economic development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the crab dispute, the Premier committed several times to putting in

place a program that would assist plant workers who had been impacted by the

crab impasse created by his government. Monday, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs seemed to be backing away from this commitment and indicating

that there may not even be a program to assist crab plant workers if this

dispute is resolved in the coming days.

I ask the minister: Will there definitely be a program to assist crab plant

workers this year, yes or no?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes that there is a lot of enthusiasm, but we should be

going to the Member for Port de Grave.

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

That just explains how serious they take this. They put this Province and the

fishery in turmoil for nine weeks, nine weeks, and here we get no explanation at

all saying yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have already received reports from people who have contacted

the Premier's office and been told that any potential program would only

involve workers at plants involved in the crab fishery. Workers at plants that

process some crab, along with other species, would not qualify.

I ask the minister: Will he confirm the information these people are

receiving from the Premier's office, and would the program be restricted in

this way?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the member opposite really does not know

what he wants. He asked a question, yes or no. I said yes, and he had a problem

with that, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has stated in the House of Assembly - the Minister of Fisheries

and myself - many, many times, there will be a plant worker program for the

plant workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, what more can I say?

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, he fails to answer the question again. He says

yes, there is a program, but he would not elaborate on who is going to be

affected by it.

Mr. Speaker, the minister refuses to answer straightforward, direct questions

about a promise his Premier made to assist plant workers. The Member for

Bonavista South is publicly saying that minimum wage assistance is not

acceptable. If there is a program, as the Premier promised, will it be minimum

wage or at a higher rate, as suggested by a member in his own caucus?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a question, and it is a

direct question.

As I told you the other day, I would assume, Mr. Speaker, to put a program in

place - and the hon. member would know - there are certain details and logistics

that have to be worked out. It is not something that you can snap your fingers

and it is done overnight.

Mr. Speaker, we will be addressing the concerns of the plant workers in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. You cannot get any straighter than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education and it concerns the College of

the North Atlantic Campus in Labrador West, which could be, I say to the

minister, much more effective in their delivery of education if they had their

own building that could accommodate their needs and plans. For years now, Mr.

Speaker, they have been renting space to the tune of over $1 million a year, of

which not one penny stays within our Province.

I want to ask the minister: How long does he intend to let this outrageous

arrangement stay in place when a new facility would be much more cost-effective

and better suited to the needs of the college and the students?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I am aware of the situation in Labrador West and the lease

arrangement that we have with the Episcopal Corporation, and understand the need

to review that situation which is currently ongoing.

We are going to look at the options that are going to be available to us and

move on some plan of action after we have done the review.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the minister that both the Towns of Labrador City and Wabush

have offered free land on which to build a school. The community leaders, the

education leaders, the mining companies, all have views on how the college can

improve their current delivery system if they had their own facility.

Will the minister commit to visiting Labrador West in a timely manner to

convene a meeting, the purpose of which would be to explore new options with all

of the stakeholders involved?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to that request, I am certainly

planning in the very near future to make a visit to Labrador West and I will

work in co-ordination with the member to set up a meeting so that we can look at

some of those options and explore some of the possibilities.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final question for the minister. I wonder if the minister can confirm to

the residents of Labrador, Labrador West in particular, what the status of the

French Immersion Program is - the Early French Immersion - and whether, in fact,

there is a commitment on behalf of the government that program will begin and

carry on without being cancelled?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, we

have been in contact with board officials and it is a board responsibility to

move forward with French Immersion. The board certainly will be looking at that

in their upcoming meeting. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am very positive that it

will be a positive outcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in roughly a month's time schools across the Province will

close for the summer break, and possibly on Thursday the House of Assembly will

recess for the summer. Students in Labrador will leave their classrooms

heartbroken, disappointed, and feeling rejected by this government for not

committing funds to build an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area.

My question was for the Premier, but, Minister, will you stand today and

admit one of the greatest injustices your government has done was not building

an auditorium for the youth of Labrador in Happy Valley-Goose Bay? Will some

minister stand today, do the right thing, and commit the funds for such a

building? Because, after all, the youth in Labrador are a part of this Province

as well.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, in the most recent Budget we have committed many millions of

dollars for Labrador, and, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Tourism has

been in Ottawa negotiating with the federal government on a program to get

funding for that very auditorium that the hon. member is talking about. Mr.

Speaker, what he should do is have a bit of patience and let the Minister of

Tourism do his job and hopefully be able to tap into a program from the federal

government to build the auditorium

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and let me say to the minister, a lot of

commitments are made to Labrador but very few are kept.

Mr. Speaker, this government received $45 million this year from the

Churchill Falls Hydro Corporation. They hijacked this money from Labrador and

railroaded all $45 million to pay off The Rooms in the City of St. John's.

Minister, your government had many opportunities to commit funds to build an

auditorium for the youth in Labrador, however you chose not to. Minister, today

people in Labrador, many of our youth, are asking: What is the real reason we

haven't gotten our auditorium?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ANDERSEN: Is it because they -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: (Inaudible). You don't talk when you are home. People in

Labrador are looking for you, boy. Go home. They want to talk to their member.

They never see or hear from him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange that today the Member

for Torngat Mountains is condemning government because we didn't fund the

auditorium. This government, under the leadership of the Premier, has had

tremendous success leveraging funds out of Ottawa, $2.6 billion on the Atlantic

Accord alone.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the auditorium, the minister responsible, in

consultation with the Member for Lake Melville and the community groups up

there, has been advised of what the status is, and to my understanding are

pleased with the progress we have been making.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there have been no funds highjacked out of Labrador.

The fact of the matter is that this issue is a priority, will be a priority, and

we are very confident that in due course the people in the Lake Melville area

and in all of Labrador will be more than happy with the results provided by the

minister responsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, it was your government that cancelled the auditorium,

not us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Minister, your government scuttled and ripped apart the

Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. Your government slapped the

people in Labrador across the face by not appointing a member for Labrador to

your Cabinet. You turned your back on the youth of Labrador by denying them the

auditorium. You failed to provide the Combined Councils of Labrador with annual

funding. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly,

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has, basically, said his

government will tell the people in Labrador when and what they can say.

Minister, because of your government's attitude towards Labrador, why don't

you just tell these people that your government do not want them and your

government do not need them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, a question has been asked and the Chair is waiting for the

opportunity to recognize the hon. the Government House Leader to give a reply.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the charge and the allegation is hardly worthy of a response,

but, having said that, for the benefit of the people who may be watching, the

Member for Labrador West said that the Budget this year was one of the best

Budgets for his area in Labrador. There are significant investments made in

transportation; significant investments that continue to be made in municipal

infrastructure; significant investments to be made, and are being made in

forestry; significant investments being made in agriculture; significant

investments being made in the children of Labrador; significant investments

being made in mining.

I say to the member opposite, before you stand up and make those type of

allegations, have a look at the facts and deal with what is and not with the

fantasy that you are dealing with the government here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past year the government beefed up its coffers with an extra $45 million

in profit on a Labrador resource and, yet, they are refusing to provide funding

to the Combined Councils of Labrador. There's commitment to Labrador for you.

Yesterday the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said in this

House, Mr. Speaker, that they want to dismantle the Combined Councils,

basically, by refusing them funding. The government feels, as usual, that they

have a better solution as to how the Combined Councils of Labrador should work.

So, today, I ask the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs: Will

government end the heavy-handed approach and do the right thing and fund the

$100,000 to the Combined Councils of Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. member must be in the same fantasy land as the Member for Torngat

Mountains, Mr. Speaker. I have never said that we would not be funding the

Combined Councils of Labrador. I have never said that.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, two days ago I was trying to get in

contact, with representatives from my department, with the Executive Director of

the Combined Councils of Labrador and was not successful. The Chairman of the

Combined Councils of Labrador that night put out a release accusing government

of certain things.

Mr. Speaker, we have never said that we would not be funding the Combined

Councils of Labrador. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was only a few hours

ago that I had a conversation with a representative from the Combined Councils

of Labrador, I explained the full situation to him and they were quite

acceptable to the resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a lot of dialogue with the Combined Councils too, I say to the member,

and they are looking for their $100,000 in funding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister for Labrador Affairs: Will he make a

commitment to Labradorians today and tell the 3,000 residents of the Labrador

Straits that government will not cut the recommendations that have been outlined

in the Hay Group report that they will not reduce the physicians in their

hospital, reduce their hospital to a clinic, or force the patients in that area

to go to Quebec for medical treatment?

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

Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our department is going to work with the Regional Integrated Health Authority

for the Labrador-Grenfell area and we are going to look at making the best

decisions in the interest of people that they serve. I think anything other than

making the best decisions and the best appropriated practices and the best

services to the people would be doing an injustice to the people in Labrador and

Northern Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has had in its hands, for well over a month, a study conducted by

the university on marine freight rates in Labrador, and marine shipping will

soon be open.

I would like to ask the Minister for Labrador Affairs: When will the report

be released to the public and when will we be told what the reduced freight

rates will be for this year?

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

Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the report is under consideration by the

government now and once the government has had an opportunity to conclude that

review, the report will be made public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have more questions today related to post-secondary education.

The minister's answers in this House yesterday and his comments in the media

today are not very comforting for students and employees who work in the college

system of this Province. I have repeatedly asked questions to the minister on

this topic and he has not denied that there would be campus closures or program

cuts.

Yesterday he said, and this is his direct quote in The Telegram ,

"I wouldn't say there's nothing radical for next year, or the years to

come."

I ask the minister: Will he clear the air and will he end the uncertainty?

Will he release the White Paper report and tell people if there are going to be

cuts?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the White Paper process is certainly moving

along. The White Paper will be released in due time. At that time any fears that

the hon. member has, or others, will be certainly put to rest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible) go back to sleep.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair has recognized the Member for

Grand Falls-Buchans and I ask that she be heard in relative silence.

The hon. the member.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the first time the Member for Lake Melville opened his mouth and, of

course, he said: What are you doing? Gone to sleep! I am interested in what

students around this Province have to face this year, and it is time for you to

wake up and listen.

Mr. Speaker, this government has stalled too long on making this report

public. Students are now applying for programs at campuses that may not be here

in the fall.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Are the campuses in Placentia, Carbonear and

Port aux Basques on this government's chopping block? Answer the question,

please?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when I look at the question that has come

across; again, I have to say to the hon. member, we are going through a process.

It is a very important paper. It is going to involve decisions, but I can tell

you right now that we would not do anything to adversely affect the

post-secondary students in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this year government has decreased the student employment program by

$3 million, which means that your government has cut one out of every three

summer jobs for students this year. These cuts are going to impact students in

rural areas. You know full well that there are less opportunities in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador for summer jobs for our students.

I ask the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment: How can you

justify these cuts, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government has invested $6 million in SIOC.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, in our youth services division of HRLE we have

also put emphasis on working with youth who are at risk of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to reach a goal in three years that the take-up on

our youth employment programs go from 7 per cent of youth at risk to 50 per cent

in three years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Six times during Question Period, the Member for Bay of Islands made the

statement, "Be a man." Mr. Speaker, I feel that by stating, "Be a

man." is equating having integrity or honesty. I think it is a very sexist

comment. I do not think the House of Assembly is the place for that.

I am willing to make a suggestion. I am willing to suggest that the member

use the statement, "Be an individual."

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would like a ruling on that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All members should be careful in the expressions they use; however, the Chair

did not specifically hear the comments. Therefore, the Chair rules there is no

point of order.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to table the Annual Report of The

Commissioner Of Members' Interests for 2004-2005.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, on a

petition.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, when I stood on my last point of order, the

Member for Port de Grave said, "My darling."

I am nobody's darling, Mr. Speaker. Again, I think that is sexist and I

would ask for such comments to be taken back.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Member for Port

de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: [Mike not on]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Colleagues, I ask all members on both sides to be careful in

the way in which we address each other, making sure that what we say shows

respect and shows integrity and shows the way in which we would like to be

treated in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is asking members to show mutual respect and show dignity to each

other, and to avoid using expressions that might be offensive to other members.

There are some expressions that may be colloquial in the Newfoundland context

but which members may take offence to, so I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand again in this hon. House today to give a petition on behalf of the

people of Grand Falls-Buchans and all of Central Newfoundland. It is in relation

to a statement that was - a commitment, actually, by the Minister of Natural

Resources in this House of Assembly on May 4. He committed that he would not, as

part of his government, enter into any power arrangements with Abitibi on the

Exploits River without a commitment from the company for a two-machine operation

at the mill in Grand Falls. This was broken by the Minister of Natural Resources

on May 6.

I have before me today, forty pages of names of people in Central

Newfoundland, from all over my district, Bishop's Falls, Botwood, a petition

there exclusively from the business community, which is the Exploits River

Chamber of Commerce. There is great concern in our area that this government is

not going to live up to the commitment that the Natural Resources Minister made

on May 4.

I do not know what happened when our Premier came back from Houston, but,

when he did, the Minister of Natural Resources completely backed away from a

commitment that he made here in this House, and it is recorded in our Hansard

recordings on May 4. I do not know what happened, but I am sure the Premier said

to the Minister of Natural Resources: You are out much too far, Minister. You

had better come in from that direction because you know what the ultimate goal

here is for us, as a government, and what we are going to do. Abitibi has plans

for number seven to close out, and this government is going to accept that

decision from Abitibi and they are going to send the fibre and the power to the

Stephenville operation.

That was in their survival plan, and this Minister of Natural Resources is

going to go along with government and let that happen, even though he made a

commitment to the people of this Province that he would not enter into power

negotiations until he got a commitment on a two-machine operation for Grand

Falls mill.

Mr. Speaker, what you have here is, one moment a promise is a promise, and

now you have a minister who made a commitment. Anyone who sits in the Cabinet

and speaks on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador speaks for

the government, but what we have now is a minister who made a commitment to the

people of Central Newfoundland and the next day turned his back on the people of

Central Newfoundland.

I ask that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador halt their discussions, like they said they would do,

and not enter into any power arrangement with Abitibi until they get a

commitment from Abitibi for a two-machine operation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Labrador West, on a petition.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of approximately 1,500 residents

who have taken the time to fill out these petitions and send them in from all

areas of the Province, from places like Appleton, Baie Verte, Clarenville, Come

By Chance, Grand Bank, Leading Tickles, Lewisporte, Little Bay Islands, Point

Leamington, Rigolet, Robert's Arm, South Brook, Terrenceville, and many, many

other communities around this Province.

These people have sent this petition, Mr. Speaker, because they are very

concerned about what is happening in our Province concerning the addiction to

VLTs and problem gambling being experienced by our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, these people feel strongly, very strongly, that there should be

an opportunity for people in this Province to have a say in public policy being

set by the provincial government. Part of that decision that they want to have a

say in, is whether or not VLTs and other forms of compulsive gambling should be

entitled to be legitimate in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am wondering if the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members if they could take their conversations outside. The Chair

is listening to the Member for Labrador West, and I ask members to hear the

petition in relative silence.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, the people of the Province want a say in whether or not this

type of gambling should be allowed in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I would like to say on this, that wasn't

current at the time these petitions were circulated, that has come to light

since, and that is the intention by Atlantic Lotto to bring electronic KENO into

the Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to respect the standard etiquette of the House.

The Chair again recognizes the hon. the Member for Labrador West, and I will

add extra time to his petition because of the disruptions that have occurred.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, when these petitions were circulated the game

of electronic KENO that will be throughout this Province in a couple of weeks

was not on the radar screen then. This game has the potential to be equally or

more dangerous than the VLTs themselves.

I am asking, on behalf of the people who filled out these petitions, given

the fact that government has commissioned a study to look at the prevalence of

gambling problems in our Province - this is not a problem, I say to this

government, that they are responsible for, this is one that they inherited, but

they are responsible on a go forward basis. The electronic KENO is something

that this government can take a stand on. Many people acknowledged that the

moves they made in the past budget, in terms of a freeze, a reduction, and money

for persons with addictions, they were good moves. Did they go far enough? Some

people may argue that at least it was an acknowledgment and some moves were

made.

What is needed now, Mr. Speaker, is for government to say to Atlantic Lotto:

No new gambling games will be brought into this Province as long as the study is

outstanding, until such time as the study is completed and made public so the

people of the Province are fully aware of what the problems are today. I think

it is incumbent upon this government and I ask them to do so, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today with approximately 3,000 names from residents of Conception Bay

North with a petition on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of

the petition:

WHEREAS Harvey Street in Harbour Grace has been left in shambles and

unrepaired following the opening of the Veterans Memorial Highway; and

WHEREAS the water and sewer infrastructure under this street is now being

negatively impacted; and

WHEREAS Harvey Street is presently near impassable;

WHEREAS the previous government made a commitment to repair this road once

the new highway was opened.

We, the citizens, call upon government to repair Harvey Street and make

significant improvements to the water and sewer infrastructure in the area.

Mr. Speaker, every other situation in this Province, where government has put

a highway in replacing an existing means of infrastructure, which Harvey Street

and the road from Tilton barrens down through, was considered to be part of the

Conception Bay North Highway. Now that road has been virtually abandoned, it has

not been touched. There has been no repairs done, no resurfacing, nothing done.

It is left to the expense of the taxpayers of Harbour Grace. The residents of

Harbour Grace are finding it nearly impossible to keep against the road.

Numerous vehicles are being damaged on a daily basis. Front-end repairs are

rampant out there. Businesses are suffering because the road is not fit to drive

over. These petitions were done in businesses in the community of Harbour Grace.

This was only for a very short period of time, Mr. Speaker, that this petition

was in circulation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to go back to the planning stages that were

in place. There was a committee in place between Transportation and Works, a

representative from Municipal and Provincial Affairs and a representative from

the Town of Harbour Grace to bring some resolution to the town acquiring the

responsibility for Harvey Street. It is just not practical, Mr. Speaker, after

hundreds of years of Harvey Street, Harbour Grace, being used as part of the

Conception Bay North Highway, to have this government turn their backs on the

people out there and leave them with this mess.

The tourism season is drawing quickly upon us. Harbour Grace has not received

any infrastructure money this year again. Mr. Speaker, it is deplorable to

expect this street to be used this summer. If government is not going to do

anything about it, at least go out there and say that the street is impassable

and put some detour signs up and keep people off it from destroying their

vehicles.

There was a gentleman from Bay Roberts who went in there and opened a brand

new supermarket. He spent a small fortune, investing in his business in Harbour

Grace, a brand new modern supermarket, and nearly all the people who are going

to his store are finding it difficult with the cost of car repairs and so on.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come when this government must take some action and

deal with this town and help them fix the street.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is drawing to a close here, so I would like to

present this petition on behalf of over 3,000 residents of the Conception Bay

North area who use this street.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is seeking direction. It is now 3 o'clock and it being Wednesday,

under Standing Order 63(7) on Wednesday we would ordinarily go to business of

the day. I do still see members who wish to present petitions - we will hear

petitions?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

As we indicated yesterday before the House closed, there has been an

agreement amongst all parties in the House, certainly myself in my capacity as

Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New

Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that we would use

today, being it our Private Members' Day, for government business. So, there

is unanimous consent to do so.

My suggestion and direction, I guess, provided to the Chair, would be that we

just continue to go through Orders of the Day as they are presented. I know we

are on Petitions. Once Petitions are concluded, then we will get to calling

Orders of the Day and particular pieces of legislation. That seems to be the

agreement that we are operating under.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition on behalf of residents in Labrador with regard

to money that government is earning on a recall power contract on the Upper

Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, a five-year contract, this year government profited $45 million

to its provincial coffers, and people in Labrador feel that this money should be

invested back into the Labrador communities. I guess the frustration that they

are experiencing right now has accumulated over the fact that you have all of

this new money being dumped into the provincial coffers but very little in

investment coming back.

Today, in Question Period, there were a number of issues raised where people

in Labrador feel that government is not meeting the need and the demands that

they expect. My colleague from Torngat Mountains talked about an auditorium for

Lake Melville that government has reneged on a commitment to build that facility

for children in Labrador.

The Combined Councils of Labrador, two months after the Budget is passed and

still have not gotten any confirmation on whether they will receive their

funding for this year; an organization that, for thirty-three years in Labrador,

has represented the municipalities, the issues, the policies of those

organizations and for a small amount of $100,000 they would continue to operate

as they have always done, Mr. Speaker. So, when you hear of a sum of money like

$45 million in profit on a new power contract, $230 million over the next five

years that will go to the provincial coffers and you do not get the investments

back that you necessarily want to see, it becomes very frustrating.

We are in a situation right now in Happy Valley-Goose Bay where we do not

have enough hydro power to operate the base there, 5 Wing Goose Bay, and the

cost of building another transmission line would be around $60 million, I think,

by Hydro's estimates. You know, to know that there is enough money being

accumulated over the next two years to be able to start that initiative,

complete it, and still have money left over, that is what people want to see.

They want to see this money invested directly back into the Labrador economy so

that you can see some economic spinoff and some economic growth from it.

So, that is the gist of the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I present it to the

House today on their behalf.

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I present a petition on behalf of the residents of the District of

Grand Bank. It is about the need for a CT scanner and a dialysis unit for the

Burin Peninsula. Both pieces of equipment, Mr. Speaker, to be located at the

Regional hospital in Burin.

Mr. Speaker, the petition has been signed by in excess of 3,000 people who

cannot believe that this government, yet again, has failed to put a CT scanner

on the Burin Peninsula and a dialysis unit. The need has been shown, there are

families who are now having to travel great distances to access dialysis

services. People have to leave their homes, close up their homes - in fact, Mr.

Speaker, in some cases sell them and move out of the community in which they

live on the Burin Peninsula just so that they can get the medical attention that

they need and deserve.

With respect to a CT scanner. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there was a very

public meeting held last night in Marystown. In fact, it was supposed to be in

the town hall in Marystown but there were so many people who turned up for this

meeting, in fact over 400 people actually turned out, that they had to move it

to another location because the Fire Commissioner said the town hall would not

hold that many people. So, that will show you the extent of the concern on the

Burin Peninsula. They have called on the Member for Burin-Placentia West to work

on their behalf to try and make sure that a CT scanner is approved for the Burin

Peninsula, as well as a dialysis unit. I understand that he did undertake to

work with them to try and secure those pieces of equipment for the Burin

Peninsula.

Well, I have called on him several times, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of everyone

on the Burin Peninsula, not just the members of Burin-Placentia West but in the

District of Grand Bank as well and the District of Bellevue to, in fact, make

sure that government understands the importance of putting this piece of

diagnostic medical equipment on the Burin Peninsula. We need the CT scanner.

There are people who are involved in accidents, people who cannot be transported

to another location, to either Clarenville or St. John's, who really believe

that if anything should happen then it may be as a result of not having the

medical equipment to do the proper diagnosis.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Burin Peninsula need and deserve this vital

piece of diagnostic equipment. Again, we are calling on the government to live

up to the commitment that was made by the previous government to put a CT

scanner on the Burin Peninsula. The previous government put several pieces of

diagnostic equipment at the Regional hospital in Burin and this is another one

that they had committed to but the government opposite decided not to go ahead

with that commitment. This is one that I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, how

they could have possibly turned their backs on the people of the Burin Peninsula

and said no to a CT scanner, a vital piece of medical equipment, no matter where

you live today, to ensure that people get the medical attention that they need,

especially if they are involved in a serious motor vehicle accident and need to

have the services of a practitioner who can use a CT scanner and make sure that

the CT scanner is on-site.

Again we are calling on the government, through these petitions, over 3,000

signatures, to put a CT scanner at the regional hospital in Burin and to commit

to a dialysis unit - the numbers are there; no matter how you look at it, the

numbers are there - so that people do not have to leave their homes and leave

their families to avail of dialysis services.

Mr. Speaker, these are trying times for people, and especially people who are

on dialysis. It is very difficult for them to find themselves in a situation

where they have to leave their homes. In some cases spouses have to quit their

jobs just to care for their partner, especially when you are talking about home

dialysis.

I think if the government is going to be reasonable and responsible, they

have to acknowledge that there is a desperate need on the Burin Peninsula for

those two pieces of medical equipment. We are calling on them to act in the only

manner that is proper, and that is to put those two pieces of equipment on the

Burin Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in my district and on the

Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland, and this is with regard to recommendations

in the health care report, the HayGroup.

Mr. Speaker, the HayGroup recommended several things that are unacceptable -

unacceptable to people who live in these areas - as it relates to health care.

One of them, Mr. Speaker, said that they should remove the physicians from the

Forteau Hospital in the Labrador Straits, an area where there are 3,000

residents, and that, in fact, the hospital should be reduced to a clinic style

operation, and that the patients in that area should be referred for emergent

care to the hospital in Blanc-Sablon, in the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, that is not an acceptable standard of medical care or patient

care to be providing in any region of Newfoundland and Labrador. I strongly -

through these petitions - urge the government to not move forward with those

recommendations but, in fact, to dismiss it outright and to commit to maintain

the physician services that exist in that hospital right now.

Mr. Speaker, it is also asking that the integrity of the health care system

under the Labrador-Grenfell Regional Integrated Health Authority be maintained

and that the services at the St. Anthony Hospital, such as obstetrics,

gynecology, psychiatry, pediatrics, all of these services be maintained to the

full complement that exists there today so that you can provide good, adequate

health care to the people who live in this region.

Government acted very hastily, I say to you, in striking recommendations in

the HayGroup report that pertain to the negative impacts on health care in the

Stephenville area, some that were pertaining to the Port aux Basques area, but

they have failed to do the same for the people on the Northern Peninsula and in

Southern Labrador.

Through this petition we are asking that they reconsider, that they dismiss

those recommendations in the HayGroup report, and that they maintain a good

complement of health care services to the people in that region, provided

through our own facilities and not the facilities of those in another Province.

I urge the government to do that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would not have to be getting up here today to give this petition again if

we had a Minister of Transportation and Works who would see beyond the

Trans-Canada Highway.

Yesterday, and the day before, I stood in this House and talked about the

terrible, deplorable condition of the Buchans Highway. I even sent the minister

photographs that I took while I was up there a week or so ago and, still, that

did not dent him one bit.

He does not care that there is heavy equipment going over that highway every

day, that is going to the new mine at Duck Pond. It is bringing money into the

provincial coffers so that they can have money for roads and hospitals and

everything else. He does not care about that. He does not care about woods

trucks that are hauling heavy loads over the highway every day. The edges of the

pavement are broken. There is no shoulder. He does not care that people are

going from Buchans to Grand Falls-Windsor every day. He does not care that

schoolchildren have to get on a bus in Millertown and Buchans Junction and drive

to Buchans over that kind of a highway. He certainly does not care that there is

an ambulance that travels every day, whenever there is a call to be made for

someone who is sick, from Buchans, Millertown, or Buchans Junction. There is

mail that has to go up every day. There are deliveries of freight and goods.

None of that dents him one iota, not even with a photograph - two or three

photographs - showing him the condition of the roads. He has not even made a

call to his director of works, services and transportation, Wayne Ricks.

MR. RIDEOUT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Minister of

Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member

presenting a petition, but I cannot let her, perhaps unknowingly, give false

information to the House.

The fact of the matter is that I asked our director in Central Newfoundland

about two weeks ago to provide me with a report on the shoulders of the road

leading to Buchans.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the minister would know, and all members would know, there is no point of

order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At last I got that minister to stand in his place. At least he said he made a

request. We do have cellphones and regular phones and e-mail, and all of that.

If he asked his director two weeks ago for a report, why hasn't he received

it? The same report that his director gave him two years ago and last year is

still in effect. The only thing -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) two years ago.

MS THISTLE: Yes, and I was the one who did the repairs on the Buchans

Highway - not you, Mister, not you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I did repairs on the Buchans Highway every year since I have

been elected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Motion 1, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Teachers' Pension Act. ( Bill 40)

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

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

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act. ( Bill 40)

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

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

All those in favour, aye' .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act,"

carried. ( Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said Bill 40 be now read a

first time.

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

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act. ( Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 40 has now been read a first time. When shall this bill

be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in today's sitting.

On motion, Bill 40 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently,

by leave.

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

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

Motion 2, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Lobbyists Registration Act. ( Bill 38)

Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, so all members are aware, that Standing

Orders are simply this, that when the bill is read a first time, that is

normally when the bill is distributed, not before.

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

Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act. (Bill 38)

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

Attorney General shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act," carried. (Bill

38)

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

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 38,

An Act To Amend The Lobbyists

Registration Act, be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act. (Bill 38)

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

bill be read a second time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

When shall this bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day's sitting.

On motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently,

by leave.

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to

consider matters related to Bill 20,

An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking

In Public Places And The Workplace.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for

the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 20,

An Act To

Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The Workplace.

All those in agreement, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 20,

An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places And The

Workplace.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Smoking In Public Places

And The Workplace." (Bill 20)

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if it is planned to go through

each clause one at a time. I understand that there were some amendments being

proposed by both sides of the House. I have not seen any of them yet, so I guess

we can still talk about the principle of the bill as it is, can we? Would that

be the understanding, until we see amendments?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If we are prepared to entertain an amendment then we would certainly like to

hear some discussion, and we are prepared to table an amendment. I was going to

raise that issue, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, when we get to

that clause. I was not intending to deal with it because we are doing clause by

clause now, and the principle of the bill basically is in second reading. When

we get to a specific one where it might be warranted - if someone has one they

want to move at that time on that clause, that is the appropriate place to move

that, or have discussion at that particular time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not, I suppose in theory, have a problem with that, but if we are going

to be asked to look at amendments and debate amendments that we have not seen,

we have not had time to consider - the wording of them. There has been some

discussion about amendments around the House, but I have not seen any text of

any amendments that either side is going to propose. What I would suggest is if

anybody has any amendments that they want hon. members to consider, they should

at least make them available so that people can look at them beforehand, rather

than trying to deal with them on the fly, and response to the amendments as they

come forward.

I, for one, am very concerned about the provisions in the act that provide

for an automatic loss of a licence of a person who runs a licenced establishment

if he happens to be guilty of an offence under the Smoke Free Environment Act. I

find that extremely offensive, Mr. Chairman, that this would continue to be in

the act without any amendment coming forward. Now, I suppose I could prepare my

own amendment and see where it ought to be in the act, but I understand there

are some amendments coming forward.

I am looking at the Liquor Control Act here, for example, and I see how the

Liquor Control Act, which is what is being amended by this act in part, how they

deal with the issue of, first of all, managing the qualifications for licensees.

That is in

section 33 of the act. In

section 33 of the act, the qualifications

for licensees for a licenced premises includes all kinds of things that have to

do with the suitability of the individual. The location, for example, is

certainly part of it, but the licensee must be an appropriate person, for

example. A licence shall not be granted to a person unless he or she is an

appropriate person to keep and operate the kind of premises in respect to which

the licence is sought and he or she has not been convicted within three years of

a (inaudible) offence under the Criminal Code, punished by imprisonment.

So, you would have to be a pretty bad person not to be able to get a licence,

Mr. Chairman, to run a liquor premises, but yet, this government thinks that if

you break the smoking by-law, or the smoke-free establishment that you are going

to be dis-entitled to have a licence. I have a big objection to that, Mr.

Chairman, because that is not my understanding of what you are trying to do when

you are trying to get people to conform to a new piece of legislation, a piece

of legislation that has some controversy associated with it because it has to do

with people's freedom and people's ability to do what they are, in many

cases, addicted to doing. I think we have to be a little bit even-handed here

and a bit proportional.

Section 33 also says, Mr. Chairman, that the board, the Liquor Licensing

Board, shall cancel a licence where the licensee operates an electronic or

mechanical amusement device in contravention of the Lotteries Act. In other

words, Mr. Chairman, if you run a bar and in your bar you are running an illegal

gambling operation, you can lose your licence. If you are running an illegal

gambling operation you lose your licence. I suppose a cynic might say that you

are interfering with the monopoly that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation has.

Therefore, they want to enforce that, but that is not the real reason. The real

reason is because the government - and the government has an interest in

ensuring that we do not have bars being turned into illegal gambling dens. Not

that I am in favour of the legal gambling dens we have, but that was the purpose

of that long before we had the kind of gambling going on in bars now that we

have with Atlantic Lottery.

The purpose, Mr. Chairman, is to say okay, bars should not be dens of illegal

gambling. It goes on further to say, if someone is guilty of an offence under

the Tobacco Tax Act,

section 68(1) and that has to do with selling contraband

tobacco. In other words, Mr. Chairman, if you are engaged in smuggling and

selling smuggled tobacco outside of the tax laws - in other words, if you are

engaged in that kind of illegal activity running a bar then you are not,

obviously, a suitable person to be running a bar and therefore you lose your

licence.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that is the same as being in violation of a

public health statute, which is what we are talking about here. We are doing a

piece of legislation to protect the public from second-hand smoke. We are not on

the same moral ground at all, Mr. Speaker, as we are when we are saying: You

cannot have a liquor license if you are running an illegal gambling operation.

You cannot have a liquor license if you are running an illegal selling of

tobacco contrary to the Tobacco Tax Act, and smuggling.

What do we do, Mr. Speaker, to people who are in violation of the liquor

laws? Well, they have a whole different

section on that.

Section 40, 46, 47 and

48 gives the board the power to suspend or cancel licenses in certain

circumstances. They are set out in

section 46 of the act. You can suspend a

license, "Where the board is of the opinion that a licensed premises is not

being operated in accordance with this Act - this act being the Liquor Control

Act - or the regulations or the conditions prescribed..." in a license. You

can suspend those licenses for a brief period of time but then it has to go to

the board.

The Criminal Code regarding indecency, where a licensee, officer, manager, or

agent is convicted of an offence under various sections of the Criminal Code

having to do with performing indecent acts, Mr. Speaker, the board may cancel or

may suspend the license of a licensee; not shall, Mr. Speaker, not take away

their license forever. Even if you are running an indecent show in your bar you

don't get your license cancelled automatically, Mr. Speaker. The board may,

the board has the power, to look into it and decide whether it is an offence

worthy enough to have your license cancelled, or suspended, not even cancelled.

It might be suspended for a day, it might be suspended for a week, it might be

suspended for thirty days. Those are the kinds of powers that we give this

board, if they are running a bar and are carrying on some indecent act.

The board may also cancel a license where the licensee persistently fails to

comply with the Act, with the regulations or the Liquor Control Act, or

persistently fails to carry out appropriate orders of the board, or the licensee

fails to keep the licensed premises in a clean and sanitary condition. These are

the kinds of things that allow the board to cancel a license. Mr. Speaker,

persistently fails to carry out - I can understand, Mr. Speaker, if somebody is

flouting this law we are seeking to pass here today, if a bar operator is

seeking to flout the law with respect to a smoke free environment, if some

bartender decides to have a tolerance policy on smoking in their bar, are not

going to comply with the act, we don't agree with the act, we are not happy

with the act, we don't like the government, we don't like what they are

doing there in Confederation Building and we are going to allow people to smoke

because we are here in our own little community we can do what we like, if

somebody takes that attitude, Mr. Speaker, then I can see the Liquor Licensing

Board saying: Boy, we can't have that, we can't have people running bars who

are consistently and persistently failing to follow the law, and we will suspend

their licence or we will cancel their licence.

That makes sense, Mr. Chairman. That makes sense, but what we have today,

what we have in this act that is now before the House, is a

section that says,

if you are guilty - you do not even have to be convicted - if you are guilty of

a violation of the Smoke-Free Environment Act - in other words, if you do not

ensure that nobody smokes in your bar - your licence will be cancelled by the

board. The board shall cancel the licence.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am all in favour of this act, and I spoke on it

yesterday. I think it is a progressive piece of legislation, but you do not go

from nothing, where you can smoke as much as you want in a bar today, to

tomorrow, if somebody smokes in your bar, you are going to lose your licence. We

did not do that as a society when it came to trying to control an even greater

evil, Mr. Chairman, that of impaired driving. Twenty-five years ago, if you were

convicted of impaired driving, you might have gotten a fine of a couple of

hundred dollars. You might have gotten a fine of a couple or three hundred

dollars twenty-five years ago. You might have. You might have gotten away with

it. Then, gradually, the laws of this country got stricter and stricter to

control the evil or the mischief, or whatever you want to call it, of impaired

driving that caused so many deaths and injuries throughout the country.

Gradually things got worse, to the point that now, Mr. Chairman, if you get

found guilty of impaired driving, you lose your licence for six months to a

year. You get a significant fine of $800 or $1,000. On a second offence you go

to jail, automatic, two weeks. On a third offence you go to jail for three

months. These are automatic because we have decided, as a society, that this is

something that we are not prepared to tolerate.

Mr. Chairman, we are just at the beginning phase of this. I think society has

recognized that smoking is dangerous to people's health. We are not making it

illegal, but we are concerned about the dangers of second-hand smoke because of

what it causes, after a time, to people who are engaged in smoking and who are

exposed to second-hand smoke.

If somebody smokes in a bar today, Mr. Chairman, the people who might

potentially be affected by that smoke are not going to be laid waste by cancer

the next day. We are not so concerned about it, Mr. Chairman, that we see an

imminent danger to people and we have to have draconian, drastic measures at the

very beginning.

We want the law obeyed, Mr. Chairman, and I will be the first one to say that

this law must be enforced. This law must be enforced, but we, as legislators,

have a responsibility to ensure some sort of proportionality, that if there is a

law that is related to the public health of the people in a bar, that the law is

responded to by the appropriate measures of fines and enforcement. You know, we

have other public health measures out there, Mr. Chairman. We have an oil

refinery out in Come By Chance. We do not close that down and say you cannot

operate an oil refinery ever again because you violated the pollution

regulations. We did not do that to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper when they

polluted the harbour in Corner Brook. We did not say close down your mill, did

we? I do not remember us doing that. I do not remember anybody even calling for

that. They got a fine, they went to court, they did their thing, and they had to

pay a penalty for doing it. That is supposed to be some kind of a deterrent, and

I am sure it is. We expect them to clean up their act, just as we expect the oil

refinery in Come By Chance to clean up their act. We increased, a few years ago,

the fines to a maximum of $1 million for violating our air pollution act, but we

did not say anywhere in that legislation that on a second offence we are going

to take away your licence to operate an oil refinery.

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, this is very appropriate at all, whether it is

a first offence or a second offence, and I haven't seen the amendment yet. The

amendment - oh, here we are. We have an amendment. We are going to talk about

that, I guess, when we get to it. The amendment says that we will cancel your

licence. We won't cancel on the first offence. We will cancel on the second

offence.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is appropriate. I have asked someone to get

me a copy of the Criminal Code because there was a whole bunch of those sections

that were mentioned, that if you breach these sections of the Criminal Code then

you might get your licence cancelled.

Oh, here we are, 167 of the Criminal Code, "Every one commits an offence

who, being the lessee, manager, agent or person in charge of a theatre, presents

or gives or allows to be presented therein an immoral, indecent or obscene

performance, entertainment or representation."

So, he can carry on, have an obscene performance, go on and have your theatre

in your bar, in a licensed premises, have an obscene performance, not a problem.

The board might or might not cancel your licence. They might or might not. They

might suspend it - but, if you are caught smoking in that bar for a second time,

and you are convicted of a second or a subsequent offence, the board shall

cancel your licence.

We have some standards here now, Mr. Chairman. Certain things are very

important for us to enforce against licensees, and certain things are less

important. It is more important to ensure that you do not smoke in a bar than it

is to ensure there is no immoral or indecent performances going on in the bar.

Section 167 was one of them. We have

section 173. That refers to, again,

indecent acts, willfully doing an indecent act in a public place with intent to

offend somebody. That is another one. Exposing yourself - everyone who, for a

sexual purpose, exposes themselves to a person under the age of fourteen years,

you might lose your licence if that happened. You might have it suspended. You

might lose it.

Section 174 has to do with nudity in a public place. If you have a nude show

in your bar, you may or may not lose your licence, but if someone is smoking in

the bar you are guaranteed to lose your licence for a second offence.

Section 175 has to do with causing a disturbance by various methods, by

openly exposing or exhibiting an indecent exhibition in a public place. So, you

can turn your bar into an indecent theatre, you can have public nudity, you can

have whatever you want under the Criminal Code, those various sections that I

referred to, and according to the Liquor Control At you may suffer a suspension.

You may have your licence cancelled or suspended. If you are guilty of smoking

in that bar, then the board shall cancel the licence where the licensee has been

convicted of a second or subsequent offence.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of difficulty with the approach being taken

by the current act, which says that, for a first offence, if you are guilty of

committing a breach of the Smoke-free Environment Act, you are guaranteed to

have your licence cancelled by the board. The board has no discretion, by the

way. It is not a question of, does the board think that you are a fit person

because you have persistently violated the act, or whether you are flouting the

regulations, or whether you are showing an attitude of willful neglect of your

responsibilities, or persistently fail to follow orders or directions or any of

that nature. You simply have to be convicted of an offence under the Smoke-free

Environment Act of 2005.

The amendment that I see coming forward does not seem to do anything to

mitigate that, so that is the major problem that I have with the legislation. I

want to say that the Smoke-free Environment Act is a positive step. I want to be

able to support the act wholeheartedly, but I really cannot say that I am in

favour of us creating these kinds of disproportional responses to something that

is a public health issue - that is a significant public health issue.

We want to see people be able to comply with the act. We want to see an

enforcement of the act. We want to see an opportunity for people to conform

their behaviour to the Act. We want them to respect the Act, we want them to

respect the law, we want them to respect other people's rights. I say, Mr.

Chairman, you lose respect for the law when the law comes up with this kind of

arbitrary action that has nothing to do with the level of disobedience. It might

have to do only with the fact that you are convicted twice. You might get away

with it. You could get away with it fifty times. One person might get away with

it fifty times, another person might do it three times, get caught twice, get

convicted twice, and lose their license.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time for

speaking has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This being Committee, there will be other opportunities.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raised the points that he

did, and I am glad that I received a copy of the amendment that the government

itself, I understand, is willing to propose with respect to the very issue that

he just raised, because that also is one of some six items that I had given

notice of to the Table. I believe there have been copies of those proposed

amendments too, that the Official Opposition would like to see dealt with as we

go through clause by clause.

The first clause that we would like to move consideration of an amendment for

is in clause 4, Mr. Chairman. I will just make these couple of comments as we

get there. I know we are not there yet, we are at clause 2. I will just make

these comments, and the next time I speak, I would expect, would be at clause 4

as we get to that particular point to move an amendment for consideration.

It is interesting to note that we, too, as the Official Opposition, feel that

it is time to go the next step with respect to the smoke-free spaces issues in

bars, clubs and bingo halls. The owners themselves, as I understand it, are also

willing to go there. They just wish there was more of a consideration for their

concerns as to how the objectives can be achieved. We will move three or four

amendments today that would at least ask and provide an opportunity for

government to consider, one more time, these issues and a slightly different

approach to it. It is not the general principle, it is the approach to it that

we are having some difficulty with as well.

I note that the minister is paying close attention. I am glad to see that the

member, the Chair of the Committee, might also listen and consider the

amendments to see whether or not some of them might be considered, because they

might want to give it some serious consideration by having the occasional quick

huddle once in awhile. I know the Member for Trinity North chaired these

sessions throughout the Province. There were other members of the caucus with

respect to the Member for Gander, the Member for Windsor-Springdale, the

Minister of Justice at times, the Member for Lake Melville, the MHA for Humber

East, the Member for Bonavista South - certain members on that side did this

public consultation in a general fashion and I would ask that maybe one or more

of them might consider some of the representations being made here.

It is clear that, in fact, the Province generally, as well as the owners of

the establishments, are willing to go to the next step. The plea has been: Could

we go to the next step in a manner that accommodates some of our concerns as

operators of bars and pubs, accommodates some of the adverse and negative

economic impacts that they would suggest that studies have shown have happened

elsewhere and are likely to happen here as well. Let's give it some serious

consideration, accomplish what the goal is: To have smoke-free spaces for the

patrons and for the employees, as the general rule for everybody in the

Province, and to allow for some designated smoking areas and designated smoking

rooms where employees could go - the government is saying, we recognize that, we

are willing to do that - but also where patrons could go, that if there is a

smoke-free space that is there as the norm, that is what it will be. If the

government is saying we can have some smoking areas in designated smoking rooms,

let's talk about who is allowed in them.

That is all that is being asked by the amendments that I am putting forward

today on behalf of the official Opposition as well. I think they have been

shared with the minister, with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I

would ask, as we go through each one, Mr. Chair, that I would rise and ask for

consideration and move the amendments at the various stages. The first one will

not be until we get to clause 4, so I will take an opportunity to rise and move

an amendment at that point.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3. Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Clause 3 is carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Clause 4. Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe the Table and the minister and the Leader of the New Democratic

Party are in possession of the amendment that I am now proposing. In fact, just

for context, Mr. Chair, it outlines clause 4, "A person shall not smoke

in", and then it goes from sections a to u. It lists off, in alphabetical

order, from a to u,

definitions of places where a person shall not smoke, such

as, the first one, of course, being a workplace, and we talked about that

before. I am just saying this by way of context. We do not have any disagreement

with saying that in the workplace, because in this workplace where I have been,

smoking has been outlawed and banned in this building for over a decade, and I

think the people who work here appreciate that and support that. As a matter of

fact, they used to be able to smoke out on the steps and now, in this workplace,

they have said: We do not want you on the steps anymore, we would like for you

to move thirty-five feet away from the entrance, so that people do not have to

walk through smoke even in the covered entrances. That is the evolution of the

nature of this workplace. A law did not do that. The people in the workplace

themselves sort of came to much of that by consensus and by agreement, and the

law sort of caught up after the fact. I am pointing that out as an example

whereby there is not disagreement with that.

The point that I am moving the amendment in clause 4, section (1),

subsection(t) - subsection (t)was the issue I raised at second reading as a

matter of principle, and I will not belabour it. I just ask the government to

consider it, give us the reasons why it is here and why they do not think it

should be removed.

Section (

t) says, 4(1)(

t) says, a person shall not smoke in

"a private club to which a member or invited person has access." I am

moving an amendment , Mr. Chair, that would suggest that should be deleted, and

I will just give this brief rationale.

My understanding is that, that kind of legislation was introduced in other

jurisdictions in Canada, that it would be banned in private clubs, that it has

been challenged at least at the provincial court level and it has been ruled

that you cannot stop people in a private club because it is much like a private

home; that the law, that the government, does not have the right. This law, for

example, does not say that I am not allowed to smoke in my home. It does not say

that I am not allowed to smoke in my vehicle. That is not one in the list from A

to U. It does not say, my place of principle residence. It makes no reference to

that. It is up to me if I smoke at home or not. It does not say, in my private

vehicle. It is not listed here, which means it is up to me if I smoke in my

private vehicle. It does say that if I get into a bus, which is not a private

vehicle, I am not allowed to smoke because that is no longer private. There are

other people around, they are in there, and we have a common interest, it is not

private.

The law so far, as I understand it, has not gone to the Supreme Court of

Canada yet, but it is probably on the way there, is my understanding. In private

clubs, in truly private clubs, where if I decide to build a premises and I

decide to have a restricted membership and I decide that in this club the only

people that are invited and allowed will pay a certain fee for the year, must

identify themselves with the proper identification process, just like getting

into this building these days, and that is a club for smokers. If somebody walks

up to the door and says, I want to come in, then you say no, no, show me your

membership. Are you a member or not? If you are not a member you do not get in.

It is not a place that is open to the public. It is not a public place. The

whole idea of this is that it talks about public places, and a public place is

defined back in 2.(k): "public place" means an area or place referred

to in paragraphs 4(1)(

b) to (u).

They say it is not a public place but then, by including the references (

b) to (u), it says a private club is a public place. It either is a public place or

it is not. It is one or the other. I contend it cannot be both. My

understanding, and maybe the minister can tell me that I am incorrect, is that

there is litigation about this working its way through the courts in other

provinces where they put this in. They are finding that you cannot really

dictate what happens in a private institution any more than you can dictate what

happens in my private home, or any more than you can dictate what happens in my

private vehicle; because I think there would be a different debate in the

Province today if this piece of legislation was including, after

section (u), if

section (

v) said: No person shall smoke in their own home. I think there would

be a different debate than we are having today. I am not sure if people are

ready to go that far in terms of having it happen.

I say, Mr. Chair, I am glad to hear an explanation from the government as to

why they have included this. I am asking for consideration that it be deleted

and that the rest of

section 4 stand as it is. I am glad to hear some

explanation as to why it is that the government might have different information

than we, as the Official Opposition, are in possession of, that this has been

found contentious in other jurisdictions. It is being litigated in other

jurisdictions, and some people are suggesting that it actually violates the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows you to have private clubs just like

you have private homes, and that, once it is a private club, the government has

no business dictating what goes on in a private club any more than what they

dictate what happens in your own residence or inside your own vehicle.

I would gladly hear some representation as to that. I do not intend to

belabour it, and we will put it to a vote at some point in time, but I would

like to hear some explanation as to what the standard is that this particular

government heard in their consultations that convinced them to put it in into

this act here.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before the Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board, the Table has had a chance to look at the amendment as put forward by the

Leader of the Opposition, and the amendment is: That Clause 4(1)(

t) be deleted.

The Chair determines that amendment is in order.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We do not support that on the following basis: First of all, a private club

may be a club that may have a liquor licence, that may not have a liquor

licence, or an invited member into that club. You can invite anybody you want

into a private club. You can invite the whole public in there. They could be

invited guests.

I am not going to draw conclusions on what the courts may or may not decide.

If the courts decide it is not the right, obviously we have no alternative; the

legislation will have to change if that is the case. That has not been

established, to my knowledge, on that particular instance. We will comply with

whatever law the courts bring down and tell us we have to comply with. We are

not going to go out and conjecture on that, but we do not want avenues in this

particular bill to allow an avenue to circumvent the intent of the bill, where

you can invite everybody you want into your private club, and leave it open to

the public, and they are there on invitation. How do you manage? How do you

control? You might as well open up your doors and invite them into any

particular club, because lots of private clubs may have guests. They may have

invited members, they may come in. If there are in an area, they may indicate

that they have been invited into that particular facility. It could become a

public facility that is used by people who can be invited. So we do not see, on

numerous grounds - it would weaken it down. It would give avenues to circumvent

that particular one there, and is one that we do not agree with.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall the amendment pass?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The Chair determines the amendment defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chair, there is another amendment later in clause 4 that

I have provided to the Table. Maybe you might want to rule whether it is order

or not, first, before I make my comments with respect to it. I believe the Table

is in possession it.

CHAIR: The Table has had a chance again to review another amendment to

clause 4 as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

The amendment reads: Amend clause 4 (2) (

b) by adding "and their

visiting guests" after "may allow smoking for residents of that

facility" and before "in a designated smoking room".

The Chair determines the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is another point that I raised in second reading with respect to the

principle of the bill. It seems to me that there is somewhat of an

inconsistency. This one is with respect to the issue - and, again, to make sure

we have it in context, it says: Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(d).

So, notwithstanding that particular paragraph whereby you, in fact, are not

allowed to smoke in a health facility - because

section 4.(1)(

d) says, "A

person shall not smoke in a health care facility." This says not

withstanding that, so this means there are some exceptions in health care

facilities and they are spelled out in

section 4(2). I believe the Committee

Chair and the minister would follow it and they know exactly what I am going to

say, that, in fact, it says, even though you are not to smoke in a health care

facility we have decided, as the government, that the law will provide some

exceptions and the exceptions will be these: that in a long-term health care

facility the owner-operator of that facility can have a designated smoking room

if they wish. You cannot smoke anywhere you like in the facility, but you could

have a designated smoking room inside that facility, if it is a long-term care

facility.

Also - and I mentioned this one a couple of days ago with respect to the

Western Health Care Corporation - even if it is an acute care hospital, like the

Western Health Care Corporation, that has some portion of the facility providing

long-term care that facility can have a designated smoking room as well inside

the health care - you cannot smoke where you like. You cannot smoke where you

like, but there can be a designated smoking room.

The third exception for a health care facility laid out in

section 4(2)(

b) is

for a psychiatric facility or unit, because there are psychiatric units as well

in acute care facilities in different places in the Province. There used to be

one at St. Clare's. There is one at the hospital in Grand Falls, my hometown.

I believe there is a psychiatric unit that might be operational still in Gander.

It is not a standalone building. It is not a standalone facility. It is a

psychiatric unit inside the regular hospital. It says: In those psychiatric

units you cannot smoke where you like in there, but there can be a smoking room.

The point I am getting at, though, is it says this: In those smoking rooms the

owner-operator of the facility may allow smoking for residents of the facility.

If I am a resident, if I am a patient in the psychiatric unit or in the

psychiatric hospital, if I am a patient, a resident, I can go smoke, if somebody

will provide the room for me, in the designated room. If I am a long-term care

resident, if I am in a long-term care facility and I am a resident, if there is

a smoking facility in the building I can go smoke in it.

The reason it came to mind for me is because my mother spent the last three

years of her life in a long-term care facility. She was very happy there. She

had lots of visitors there. She did not smoke. They did have a smoking room. She

did not go there and, of course, when I visited her I did not go there. I can

tell you, there were a lot of people who were smokers that when their visitors

came, family, some of them from the Mainland, only home for a few days to go

visit their mom or dad in the long-term care facility - if their mom or day was

a smoker, if mom or day went down the hall into the smoking room, they could not

see them.

The Chairman of the Committee knows this because this is what is being told

to me anecdotally, is that everybody knows, in those facilities they let the

visitors go in the smoking room too. Nobody just does anything about it. You

know, if you are in visiting your mother and your mother is a smoker, and she

says, come on, Rog, let's go down for a smoke now for a few minutes while you

are here, that if I want to go down with her, as her son who hasn't seen her

in two weeks, and go into the smoking room, up to today and up to this law,

nobody has really done anything about it. It sort of has been the law, but

nobody says: Yes, go on in with your mother, boy. If you are foolish enough to

go in there and breath second-hand smoke, go on in with her.

What the law says, quite clearly, is that they may allow smoking for

residents of that facility, so somebody is breaking the law. I guess I would be

breaking the law by going in there with them because I am not suppose to be in

there. The owner-operator is breaking some kind of law by letting someone else

go in there other than an resident. If one of the nurses or the LPNs or one of

the staff, went in there - because this was not even the staff. They were not

allowed in there under this regulation. That is why my amendment says that it

should read that, in those institutions, long-term care facilities, where

long-term care is provided to standalone building in acute care hospitals or in

psychiatric hospital or units, that if the resident is allowed to go into the

smoking facility that the residents' - and the words I have used are - the

residents' visiting guests should be allowed to go in with them, and that

should be legal. That should not be illegal and turn a blind eye to it, which is

what I am told happens today. I am told that is what happens today. I do not

know if that is true or not because I do not frequently visit these smoking

rooms. Any relatives who I have to visit in those facilities are not smokers. I

am told, what happens today, what has been happening, and what will probably

happen in the future, is that the visitors will likely go into the smoking room

with the resident, and the nurses, LPNs, the supervisors, are probably not going

to do much about it. I do not know what inspectors we are going to send in there

and tell them they cannot do it.

If that is the norm, if that is what has been happening, and if that is what

people think is sort of commonsense anyway, all I am asking, by the way of this

amendment, is: Why don't we make that the law? Why don't we make it legal

and permit it for the visiting guests to go into that smoking room if they chose

to do so and make that permissible under the law, because it is not permissible

today?

I don't think I need to belabour the point, Mr. Chairman, any further than

that. I will be glad to hear what consideration the Committee and the minister

gave to that before they drafted this piece of legislation, and then I am sure

we will put it to a vote.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

His amendment to that didn't address entirely what he spoke to. What he

indicated earlier in his amendment: He talked about having a long term care

facility within an acute care facility. He did not move an amendment to delete

that or have that different. His amendment was, his only amendment, the one I

see, 4(2)(b), by adding "and their visiting guests" after the word

facility. In other words, as an exception to it, allow visiting guests, in a

facility that is a long-term care facility or a long-term facility located

within an acute care facility or the psychiatric facility or unit, to be able to

go in there as a visitor.

I am not sure if he intended to include that in the amendment too, but the

reason we don't support that is - first, I will clarify the distinction there.

A long-term care facility within an acute care institution is a designed part of

a long-term care facility, whether it is in Clarenville or in Western Memorial.

There is a

section for long-term care residents designated within a facility. It

is not a medically discharged person in a hospital bed who is waiting to get

into a long-term care bed. That is not allowed. If you are in a

section that is

a long-term care facility and because it is located in a designated, specific

area, they may - it doesn't say they have to - they may decide to set up a

designated smoking room for those residents, not for the public who are

visiting, the patron who is visiting. In any establishment we are not allowing

people who are visiting, whether it is a bar or whether it is a bingo hall,

wherever you go - we are extending that to say that the visitor cannot go in

there. Smoking cannot be occurring. Why should you allow a visitor to a facility

where there is smoking to go into that too?

Technically, that is for those people where it is their home, it is their

residence, in long-term care facilities or a psychiatric unit. Those were the

only two instances. It wasn't to allow guests to go in there. We want to make

that point clear. The public at large shouldn't have to go into any facility,

they don't have to go in there, and we shouldn't provide an avenue to be

able to allow any visitor or any patron of any particular area to have that

opportunity to do that. That is consistent with legislation that was brought in

and the basic principles that are proposed.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Should the amendment, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, to

clause 4(2)(

b) carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

The Chair determines the amendment, as put forward by the Leader of the

Opposition, to clause 4.(2)(

b) to be defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, my understanding is that the Chair and the minister and the Leader of

the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, are in

possession of the amendment that I would like to move to clause 5.(1). Maybe you

could rule whether it is in order or not?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has had an opportunity to read the amendment to clause 5.(1) as put

forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The amendment reads: Amend Clause 5(1)

to add "and patrons" at the end of the clause after the word

"employee".

The Chair determines the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, not to belabour the issue but to look for an explanation. I

understand, but I do not fully accept the explanation given with respect to

residents and their visitors in long-term care facilities and mental health

units and so on; psychiatric units. It probably shows, again, that the

government does not intend to listen a lot. They can give a reason why they want

to continue on the way they are and not necessarily listen to the details and

the plea that has actually been made.

I think, with respect to clause 5.(1), my understanding of it is that this

would be the very nub and gist of the contention with this particular

legislation and members of the Beverage Industry Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador. This is where their biggest plea is in terms of being willing to move

to the next step, to have bars and pubs and other facilities smoke-free spaces

but asking for some kind of an accommodation that if there is going to be a

designated smoking room allowed in the facility and to be some part of that

facility, that patrons be allowed to go into that designated smoking room.

Because again, for the context of it, what the government is saying with this

new step forward, which is a step in the right direction, is that

notwithstanding the rest of

section four and so on, an employer may - a person

who owns a bar or a pub or a nightclub - in accordance with the regulations -

and the regulations are going to talk about what kind of designated smoking room

is appropriate and allowable. That is going to be done by the government. The

employer may designate one or more enclosed rooms that ar