May 15, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 26

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate the Town of Marystown who are celebrating the 50 th

anniversary of Incorporation. To commemorate this event, the town is hosting its

first ever Burin Peninsula Summer Games from July 15-22, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the Burin Peninsula has a rich history in sport in

this Province and this premiere event will create a new history of sport in this

area, showcasing 1,500 male and female athletes from the ages of ten to eighteen

in eleven different sports.

I am also pleased to be a sponsor of the MHA's Cup for the games, as this

trophy will be presented to the Most Sportminded Region at the Games.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all citizens of the Burin Peninsula, along with visitors

from around the Province, to be part of this history making event. I

congratulate the organizers of this event for their efforts and I look forward

to some great competition at these Burin Peninsula Summer Games.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Clarenville

Youth Choir and Cadenza who have been chosen to represent Newfoundland and

Labrador at the 2001 Choral Music Festival-Unisong in Ottawa on Canada Day.

The Clarenville Youth Choir was first formed in the spring of 1995 and has

grown from its thirty-two original members to now fifty-nine, including

twenty-three of those members who are part of the choir's senior

group-Cadenza. Under the direction of Ann Ludrigan and accompanist Lynn Wicks,

the choir will join thirteen other choirs from across Canada to perform at the

National Arts Centre this Canada Day.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Clarenville Youth Choir and Cadenza on this

accomplishment and the honour of representing Newfoundland and Labrador at the

Canada Day Celebrations in Ottawa.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this month I attended Heritage Fair 2001 at Sir Wilfred Grenfell

College in Corner Brook. At this fair, students from schools within School

District 3 exhibited approximately 175 projects covering a broad spectrum of

Newfoundland and Labrador's culture, history and heritage.

Students chose, researched and constructed exhibits on various topics ranging

from Joseph R. Smallwood, Newfoundland's place in Viking history, the story of

the Beothucks, Newfoundland's role in wireless telecommunications, to the

history of the pulp and paper mill at Corner Brook.

In addition to the exhibits, high school students created a Web site and

conducted interviews with project teams and visitors to the Fair. For those who

may be interested, they may air and view these exhibits by surfing to

http://projects.sd3.k12.nf.ca.

From this Fair, two Grade 5 students were selected to attend the National

Fair to be held in Kamloops, B.C., in July. These were Dustin Anderson of Bonne

Bay Academy, Woody Point, for his project titled: Old Carpentry Tools; and

Jennifer Parsons of J.J. Curling in Corner Brook, for her project titled: Rug

Hooking.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Bill Allen of School District 3 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. MERCER: - event co-chairman for Heritage Fair 2001 for his untiring

efforts in organizing this annual event and I ask this hon. House to join with

me in congratulating all the students who participated in Heritage Fair 2001,

and to wish them well in their future studies.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to inform my colleagues today that government is undertaking a

public consultation on solid waste management.

Beginning next month, an advisory committee, chaired by Mr. Derm Flynn,

President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, will

hold roundtable discussions in many communities throughout the Province seeking

the views and opinions of key stakeholders, groups and individuals on the

development of a comprehensive provincial waste management strategy.

Joining Mr. Flynn on the advisory committee will be Corner Brook city

councillor Priscilla Boutcher; Catherine Barrett, President of the Recycling

Depot Operators' Association; and Jessie Bird of Cartwright, Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Flynn and Ms Barrett, who are

joining us today in the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The Speech from the Throne articulated government's

commitment to develop a long-term strategy for waste management in this

Province. This public consultation is the first step in fulfilling that

commitment.

Mr. Speaker, government is committed to addressing our current waste

management situation with long-term solutions, thereby ensuring the protection

of our environment for the enjoyment of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for

generations to come.

I encourage all interested groups and individuals to take

part in roundtable

discussions in their area. Individuals and groups may also forward their

comments to the advisory committee in care of my department. A discussion paper,

Protecting Our Environment for Tomorrow: A public consultation paper for a

strategy for waste management, is being prepared and will be available early

next week by contacting my department or the government's Web site.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

This is an issue that has been discussed and debated in the House on a number

of occasions. It is an issue that the former Minister of Environment knows I

have been very active on and have made several recommendations on. I am glad to

see one of the recommendations that I made most recently adopted by government,

and that is the tire recycling program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have gotten the information from the MMSB on that and

it certainly looks as though that program is going to fulfill some of the

requirements that I have asked government to participate in. I will eagerly

await and watch what happens there. I will ask, with that particular program, I

say to the minister, that we concentrate on secondary processing of recycled

products in this Province as opposed to having it go outside.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, this is good news today. It is the first step

in a process that should have started three or four years ago, but at least it

is starting now. It is good news, and it is something that we have been eagerly

awaiting on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly this Province is in need of a comprehensive strategy for handling

of solid waste. I hope that in addition to hearing from the stakeholders in the

community that the government itself will provide some leadership. There is a

real opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make fundamental change in the way that we

deal with solid waste in this Province. We should examine every avenue of

recycling, every avenue of eliminating the number of landfill sites that we have

in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Every avenue of improving the environmental standards and

trying to use every product that is now being thrown away and ending up on

landfills.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time has come.

MR. NOEL: I hope you will have as much enthusiasm about the statement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members that my department will soon

be implementing a new e-commerce service enabling vehicle owners to renew their

registration over the Internet.

Registrations are currently renewed on an annual basis by mail, through

chartered banks, or in person at various departmental offices. Once this new

service is in place, owners will be able to renew their vehicle registrations

and pay for the service on-line.

Mr. Speaker, change in information technology is revolutionizing the way we

do business. The public is demanding more immediate access to services. We

intend to provide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: My department has worked with Treasury Board to develop a

secure e-commerce system. Vehicle registration will be the first of various

service applications to be offered through this technology.

We have gone to great lengths to ensure this system is user-friendly, and

transactions will be secure. In the coming weeks, I will provide all hon.

members, and citizens, with complete information regarding the new service.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is nice to see the minister stand to his feet. He is taller than I

pictured him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister, I notice today, is wearing a

blue suit as well; so, if he is looking for something to surf, I ask him to have

a look over here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did not tell us how he is going to do this, or whether this is

going to be providing enhanced employment opportunities for public servants, or

whether this is another job for xwave and their monopoly IT position, or whether

he is going to go to public tender on it. I hope this will provide better

service and enhanced employment opportunities for public servants who are now

delivering this service.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I guess my questions today are for the Deputy Premier of the government, and

they deal with the development of our Province's natural resources.

With respect to the Premier's recent announcements in Atlanta, I want to

ask this Deputy Premier, the former Premier, that in view of the recent

statements by the Premier that he is in favor now, committed to, exporting bulk

water, I would like to ask this question: What is the return to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador from bulk water exports? Bulk exports, in my view, do

not produce very many jobs. I would like to ask the Deputy Premier: Is

government counting on royalties? And: What kind of royalties and what level of

royalties are they counting on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that the Premier - I

was not here yesterday, so I am not sure exactly what was said in Chambers. I

would advise the House that a committee has been struck, chaired by myself, as

Minister of Justice, along with Minister Aylward, the Minister of Finance, and

the Environment Minister, Mr. Wiseman. The purpose, of course, is to gather and

compile all the information concerning possible export of water, whether it be

in bulk or whether it be in bottles. Before any decision is made we would, of

course, like it to be an informed decision; hence, all the information is being

gathered.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says, "Before any

decision is made...." The Premier said, over the weekend, that this is

something we should do. I asked him the question specifically on royalties. Let

me ask him this: He must be aware that his leader, the Premier of the Province,

said that they anticipate or expect to collect $20 million a month in royalties.

That being the case - the Premier did say that, I say to hon. members opposite -

I would like to ask the minister: On what analysis did the Premier of the

Province base his projection that the Province could collect $20 million a

month?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He did say it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, these questions get asked by the media and, of

course, the Premier quite rightfully responds. That is not to take away from the

fact that the purpose of the committee is to investigate all matters and all

elements of the possible export of water. No one has made a definitive decision

as to whether it will be or will not be. The Premier has indicated what his

personal preference is, but I can advise the House that all environmental

factors, all financial factors and all legal consequences will be taken into

consideration before a decision is made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Deputy Premier shouts out across the floor, what am I afraid of? I am

afraid of the damage that you and your government are going to do to this

Province, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask this question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask this question to the Minister of Finance. The

Premier has openly talked about projections of revenues to the Province from

bulk water exports. Can you stand in your place, or can the Minister of Finance

stand in her place, and give us the analysis based upon which the Premier made

that statement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know questions are short, because the

same question was asked yesterday, and I will give the same answer: That we are

giving this process due diligence. We have a committee in place to analyze all

components. Mr. Speaker, generally, you get the information and you analyze it

before you make the decision. Mr. Speaker, I will say it again, because

obviously it requires a number of ministers to repeat the same response, to get

the message across: There has been no decision made, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to ask any minister who cares to respond to this question: In

view of the eventful great public relations trip by the Premier of the Province

to Atlanta, has anyone talked to the Premier to see or to wonder or to ask him:

While he spent some quality time with the Prime Minister of the country, did he

get any assurance or commitment from the Prime Minister of Canada that on the

royalty issue, vis--vis bulk water exports, that the Prime Minister of Canada

gave a commitment to the Premier and this Province that there would be no

clawback on any potential royalties from water export? Did any minister talk to

the Premier and ask him that very, very fundamental question, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Leader of the Opposition asked the question to any minister, so

maybe others would like to respond after I finish.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not finished with

the trip to Atlanta yet on the trade mission. The comments he has made and the

context of the question certainly imply he should not even be there promoting

trade for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to inform all hon. members and all people of

the Province, of the outcome of the trade mission when he returns; and further,

we will be happy to inform him and the people of the Province, when we have done

the appropriate due diligence to the issue of bulk water and other water

supplies in the Province, Mr. Speaker, on our decision on what we will do with

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I guess the short answer, then, is no, they got no commitment from the Prime

Minister of the country on royalties.

Let me ask this question -

MR. SULLIVAN: Were they interested enough to ask it?

MR. E. BYRNE: Nor were they interested enough to ask it. Very good. I

will have to wait for the Premier to get in the Legislature and I can ask him

that directly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Just because the Premier is on a trade mission does not mean that the

business of the people of the Province stops, I say to government members

opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. members that from time to time the

responsibilities of members and ministers, of course, take them away from the

Legislature, and that ought not to be a topic for discussion in this

Legislature.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I would like to ask the government this question: Vis--vis, Voisey's Bay

file.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this government, and in particular the

Premier, has articulated a position on the export of ore prior to a finished

processing of that product that explicitly defies the mandate the government

received in 1999, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier: Will government make a

commitment that before a deal is signed, final and binding that puts in place a

deal that is final, that the people have to live with forever and a day, that

you will bring it to this Legislature for debate and that you will bring it

before the people of the Province so they can see and comment on what is in that

deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I had not recognized the hon. minister and I don't think his microphone was

on at the time.

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

MR. TULK: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the Deputy Premier's

answer because Hansard will show that the Premier's answer - I will get to the

question if you will give me a moment, I say to the Government House Leader - to

me on this question is different.

I want to ask this question. It is now government policy, supported by your

Premier, that if you negotiate a deal, before you sign it you will bring it

before the Legislature for debate and you will bring it before the public so

they may have their opportunity to debate it as well. Is that what you are

saying, Deputy Premier?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that this government will not

hide anything that it signs or does, and that it will be debated fully in this

Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: What's the problem? Are you trying to suggest to us that we

should hide something? Are you afraid there is going to be a deal there? What's

the problem?

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

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

Government members asked: What are we afraid of? The government members say

it will be out in the open. I can only say, are they aware - I will ask this

question, you must be aware, or are you aware that the Premier of the Province,

in this Legislature, said no to the question that I asked, that he would not

make that commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am asking again, Mr. Speaker: Before this deal is final

and binding upon the people of the Province, that it will be debated fully in

this Legislature and that government will provide an opportunity to have it

fully debated outside this Legislature in public. Is that the commitment that

government is making?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: My answer to that repetitive question is the same as it was

before.

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

Opposition.

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

A final supplementary and I will sit down. I want to ask the Deputy Premier:

Are you in a position today to tell us when the by-elections in Humber West and

in Port de Grave will be called?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: What an amateur hour, Mr. Speaker, this has turned out to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Will the Deputy Premier set the date for a by-election in

Humber West? Will I confirm the date, if I knew it? Does the hon. gentleman not

realize -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Voisey's Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Does the hon. gentleman not realize -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: He is wild again today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: He has gone right in a circle. Feed him!

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. gentleman not realize that one person, and one

person only, usually knows the date for by-elections? He is called something

that the hon. gentleman wanted to be but will never be; he is called the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Environment Canada has recognized Newfoundland and

Labrador's incinerators as being one of the major causes of dioxins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that we are in Question Period. If hon. members wish to

have a conversation I think they should do so outside the Chamber. We are now in

Question Period.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that Environment Canada has recognized Newfoundland and

Labrador's incinerators as being one of the major causes of dioxins and furans

in all of Canada. What is of particular interest today, Mr. Speaker, is the fact

that incinerators located close to drinking water supplies also give off dioxins

and furans. Because of the fact that dioxins and furans persist in the

environment and bio-accumulate, I would like to ask the minister the following

question: Has the minister tested water supplies in areas where incinerators are

in close proximity to water supplies, such as Grand Falls where you can see

emissions roll across the water supply? Has he tested those water supplies for

the presence of dioxins, furans, and other toxins?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the hon. member would know that - I do not think there is anywhere in

Canada where they test for dioxins and furans, knowing full-well that these are

emissions. If we did, Mr. Speaker, there are no standards under the Canadian

standard drinking water guidelines in which to compare them to.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, there are other toxins where there are

standards we can test by. Laboratory tests have shown that dioxins and furans

can be linked to reproductive problems, skin disorders, weight loss, cancer,

tumors and other such problems, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he feels that this

gives sufficient reason in this Province to start testing for dioxins and

furans? Minister, don't you feel the people in that area have a right to know?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am, as minister, fully aware that the people of this Province have a right

to know. All the recent information that I have in my department, we are making

it available to the public. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness,

that I too, care very much about the people of this Province. When we look at

the kind of fearmongering that has gone on in this Province for the last week or

so -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: - the last week or so, Mr. Speaker, when we take into

consideration that these kinds of accusations are going right across this

country, and we are diligently trying to build a tourist industry in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we, as a government and

as people of this Legislature, should show some responsibility to the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the minister is blind to

reports and studies. The Federal Department of Environment, of which he is a

member of the Council of Environment Ministers, has determined that dioxins and

furans persist in water and in the environment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister again: Will

he test for the presence of dioxins and furans and other such toxins in water

supplies that are located in close proximity to incinerators?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can say, Mr. Speaker, that I am confident in the measures that government

has taken to ensure that the residents of this Province have continued access to

clean, safe drinking water. We are all aware that the dioxins and furans are

emissions from incinerators, and we are in the process now of looking at all the

waste management in the Province, which includes incineration, Mr. Speaker. As I

have said, we test every community, microbiological testing, on an average of

once a month to ensure that the drinking water that people have access to in

this Province, public drinking water, is safe.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when you have to realize that we

are doing whatever it is humanly possible to do to ensure that the water is

safe. We are doing it, let there be no doubt about it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Health,

and they follow up on some questions we asked last week relative to the health

care in Canada report.

Home care, Mr. Minister, substitutes for care in hospitals or in long-term

care facilities. However, Newfoundland is one of those provinces where

prescription drugs that are offered to patients while they are hospitalized are

denied to them when they are receiving home care services. This is different

than is the case in, let's say, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. Why are home

care patients in Newfoundland treated differently than would be the case if they

lived in one of our neighboring provinces?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question.

Obviously, when you are comparing the different jurisdictions in the country,

policies and programs do vary. The hon. member brings up a very important area

of health care in this Province, the provision of drugs. At the present time,

with the program that we have in place in this Province, we are expending in the

area of some $70 million in terms of providing drugs to people in this Province.

It is a fairly costly proposition. This year our total budget for the Province

is some $1.4 million.

The hon. member says that in terms of the needs that are there - here in the

House we constantly see hon. members on their feet saying we should be putting

more money here and we should be putting more money there. Mr. Speaker, the fact

of the matter is - and we hear it repeatedly here in the House, and I say it to

the people of my district who question me on a regular basis in terms of the

things that I try to provide to them - that running government is not much

different, really, from running your basic household income. You have a certain

amount of money that is available to you, you make hard decisions, and on the

basis of those decisions you try to provide the best possible service you can to

the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In reality then, Mr. Minister, we have a two-tiered system of home care and

we, therefore, have a two-tiered system of health care in this Province. We have

those who can pay for their medications from out-of-pocket or drug insurance

plans and those who cannot pay and have no such insurance plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister: When will this government put a stop

to this discriminatory two-tiered system of home care in Newfoundland and

Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, the only place I have seen in this country where

the two-tiered health care system is being advocated is in jurisdictions that

are headed up by parties of the political stripe represented by the hon. member

opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would say, through you and to the people of

this Province, that this government is committed to providing the highest

possible level of health care to all of the people of this Province. That is a

commitment to them and we will deliver on that commitment.

Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, government decisions perplex the people of this Province. This

past weekend we saw this government choose to put a full-page Liberal Party ad

in the paper at government's expense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: We also saw this Province, through the Newfoundland and

Labrador Liquor Commission, take out a $250,000 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - private booth down at Mile One Stadium.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his

question.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to know what

strategies you use when you make your priorities and when this government

decides to do these things as opposed to putting more money into a drug

prescription plan for home care patients.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, I am surprised at the tactic and approach used by the hon. member

opposite in terms of trying to downplay the importance of these issues. We are

not in any way, as a government, saying that the concerns that are out there are

not genuine. We are not saying that there are not needs out there now on which

we are working on daily basis with the health care corporations trying to

deliver on a number of fronts.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to an ad that ran in the paper,

and trying to draw from that possibly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the one message that I will deliver to the hon.

members opposite is that if they do not learn to listen, they are doomed forever

to remain in the dark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and has do with the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - the new coalition, Mr .Speaker, of business interests and

municipalities called the Alliance for Responsible Nickel Development. They have

floated the idea that it would make sense to allow Voisey's Bay Nickel or Inco

to ship ore out now in return for a promise of smelting and refining later, that

promise to be backed by a penalty clause or a fine for non-performance.

Mr. Speaker, is this idea being floated because that is what Inco has

proposed to the government and that is what this government is prepared to

accept?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, those people are very credible. I happened to see,

I think it was a news clip, yesterday or the day before - yesterday, on the same

issue. Those people are very credible people, very honest businessmen, as far as

I understand, good Newfoundland businessmen, good people from Newfoundland, and

I credit them - I do not know if the hon. gentleman does or not, but I credit

them - with the ability to think for themselves and put forward their own ideas

and their own solutions to this problem. I want to say to him that to suggest

otherwise is somewhat of an insult to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Deputy Premier agree that a penalty or a fine or something of that

nature, in return for a promise to do something later, would be just as

effective with respect to the development of Voisey's Bay Nickel as it has

been in Marystown with Friede Goldman Halter?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, this government has made the commitment over and

over and over that we will do what will get the maximum return on the resources

of the Province for the people of the Province. That still stands, and if there

are ways and means of doing that, whatever the ways and means are of doing that,

then obviously I think people's minds should be somewhat open. I think that is

what those people are trying to do, to explore possibilities for developing this

mineral, this resource, for the maximum benefit of the people of this Province.

If they are wrong, I am sure they will admit they are wrong. If they cannot see

a deal that can be worked out, I am sure they will see that.

I do not understand where the hon. gentleman is coming from. Is he trying to

say that those people have been bought and sold?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

Many people in Central Newfoundland make a living from selling firewood. Most of

the wood comes from Abitibi Timber Limits. Mostly they are hardwoods and

fire-damaged wood. For many years, people have obtained cutting permits from the

company, but this year, for some reason, the company refuses to give out permits

to the same people. They have been told that the government must deal with this

issue and control the permits and management of the operations on the company

limits.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: Where does he stand with

respect to this concern? And: Will the minister see to it that the operators are

not left without being able to avail of this important resource?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is one particular case that has been brought to my attention in Central

Newfoundland with regard to a domestic cutter. That domestic cutter was cutting

on ACI limits for the last number of years. They have been accommodating him and

a number of other cutters, by the way. This year, Abitibi Consolidated decided

not to accommodate this particular person in question right now. If there are

others, they would have to be brought to my attention, because of the liability

factor. The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods have been trying for

some years to try to get some kind of compliance agreements with both Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper and Abitibi Consolidated, to try to put people in on those

limits and then we take the responsibility for them

As of today, that is the problem; it is liability. This particular

individual, who I know, who has been brought to my attention, can go on those

limits provided that he buy liability insurance to cover himself. That is the

status as of today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table the report of the Labour Relations Board for the

year 2000. This outlines the activities of the Labour Relations Board for 2000

with respect to caseloads, hearings and representation votes.

Thank you.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to be able to table the year 2000 annual report of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present another petition on behalf of some people in my

district who are seeking some road improvements, I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, who is listening. Road improvement is something

that is definitely on the agenda in my district, especially after this winter. I

am not going to spell out again today the prayer of the petition. It is similar

to the one that I presented here yesterday. Basically I will go to

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS it is the duty of government, through the enactment and enforcement

of the Highway Safety Act, to provide its citizens not only from commuters but

also from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the traveling public must be the number one priority of

any government;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding

to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 90;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pay.

Once again. I bring forward a petition from the people in my district who are

very concerned about the safety of the roads in this part of the district and,

indeed, in all parts of the district. We believe that government needs to have

another look at the priorities that I put forward earlier this year. The roads

in my district are deplorable, to say the least, causing some major concerns for

the general, traveling public, but also in relation to emergency vehicles such

as ambulances, which have to travel over these roads. There are some major,

major problems.

The reason for the petition today is so the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation will see that there is a major need out there. Hopefully, some

funding will be found to address the concerns. We have gone from cracks in the

pavement now to major, major potholes. There are a lot of people having damage

done to their vehicles. It is just impossible to maintain any semblance of

speed. It is certainly a concern a lot of people have.

In this day and age, in the year 2001, we believe, that is it is not

necessary to have roads in the condition they are in. The asphalt plants are in

the process of getting up and starting for this year and people in the area feel

that it is timely to bring this petition forward. Hopefully, the concerns that

are raised through this petition, and through others which I will present here

in the House, that the minister and his department will take a serious look at

the roads, especially on Route 90, which this petition deals with, but indeed,

throughout my district. I have concerns with the roads through Route 90, which

starts in Ship Harbour and works all the way up to Salmonier Line. Just outside

of North Harbour there are some necessary repairs which need to be done.

Route 100, which is between Branch and St. Bride's, especially. The

communities of Branch and St. Bride's, and in as far as Patrick's Cove.

There are some much needed repairs needed in that community; right next to the

cemetery in St. Bride's, right in the middle of the community, it is just a

total mess that the road has been left in after the winter.

These are concerns that the people have. Right throughout the Town of

Placentia there are some major concerns that have been raised about the roads.

Down in the community of Ship Harbour - the first or the last community in my

district, whatever way you want to look at it - there are some major concerns

there. The people in Ship Harbour are trying to develop a major tourism

attraction there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Certainly, one thing we need in order to bring tourism into

the area are proper roads.

I hope the minister will listen today to the prayer of this petition and will

address some of the concerns that I have raised here in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present yet another petition on the bulk export

of water from the Province. It is an issue that is becoming even more newsworthy

over the past couple of days.

The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of

Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of

water from this Province. Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that

has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of

benefits going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair

share. With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the

opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary

processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled

and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have spoken loudly and clearly, and

they are speaking loudly and clearly on this issue again. The reason we are

defending the people's voice on this particular issue, the reason we are

championing this particular issue in this House of Assembly, is because of the

fact there is absolutely no categorization, as of yet, for bulk water exports

from the federal government. There is absolutely no royalty put in place, no

royalty regime, from this Province on bulk water exports. We have absolutely no

idea what monitory benefit would come to the Province as a result of bulk water

exports. We have absolutely no idea whether the Province will get anything from

bulk water exports or whether all of it will be clawed back in royalty clawbacks

under the transfer, and royalty clawbacks from the federal government.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have seen every major

resource to date being exported as raw resource, being shipped out, going to

other places to create employment in other places, going to other places to

benefit people in other places, with little benefit to the people in this

particular Province. The people of this Province are demanding that we start

reaping full benefits, that we start looking for and demanding full benefits on

our resources, and that is what the people of the Province want. That is what

this party, on this side of House, are demanding, that this resource give full

and maximum and fair benefits to the people of the Province. What the people of

this Province want is work. What the people of this Province want is to be

employed so that they can stay in this Province; so that they can live where

they have grown up and enjoyed life; so that they can stay with family. We have

seen, in this Province, too much of having our young people, our youngest and

brightest people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - having to move away because they cannot find work. It

is time that we start to demand that in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would just ask if we could revert back to Notices of

Motion for Private Members' Day tomorrow and introduce that?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we revert to Notices of Motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: We have an agreement.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I will on tomorrow move the following resolution that:

WHEREAS the current Premier ascended to the post of Premier by being elected

leader of his Party on February 3, 2001 by 638 delegates to his Party's

leadership convention; and

WHEREAS it is reasonable and proper to demand that the new Premier overseeing

a new administration, unless merely filling a caretaker role in continuation of

the mandate of his predecessor, should move swiftly to seek a new mandate

directly from the people, whom the Premier presumes to govern; and

WHEREAS on every other occasion in this Province when there has been a change

in leadership of the governing party, a general election has followed within 100

days; and

WHEREAS the current Premier, during the first 100 days of his administration,

has stated and demonstrated his desire to take his administration and policy

directions that deviate significantly from those of his predecessor and the

mandate in which they received it; and

WHEREAS on bulk water export issue in particular, the current Premier has

stated publicly he now prefers to pursue a policy that defies not only the

policy but indeed the legislation that was drafted, passed unanimously and

enacted under the administration of his predecessor, with the current Premier's

support at the time, and that is now the law of the Province; and

WHEREAS on the Voisey's Bay development issue in particular, the current

Premier has articulated a position on the export of nickel ore prior to finished

processing that explicitly defies the position that was published and provided

to voters in the Liberal Party's 1999 election red book' on the basis of

which the voters of the Province gave the current Premier's predecessor his

mandate; and

WHEREAS at least two prominent Members of the Cabinet of the current Premier's

predecessor have publicly and repeatedly expressed grave concern and opposition

with respect to the approach of the current Premier on the Voisey's Bay

development issue; and

WHEREAS the current Premier has stated in the House that he is willing to

sign a binding contract on the Voisey's Bay development without first bringing

it directly to the people of the Province and their elected representatives in

the House of Assembly for scrutiny and approval, thereby shackling the people of

the Province to a deal on which they have no input; and

WHEREAS the current Premier has failed to articulate a strategic plan for the

Province's fishing industry as a principal means of fostering the economic

development that rural Newfoundland and Labrador so desperately needs; and

WHEREAS numerous other significant public policy issues with enormous

long-term implications for Newfoundland and Labrador and its people - including

energy supply, Churchill Falls development, oil and gas development, forest

management, infrastructure management, federal-provincial agreements, and others

- are now before the provincial government for decisions, yet the people of the

Province have been given no clear articulation and no direct opportunity to

approve or disapprove of the direction the current Premier intends to take on

these vital issues;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Premier of

Newfoundland and Labrador to promptly and immediately ask His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve the General Assembly and to issue a writ of a

general election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) regulations that would not allow convoluted

(inaudible) like that.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is so convoluted about that? You would see it as

convoluted. I understand how you would see it as convoluted. The people up there

do not see it has convoluted. You're reading your own polls. You know what

they are saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Oder 19.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of

Tobacco Related Health Care Costs." (Bill 9)

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today for second reading of bill 9, An

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

As you know, on April 11 of this year this House adopted a resolution

appointing a Select Committee to receive the opinions of interested groups

respecting this bill as part of government's overall strategy to reduce the

consumption of tobacco. I was pleased to learn that the committee tabled its

report yesterday with the unanimous recommendation that Bill 9 proceed for

debate and passage in this sitting of the House of Assembly, without amendment.

The committee conducted public hearings over a period of ten days, during

which it heard from individuals and groups who have witnessed firsthand the

devasting effects of tobacco use, members of the health community, as well as

representatives of the tobacco industry.

Some of those groups and individuals included: the Newfoundland and Labrador

Alliance for the Control of Tobacco; the Association of Registered Nurses of

Newfoundland and Labrador; the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain

Millers Union; the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association; the Heart and

Stroke Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador; Health and Community Services -

Western; the Lung Association of Newfoundland and Labrador; Karen Selick, a

lawyer from Ontario who gave evidence; Victims of Tobacco; Pediatric Advocacy

Group; the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association; the Teen Tobacco

Team; Non Smokers' Rights Association; the Canadian Cancer Society; Physicians

for a Smoke-Free Canada; Imperial Tobacco Canada Inc.; Canadian Tobacco

Manufacturers' Council; and the Department of Justice.

Not surprisingly, with the exception of the tobacco industry, the support for

this act was overwhelming. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the illnesses caused due to

tobacco smoke are well known and there is no doubt that the health care costs

incurred as a result of smoking amounts to millions of dollars each year.

Mr. Speaker, in order to recover these health care costs we must put the

proper legislative framework in place in order to initiate a statement of claim.

That, of course, is the purpose of Bill 9. In this regard it is modeled after

legislation which already exists in the Province of British Columbia. That

Province, as you may have heard, has already started its legal action against

tobacco companies.

There are several important provisions to this act and I would like to draw

your attention to some of those provisions. It provides government with a direct

action against tobacco companies. In other words, it permits government to bring

action in its own right and is not dependent upon the right to sue, on behalf

of, or in the name of, a particular individual. This kind of direct action is

not unusual. For example, at present government has this right under the

Environment Act to recover the cost of pollution cleanup. Also, the act is

drafted to give government the right to call medical evidence in what is known

as an aggregate action. Here we are faced with a toxic product which has caused

harm to thousands of people. It is not possible, given the magnitude of the

harm, to call evidence relating to each and every individual who has been

affected by tobacco. For this reason, the act protects the privacy of the

individual, but requires government to prove - through statistical and medical

evidence - the connection between tobacco use and tobacco related diseases, such

as lung cancer and emphysema.

Under this act the government has the onus of establishing that the defendant

tobacco company committed what is referred to as a tobacco related wrong. In

other words, that they have reached a legal duty owed to the residents of this

Province. The Province must also establish that exposure to tobacco causes

disease and that the manufacturer sold its product in this Province. If the

Province is successful in establishing its case, there are a number of

presumptions which are rebuttable' by the tobacco company. All things being

equal, there is a presumption that manufacturers should share in the health care

costs based on their proportion of the tobacco market. Once causation has been

established, the tobacco companies who have committed wrongs must present

evidence that their activities and their products do not lead to increased

smoking and do not cause harm.

It is important to note that the act has a limitation period of two years.

Once the Province proclaims this legislation, a statement of claim must be

initiated within that two-year period.

Mr. Speaker, our Treasury incurs millions of dollars of cost each year as a

result of illnesses related to tobacco smoke. This legislation is an important

part of government's initiative to recover these costs and to reduce the

overall consumption of tobacco in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, too, to have some comments on Bill 9. I sat as a member of the

Select Committee on that and have some observations and comments regarding Bill

9. I want to say, at the outset, that we gave considerable consideration to

information that was submitted. I do believe there were nineteen oral

presentations and a host of written presentations, too, and on each of these we

listened carefully to those that proposed to proceed with the bill. I think

there were fifteen of those oral ones that were in support of proceeding and, I

think, there were four that were opposed to proceeding with this particular

bill; and there were written and oral ones that were on both sides. The ratio of

those against in written was more in line with the fors on the written ones, but

the oral presentations were fairly straightforward. We have heard, as the

minister indicated, from numerous medical groups; those representing the

professional associations - the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland

and Labrador, for example, the Medical Association, the Heart and Stroke

Foundation, the Lung Association. We have heard from Health and Community

Services in the western region of the Province and a whole host of others

dealing with children: pediatrics, for example, advocacy group.

Overall when we looked at this, and my colleague, the Member for St. John's

East also sat on the committee, we weighed carefully the arguments put forth for

and the arguments put forth against. We felt, in total, we could support the

legislation proceeding on Bill 9. I would like to make some points on both sides

of things, I think, that are worth noting overall.

When you look at the bill overall, what it is asking us to do, it is asking

us to put legislation that will get the wheels in motion to take legal action

against tobacco companies on a products liability case. I do not have any doubt

that tobacco smoke causes damage to our system, to our lungs. It causes damage

overall, to the whole body functioning. I am anti-tobacco, personally. I feel

that we cannot get too strict, really, in regulations that are going to stamp

out the use of tobacco.

We heard from a teen tobacco team, for example. One of the points I made

there and I got an answer - I guess the first answer I heard from any group that

really answered - and said: Why don't we do it? I said it here in the House

before also. Now, I am still not convinced that we should not do it, but I said

it here in the House before and I asked ministers here when they brought in the

legislation. It is illegal to buy alcohol under nineteen. It is illegal to

possess it under nineteen. It is illegal to buy cigarettes under nineteen but it

is not illegal to smoke cigarettes. I ask the question: Why don't we make it

illegal? Do you support making it illegal under nineteen? Because we acknowledge

that tobacco is a legal product.

One answered - actually, I think it was a constituent of mine on the

committee - and said: Well, what is that going to do? If you make it illegal,

they might want to try it more, as teens and young people. It might be more

tempting to them because it is illegal. Therefore, they might probably have

access. They did agree, though, that limiting access - and the point I look at -

limiting access is important. If you limit access to alcohol, I think you will

get reduced consumption in young people.

How do we limit access? We legislate strict regulations in the access of it,

and we bring down the heavy hand of the law to people who provide it to people

under age. That is one way to limit access. You bring down a heavy-handed law.

There are certain things that we could do, and I will get to that just a little

bit later, as a Province: what responsibilities we have as legislators here;

what responsibilities government have; and what responsibilities employers have

in this issue.

Down to the last presenter, they were in favor. There was not anything that

they presented, really, that left any doubt in my mind as to the harmful effects

of smoking. I was convinced of that from day one. What I need to be convinced of

in totality is, should we proceed? Because there were counter-arguments there.

Most of the presentations, I might add, in favor, were based on the harmful

effects of smoking. They really did not hone in on the legislation as such. Some

did; some focused on the legislation. One gentleman there, representing the

Tobacco Manufacturers Council, said: I am anti-tobacco - the guy presenting on

behalf of them - I am not anti-tobacco company. You can be against smoking

without being against, I guess, the people who supply it, if it is a legal

product.

Now when you weigh the arguments from all the people - non-smokers rights

groups, the Cancer Society - there is no question. I do not have a problem with

the aggregate in showing that, because some of the people advocating on the

opposite side indicated: Look, here you are defying the normal course of common

law by saying that you can now convict without proving causation on a specific

case. I can support the aggregate of this bill. I can agree on that point, that

we know the effects caused by smoking. We know the cost caused by it. We can get

within general parameters the cost based upon the smoke effects.

It is safe to draw the conclusion that smoking does cause harm. That is an

issue. I think, by going after the aggregate, it would be very difficult to get

every medical record. Every individual one would have to go into court, in front

of a judge, and put forth their case. It is difficult to have to put it to that

test. So we did agree, and my colleague from St. John's East can certainly

speak on this stage, or the Committee stage of the bill, to put forth his

viewpoints on it. That was one of the particular things. It was unequivocally

agreed, I think, that smoking is detrimental to health.

Who should be responsible for the health care costs inflicted? There was some

information given by those on the side of proceeding that gave some figures that

might have varied in what they were saying. Whether it varied or not, I guess,

it did not detract from the overall view that smoking causes harm in their

system.

One of the first presenters said: We incur costs, direct and indirect, from

smoking of tobacco, of $370 million a year. I did question that figure. How do

you arrive at $370 million a year? When our health care budget is only - well,

it has been less than $1 billion up to a couple of years ago. Now is up $1.4

billion because we shifted some of the areas that were under social services in

there. Child protection, youth corrections, family and rehabilitative services

are all under health now. They were all in other departments. That is one of the

reason it has gone up so fast, the health care budget, because we shifted other

areas into a bigger department, the same as when we took Rural Development and

Industry, Trade and we put all that together. You are going to have a bigger

budget, obviously, when you roll a greater part of the departments together.

That is one of the reasons.

I said: How do you arrive at that figure? When you eliminate those other

costs, that would not be very high. That would be probably 40 per cent of the

whole health care budget, related to smoking. The point, they indicated - and

that is where I guess it comes in legislation what we look for when you are

looking at a suit - how much should you look for in it? Do we look at lost time

in the workplace? Do you look at the cost to the system by people who are sick

because of smoking, and other people having to come in and go to work and lost

productivity in the workplace, affecting government employees and other

employers all over. Are they indirect health care costs? Should companies be

responsible for indirect health care costs? Well, that is the question, I guess,

when they put their total claim forth - and this is a claim for compensatory,

not punitive, in this case - what they look for.

I did ask the question: How do you break it down? I was told by one group

that $60 million of that $370 is direct health care costs. I asked another

group, who said - and they put it in their presentation - $70.7 million; $71

million. Another group said: It is $56 million. So we went from $56 million to

$71 million by three different presenters here in this group.

I feel, if there are direct costs there, we have to narrow down exactly what

you are looking for. You have to know what the damages are. It might be hard to

justify that the person who works in a fish plant out somewhere in Northeastern

Newfoundland, who missed time due to smoking, that the lost employment,

compensation or the cost to an employer or a government employee are regular

compensatory costs. It might be hard to show that. The cost incurred by the

health care system, that rings up on the cash register of the bills of the

Province to look after that individual who is sick, that is a legitimate cost.

Anyway, I found they were coming from a similar source. The $56 million was

quoted as being taken from national figures and they did it on a pro rata basis

and it came down to this Province being somewhere in the $56 million, I was

told. That is where they arrived. One of the questions I asked was: How could

you arrive at $71 million and $56 million from the same report, the same study?

They indicated: Well, it depends on what you apply.

I know there are going to be certain aspects to apply, and that is into the

nitty-gritty, the details of where we are going. I am not going to waste much

time talking on that, because we are not here to present a case; we are here to

debate aspects of the legislation. They are some points that are proceeding. I

think we do it on a basis of certainly a recovery of our costs, and I do not

have a problem with that.

We have to look at the total cost in the system. There are arguments that

were put forth, too, saying - Look, companies were out saying: Why don't you

increase taxes? Various arguments. I took note of a few of the things, and some

things have merit and some may not have merit at all. Should we increase taxes?

I went back on my own, through the last several years' budgets and I just

went through what we have collected since 1988-1989, the 1999 year ending. Since

1989, including the budget for this year, we have collected $851,875,000 in

tobacco tax. We are being told that the direct costs to the system are anywhere

from $56 million a year up to $70 million. We take in, for instance, this year,

a projected $66.8 million. The costs are in that range: $65 million last year,

$65 million the year before, $64 million, $67 million in 1997-1998. I am going

from revised figures, now, from following years, not budgeted figures. I am

taking revised figures when the final figures come in. I went back to the

budgets there and the figures that are provided.

Actually, we are taking in more in taxes than the direct health care costs

each year. Are these factors in compensatory costs? They are the types of

things, I guess, we will get into in the litigation aspect of it, but they are

legitimate things. One of the arguments the companies put forth is: Look, you

collect an armful in taxes, why don't you tax us?

I have asked the question. I have probably asked that question several times

in the Committee. I said: Look, is there an easier way to do this? Is there an

easier way to get our money without going through court? What are we going to

accomplish in court? They are some of the questions I need to have answered. For

example, B.C., to date, has spent almost $8 million in legal fees, just today,

and we are only at the stage where the first bill they put forward was rejected

by the courts as being extraterritorial. They went back again, they revamped it,

came back with amendments on the bill, and now that is being challenged again.

The tobacco company said: We are going to go right to the limit with it.

Obviously, they are not going to say: We are going to concede. Anybody going

there is going to put forth their point that we are going to proceed. They have

indicated they are going to proceed. We cannot compare it to Florida, we cannot

compare it to the U.S.; because in the U.S., I think, if you were going to

appeal it, you would have to post a bond in the amount of the claim. That would

have bankrupted all the companies and they could not proceed. In this case it

does not apply in Canada, so we said we are going to go to the limit.

Some other arguments that have been put forth said - I have asked this one,

too: Why do we go to court to get our costs? Why don't we tax it to the limit?

Why don't we tax it? Why don't we get back our money that way? Because, what

happens if the companies lose? If the companies lose, we get a settlement, what

happens to tobacco? The companies are going to recover their costs, basically,

as a cost of doing business, as a cost of goods. Anybody in business today, when

you sell a product, you sell it at a certain revenue, you have sales, you have

your cost of sales, and your expenditures. You are going to add it on to your

costs, of course. That is a cost: the litigation, the fees in fighting this, and

all the costs, our costs. It is going to drive up the price of a cigarette, and

the tax of this government goes on top of that. Therefore, aren't they going

to get it back anyway? Who is going to pay? Who is going to pay in the final

analysis? The consumer of tobacco is going to pay for it. The consumer is going

to pay. Whether you drive up the cost of a cigarette by the tobacco companies

recovering their costs, it is still going to go out and we are going to pay it.

If we put tax on it, if we tax it, if we put a pack of cigarettes at $10,

instead of whatever it is now, the $6 range, I think - I am a non-smoker so I

don't know. I haven't bought one in, I would say, forty years. I bought one

once, when I was thirteen years of age. We went to a garden party. We had a

couple of dollars. It was thirty-seven cents at the time. We bought a pack for

thirty-seven cents. I took a couple of draws out of one and we gave the rest

away to some people.

An interesting thing on smoking is that they say it is very addictive. I

never got the chance to personally find out how addictive it was, and I do not

regret having missed that opportunity.

There are points on taxation. Who pays down the road? What happens if this is

settled? One thing we have to be prepared for, though - we have to be realistic.

In spite of all this, I said, we support it. In totality we support it, when you

factor all of this.

There are some of the things that we had to look at in the decision making,

looking at the bill. You can bring people in through a committee and march them

all day, every day, for weeks. I do not need to be convinced that it is harmful.

A lot of presentations did focus on that. Who pays then? Who should pay?

Number one, the people who want to smoke it should pay, a consumer; that is a

consumer tax. Whether the cost of producing cigarettes is greater because of the

settlement, or whether the cost of a cigarette is greater because of the tax,

who cares? Does the public? Well, if the government is getting it through a

lawsuit or through taxation, revenue is still revenue; $70 million is $70

million; $120 million is $120 million. Do you think the consumer cares? Does the

consumer care. if they pay $10 a pack, whether 20 per cent of that is tax or

whether 40 per cent of that is tax? Do you think they care? No, I think the only

thing the consumer worries about is how much they have to pay for a pack of

cigarettes. That is what they care about. That is too much, they say.

Basically, the consumer pays. Whatever way you cut it, the consumer pays, not

the taxpayer. One of the points made was: the taxpayer pays. No, the taxpayers

do not pay, the consumer taxpayer pays. The consumer of cigarettes is the

taxpayer who pays.

That issue did not hold a big amount of weight. That is one particular one, I

think, that needed to do some convincing. I was not convinced on that issue, to

be honest with you, because when we have taken almost $1 billion in taxes since

the late 1980s, it is significant. Tobacco companies are out telling us that the

government gets nine times the tax that they get profit on a cigarette. They get

nine times. They are the big ones that are reaping it in. Should they be

responsible?

First of all, selling a product that is harmful - and whether they did it is

something, I guess, that will go through the legal process - did they sell it

knowingly and give you information that they knew, and withheld information that

was harmful and did not notify you? Did their scientists and their people tell

that? Well, that is an issue that would add merit to that and would give a

reason to take particular action when you know something is harmful. That is

something, I guess, that would be determined in the legal process.

We were not in a position; the committee was not in the position to know that

and have to answer to that. That is something that we felt should not delay the

process to proceed because we cannot have all of our questions answered. They

are ones that are going to have to be put forward by companies and by our

Province to be able to refute that, or the companies have to refute what we put

forth on that particular issue. That is another interesting particular aspect of

it.

Now, there was another particular point too. Before I get to a couple of

points, I just want to mention: Who is liable? One of the representatives, when

they came in with their presentation, said they heard on the radio this morning

that one successfully sued in Australia for damage inflicted by the employer.

They worked in a club, in a bar.

If you work in a bar - I had to come to grips with this one, and I was not

convinced that it is only the tobacco companies, to be honest with you- if an

employer has people employed in a workplace that is not safe and there is

cigarette smoke, is the employer responsible for a certain amount of that

liability? This case in Australia said yes. Is the government that should

legislate safe workplaces responsible? That is another particular point that has

merit. Should the government legislate a safe workplace? I have said it before,

that government has a certain responsibility to ensure that people who do not

want to come in contact with smoke - I do not want to come in contact with

smoke, and many others out there do not want to - should the employer protect

the workplace of people who do not want to come in contact?

I asked one of the presenters from Gander, who worked as a radio operator,

who was in an enclosed space for over thirty years where several smoked. It was

too small and confined, and you had to keep contact out there - a Mr. Lush, who

made a presentation from Gander - and I asked him: Who is responsible, tobacco

companies or the employer who forced you to work in that confined space? He

said, both are responsible. Tobacco companies are responsible - they gave a

product that is harmful out there - and his employer, the federal government,

did not legislate and did not change the act. He had to retire early, at a

reduced pension; and get out early and sacrifice income over a long term because

of that.

I feel that we have a responsibility when we know, as a government, that

something is harmful, to take the strictest measures possible to ensure the

safety of people who are entrusted under us. I think that employers should also.

Employers who run night clubs, bars or lounges, or run restaurants, wherever

they may be, they, themselves, are not going to take the initiative. I owned a

bar one time, for several years. I operated one, way back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did, I say to the member. I did so, but I am not

going to tell you how much.

I found that the fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I got out of the business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but I think it influenced by health, though. To be

honest with you, it influenced my health. Thank God, I did not have any effects,

but the second-hand smoke.... In workplaces today, I can tell you, the

second-hand smoke is unbelievable in bars and lounges. It was only in the lounge

that I owned at the time - that was a long while back, over twenty years ago it

started - and it had an effect. You look at 12:00 midnight and 1:00 a.m., and

going on early in the morning in a smoke-filled area, and it is about 5:00 a.m.

before you go to sleep, basically. I had to get away from it altogether because

it was a health factor.

There was no legislation. What happened if you said: No smoking? Well, there

is a lounge down the road or a lounge somewhere else. One owner down on George

Street cannot say I am not going to allow smoking because they will go somewhere

else. Competition. It is not going to be initiated by the industry; it cannot be

initiated by the industry. But, what do you think if nobody was allowed to

smoke, if they were on a level playing field competitively? I think it can work.

There are areas where we can take direct action. For instance, as a

government, should we do some of these things? Should we make smoking illegal

under nineteen? Alcohol is illegal under nineteen. You cannot buy it; you cannot

posses it. Cigarettes, you cannot buy but you can possess. Is there a

contradiction here? We do not want to make criminals out of young people, but do

we want to make access to it so strict that their health would be protected in

the long term? If we are telling them they are helpless and not old enough to

make their decision, shouldn't we make a decision for them and limit access?

That is a thing that should be considered and should be weighed here, and

debated.

Should we eliminate it in restaurants? When the bill came in to eliminate it

in restaurants last December, they said it would be effective January 1, 2002. I

said: Why wait for a year? Why expose people in restaurants to smoke for one

more year? Give adequate time - three months notice. There is a notice out there

that effective in three months time - time to make adjustments to the adequate

notice. That is another area that we should have moved more aggressively on -

all public places, basically. Should people in all public places have to suffer

from second-hand smoke? My feeling is no, we should not have to do it. If the

employer does not do it we have the responsibility to do it, and we should do

something about it.

Another area, I think, that can limit access is fines. You fine people. Give

heavy fines for people who supply cigarettes to people under age. If they cannot

buy it themselves, there is only one other way that they can get it. They can

get it from somebody else if they cannot buy it. If you sell it to somebody

under age, well that is an offence, and that is covered. But if someone else who

is not a seller, who does not have a licence, who is not an establishment, an

overage person goes in and buys it, and then sells it. Around schools today they

are selling single cigarettes, charging here and there. We have cigarette

pushers around selling cigarettes to young people in the school systems today.

Those types of things.

Should the money that we get under a suit, if we are successful, go to health

care or should it go to put roads and bridges all over the Province? Now, I

really do not think we should go so far as to see an amendment to tie it to

health care because past costs have gone in there and we build things. You

cannot really - it is kind of difficult to say that but in the United States it

did not; only a very small percentage. Single digits I was told. In a study done

by one of the magazines, USA Today or somebody, they said that only single

digits of that money went to health care and the rest of it went into

infrastructure of a capital works nature around the United States. So, those

types of things, if we are going to direct it to them.

I am a believer that if government is going to allow something that it knows

is a harmful substance to have in access, there has to be a certain amount of

compromise. Now, tobacco companies that manufacture a product are going to try

to sell their product. They are going to try to promote their product. They are

going to try to get a good bottom line and they do get a good bottom line, but

we have to ensure the safety of people out there.

There are numerous things. We had a presentation (inaudible) department and

granted, they indicated that a light cigarette is a safe cigarette, and the

thing was promoted. Is there any such thing as a safe cigarette? I mean, is

there anything such as one? I agree, if a company promoted a product as being

safe, and it was not safe and they knew it was not safe, there is a

responsibility on that company - and our committee is not the jury on that one -

but the courts, I guess, will be on that one, and the onus.

One of the particular areas that it mentioned - it came up with submissions

from three different groups. I think there is no harm in mentioning it. It came

from the St. John's Board of Trade, on them representing businesses; the

Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Commerce, they represent businesses, and

one came from an individual business. I will just touch on a few points they

mentioned that, I guess, will be determined in due course. They said one

particular point worries them about the legislation: it suspends the rules of

normal evidence and conveniently relieves the government of its obligation to

prove its case. In other words: Can you prove that you are not responsible for

those costs? Basically, that is what it does. Yes, there is a reverse onus there

and that is a point of law that has certain merit. It was not enough to convince

me to vote against it but there is a degree of merit. I am not an expert on law

to make a determination. There will be lots of experts on law (inaudible) for

points, I guess, over the next year, number of years or however long this may

take, but it is a point of contention, a point of concern.

Another point that was mentioned. It said it gives the government the right

to decide ex post facto, that the companies broke a law that did not exist when

the offence was committed, creating a liability that reached backwards as well

as into the future. That is certainly a debatable point and, I guess, there are

arguments put forward on the other side of that too, made sense on that

particular point.

The third one, most disturbingly submission said: this legislation allows

government to draft the rules of a case for which it is the plaintiff.

Government is the plaintiff and they are going to draft the rules. I guess we

are the legislators, we bring down the laws in the Province and if we are going

to take action to it, that is one that you can live with; but, overall, the

particular point they said: If tobacco companies can go out and have reverse

onus - in other words, are we going to take action? An interesting point which

was made, they said this bill does not apply to all companies. This bill is for

tobacco companies. Should the bill have applied to all companies, any company

that sells the product?

Once again, if anybody sells alcohol and there are health care costs

associated with alcohol, whether it is psoriasis of the liver, for example, if

it contributes to it. If 4 per cent of all the cases of psoriasis of the liver

come from alcohol consumption should those who sell alcohol to the Newfoundland

Liquor Commission have to bear those costs there? Are we going to go after any

company that sells a product that can be harmful? High cholesterol foods, any

particular product that is harmful, is that the case? Or should the individual

have the choice to make a decision whether they want to smoke, to be in the

position to smoke, to eat a product that is harmful, to consume alcohol, is

there an individual choice or a certain freedom of an individual to do that?

There are a whole series of particular arguments to put forward. Dispensing

with causation was one that was a concern initially, and we looked at it. In

other words, proving by statistics. Statistical information will decide the

amounts. Statistical information is probably a reasonable way to determine costs

in this case. It is reasonable. I do not think it is being disputed out there

today. Medical evidence will show that there is a very strong link, and there

are causes of various medical problems that come from tobacco smoke.

If that conclusion can be drawn that 80 per cent of the cost to the system

are caused by smoking, that smoking causes 80 per cent of the cost, especially

lung, respiratory diseases, coronary, obstructive pulmonary disease and these,

are directly linked - asthma, emphysema - a lot of these costs are related to

smoking. You can draw that inference then, that deduction, on a percentage

statistical basis. That, to me, is acceptable in the legislation. That is

something that is reasonable to expect in the legislation.

There was a particular point made: Why bring in a bill to go after companies?

Why don't we amend the medical care insurance act? The legislation is there

now, they said. From my understanding, the medical care insurance act does not

allow for - maybe the minister could let me know if I am correct - aggregate.

There is no reference to aggregate there. I think it allows the recovery of

costs for other third parties and so on, but there is no aggregate referenced in

the medical care insurance act to that effect, that I am aware of. So, brining

in this bill on an aggregate basis here, I think, was necessary in order to be

able to expedite this. I guess you probably could make certain amendments to it,

but I think the act then would have to apply, not just to this particular case,

it would have to be more universal in dealing with it.

I guess one point they have indicated: Well, we are taught in our society,

you are innocent until proven guilty. Under the reverse, you are guilty now;

prove your innocence. That was one that, I guess, where there was a point of law

to say: Look, shouldn't we have to prove otherwise?

Tobacco smoke is probably a lot different than the consumption of alcohol, or

maybe the consumption of other products. Should the onus be on those companies

to prove that? Maybe it should. I am sure that is a point that they would have

to make when the litigation arises on that particular issue.

A couple of points raised, the Tobacco Manufacturers Council made those

points. There are some crooks of the thing, too. They said, tobacco companies

acknowledge the real risk associated. They made that statement: they acknowledge

the real risk. They also said: It does not market to children and it does not

want children to smoke.

If that is true, and their advertising or anything is related to it - some

people seem to think otherwise - that is where the market is. Information shows

that is where the market it. There are a lot of people who gave up smoking and,

to replace those people who gave it up, we need to bring new people into our

market to maintain our same level of sales. Even though they may not say it, it

is a targeted group. There was no admission that, certainly, that is the case.

That is certainly an issue, too, in what they said, in what they did, and what

particular information they may have in their research, internally, that would

show that. I think the reference was made in a document that was released that

shows that the targeted group fell within a part of the area that was illegal

and part of the group was in an area that was legal.

I think it was a submission, but I followed some articles on this when I was

in the U.S. I did some reading back at the time that it was happening, and other

articles that have popped up along the way, when I was health critic, which I am

not now; but when I was, I kept a lot of clippings and followed things. One of

the articles here, I think it is a local article, back last year, said: What is

the point of suing tobacco companies? It was saying: What are the costs going to

be? Are the costs now - the point I had to look at is, if we are getting $70

million a year, and it is costing us $56 million in direct costs, what about we

take in $120 million a year and it is still costing us about $60 million in

costs? What about we tax it up to about $120 million a year? We are taking in

$60 million more than the direct costs. Over the next ten years, we will take in

$600 million. On that basis, we would probably end up looking for that amount.

That is if we win. What about we lose? All the total costs in fighting this -

B.C. is at $7.7 million up to a few months ago and the second one is being

contested now. Then we have to go to a lengthy procedure in the courts and it

would be, I would assume, in the tens of million of dollars in the final time

that this is put to rest. When would that be? Next year, five years' time, ten

years' time? It will be certainly a long period of time.

They were some of the things I gave some consideration to, in looking at it.

I know the information from all medical groups is fairly strong. I think the

public opinion out there is very strong, in saying: Smoking is harmful. You

should not smoke. Whatever we can do to stop smoking, get it done. If suing

tobacco companies is one of the steps in making them pay for it, then so be it.

That is just one of the many avenues.

There are a lot of other proactive groups and presentations that are going to

touch on more than suing tobacco companies. There is a teen tobacco team, a

tobacco strategy, looking at - I think we need aggressive programs right down

into the school system. It is no good in going to them in junior high; you have

to get down deeper into the system. There are so many avenues of promotion and

prevention that should be the focus in health care spending today, to eliminate

this problem and the effects of smoking. We have to nip it in the bud. We have

to be able to get to it earlier in the system, and we have to be aggressive in

dealing with it. Then the choice: If someone is of legal age, I would say it is

their choice. If they want to smoke, let them smoke, if they are of legal age

and they are not going to harm somebody else. Let them smoke, that is their

choice, but don't harm me or somebody else who doesn't want to be harmed by

it.

If the product is legal, why are we suing somebody for selling a product that

we said is legal? That has some merit, that argument. Why do we sue somebody for

selling a product that we collect $70 million a year on and we say is legal?

Now, if they knew something, if their research showed that it was harmful and

they didn't tell the public - where was government's research? Is there an

obligation on government to research? Is there an obligation on government, the

federal Ministry of Health, the provincial Ministry of Health, to research

products that are put on the market today that have to pass federal inspection,

federal laws and regulations? There has been tremendous lobbying, I understand,

at the federal level in many cases, on bills that may have allowed the federal

government to be lenient in doing their job.

So, there are many, many particular arguments and scenarios put there. The

report shows, anybody who looked at the report - there were, I know, nineteen

oral presentations. There was a host of written presentations, some very

interesting ones. I think the personal stories that people told, on their

families and their health, individuals and their families, were heart-wrenching,

and, I think, just showed that there is not a family around that has not been

affected by the effects of tobacco smoke; whether it was cancer, whether it was

emphysema, whether it was some coronary or obstructive pulmonary disease. There

is a whole variety of things. Smoke in your system affects your overall

functioning. There are numerous factors. There is a whole host of things that

have an effect.

Some of these people came here, made their presentations and told their

personal life stories. They were moving experiences from people, and they have a

lot of merit. One of the things that probably came through more so than anything

else in those hearing was not the legal aspect of the bill, it was not just the

harm of smoking. I guess one thing that really stuck in my mind, after listening

to people, was how addictive smoking can be, the addictiveness of nicotine and

so on. When it gets you and grabs you, it is difficult to break. That seemed to

be the thing: Nicotine is addictive. If it is so addictive, so harmful, should

we question the legality of it, if it is that bad?

Far more than numerous others, it is addictive. It is similar to - I think

the comparison used was heroine and cocaine. It was said, it is as addictive as

those two particular drugs. If it is that addictive, should we revisit where we

are with tobacco and its use? I think that is another issue of concern.

Overall, I might say, we don't think that many of the unanswered questions

- does it infringe on their constitution, on the Charter? Does it infringe on

someone's rights? They were not questions really that should necessarily be

answered by a select committee. There are ones that I think should be involved,

I guess, when arriving at the final decision, but I think in the appropriate

process, as it goes through litigation, those things will come to light and

decisions will be made on many of those factors that are not at our disposal to

be able to arrive at.

I would say, in concluding, that we did very seriously, in committee,

consider all the evidence, all the presentations that were given, very valid

arguments on both sides, I might add, very significant ones. How significant

they are as legal ones, as ones that will require, we will say, a decision as to

the merits they would have in court, is one where the legitimate aspect of that,

I guess, would be determined in due course.

We feel that we should move forward with this bill. We are certainly not

going to, in any way, obstruct or delay it. In fact, I will be the only speaker

today on second reading of this bill from our side. We are eager to move it

through, but we also feeling a responsibility that there are issues and concerns

that have arisen there. I think they have to be aired and there will be an

appropriate place where they will get the final hearing on that, as the

legislation proceeds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate, at second

reading for Bill 9,

An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health

Care Costs.

I was a member of the select committee, so I had an opportunity to hear all

of the presentations made before that committee. It was an important committee,

Mr. Speaker, because we had a chance to hear from a variety of speakers, not all

about the bill but all related to the bill because this bill is a part of a

strategy that is larger than the bill itself. It is a strategy that seeks to

reduce the use of tobacco in our Province and seeks to ensure that all members

of our society are aware of the nature and harmful effects of tobacco smoking

and other tobacco products; and also, and perhaps most important, to find ways

of preventing young people from taking up smoking.

The reason that we want to do that is simply because of the seriously

addictive nature of tobacco. The committee hearings were most instructive, Mr.

Speaker. We heard and learned much. We heard from a lot of witnesses and we

learned an awful lot about the consequences of the use of tobacco. We learned,

for example, that most adults who smoke actually became addicted to tobacco

before the age of nineteen. Ninety per cent of adults who smoke where addicted

to tobacco prior to turning twenty. In fact, some 60 per cent of adult smokers

were addicted to tobacco prior to age sixteen. Prior to age sixteen, 60 per cent

of adult smokers were already addicted to tobacco.

We had representatives of the pediatric physicians community testify before

the committee, Dr. Aziz and Dr. Cooper, who told us that tobacco initiation and

addiction is a preventable pediatric disease, that it was an avoidable epidemic.

Dr. Austin Cooper and Dr. Khalid Aziz, who are part of the Pediatric Advocacy

Group of the Janeway Children's Health Rehabilitation Centre and of Memorial

University of Newfoundland, testified before the committee with a number of key

messages. They told us that children and youth were the direct victims of the

tobacco industry; that they are the direct and indirect victims of the resulting

addiction to tobacco; that they were victims of advertising and promotion by the

tobacco industry; and that children and youth were inadequately protected from

tobacco addiction and exposure because of the actions and inactions of the

tobacco industry. They also believed strongly that the industry should be held

accountable for the harm that it has inflicted upon our population and said that

most disturbingly, this harm has been perpetrated to the involvement of our

children and youth.

These were some of the things that these two pediatric doctors told the

committee about this being a preventable pediatric disease. Not a lifestyle

choice of children, not something that people choose to do, but a disease, an

addiction of children, perpetrated by the tobacco industry over the years.

I do not believe that there is much doubt, when all of the evidence is in,

that the targeting of advertising towards children will be shown. But that is a

matter that, in the fullness of time, the government, if it chooses to take a

lawsuit - and I hope it does - under this legislation, will have to prove. They

will have to prove that the tobacco companies knew what they were doing when

they were addicting young people to tobacco smoke. They will have to show that

they were aware of the nature of the substance that they were selling and its

consequences for people, particularly for children.

These factors and these facts will be part of a lawsuit that is being

facilitated by this legislation. Facilitated in the following way, facilitated

by virtue of the type of action that is being contemplated here. If there is any

doubt that the companies knew what was going on for some time, I will quote to

you a statement from a British American Tobacco Company document of 1984 which

describes nicotine's addictive qualities in some scientific detail. The

British American Tobacco Company is the parent company of Imperial Tobacco, the

CEO of which testified before our committee. In a 1984 document the company

says: "Taken together, the evidence suggests that self-administration of

nicotine may be the primary motivation for smoking." The primary motivation

for smoking, being the addictive nature of the nicotine content of the document.

Brown and Williamson, another international tobacco company, said in a 1978

document: "Very few customers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e,

its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison." I will say it again

because it is their own words in the tobacco industry. I quote: "Very few

customers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e, its addictive nature and

that nicotine is a poison."

These are some of the facts that have come out already in actions taken in

the United States against tobacco companies. They have come out because during

these actions, as a part of these actions, the companies were required -

through, what I call disclosure rules - to produce documents in their possession

that relate to the actions before the court. Those are documents that are not

available with respect to the research done in this country by the tobacco

companies. In fact, Madam Speaker, during the hearings I made a specific request

to Mr. Robert Bexon - the Chief Executive Officer of Imperial Tobacco who

testified to this Select Committee - whether or not he would make available, or

commit his company to make available, research that perhaps could help us

understand how addictive nicotine was and particularly as it affects young

people, and particularly as it affects the ability and attempt by young people

to actually quit smoking.

We have been told, by one of the Teen Tobacco Team, about the large number of

young people who, knowing that they were addicted to tobacco smoke, tried to

quit or were trying to quit by age seventeen and were having incredible

difficulty doing that. Apparently many, if not most, of young teenagers who

smoke cigarettes when they are thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, by the time they are

sixteen they are trying to quit. They are trying to quit but that they are

already addicted.

Mr. Bexon had expressed concern based in response to a question from one of

the members of the committee about the number of young people using various

substances, whether it be marijuana, cigarettes or other drugs. This is

something that is increasing in our society and he had a concern about it. So, I

asked him: Mr. Bexon, would you agree today, in the interest of all of us

understanding how this works, the nature of why young people smoke and what we

can do to help them quit, would you be willing to make available all the

research that your company has done, that you have in your possession, and share

that with us, with the medical profession and other researchers so that we can

help solve that problem and stop young people from getting addicted or help them

to get off cigarettes if they are already addicted? He gave a one word answer,

Madam Speaker, and that word was no. No, he said. He did not offer any

explanation. He did not say why. He said no to the question of whether or not

his company would make available the research that it had in its possession

about the effects of nicotine and the properties of its addictive nature and how

young people might be able to get off their addiction.

There is a way that we can get that information, Madam Speaker, and that way

would be through a legal action; through a legal action under this act, that

company would be required, as with all the tobacco companies who are defendants

in this action, be required to produce documents as part of the discovery

process. So, hopefully, we will get that information, that it may be useful as

part of the lawsuit. It may also be useful as part of an effort that many people

are undertaking, including our eminent pediatricians, Dr. Cooper and Dr. Aziz,

who are interested in trying to help find ways of dealing with what they call a

preventable pediatric disease and avoidable epidemic among young children. If we

start looking at smoking tobacco as a disease and the addiction associated with

it, I think we may be on the road to recognizing it as something that we have to

redouble our efforts to prevent.

Now let me talk about the bill in its legal aspects because we heard from a

number of people, some trade or associations. We heard from the St. John's

Board of Trade, as well. We heard from the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of

Commerce. We heard from a couple of companies, and we heard from an Ontario

lawyer, all of whom said about the same sort of thing which was criticism of the

bill from a legal perspective.

The first thing that needs to be said about the bill is - the bill recognizes

that an action of this nature is, what was called, an aggregate action, an

aggregate cause of action. Most of the criticisms of a legal nature that were

attached to the bill, or that the bill attracted, were not related to that at

all. They were related to an individual action. They were criticizing it because

the rules of evidence would be different. The rules of evidence would be

different, the analysis would be different, the traditional rules - they were

criticizing them on the basis of that.

I want to quote you, for the record, what the British Columbia Supreme Court

said in a challenge to rules very similar to ours, and to very similar

legislation. What the judge said was that we were dealing here with a an

aggregate action. He said as follows: "The aggregate action is intended to

provide for relief where the traditional, individually oriented tort action does

not realistically meet the need of a large-scale lost-recovery action, where

very substantial numbers of people have been exposed to toxic substances said to

have resulted in adverse health effects through non-observable means of

causation." Now, what that means in essence is that if you are going to

have an attempt to sue for the total cause, the total damages resulting to your

population from tobacco use and the use of a toxic substance, you need to have a

different form of action. You do not have to provide each individual to come

forward and say: I had cancer, or I had emphysema, or I had chronic obstructive

lung disease and it resulted from smoking, and bring up the next person and ask

them all the questions that need to be asked. It is a global action for the

total cost of health care provided by the government to the population.

What the judge recognized is that the Legislature had accepted the fact that

if you are going to be able to look at the conduct of tobacco companies, and the

related effect of tobacco smoking on health, to approach this on an individual

basis is entirely uneconomic, an unreasonable strain on the judicial resources

but may be fairly dealt with on an aggregate basis, utilizing evidence based on

statistical, epidemiological, and sociological studies. What the judge decided -

and this was a criticism that the lawyer from Ontario made - was that you cannot

prove things based on statistics, that that is unfair somehow. Well this is what

the judge said in British Columbia when the legislation was challenged on that

very ground. He said that the use of statistical and epidemiological evidence is

an essential aspect of an aggregate action. The question and issue becomes

causation in the group rather than of any individual group member. What the

judge said was that this approach appears sound, that there is a logical

connection between the statistical evidence and causation, and that this was

merely a presumption that could be rebutted by the companies if they so choose.

The essential presumption that appears in the legislation is a presumption

that is based on facts being established by the plaintiff, in this case the

government, and if they can establish that there is a statistical relationship

between the tobacco use and the diseases that are associated with tobacco smoke

then that establishes a presumption that there is causation that can be rebutted

by the companies if they so choose. That is clearly and logically related to the

type of action we are talking about, being an aggregate action.

The government will still have to prove that the companies did something

wrong. There is no presumption of guilt here at all. The government still has to

prove that there was an actionable wrong, a so-called tobacco related wrong but

it is an actionable wrong related to the sale or the distribution or the

promotion of tobacco products. In that sense, this is no different than any

other products liability case. In order to be held responsible, there has to be

a breach of some duty owed to the residents of this Province. If the government

in an action is able to prove that they did not carry out their duties, knowing

the health risks, knowing that nicotine was addictive, and they did not inform

the public of these facts, they may be held to be have committed an actionable

wrong. That proof still has to be there, Mr. Speaker, and the government is

obliged to carry out that under this legislation.

There is one feature of it that is different. It does give the government a

direct cause of action for money that it spent on treating people for tobacco

related illnesses. That is a new feature of this legislation. It is not unique

to this legislation, however. There are other pieces of legislation that have

it. Whether it is with respect to environmental cleanups, whether it is with

respect to fighting forest fires, government has a right to sue to recover costs

expended by it in relation to these matters. This is applying it to the tobacco

industry in relation to health care costs.

As a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything offensive about this

legislation at all. I do not see anything offensive about it at all. It is

designed to respond to a type of tort that needs special rules in order to meet

the basic provisions of justice in our courts. Our Legislature acts to change

the law, to modify the law, in order to achieve justice.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: If I may give one example, Mr. Speaker, where the

Legislatures, not only this Legislature but perhaps certainly every Legislature

in Canada and probably in other jurisdictions in the U.K. and the United States,

have changed the law of contributory negligence. There was a time when, if you

were in a car accident, or an accident of any nature where negligence was

alleged by a person, that if you or the individual suing was guilty of some

negligence - in other words, that the accident or the injury was not entirely

the fault of another person, if you were somehow partially responsible - then

you could not recover any damages at all. This was the case in industrial

accidents in the United Kingdom. If you wanted to sue your employer for an

unsafe work condition, and you lost an arm or you lost a leg or you lost six

months work because of an injury in your factory, and you wanted to sue your

employer to try and recover your wages, if you were partially responsible by

your own carelessness, partially responsible for an accident, you could recover

nothing because the law of contributory negligence as determined by the judges

was that 100 per cent of your damages were lost even though you may have only

been 10 per cent or 20 per cent responsible for your damages.

In another context, let's say seatbelt legislation, Mr. Speaker. If you

were in a car accident that was entirely the fault of somebody else, that you

had no role in causing the accident but you did not have a seatbelt on, and as a

result of not having a seatbelt on your injuries were greater than they would

otherwise have been, you would be then held to be contributory negligent with

respect to the cause of your injuries. You would lose 100 per cent of your

damages. In order to overcome that judge-made law, the so-called common law,

legislatures passed the contributory negligence act, which said that if you are

partially responsible for your injuries then you are only required to look lose

that part for which you are responsible. So, if you had an allocation of

responsibility, 75 per cent against the other side and 25 per cent for yourself,

you could still collect 75 per cent of your damages.

That is an example of legislatures changing the law to accomplish justice.

There are lots of others. The whole of workers' compensation law is another

example where the courts, particularly those in the U.K. but all common law

jurisdictions, found ways or devised rules or applied rules which denied workers

access to compensation when they sued other employers for unsafe work conditions

or accidents. There were many rules which denied them justice. Those rules were

so onerous that this jurisdiction, other jurisdictions in Canada and in the U.K.

adopted comprehensive workers' compensation legislation because justice was

needed for injured workers. We can still have debate about whether we have

achieved that today, but it was initially started because the judicial system

was inadequate to compensate victims of workplace injuries.

This is another example of fashioning a judicial set of rules to deal with a

broad-based wrong that we believe was inflicted upon the population of

Newfoundland and Labrador, for which the government assumed the cost. I believe

that this legislation is fully supported by general legal principles. I believe

that it will be challenged by the tobacco companies. We were assured of that by

Mr. Bexon, that they will challenge it perhaps at every level of court in this

country. I believe firmly that we should proceed with this legislation. I

believe that the government, consequent upon the legislation, should proceed

with an action before the courts to attempt to recover the costs of health care.

It performs a number of vital functions. It performs a function of justice

and accountability. It performs a function of exposing the truth about the

tobacco industry, and what tobacco companies have done. It also performs a

protective and preventive function in allowing the evidence to be brought

forward as to what these companies were doing, and it allows young people in

particular, and society in general, to be able to understand and be educated on

the consequences of tobacco smoke. It also provides a financial result that if

justice is achieved and there is a recovery of health care costs, those monies

can be used for many things, including covering some of the costs of health

care. They can be used in a far more effective program of tobacco reduction

particularly aimed at young people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leave that has been given to me by members to

go on beyond my twenty minutes to speak on this. It is a topic that could, in

fact, take up many hours of debate and discussion, as we had before the

committee. We had a lot of information before the committee. I was particularly

moved by the individual stories of Ron St. Croix, who told the committee about

his own addiction to tobacco, going back to receiving free gifts of tobacco from

Imperial Tobacco, down on Flavin Street, when he was a schoolboy going to a

nearby school. Free cigarettes were passed out. That started him on his way to

addiction, which has resulted in serious health problems for him, a number of

operations and heart attacks, a significant health care cost to the community

and to the Province, and early retirement for health reasons to him.

I was struck by Fred Constantine, on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society,

who talked about his family members, his aunts and uncles, several of whom have

died from lung cancer and other cancers as a result of tobacco smoking.

I was struck by stories of other individuals talking about their families and

how they were affected by this tobacco addiction, and how it affected their

families and their health and their childhood.

In all, I think this is a measure that has to happen. I believe that we, in

this Province, are taking a leadership role in this matter in, I think,

following the lead of the Province of British Columbia. I hope, if there is a

change of government in British Columbia next week, and there may be, that the

Liberal government that takes over will be as forceful in pursuing their

lawsuits against the tobacco companies as the previous government was, starting

in 1997. I hope they will, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we will be there

strongly with them in pursuing the action against the tobacco companies.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members for their indulgence in

allowing me to go overtime. I want to say that I fully support the passage of

this legislation and the government going ahead with a lawsuit against the

tobacco companies to recover our health care costs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I again would like to the thank the Member for Ferryland and the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their comments. I would also like to take the

opportunity at this time to thank the other committee members who, no doubt,

were very attentive during the hearings of the select committee. That would be

the Member for Trinity North who chaired the committee, as well as the Member

for Bay of Islands and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Claire.

It is quite obvious and quite evident from the comments of the hon. members

that not only were they present at the committee but indeed listened

attentively, and that is very obvious from their insightful comments they have

made this afternoon.

This is indeed a monumental -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the other committee member?

MR. PARSONS: I am sorry, the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains as well,

Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed a monumental piece of legislation. I appreciate the comments

of the hon. members, and I move closing of second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco

Related Health Care Costs," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 9)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 20, second reading of

An Act Respecting The Appointment

Of A Citizens' Representative For The Province Who Shall Have The Powers

Traditionally Conferred On An Ombudsman. (Bill 10)

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

A Citizens' Representative For The Province Who Shall Have The Powers

Traditionally Conferred On An Ombudsman." (Bill 10)

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to move second reading of a bill entitled, the Citizens'

Representative Act.

This bill represents the appointment of a Citizens' Representative for the

Province, who shall have the powers traditionally conferred by an Ombudsman. The

Citizens' Representative will be an Officer of the House of Assembly. He or

she will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of

the House of Assembly. The Citizens' Representative will, pursuant to this

piece of legislation, be appointed for a term of six years and may be appointed

or renewed for an additional term. She or he cannot be removed from office

except on the resolution of the House of Assembly. The Citizens'

Representative will have broad powers to investigate administrative decisions of

government departments and specified public agencies, and will have the power to

make recommendations for change and to require reasons from department heads and

heads of Crown agencies where recommendations are not followed.

As a rule, complainants who have a remedy or a right of appeal under a

specific statute will be required to exhaust that appeal before the Citizens'

Representative will investigate a complaint.

The Citizens' Representatives process is intended to be a measure of last

resort and is not intended to replace or duplicate other statutory remedies.