June 4,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 11

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

public gallery eleven students from the Coulnar Community Links Centre for Shea

Heights who are doing an education course in preparation for the adult basic

education program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the

successful conclusion of National Access Awareness Week, and to thank all those

individuals, groups, organizations and government bodies who participated in

recognizing such an important week in our country. National Access Awareness

Week encourages all Canadians and, indeed, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

to work together to break down barriers so that everyone can participate fully

in community life. The intent of recognizing this week is to create increased

awareness that all persons have the fundamental right of equal access to

transportation, housing, education, recreation and employment.

As all members are aware, a breakfast was held on Wednesday

of this week for the members of the House of Assembly to facilitate meeting with

individual members of the disabled community and others who promote access

awareness. I am sure I speak for all members when I say that we all have a

better understanding and appreciation of the types of challenges certain

individuals have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

The Department of Employment and Labour Relations has made

of years and intends to increase these efforts in the future. The department is

Newfoundland and Labrador. Since 1981, the facilities and entrances in all

newly-constructed public buildings in the Province must incorporate specific

The department recognizes the particular needs of persons

with physical disabilities and is aggressively responding to those needs. The

production of our 1992 guide to accessible facilities along the Trans-Canada

Highway was reported to be a great success. During National Access Week, last

year, the department agreed to work towards a guide for 1993 which would include

the accessible facilities along secondary roads stemming from the Trans-Canada

Highway. I am pleased, during this 1993 National Access Awareness Week, to

announce that copies of this guide to accessible facilities in Newfoundland,

along the Trans-Canada Highway and its secondary roads, will be available early

next week and will be distributed throughout the Province.

While National Access Awareness Week is intended to focus on

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I asked our critic if I might

have the privilege of responding to this statement for a very specific reason,

and that is, I had the privilege and pleasure of sharing dinner with the

minister who represented the government at the National Access Awareness Week

dinner in Central Newfoundland, Grand Falls - Windsor, just a night or two ago.

Certain things occurred at that dinner that I thought it would be important to

relate to the House of Assembly.

Before I do that, let me just say, on behalf of our party and

our caucus members, that we were pleased to have been able to participate in the

legislative breakfast that occurred at Hotel Newfoundland a couple of mornings

ago.

Regrettably, there was some kind of misunderstanding, I

noticed from some of the news coverage, about members having left, which was

totally inappropriate in terms of news reporting, because I think we all were of

the understanding that we were invited to the breakfast and that we had a period

of time from 9:30 to 11:00 or 11:30 to attend, and that was it; that is what we

understood. But, of course, the way CBC television portrayed it, it was as if we

all got up, jumped up and left when they were going on with their forum. That

was totally inappropriate and inaccurate, and I am sure the people involved with

the organization understand differently.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the National Access

Awareness Week I think, is to make not only us, as legislators, in the breakfast

on Wednesday morning, but the public at large, more aware of the needs of people

with disabilities. I mean, that is the whole purpose of National Access

Awareness Week, and my experience over the number of years that I have been

attending these functions, in particular, is that it works but it works very

slowly. It takes a long time for people to keep in their minds the importance of

understanding the needs of persons with disabilities.

One thing I have learned is that persons with disabilities

don't want to be treated or talked to as people who are different from everybody

else. They don't want to be pitied, they don't want to be shown sympathy, they

just want to be understood and assisted where necessary, but otherwise, they

want to be treated like everybody else.

At the dinner in Grand Falls - Windsor, the other night, the

spokesperson who was the guest speaker, did a tremendous job. She, herself, has

gone through a tremendous ordeal in her life, but is very determined and showed

tremendous courage I thought, and I joked, in fact, at the dinner, that she

would make a terrific candidate for us in the next election, and she assured us

that she might consider that.

MR. ROBERTS: Grand Falls - Windsor.

MR. SIMMS: No, actually, she had some thought towards

Naskaupi, which we understand is going to be wide open the next time, when the

minister resigns. The minister will be leaving with the Premier some time before

the four years are up, we understand. Anyway, not to be diverted by the

minister, Mr. Speaker, it was a very important speech that that person gave and

I thought she put it well in perspective.

The little note that I want to pass on to members of the

House, the small note, the sort of an aside note related to National Access

Awareness Week is that, during the weekend prior to the dinner a couple of

nights ago in Central Newfoundland, the local organization out there, the

Exploits

Chapter of the Physically Disabled, organized a wheelchair race, in

which, of course, they invite persons without disabilities to participate. One

of those persons was the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

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

MR. SIMMS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: I will allow him a few moments to clue up.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to report to his colleagues on that side of the House,

in case they haven't been made aware of this, and to the Premier, specifically,

because he might wish the minister to get up and make an apology one of these

days again and he would be wise to know this information. The Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, the person responsible for understanding these

kinds of issues more than anybody else in his Cabinet, was totally annihilated

in the wheelchair race in Central Newfoundland - beaten badly, beaten terribly

by people who had neither the qualifications nor the experience nor the

knowledge of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) on the weekend.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I would have thought so too, but perhaps

he will get up and explain one of these days to the House.

Anyway, I wanted to pass that bit of information along to the

House as an aside, because I know he would have been too embarrassed to relate

that to his colleagues on that side of the House.

We appreciate the statement by the minister and support it.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the others in congratulating the

National Access Awareness Week Committee on putting off a very successful week

of events throughout the Province, raising the awareness of people about access

to public services. I think, this year, one of the most interesting aspects of

it was the emphasis on the non-visible types of disabilities that we must be

aware of, because they, too, need to have access to educational opportunities,

employment opportunities and other opportunities that may be denied them.

The message that came through to me this week was that best

efforts, or what is called `reasonable accommodation' to disabilities is not

enough. There must be access as of right, and I think that is a very important

message that we should all understand - that people with disabilities have the

same right of access to public services, to public facilities, to employment and

other opportunities, as everyone else, and that must be underlined under this

board.

I do wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Newfoundland Government

would join with the other provincial governments all across Canada and make some

contribution to this very worthwhile endeavour.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give the hon. members

of the House a further update on foreign fishing activity on the Grand Banks

just outside Canada's 200-mile economic zone.

For the week ending May 24, there were ninety-seven vessels

of foreign registry fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, as well as

on the Flemish Cap. One of these vessels of foreign registry was fishing for

Northern cod. Our main groundfish stock that had been so ravished by

overfishing, in fact, has caused a moratorium to be placed on the East Coast

Canadian fishery.

Of the nearly 100 floating fish plants from other countries

that were fishing on the Grand Banks for the week ending Mary 24, half were from

Spain and Portugal, the two European Community countries that have in the past

so flagrantly violated all principles of resource conservation. It is also

interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that for the same period seventeen of these

Spanish vessels sighted were on the Tail of the Grand Banks in the 3NO area

fishing for cod and turbot. I need not remind this House that flatfish stocks in

the same fishing area have already been plundered by foreign vessels to the

point that it has had a direct result of closing such Newfoundland deep-sea fish

plants as the one in Trepassey.

I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that in recent weeks a number

of foreign vessels have begun a directed fishery for shrimp in the Flemish Cap

area. This is not a NAFO-regulated species, but like turbot, it is very

important to our fishing industry. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this demonstrates the

particularly in the context of the upcoming United Nations Conference on High

Seas Fishing.

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

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

The first comment I was going to make was on a light note to

the minister and ask him when he was going to stop taking George Baker's press

releases and bring them in here as ministerial statements? Having said that,

this is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and something that I touched on in

debate last Wednesday. It is absolutely appalling that we are going through the

crisis in this Province, in our fishery, with our unemployment, with fish plant

workers and fishermen not being able to fish, or process fish, and here we get

another update from the minister about just how bad again this foreign

overfishing is. Now, last Fall the Leader of the Opposition and I were in Ottawa

and we met with Prime Minister Mulroney and he informed us then about the

diplomatic efforts that the federal government was going to undertake. The

Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister at that time, he said: go

through the diplomatic efforts, Prime Minister, but we do not have much hope

that those diplomatic efforts are going to really have any results and are going

to reduce the overfishing. The leader said: Mr. Prime Minister, you had better

have a plan in your pocket soon, at the end of the diplomatic day, because this

cannot be allowed to be tolerated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if members would allow me

just a minute to finish?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I feel strongly about this, and I am

sure all members in this House feel strongly about this. We know the state of

the cod stocks, we know what has happened to the caplin, and we know what has

happened to the flatfish stocks. It is very alarming what has happened to our

flatfish stocks, I say to members, if they are not aware. Right now we have the

plant in Fortune that is not even open this year and it's because of the decline

and the devastation of flounder stocks. We do not know if Marystown is going to

open any more this year, we know what happened to Trepassey and we know what

happened to Grand Bank. So, we have a very alarming situation in this Province

and it is mainly due to foreign overfishing. There are other contributing

factors but that is the main factor.

I say to hon. members that I do not think the federal

government or we as fifty-two members of this House, can sit back and hope

anymore for results from diplomatic efforts. I say that I am a very patient man,

very understanding, but we are talking about the future of this Province and I

do not think we can hang the future of Newfoundland and Labrador anymore on

diplomatic efforts of the federal government, regardless of what party is in

power. I say that we send a strong message from this Legislature. We have got to

get those boats off the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. They are not gong to

do it by us talking to them, they are not going to do it by going to conferences

in St. John's or the United Nations Conference.

I do not want to be an extremist this morning but I think

there is only one way and whether we have the military might to do it or not, or

we are going to have to get in cahoots with the United States but I think it is

time, Mr. Speaker, that we sent those boats out of there by force.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave of the House? By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I join in the

frustration of all hon. members to get up in this House and continue to express

our disdain about what is going on outside the 200-mile limit. I think that we

can no longer pin our hopes on international agreement. I do not think that the

High Seas Convention meeting in New York is going to resolve the situation. I

think the answer is to remove the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks from the area

of high seas and the only way to do that is to extend the jurisdiction of Canada

beyond the 200-mile limit to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank and the Flemish

Camp if necessary -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: - and that is what must be done, Mr. Speaker,

and take whatever measures after that, that are necessary to enforce that

extension of jurisdiction.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Minister of Finance this morning on a couple of different topics. The first

topic I want to address or ask him to clarify deals with a news story that I

heard yesterday evening, or I saw, I should say, on the electronic television

news channel, and it dealt with what I though was an old issue, But the way the

story was reported talked about the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

renegotiating the Hibernia deal. That's the way the story was played.

It seems to me the previous Minister of Finance, now Minister

of Health, mentioned a couple of years ago, probably, certainly a year ago, in

one of his previous Budgets, about some kind of discussion that was going on

that would see us get better benefit in terms of revenue from Hibernia. So it

wasn't a news story, I didn't think, until I saw this bit about renegotiating

Hibernia.

My understanding is that what is going on is a discussion

related to the formula that would not only affect Newfoundland and Hibernia, but

would affect other provinces, like Saskatchewan, with its potash industry and so

on. So I wanted to ask the minister to clarify this issue of what exactly is

being discussed, what is going on, so that the news media get it straight, so

that we in the House get it straight, and so that the people of the Province

know precisely what's happening. So would he clarify that for us.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll certainly try.

First of all, I want to congratulate the former Minister of Finance for

spearheading this particular move over the last couple of years. He did a

tremendous job and we all appreciate it.

We are close to getting agreement to have major sources of

resource revenue - and the two that come to mind are Hibernia in Newfoundland

and potash in Saskatchewan, major sources for provinces - considered to be

normal sources of revenue. This is by agreement with all of the other provinces

and so on. This has been attempted to be done through consensus and as I say was

spearheaded by the former Minister of Finance a couple of years ago. We're very

close to getting that agreement right now whereby revenues from that major

resource source, Hibernia - and potash in Saskatchewan - will be considered as

normal revenue. The same way that revenue from the offshore sources off Nova

Scotia and belonging to Nova Scotia would be considered ordinary revenue for

Nova Scotia; the same way that if Hibernia were Quebec's source of revenue, that

because of the relative sizes Hibernia would be treated as normal revenue for

Quebec. What we're trying to do really is as smaller provinces get the same

rights as the other provinces in Canada.

It means something for us in that we will, once this is

announced in the next short while, we will lose only seventy cents per dollar,

which is right and proper, of the revenues from Hibernia. It means a tremendous

amount for us down the road. Not a great deal right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same basis as Nova Scotia

(inaudible).

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

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Finance on another topic. I also understand that at the estimates

committee meeting a night or two ago, and according to one news report I've seen

at least, but I don't think it's been well publicized, the minister dealt with

the issue of tax harmonization. Whereby they intend to harmonize the GST with

the provincial sales tax. I remember at least two years ago in 1991 the former

Minister of Finance announced a similar plan. I now understand the Minister of

Finance now says that this plan they expect to put in place effective January of

1995. At least that's what the news story alluded to. That would be four years

from the time it was announced.

I want the minister, if he would, to confirm that, number

one. Number two, the former minister said that their tax reform would be revenue

neutral. I'd like him to confirm that for the record in the House of Assembly.

Thirdly, I'd like him to tell us if in fact what that means precisely is that

their intention is to reduce the provincial sales tax by 2 per cent, from 12

down to 10. Can he confirm those three minor items?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, they're very major items. We've

been going through analysis of harmonization for some time. We've gone through a

process of consultation that is the hallmark of this government - the

consultation process.

We have twice now gone out to businesses before we have made

decisions with regard to harmonization - gone out to businesses and chambers of

commerce and so on all throughout the Province - and we have received hundred

and hundreds of briefs, and the former Minister of Finance and myself have had

many meetings with these groups. So over the last couple of years we have

consulted widely and extensively to make some basic decisions on harmonization.

The first decision was whether to proceed with harmonization

or whether to examine harmonization further. We made that decision. Then the

question was whether to do it piecemeal over a period of time or to attempt as

complete a harmonization as possible when it is done. The consultation process

has allowed us to reach the conclusion that if it is to be done then it should

be done as completely as possible all at the same time, with the business input

and so on. So now we are at the stage where we are formulating our policy, after

receiving briefs and having meetings right up until the election as a matter of

fact, we are now in the process of developing our position. We have made a

commitment to the people of this Province, to the businesses, to the chambers of

commerce, and people all over this Province - and I spoke in the hon. member's

district one night at quite some length on this issue - we made a commitment.

They were very enthused, I say to the hon. member, very enthused. We made a

commitment that when our position is known we will put it out to the people

again and ask for further input.

So I am getting to the answer to the first question now that

the hon. member asked. Because of this process it has taken some time, and it

should. It is a major, major decision that requires all that input. Because of

the length of time, because of the federal situation where there is a federal

election coming and there have been statements made about what happens to the

GST after the federal election and so on, and in respect for that we really have

to wait for that process. What I have said is that the earliest possible time,

because of these factors, to do harmonization, whatever that decision is, would

be the first of January, 1995 - that we could not make it by July, 1994. So that

was the earliest date - not the date at which it is going to happen - because

the process has not been finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I have forgotten the other two questions.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) revenue neutral.

MR. BAKER: Yes, the process - oh, now I remember the

third question. The process will be revenue neutral for the government. There

will be some shifts in society in terms of taxation and so on. It will cause

some shifts, obviously, because of the broadening of the RST base. Mr. Speaker,

our fondest hope is that in that process we can somehow reduce the RST level -

how much I could not say at this point in time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister misspoke

at the beginning when he answered my question - when he talked about

consultation being the hallmark of this government. I am sure he misspoke. He

must have meant to say, `Confrontation is the hallmark of this government.` That

would have been much more accurate.

I am hesitant to ask the minister any further questions

because I asked fairly simple questions, I thought, which were reported in the

media - or at least one of the media - already. That is why I wanted him to

answer the questions yes or no, but it took him six minutes or something to

answer one question and we have some other questions.

The point we were trying to make, and he has now clarified a

number of things, I think. They do not necessarily intend to bring it in by

January of 1995, contrary to a news report. That is important for people to

understand. Secondly, the reduction from twelve down to ten is what they would

like to do. He has been reported as saying that. He kind of confirmed that this

morning although he would not specifically talk about it.

The point I want to make is this, and I want him to confirm

this, that if that process continues along the lines in which his predecessor

described and which he now has described, and which he described at the

estimates committee - can he confirm that the only way this could be done, to

broaden the RST tax base to pick up that $100 million for two percentage points

of retail sales tax would be to apply the provincial sales tax, obviously, to

things like electricity and heating fuel - a significant item - children's

clothing, funerals, haircuts. I know you would love to say those are only

options, we don't know, and all that stuff, but the reality is, if you are going

to pick up the $100 million, Mr. Speaker - and even the Speaker is nodding in

agreement with me -

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker is nodding hoping that the

member will come to a question.

MR. SIMMS: Will the minister confirm, if you are going to

pick up the $100 million, those are the kinds of items to which you are going to

have to expand the provincial sales tax? Can he confirm that?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Consultation is the hallmark of this government. We developed

our Strategic Economic Plan through extensive consultations throughout this

Province. We have carried on our collective bargaining in a process of

consultation that has been unheard of in this country, and I say to the hon.

member that we will reach our social contract long before other provinces. So,

Mr. Speaker, we have gone through extensive consultation processes every time a

major decision has had to be made. Now, this has resulted in the fact that we

haven't been hiding our intentions and we haven't been hiding the fallout and so

on. So there has been discussion out there. And members opposite interpret

discussion as being dissent and lack of consultation, but, Mr. Speaker, they had

better think again. We just came through an election - they had better think

again.

Now, the question. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about

harmonization, as much as possible, with the Goods and Services Tax brought in

by the Federal Government. Harmonization means extending the RST base to items

covered by the GST, but, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that one of the very serious

decisions that have to be made in the process is how far to harmonize. Quebec

has not completely harmonized and I don't know if it is possible to completely

harmonize, so the question the hon. Leader has asked me is precisely what the

consultation over the next few months will be about - the extent of the

harmonization.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, I

apologize for my hesitancy but I had to laugh when I heard the minister get up

bragging about his government's record on reaching contracts. Surely, he knows

what his government's record on reaching contracts is like throughout

Newfoundland society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Breaching them.

MR. SIMMS: Breaching contracts is what he meant to say; I

am sure again he misspoke - Friday morning.

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

My supplementary is this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Now, the minister is bragging about all the

consultation and everything. He talked about their discussions with the Chambers

of Commerce and other business organizations and all that, but there is one

group of people in this Province who will be most affected by tax reform of this

type and that is the ordinary person, the consumer. I would like to ask the

minister, since he is bragging so much about their record on consultation, will

he commit now, to hold public hearings on the government's plan before anything

is implemented so that the people of this Province who will have to pay the

bill, will have an understanding of what exactly is going on? Will he commit to

do that by a committee of this House?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, a mechanism is already in place

for that full consultation process, as I already outlined, and as soon as we

have our decisions made and our position clear, then there will be a full

consultation process taking quite some time. Then, if legislation is required,

after that period, then the legislation will be subject to the Legislation

Review Committees, who can then do whatever they want to do. So that process,

Mr. Speaker, is already in place.

As to his comments about consultation in collective

bargaining, Mr. Speaker, the change from behind closed doors, hiding away,

confrontation, the change from that to completely open consultation was a little

bit of a shock to the system, but, Mr. Speaker, I believe that ultimately, we

will have a better collective bargaining system as this works its way through.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Anyone who visits hospitals today can't help but notice that

the staff there are overloaded and they are working under extreme pressure.

Wherever you go, you get the feeling of extreme pressure and almost frenzied

activity that you would normally see only in an emergency room, and then, only

for short periods of time. Now, these conditions are causing problems, not just

for medical and support staff, but also for patients. People are waiting for

medication and treatment, are facing postponements of surgery and are being

called in the night for procedures that normally occur in the daytime. I ask the

minister: Is he going to do something to arrest what is rapidly becoming a very

serious health problem here in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is at his usual scaremongering tactics. What

he doesn't seem to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that hospital care has changed over

the past number of years. Ten or fifteen years ago, you would go in hospital and

probably spend a month there, you would have an operation, perhaps, and you

would get over it, gradually you would recover, and it was a semi-leisurely

activity at certain periods while a patient was there. What is happening now is

that patients go in for a very short time, they get operated on and they get

sent home. There does seem to be a great activity, in the turnover of patients,

in and out, because of the short stay period. The member shouldn't confuse that

changed way mode of operation of hospitals with care that is not as adequate. I

believe it is more adequate, because we are not keeping people in hospital who

don't need to be there.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The mode certainly has changed - there are long waiting

lists. I know people who wait almost a year for surgery. Perhaps the minister

has read Dr. Paddy Warrick's column last Saturday in The Evening Telegram. He

says, hospitals have not spoken out publicly about day-to-day problems because

they fear it would lessen the confidence of patients coming for treatment. Now,

the hospitals are not telling the public but I am sure they are telling the

minister, and I ask the minister: Is he listening to them, or is he taking

advantage of their professionalism to cut deeper into the health care system?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to Dr

Warrick, the advice that we get comes not from him but from the Newfoundland

Hospital Nursing Home Association and from the various hospital boards that have

been put in place. So, if you want people who speak for hospitals, don't read

The Evening Telegram.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, of course, it is the minister, not the hospitals, who

is ultimately responsible for health care here in this Province. The minister

keeps saying it is hospitals' responsibility, but it is not the hospitals' final

or ultimate responsibility, it is the minister's responsibility and the minister

should be aware of what effect those funding cuts are having on patient care and

services here in this Province. I ask the minister again, if he would look at

setting up an independent committee to take a look at the effect reduced funding

is having on bedside care and other services that are provided for hospitals

here in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I guess, more than at any other

time during the year, this time of year is an extremely important time for young

people in terms of finding employment for the Summer that would help with

furthering their education and furthering their own opportunities. My question

is: Can the minister explain - in such tough economic times when young people

need more support from the leaders, from the Legislature, and from government -

why the Student Employment Program was cut by $200,000?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon.

member for the question, as well.

The fact of the matter is not that the program has been cut

by $200,000, the reality is that last year we budgeted the exact same amount as

we budgeted this year.

MS. VERGE: What did you spend last year?

MR. GRIMES: We did an assessment of the need partway

through the Summer last year, after we had processed the applications which are

just about finalized now and will be released early next week, and found that

there was a greater need. We went back to Cabinet, because of that increased

need, and got access to additional monies so that we could provide some

additional opportunities for students. I know we are all used to talking the

phrase of tough economic times, but all of the indicators are that it may not be

any worse this year than last year, as a matter of fact, it might even be a

little bit better. We will do an assessment after we have processed the $600,000

worth of activity and if, in fact, there is a need - we have shown an ability to

respond in the past, but we can't commit to those kinds of things. We have a

Budget before us which is exactly equal to last year. We will make the

commitments, we will assess the situation and see what happens after that. We

spent $800,000 last year because there was an increased need that was determined

by us halfway through the season and we responded to that at the time. But the

allocation for this year is the same as was budgeted for last year.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I thank the minister for his response.

Student employment centres this year have stated that never before have they

seen so much unemployment among students, you can't buy a job out there. There

are over 200 people a day going through student employment centres who have no

hope of getting jobs. University graduates are lining up at the doors for

minimum wage jobs and will now be competing with high school students coming out

when the school year ends, who will be after these jobs, as well. Can the

minister commit here today that he will assess, or strike somebody from his

department, to assess on a daily or weekly basis, the situation, so that if he

determines the need exists, they will look at trying to find more funds for

student employment programs this year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't confirm the numbers that the hon. member mentioned,

of how many people, on a daily basis, are going through the student employment

offices, but I would certainly hope that none of us would confuse two different

issues. The gradates who are going through the offices looking for work and

having difficulty finding work - is not the group of people we try to address

with our student employment program.

The government has an initiative which has worked very well

for some four years now, a graduate employment program which is again funded

this year to assist graduates in trying to get their first full-time job. That

is separate from the issue we are dealing with, of students who are still in the

post-secondary system trying to secure some employment for the Summer to help

with their ongoing education costs. Certainly, as I indicated, we monitored the

situation last year; we have been doing that, we will monitor the situation

again this year. Whether or not we can access additional monies, as we did last

year, that I don't know at this point in time, but it won't be from lack of

trying and it won't be from lack of monitoring the situation to try to see that

we have a positive impact on as many students as we can in their search for

much-needed summer employment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having a little difficulty in hearing the minister at

times, as well as the hon. members who are asking questions.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a

question to the Minister of Education. I am pleased to note this morning that

there are ninety-three junior high school students in the public galleries. They

represent three class groups from two different schools in the region. This

means that the average class size is thirty-one students per class, yet, Mr.

Speaker, the Department of Education, in its publication, `Profile '92',

indicates that the teacher/pupil ratio in the St. John's region is

seventeen-to-one, which, in itself, is the highest ratio in the Province. Can

the minister explain why the reality of class size in junior high school is

nearly double the departmental-stated ratios?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the department allocates

teachers to school boards. The board has the discretion, then, to determine how

or where the teachers will be sent. I want to reiterate or to highlight what

this profile says, Mr. Speaker, that we, in this Province, have the best - the

best student/teacher ratio in all of Canada, bar none, Mr. Speaker, bar none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, while the ratio of

seventeen-to-one may represent the overall picture, there is a classroom

reality, and that is, that each day, teachers encounter twice that number of

students. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in 1961, when I began my first class teaching in

Botwood, I had thirty-three students. This past week, when I left the teaching

profession, the class size at Mount Pearl Junior High School, an average in

Grade VII was thirty-two. Will the minister undertake to subdivide his

departmental data to better reflect the actual learning environment?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the problem which

the hon. member puts forward. We have a system in this Province where school

boards are responsible for the day to day delivery of education. As a result,

I'm just looking at some of the ratios which exist in the Province. For example,

in the Vinland, the pupil-teacher ration is 12.9:1. Isn't that some ratio? In

the Deer Lake school board, 13.5:1. In Labrador West, 14.9:1.

There seems to be a problem with distribution. Overall we

have the best pupil-teacher ratio in the Province. I don't know what the hon.

member would have me do, unless he wants me to go out and take over the

responsibility of the boards. That's a thought which I can certainly wrestle

with but I don't think it would be too well received by the school boards in the

Province.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government in the

early 1980s reorganized the senior high school structure and introduced Grade

XII. They made some other modifications to programs and courses. Of course,

there has been some considerable reorganization of the primary and the

elementary division. Yet we have the junior high school division seem to be

unrecognized, seem to be unaddressed by the government. Our Grade VIII students

continue to perform below the national average on CTBS. Class sizes seriously

jeopardise the learning environment. Teachers in junior high school have the

most difficulty with behaviorally disruptive students. Will the minister commit

his government to an independent study of all aspects of the junior high

structure and the curriculum needs of our junior high school students?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government just

spent in excess of $1 million on a Royal Commission which dealt with all of

these issues. Hopefully, over the not too distant future, we'll be able to

implement some of the recommendations which are made in that Royal Commission

report. So we certainly don't have any intention of going with another Royal

Commission to identify problems which we have already identified. We have now to

put in place a process to deal with the problems. I can assure the hon. member

that over the not too distant future he will see some action which he will be

quite pleased with, I'm sure.

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

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and concerns Workers'

Compensation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Fall the

government took away benefits from injured workers because of long-term

financial problems in the Workers' Compensation system. The recent report shows

that there have been dramatic decreases in the number of injury-causing

accidents and also claims being filed as a result, which the minister attributes

to the efforts of people in the workplace to prevent accidents. It's also

resulted in of course a turnaround in the finances of Workers' Compensation.

Will the minister acknowledge that this provides evidence to support the fact

that his government's drastic cuts to Workers' Compensation benefits last Fall

were both unnecessary and punitive to injured workers, and that in fact the same

kinds of economic results could have been achieved by an active injury

prevention program in the workplace over the long run?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I expect there may be

some continuing discussion of Workers' Compensation in the next little while as

a result of the release of the annual report for 1992.

Pointing out as I did in the release of the report yesterday,

the information contained in the 1992 report reflects clearly the two things

that the hon. member mentioned in his question. The fact that there has been an

increased effort. My assessment of it in the estimates committee a couple of

days ago was that when the review committee went around the Province a couple of

years ago, and brought attention to the dire straits that Workers' Compensation

was in, that both employers and employees began to take their obligations at the

workplace much more seriously with respect to safety. That reflected itself in

the report, showing less accidents. That combined with the fact that there were

actually less people engaged in activity that could possibly have an accident.

However, the changes were very necessary. Even though there

are some improvements there, the $33 million improvement in the unfunded

liability is not a reflection of the fact that the unfunded liability is

disappearing or that there's been cash actually infused into the system to buy

down the unfunded liability. It's a reflection of the fact that there's been a

recalculation on the basis of the new benefit structures. All of those are

reduced, therefore the numbers are reduced. It will take another full year, Mr.

Speaker, before we can actually assess whether or not the legislative changes

will have a real impact in causing the financial situation at the commission to

move in the right direction.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of all hon. members I would like

to welcome to the public galleries several groups of students. The first is from

Mount Pearl Junior High, and it is composed of thirty-one students from Grade

VII accompanied by their teachers, Gordon Hicks and Sherry Skinner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The second group includes eleven Level III

students from Mount Pearl Senior High School, in the district of Mount Pearl,

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Darryl Penney.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The third group, certainly not least, is two

Grade VII classes, fifty-nine students from Beaconsfield Junior High, Topsail

Road, St. John's, along with their teachers, Ms. Jerri Doherty and Mr. Gary

Bambrick, and one chaperone, Ms. Alfreda Crocker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, the hon. the

Member for St. John's East Extern questioned me relating to regional fire

services in and around the City of St. John's. I just wish to reply by saying,

yes, the department has written the regional board, as well as the City of St.

John's, expressing its concern over the amounts charged to the communities in

and around the St. John's area. This minister is waiting for a reply from the

board and the City and will not make any further comment relating to that

particular question until I have a reply from the board.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we call Order 9, Bill No.

7? The hon. gentleman opposite, my friend from Ferryland, was speaking.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Order No. 9, second reading of a bill,

"An Act Respecting The Control Of The Sale Of Tobacco To Minors."

I believe the hon. the Member for Ferryland was speaking when

we adjourned the debate yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was speaking yesterday on the enforcement aspect of

legislation. It is fine to bring in legislation dealing with restriction of

smoking, or the sale of cigarettes or tobacco of any sort to people under

nineteen, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. I was emphasizing the point that

it is very, very important to enforce regulations that currently exist. I asked

the minister - maybe he could relate to us a little later - exactly how active

they have been in enforcement and taking action against people who sell tobacco

to minors and what action they are taking against people who are obtaining

tobacco to give to minors, or buying on their behalf.

There are a few points of concern to be dealt with if you

increase it now to nineteen. And I understand that vending machines now would

only be placed in liquor establishments, because a person must show proof of age

in order to get into these establishments and to access a vending machine.

That raises another point: What happens to students who are

employed in stores during Summertime and other times of the year? An

eighteen-year-old student working in a store on summer employment, who could

dispense cigarettes over a counter, I guess, would be now in a position - and

maybe the Minister of Justice might be able to pass a comment on this. I know,

under the liquor laws, if you are working in a store, you cannot dispense liquor

or beer to people if you are under the legal age of nineteen. I would assume

now, if you are under the age of nineteen, working in a store during the

Summertime, you cannot sell cigarettes to adults. I think that is an

implication, too, that we have to look at.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: So the Minister of Health is saying that a

person seventeen years of age can now pass cigarettes, sell over the counter, if

they are working in a store, to adults? Is that what the Minister of Health is

saying? In other words, the person is not entitled by law, then, to be able to

smoke tobacco or handle tobacco but can sell it to other people? Is that what

the Minister of Health is saying?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He doesn't know what he is saying.

MR. SIMMS: A good question. He is saying yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Health is saying yes to

that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: In other words, I guess, by the same

comparison, a person who is eighteen, then, could sell beer in a store, could

they, to a person who is an adult?

I think it is an important part of the legislation to make it

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister will have to check that out

- a good question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it has something to do with this

bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but it is not uncommon during the

Summer months to hire students, even though there is $200,000 less spent this

year on hiring students. It is not uncommon for businesses to add on students

during the Summer months, and I am wondering if an eighteen-year-old student can

now sell cigarettes over the counter to adults who come into that store? You are

saying they can? Can that same eighteen-year-old sell alcohol to a person who

comes into the store?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: `Yes', he is saying - the minister is saying

yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister is wrong, he cannot, he

must be nineteen.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe the Minister of Justice might be able

to inform the House on this later because I am sure that is the part of

legislation that will have to parallel any justice legislation that is going to

have certain restrictions on handling the illegal sale of goods - whether it is

alcohol or tobacco, it should be parallel to that. This could cause a serious

problem and I think we need something to deal with it, because often you can

see, in various stores across the Province, seventeen and eighteen-year-olds who

have finished school, have Summer jobs and they are in a position where they

cannot legally be able to deal with the sale of these items.

Well, overall, this Province, I know, is depending upon

tobacco revenue, actually $16 million more they are planning on collecting this

year in revenue from the sale of tobacco than they did last year - the Budget is

allowing for $80 million. Last year, I think the Province realized $64 million

in revenue, even though the health bill for this Province is $60 million cost,

that is not counting the minister indicated, the fees and salaries to physicians

for treating people who had various diseases as a result of smoking.

I think we have to weigh the cost and not get carried away

too much and be too lenient just because a large chunk of our revenues depend

upon taxes being realized from the sale of tobacco here in the Province. Overall

I think it is pretty shameful that youth in this Province take up the bad habit

of smoking. The minister mentioned some very interesting figures yesterday

showing that, where two parents in a family smoke, the rate is much higher as

opposed to one, and where none of the parents smoke in the family, their kids -

he mentioned a 13 per cent chance that the child will smoke if the parents do

not smoke, and that is a very interesting statistic, so interesting that it

would make one want to put restrictions on the smoking of cigarettes to people

over nineteen years of age.

I think we should get a little tougher, in our society, with

the laws on smoking in general. When you look at the $3.25 billion that goes

into cigarette advertising across North America - and I mentioned in the House

previously that magazines that have a high rate of advertising do not carry any

anti-smoking reports or stories. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds

them. I think it is important that we look very seriously at the whole total

concept of smoking, even as it applies to adults. I think we can place certain

restrictions on smoking. It is hazardous to health. I don't think parents have

the right to set up an environment that is going to damage the lives of their

children. I think we have to look at the total protection of minors in this

Province, and if we have to do that through tightening up the regulations and

enforcement on adults, I think we should follow that approach.

It is very, very unfortunate to see fourteen, fifteen and

sixteen-year-old people smoking, and it is happening, it is becoming very

serious; there is an increase, I understand, a big increase in the number of

young females who are smoking today. The advertising is focused upon the youth.

Cigarette smoking - they are attacking the youth, who are most vulnerable -

AN HON. MEMBER: Smoke control.

MR. SULLIVAN: We don't have, to my knowledge, any

controls now, very little enforcement. There is very little action taken now to

enforce the legislation, as it currently exists. Are there some plans to take a

more active role in enforcing any future legislation for anyone under nineteen

years of age? I think it is important that we take this matter very seriously.

We have to look at the enforcement aspect. I know the legislation is here and

the fines are certainly a deterrent, and should be; the amount of fine should be

a deterrent for any offender, but they are not going to solve the problem if

there are no prosecutions. You could have a million dollar fine and if nobody is

brought to task, it is not going to solve it. So I think we have to take

stronger measures, we have to be more concerned, we have to look at the overall

problems associated especially with young, growing people; their systems are

more susceptible to smoke inhalation than older people.

There are 4,000 contaminants found in cigarette smoke, of

which some are poisonous. Arsenic and formaldehyde are some of the substances

found in cigarette smoke and studies have shown that 70 per cent to 90 per cent

of these contaminants remain within the lungs. They remain there permanently.

The effects are like x-ray radiation, they are cumulative on the system. As time

goes on, they build and build up to a certain point where then they become

carcinogenic and bring on lung cancer. That is just one of the bad effects.

That is only a very minute problem with cigarette smoking.

The biggest problems are in middle-aged and older people, with effects on the

cardiovascular system. So it is important that, overall, we look at the

implications it is having. It may cost a few dollars today, but it is going to

save big dollars down the road in the very near future.

So I certainly support the legislation as it is. I would like

to see more emphasis put upon the enforcement aspect of the legislation.

Anything that is going to even make a small step forward in curtailing cigarette

smoking among minors or anybody in the Province, for that matter, I would

wholeheartedly support it.

Hopefully, over the course of debate on the bill, and when we

get into Committee, we might be able to get some discussion of statistics on

enforcement and, over the past, let's say, two or three years, exactly how

active we have been in trying to enforce it on people.

Because there are people out there now, under the legal age,

who are smoking on a daily basis. They are smoking, I am sure, up to a half-pack

a day - kids who are fourteen years of age - and even more. So it is important

that we look at the early years before people start to form their smoking

habits. It is an addiction that is very difficult to break. If we concentrate on

where the majority of people start smoking under nineteen years of age, I think

it is a big step forward in trying to lick this problem and have people enjoy a

fairly healthy life, at least, free from any cardiovascular problems that could

be associated with the bad effects of smoking.

I support it, Mr. Speaker, and with that I finish my

discussion on second reading.

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

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the

House to request that we revert to item C on the routine procedures, Presenting

Reports by Standing and Special Committees. My request is being made so that I

could report on the Government Services Committee.

MR. ROBERTS: Table the standing of the report, so that we

can do the concurrence (inaudible).

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We grant leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave granted.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

I again recognize the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government Services Committee have considered the matters

to them referred, and have passed without amendment the estimates of the

expenditures of the Departments of Finance, Works, Services and Transportation,

Employment and Labour Relations, and Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and the Public Service

Commission.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this report, I want to thank the

members of the Committee: the Vice-Chairperson, the Member for Bonavista South,

the Member for Pleasantville, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, the Member

for St. John's North, the Member for Harbour Grace, and the Member for St.

John's East Extern. I also want to thank the ministers and their staff for their

level of co-operation. I believe the process of estimate review has been well

served by our deliberations, and I thank everyone involved in the deliberations

for their co-operation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: Now, to the (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want

to have a few words to say on Bill 7, "An Act Respecting The Control Of The Sale

Of Tobacco To Minors". I missed an opportunity a few days ago, really, to speak

on the previous bill brought in by the Minister of Health dealing with the

smoke-free environment in the workplace. I had to leave the House for a few

minutes and when I got back they had moved on. As a matter of fact, the

minister, I believe, was closing debate.

I just want to go on record as saying I think they are two

very good pieces of legislation - we are talking about smoking in the workplace

and then controlling the sale of tobacco to minors. I guess there are a lot of

implications for half the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of

age. As I said a number of days ago, I think that government really has to be

more pro-active in this type of legislation if we are going to get a handle on

the expenditure for health care in the Province in the future. It is something

that I have felt very strongly about over the years. We all know the harmful

effects of smoking, we all know the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, as it

is referred to, and the Member for Ferryland, a couple of days ago, had some

alarming statistics. He was very well versed on the issue. He had done a lot of

research into the harmful effects of smoking and smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for Ferryland. He was very,

very enlightening with the statistics and research he had done on this.

I just want to go on record as basically supporting the

legislation but I want to say that the Member for Ferryland, this morning, has

raised a couple of very important questions. I guess, the first think you have

to observe about this is that if you couldn't enforce regulations on the sale of

tobacco to sixteen-year-olds, how are you going to enforce them on

nineteen-year-olds? That is something to which government is really going to

have to give serious consideration. There is no point in raising the age if we

are still going to have the same abuse. I think that is the real challenge that

government, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Justice will have to

deal with. It is going to be more difficult to enforce the higher age bracket, I

say to members, because we all know there are thirteen and fourteen-year-olds in

this Province who smoke, who go out and buy tobacco products, and if we can't

police and enforce that, then how, in the name of God, are we going to police

and enforce regulations for the sale of tobacco for nineteen-year-olds, or see

that seventeen and eighteen-year-olds don't buy it?

There is another thing I want to say about all this. We are

all concerned about individual health. We are all concerned about the millions

and millions of dollars that the taxpayers of the Province have to put forward

to take care of our health care system, but I think that perhaps the only way

for us to reduce our health care costs in the future is to have a more healthy

lifestyle. Government has to be very pro-active in promoting that and, as well,

government is going to have to put up some very important dollars to encourage

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be more careful about their diets and to be

more fitness conscious.

MR. SIMMS: What did you have to bring that up for?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, because it is so important.

MR. SIMMS: Stick to smoking.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But it is all related.

MR. ROBERTS: He is against all the pleasures of life.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Government House Leader,

the Minister of Justice, no, I am not against all the pleasure of life.

MR. ROBERTS: Smoking is a pleasure of death, not a

pleasure of life.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Precisely.

MR. ROBERTS: (inaudible) a reformed smoker like I am.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is one thing I never did, Mr.

Speaker. One thing I have never done in life is smoke.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) my hon. friend who has never

smoked.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I am not going to get into that

here this morning, of what I got into or didn't get into in life. I managed to

get this far in life without smoking, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my hon. friend, we are (inaudible)

for other vices, I think.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, there is no doubt, there are those

who would accuse me of having other vices.

MR. ROBERTS: How about driving a nice Cadillac?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is two days in a row now that the

Government House Leader has slapped up to me about the type of car I drive. I

want to say to the Government House Leader that I like a challenge and I am

realistic about things in life. I knew that I could never have a bigger bank

account that the hon. member so I figured I would have a bigger car. He drives a

little Miata, a little sports car, a little convertible.

MR. ROBERTS: My two cars together didn't cost what the

hon. gentleman's white Cadillac cost.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can assure the Government House Leader

that it surely did. I am not going to disclose what I paid for my car any more

than I expect him to do so.

MR. ROBERTS: I thought it was one of these

chauffeur-driven limousines. I saw my friend from Burin - Placentia West

(inaudible) to get it in one day.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It didn't cost me very much money.

MR. ROBERTS: Did you notice there is a Dwight Yoakum out

in the cars and Cadillac?

MR. SIMMS: What has that got to do with smoking?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not a great fan of Dwight Yoakum -

whether he smokes or not, I don't know. The group who watched him perform at the

stadium thought he was smoking something before the concert, I say to the

Government House Leader.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Did Charest inhale?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. SIMMS: Did Charest inhale? he asked. They all

inhaled.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, no, Charest didn't inhale.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder did Trudeau inhale?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Kim Campbell - no, Bill Clinton didn't

inhale, wasn't it? Charest didn't inhale but Kim Campbell did inhale. That's it,

yes, I got the order right. I say to my good friend from Eagle River that I

think Jan Chrtien continuously inhales. He continuously inhales, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) polls?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is some poll now, thirty-five -

thirty-four.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to

members opposite, because I -

MR. SIMMS: He was sixty points ahead there about a year

ago.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, this debate - I wish the

Member for Eagle River would rise in his place after I finish and -

MR. ROBERTS: He thinks he is in his place now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is what I say, wishful thinking, I

say to the Government House Leader, for the Member for Eagle River, wishful

thinking, to think that he is in his place.

MR. ROBERTS: The Member for Eagle River will be in the

front ranks before it is done.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I don't know in the front ranks of

what though. As I said to my good friend before, he is the only member opposite

who is still in the same seat now that he was in before the last election -

still in the same seat.

MR. SIMMS: They are talking about putting on an extra

row.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, they are thinking about putting - I

told him a little booth back there, in that wall, like Howard Ballard and King

Clancy had. That is where they are thinking about putting the Member for Eagle

River, because the Premier, now, is not even sure - you have heard it said that

it is better you are seen and not heard. Well, the Premier is not quite sure now

if he even wants to see the Member for Eagle River, so he is going to insert him

in the wall.

MR. ROBERTS: We are putting the Member for Eagle River,

then, where he put Mike Kelly.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That could very well be.

It is so hard, Mr. Speaker, to be able to say the serious

things I want to say about this legislation and about -

MR. SPEAKER: I will certainly call the House to order.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) harassment.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What an attack! - vicious personal

attacks, Mr. Speaker. I am going to have to call for the protection of the

Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I will certainly call the House to

order and allow the hon. member to get on with his serious remarks.

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

I just want to say that in these times of tough economic

restraint, I think, governments - and when we were the government we were no

different, we sometimes lost sight of what an expenditure of a few hundred

thousand dollars can do to encourage and support healthier lifestyles, to

develop higher fitness levels amongst our citizens. We lost sight of the effect

that a few hundred thousand dollars expenditure in the short-term can have on

the long-term budgets of the Province. I have always been a very strong advocate

of that.

I think, when I heard over the last few weeks about the cuts

that have been made in the division of Community Recreation Sport and Fitness, a

very important division of government, I say to members opposite - it is lost in

that great big department over there of Provincial and Municipal Affairs. It was

a very pro-active division. It did so much good for the people of this Province;

every day they were doing something positive. Well, over the last few years,

they have been cut to the bone in that division. And the impact of that, Mr.

Speaker, is that that division does not have the resources to promote healthier

lifestyles for our people. That is really sad, because they are responsible for

all the sports and recreation programs in the Province, they are responsible for

promoting fitness in the Province and they do not have the resources now to do

those kinds of positive things. The impact on the provincial budget in the long

term will be such that it will cost the taxpayers millions and millions of

dollars, because we should be spending more money on prevention. A few hundred

thousand dollars now on prevention to get our people more fit, to get them

healthier, will save the minister, whoever the minister of Health will be in ten

years - it will save their budgets millions of dollars.

I want to say this, especially to the ministers who are here

this morning, that when you get around the Cabinet table and you see a paper

coming up from that department and particularly from that division looking for a

few measly dollars to promote fitness, to promote a better health lifestyle for

our people, support it. Don't look it and say we can't afford $200,000 because

our deficit is whatever it is. Because, really, what you are doing is being

short-sighted, I say to ministers and members opposite; you are being

short-sighted, because down the road it is going to cost you millions because

you didn't spend that few hundred thousand dollars today. It is going to cost us

millions.

You know, there are only half-a-million of us. There are only

half-a-million people in this Province, and with the proper encouragement and

support from government, we should have a real positive impact on healthier

lifestyles, and it will save us millions on our health care budgets in the

future. There is no question about that.

We all know the effects of being fitter. We all know the

benefits, but it is so hard - I went through the same, and other members here

who were ministers of that very department the same as I was - it is so hard to

convince your colleagues of the real benefit of expenditures such as that in

those areas when you look at a deficit of $50 million or $100 million. But all

you are doing by not spending it is you are going to further increase your

deficits in the future, because you are going to have to spend that much more on

the health care for those people who will be less fit and less healthy.

So I want to commend the minister for bringing in those two

pieces of legislation dealing with smoking, but it is not good enough to just

bring the legislation to the floor of this Assembly. There is no point in doing

that. That is not going to make one iota of difference because we passed these

two bills here in the last week or so. You are going to have to enforce Bill No.

7, I say to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice. You are going to

have to enforce it or else it will not make one bit of difference. We will still

have the thirteen, fourteen, fifteen and sixteen-year-olds out buying tobacco

and smoking it, so you are going to have to enforce it.

I look at the bill and I see some of the penalties here, and

so on, for offenders, violators, and again, that is not going to make any

difference either because someone knows they are going to get a $500 fine if

they do this or that or something else, because they have to be caught first.

They have to be caught before they can pay.

I don't know what the minister has in mind for enforcement. I

don't know what he has in mind to enforce this legislation, but I ask him - and

I know he has to probably deal with this in consultation with the Minister of

Justice. But it is very, very important that aspect of it be thought out very

well because, otherwise, it won't make any difference. I think they are two very

important pieces of legislation. We have to control smoking. In my opinion, we

have to do away with smoking.

The minister, in his speech when he introduced the

legislation, made some very interesting comments - some very interesting

comments on the effects. Of course, he touched on other substance abuse, as

well. Alcohol was one thing that he really zeroed in on.

MR. SIMMS: I wouldn't touch that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Opposition Leader says: I wouldn't

touch that. I say, yes I would, because as well - the impact, as the minister

said, that substance abuse is having on our health care, and the cost to the

taxpayers, is astronomical. Some people think that because people are buying

alcohol and drinking alcohol, or buying tobacco products and smoking them, what

a great positive effect it is having on the Province's bottom line, but really,

it is not. The minister was so right when he said that, because really, because

of this substance abuse, the health care budget of the Province has really gone

out of whack.

So I want to support the legislation. I compliment the

minister for that, and I just hope that they really give some serious

consideration to enforcing the legislation so that it really will have some

effect with our young people in our Province.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to speak briefly on this legislation and endorse the

general thrust of the legislation at second reading. We do have a serious

problem amongst young people, in particular, with respect to smoking. We have a

problem throughout our population, of course, and many people were introduced to

smoking at a very young age. In fact, the statistics show that of those who

smoke as adults, by far, the majority of them commenced smoking at a very early

age, in some cases, twelve and thirteen years of age.

As one who was a serious smoker, I would say, when I quit

smoking in a serious way, about 1976, at the age of twenty-seven, I was smoking

approximately two packs of cigarettes a day. I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker,

that since then I have quit smoking. It is not an easy thing to do. It takes a

lot of determination. It is an addiction. It is something that is a very

difficult habit to beat and it's better off that no one ever start. Anything

that can be done to assist in that I think is very helpful. This legislation I

hope will be part of it. Part of the effort to prevent people from starting

smoking, particularly young people. When someone is an adult and at the age of

nineteen years and wants to go ahead and take up something like that as an

adult, well I guess, Mr. Speaker, there's not a lot that government can do about

it, a substance such as this which has been so widely available for the last

couple of hundred years.

I have a particular concern with young people starting

smoking with the availability of cigarettes. We've had the introduction by the

cigarette companies, by the tobacco companies, in the last couple of years of

what has come to be known as the `kiddie pack'. A little package of cigarettes

that contains only five cigarettes. These cigarettes were introduced primarily

as a result of the increased cost of tobacco products, mostly by virtue of

taxation, so that a package of cigarettes that used to cost, oh, I don't know, a

couple of dollars I suppose a number of years ago, now costs six dollars or more

to purchase for twenty. It's beyond the reach of people who only have a dollar

or two to spend.

In order to get at this market the cigarette companies

introduced these packages, which have become known as `kiddie packs,'

specifically to make tobacco available to young people. Because they know that

if they can get them hooked as young people that they've got a market

potentially for life.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: And for death, as the Minister of Health

says. For life and for death. So I want to ask the minister to seriously

consider while he's outlawing the sale of tobacco to minors, will he not also

agree to amend the legislation to outlaw the sale of tobacco and cigarettes

through these `kiddie packs,' these five packs of cigarettes.

In fact, I've noticed, Mr. Speaker, that in other provinces,

even the twenty pack, which is widely available in Newfoundland - it's probably

the most common form in which tobacco is sold in Newfoundland and Labrador, is

through these twenty packs. I notice in other provinces the more common size is

the twenty-five pack. I think that came about, I suspect, by reason of price.

That the twenty packs were in fact cheaper and more readily marketable in this

Province because of the lower incomes of many people. So what we see now is the

five cigarette pack, the `kiddie pack,' designed and aimed at the market.

There's been a lot of effort over the last few years, in

Canada in particular, at the federal level to reduce tobacco advertising. That

has had its affects. The minister and of course the government through its

research facilities has available this data to it. Talking about the decrease in

the number of smokers, adult males have significantly decreased over the last

number of years. We see the percentage of adult female smoking increasing. Most

unfortunately, we see teenagers as the biggest and the fastest growing market

for cigarettes all over Canada. In particular, and unfortunately, teenage

females, teenage girls, taking up smoking with, as a result over the last number

of years, serious increases in the lung cancer rates for women. The lung cancer

rates for women due to smoking has increased substantially over the last number

of years, resulting in serious problems and many deaths. Not to mention health

care costs.

I say not to mention that because I don't think we need

necessarily to look at health as an economic problem, although obviously there

are serious economic costs to government. More realistically, it's a health

problem. Whether it's a health problem related to someone having a cough, more

colds than they would ordinarily have, increasing chance of pneumonia, any kind

of cardiopulmonary disease or respiratory disease, obviously all increase as a

result of smoking. It's a serious health problem for individuals and of course,

a serious health problem and cost problem for governments to try and deal with

it, so I see this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, as a positive step, not one

which is going to prevent smoking amongst teenagers or those in their legal

minority, it is not one that is going to prevent it or eliminate it, but one

that is going to make it more difficult or somewhat more difficult for children

to have access to tobacco and continue to make it a little bit less socially

acceptable by making it illegal to sell of course tobacco to minors then it is

also an offence.

I think it would be, and perhaps someone has explained this

already, it should also be illegal to supply tobacco to minors by adults not

just retailers; this is aimed primarily at sale to minors. It should also be

illegal for any adult to supply minors with tobacco, whether it be a parent or

whether it be a stranger at law to the child. It should be illegal for me to

give a child cigarettes, to allow my own child to smoke before the age of

nineteen, should in fact be considered to be illegal.

I think the government should consider that, but I think,

since we are dealing here with a piece of legislation that controls the sale of

tobacco to minors, that we should also make it very difficult for minors to have

access to tobacco by having it given to them by adults. The same thing applies,

Mr. Speaker, it is illegal for, under the Liquor Control Act, adults to supply

liquor to minors or beer to minors, and we do see some deterrents to underage

drinking as a result of that, we see individuals who are bootlegging,

essentially bootlegging beer or liquor to minors being charged and fined in the

court. Quite often people get adults to go and buy beer for them, teenagers may

do that or we see them getting caught and getting fined and some deterrents

associated with that.

If the only result of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that

teenagers get their nineteen-year-old friends to buy their cigarettes for them,

the `kiddie packs' or loose cigarettes or a full package and divide it up

themselves and essentially bootleg it to their younger friends, then that is not

going to be very successful, so I think that the minister should also take

whatever measures are necessary, legislatively, to prevent the distribution, not

just the sale by retailers, but the distribution and the provision of cigarettes

to minors just as it is illegal to provide beer or alcohol to minors, so I would

ask the minister when he concludes his address on this, concludes debate on

this, to address these points.

First of all, the provision of 'kiddie packs' which would be

a simple amendment to this to prevent the wholesaling and retailing of

cigarettes in packages of less than twenty, and secondly, to find a way to make

it illegal for minors to be given cigarettes by adults, just as it is now

illegal to give alcohol to minors by adults as a further deterrent, and as a

further indication by society that it is socially unacceptable to put these

children at significant health risk by allowing them to smoke.

It is not a moral issue, Mr. Speaker, it is not a moral issue

as smoking is bad because smoking is some sort of evil, it is a health issue,

Mr. Speaker, that young people under nineteen years of age ought not to be

exposed to this health risk which will be a continuing risk to them, the risk of

addiction, the risk of continued dependence, psychological and physical

dependence on cigarette into their adulthood, is a significant health risk, and

it is on that basis that the government is passing this legislation.

I appreciate and commend the government for bringing in this

legislation, but I would like to see it go further in those two respects to

prevent `kiddie packs' from being allowed to be sold, and to prevent adults from

supplying, whether for profit or otherwise, cigarettes to minors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: While I can concur with all members who have

spoken before me on this Bill, I personally am not interested in extremes. While

the Bill has a big heart - like the minister - it is the extremes of things that

always get me worried.

In Russia centuries ago people were executed for smoking -

the first smokers. This Bill, and my age group - and I am going back to the

sixties, where we were told to never trust anybody, and we agreed, over thirty.

Now only for the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, in this House everybody is

over thirty. Who is consulting the young?

When I started smoking, and it was a good many years ago, our

heroes were all smokers. You can remember Bogart, Gilbert Roland, the way he

twisted his cigar, Burt Lancaster, the way he could steal a scene -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: That is right. Jackie Jensen, Detroit Tigers,

advertising certain cigarettes - our heroes were smokers. Our peer what we

looked at. Now today with our young, who are they looking at? Are they smokers?

Are they what? Some things never change. Some things, the more they change the

more they stay the same.

I do not like to be driving things underground to see things

surface in other place. Like my friend from Ferryland yesterday was saying about

banishing vending machines, well if you drive them one place, things surface in

another.

The minister talked about lungs yesterday. I have had friends

of mine die of lung cancer, and it is not easy. I have seen friends of mine die

with lung cancer, who never smoked. So while the Bill is good and means good, I

think that we should continue to consult with the young - those who smoke and

those who are inclined to smoke. There are a lot of pressures out there - more

so now.

Also in this Bill, and there has to be some temper in it,

those young people who find themselves in one of our institutions from time to

time, whether it is inherited disease, mental disorder or chemical induced, you

have a sixteen, seventeen, eighteen year old who is crawling the walls, climbing

the side of the walls, and if they want a cigarette, regardless of if they think

it just calms their nerves, there has to be someone there to be able to have the

move aside to be able to give them the smoke they need, or they think they need.

The only thing I would caution the minister, while it is a

great heart Bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Well, whatever they think they need -

whatever they think they should have - let them have in some kind of small

doses, because in the time they might be in there we might be lucky enough to

wean them off smoking.

I compliment the minister on the Bill, and I do support it,

but in saying that I think that from time to time we should continue to consult

with the young who are smoking and the young who are inclined to go smoking.

I thank you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he closes

the debate. The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My remarks will be few and I want to thank hon. members

opposite for their thoughts and their support.

The main purpose of this Bill is to address the problem of:

How do you get people to stop smoking? That's basically the thrust. How do you

get people not to take it up and how do you - as part of an even broader thrust

- how do you improve lifestyles generally, from my point of view, so that the

health care system can be contracted? So that we don't have to operate all these

hospitals and hospital beds and spend such a large proportion of our funds on

caring for sicknesses that can be prevented. That's really what we're trying to

do.

I believe that the fact that this Bill generally has had so

much support within the Legislature indicates the general support that it will

be receiving throughout the Province. I'm getting quite a lot of mail on this

issue and all of it is in support. Many letters and phone calls are coming in. I

can't get my work done when I go over there because of the phone calls I get

from people who tell me that this is the right way to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, I used to smoke too. We're all reformed

smokers, I guess, a lot of us are. I quit a long time ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not all of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many of us in the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: How'd you quit? Patch, you were on the

patch.

DR. KITCHEN: No, I quit by taking up Coke. I used to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Coke? There's (inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: You have to suck something, so Coca-Cola was

what I used to suck. From smoke to Coke. Then gradually I got weaned off Coke.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm not sure the hon. gentleman means

what he's saying. Coca-Cola, you mean.

DR. KITCHEN: Coca-Cola, yes. I don't know any other kind

of coke, except what you burn in a stove. I want to read part of a letter I got

from a constituent. Not a constituent. Actually, it's from someone else's

constituent:

I'm writing to applaud your proposed legislation to raise the

legal age for purchasing tobacco to nineteen years and to ban smoking in all

public places. This is a giant step forward toward the prevention of illness and

premature death from one of the deadliest and most addictive substances in

modern society. It's a shame to see children, for that's what they are, become

addicted at such an early age when they have no idea of the long-term

consequences of their actions. I don't know the full details of the legislation;

however, I would like to make the following recommendations which I believe

would make people realize just how serious this problem is, and how serious your

government is about doing something about it.

First, provide stiff fines for people who disobey the law,

especially the ban on smoking in public places. I get the feeling people don't

think this is for real. Use undercover teenage operatives to try to buy tobacco

at a retail store. Implement fines or loss of licence for businesses who sell

tobacco to underage persons. This has been done in some mainland towns with

excellent results. Raise taxes drastically on tobacco sales. From what I have

seen in the past couple of years this is the single biggest deterrent towards

smoking, both for older people and young teens. This has been confirmed as the

major deterrent by a recent study in the United States. It would also provide

much needed revenue for the Province in the short term, as well as saving money

on health expenditures in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, this is the type of letter that we've been

getting. There are always some excellent ideas there. We have an organization

called Allied Youth, and I expect that they will be helping us to enforce this

legislation. That would be a very important point. So we'll be doing this.

As far as the enforcement, I agree with hon. members

opposite. There's not much point in having legislation such as we have now which

is not enforced. It's up to sixteen now. Some people enforce it, some people

obey the legislation, but most don't. A lot of people don't. Our thought is that

not only would health inspectors be enforcing this legislation, but also we have

the Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board inspectors as well. They're going around

to various shops and so on, so they could do it as well as the police.

But we need public support. No legislation can be enforced

unless it has widespread public support. As the Member for Placentia indicated,

you have to have the support of the teenage population as well. I believe we

have that. I was privileged the other day to attend a meeting in Shea Heights

where a video was shown about some of the problems that teenagers have in

maintaining healthy lifestyles. There was a great discussion before and after

that video. I believe that school children, teenagers generally, are very

supportive of anything that contributes to a healthy lifestyle. I don't believe

that George Burns is the hero of most children any more. In fact, very few

people watch him any more, even though he tries his best to appeal to a certain

generation. But he's not the hero of the young people for sure.

One point that was mentioned opposite was the question of

health promotion. I believe the Member for Grand Bank mentioned the difficulty

of getting money in the budgets for health promotion. I certainly appreciate

your support of that. I'm sure that your remarks will trickle through to my

Cabinet colleagues so that when the next budget comes up there'll be less

difficulty getting more money for health promotion. We do have a serious

budgetary problem in the Province and we have to be sure that we are addressing

the problems of the long term, rather than just meeting short term band-aid

approaches to life. I appreciate your support.

I appreciate very much the efforts of my predecessor in the

Ministry of Health, who's laid the foundation of all this. Because it's a matter

of moving in and carrying the ball forward. He had virtually all the work done

in preparing for this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: I'm not blaming it on him. I'll take the

blame, but I'll give you the credit where you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible), right. I won't take credit for

that. I'm not a circle person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: As far as the `kiddie packs' are concerned,

I'm very glad the Member for St. John's East mentioned that. Because we have

been thinking about that very much. It's a question of which legislation it's to

come in. That basically requires an amendment to a bill which doesn't come under

our department, and in all possibility something may happen there. So that's in

the works. I don't want to say any more than that because it's not my

department, but it's in the works. Hopefully that will come in too, so that we

can ban the sale of all small packages, say less than twenty anyway, as you

suggest. That'd be a great idea.

The other point about making it illegal to give cigarettes to

young people, that's not covered in the Bill and I think we should give some

consideration to that. So I'll be thinking about how to work on that. I've made

a note of that.

One more point I wanted to make. We need public support for

this measure and for the whole anti-smoking thrust. So I think it's very

important that this Bill be referred to the Social Legislative Review Committee.

That'll be my recommendation to our House Leader, that that's how we'll handle

that, so there can be good public discussion and that the Committee can have

interaction with the public. That will help us help the Province get the proper

focus. The publicity. To get the public involvement. That's what I'm looking

for. To get the involvement of the public in bringing forward this legislation

so that the whole public of the Province will be behind the problem that we're

trying to address. If we can get the public of the Province behind it, make the

public aware of the whole problem and what this legislation is designed to do,

and perhaps any weaknesses in the legislation that we can correct, then we'll

have been successful.

I believe that the next step, the referral of this to the

Social Services Legislative Review Committee will be a major step in addressing

the general problem. With these words, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Control Of The Sale

Of Tobacco To Minors," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of

the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 7)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we call the Budget

please? Order 2.

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

that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole of Ways and Means to

consider the raising of supply to be granted to Her Majesty. In the regular

House the rules of debate are thirty minutes. The hon. the Member for Humber

East adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was a week ago that I adjourned the debate. I have

eighteen minutes remaining and after that I will be interested in hearing the

maiden speech of the new Member for Torngat Mountains.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I made a few preliminary comments

about the Budget and then I started to tell members about the priorities in the

district I represent, the needs in that area for government attention and

appropriate budget provisions. In terms of the Budget as a whole, Mr. Speaker,

it is an incomplete and unreliable document. The Wells administration has not

been able to stick to a Budget yet. The administration has consistently been

either high or low in estimating, typically high in forecasting revenue and low

in estimating spending.

Last year the government introduced a mini-Budget in early

December in which it instituted yet additional tax burdens. This particular

Budget was prepared early this calendar year, in the Winter of 1993, and was

brought down in late March before the election was called. This Budget does not

represent even the same effort that government put into preparing earlier

Budgets. The document was hastily put together without more than a superficial

examination of the operations of departments of government programs and

services. It is obvious that many of the estimates are unrealistic. The social

assistance estimate is $20 million less than what was actually spent last year.

Now, obviously that is not realistic. The social assistance caseload has been

growing at an alarming rate and it is still increasing.

The minister admitted those statistics here last week. He

said the last month for which figures are available, I think that was April,

there were almost 70,000 individuals, children, women, and men in the Province

on welfare and that number has been rising steadily. There has been about a 50

per cent increase since the Wells administration took office four years ago. The

government, in the Budget document, are saying that there will be very little

economic growth in the Province and that there will actually be a loss of jobs.

There has been a loss of jobs over the past two or three years. Our official

unemployment rate is higher. Our youth unemployment rate is alarmingly high, and

those unemployment statistics do not count the 20,000-odd people who are getting

the federal Northern cod package INCARP.

Mr. Speaker, when we in the Opposition asked members of the

Cabinet about particular budgetary provisions - as one of my colleagues asked

the Minister of Social Services about the VRDP program, or another colleague

asked the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations about the youth employment

program - the ministers say: we may not stick to those estimates. Those are only

estimates. We'll adjust as we go along. We may end up spending more. The

ministers don't show any serious commitment to the numbers in the Budget

document.

This is a Budget that's currently before the House of

Assembly. It's being debated, it's being examined in detail in House estimates

committee meetings. Yet already ministers are backing away from the numbers in

the document. They seem to have no compunction about asking the House to pass a

document which is unreliable, which they themselves don't believe in, don't

intend to stick by.

Right off the top the government indicated that the

arithmetic in the document is wrong. That there won't be a current account

deficit of $121 million, which is what the figures indicate, because the

government will subtract $70 million from different heads and subheads by taking

it out of public sector compensation. For example, in the case of the grant in

aid for Memorial University, shown in one of the Department of Education heads,

the total the government intend to give the University is not what's shown. That

is not an accurate figure. The total grant in aid the government will be giving

the University will be considerably less than that.

According to the University president and the faculty

association president, what the government intend to actually grant to the

University this year will fall $11 million short of what the University needs to

carry on the present level of operations. The University president is talking

about downsizing, of making the Province's one and only university a smaller

institution.

This coincides with the shocking unemployment problem we

have, the dramatically high rate of unemployment of young people. The government

ministers themselves hold up their so-called Strategic Economic Plan and say

that education and training are the answer, that the key to economic advancement

is better education. What the government is actually doing through their Budget

is quite inconsistent with that philosophy.

In the case of the district I represent, I've said that the

most important opportunity for economic advancement within the control of the

provincial government is Grenfell College, a campus of Memorial University. This

administration was elected to office four years ago promising to expand Grenfell

College immediately by adding new facilities and allowing the College to expand

course offerings to include full four-year undergraduate degree programs in

select subjects in arts and science.

That has not happened. The facility has not been enlarged by

one square foot in the last four years. The Grenfell College buildings have been

altered with former common space, cafeteria space, being taken for offices,

because it is now seriously overcrowded. The facilities were built in the

mid-1970s for a student population of about 650, and they now house double that

number. Not only is there physical overcrowding, but there is a serious shortage

of lab space, and the library facilities are quite inadequate.

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to have abandoned its

commitment to Grenfell College. Instead of proceeding with the stated plan from

the 1989 election campaign, the government has made modest provision for

expanded university offerings elsewhere in the Province. In the second week of

this election campaign the Member for Gander, the Minister of Finance, and the

Minister of Education, announced government plans to spend $500,000 for new

science labs in Gander and about $750,000 for staffing first year university

courses in Gander starting this September. The Minister of Education is

muttering there. I have a copy of the news release of the two ministers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the election.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the announcement was made during

the election campaign.

MR. DECKER: Who made it?

MS. VERGE: You made it. The Minister of Education and the

Member for Gander made the announcement, and I have the exact text of the

announcement.

The announcement was made during the election campaign. I

will remind the minister by handing him a copy of his announcement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I have a copy, I say to the minister. I have a

copy. People at Memorial University have a copy as well.

Mr. Speaker, this funding is not being given to the

University. It is being given to the community college system. Whether this

campaign promise is kept remains to be seen. Certainly the 1989 promises for

Grenfell College were not kept.

Grenfell College has taken more students - and as I say, the

facilities are badly overcrowded now - but the students who are there are not

getting the quality education they deserve. Many of them have not been able to

get science courses because of the inadequacy of the science lab facilities, so

in some instances students are taken into Grenfell under false pretences. They

assume that they will be able to get first and second year arts and science

courses, but in many instances they cannot get the particular courses -

particularly science courses - that they need for their degree programs or for

their career plans. Consequently they are either taking other courses - for

example classics instead of chemistry - or they are not taking a full load of

five courses. They are there doing four courses or three courses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to reconsider its position

on Grenfell College and to allocate a reasonable amount of funding to enlarge

the facilities there. There is a master plan for development of new facilities,

and I would commend that to the minister and his colleagues - particularly the

Premier who represents the Bay of Island, one of the districts served by the

college. Of course the minister himself, as the Member for the Strait of Belle

Isle, is elected for another district served by the college.

Mr. Speaker, health services in Humber East, where Western

Memorial Regional Hospital is located, are a concern for many residents there.

There have been cutbacks at that regional hospital, the same as other

facilities, and there have been greater demands put on the regional hospital

with cutbacks at smaller institutions throughout Western Newfoundland. Services

to cancer patients have been a topic of conversation on the part of many people

in that area over the past year. Last September without any warning or

consultation with people affected the government suspended the visits of

radiation specialists to the Western Cancer Outreach Clinic in Corner Brook, and

for seven months there were no visits of radiation specialists and Western

Newfoundland patients had to go to St. John's for services they had been able to

get at the Corner Brook Outreach Clinic for twenty-one years. That involved a

considerable hardship. Some patients who needed checkups did not go to St.

John's because it was to difficult. Others went to St. John's at considerable

expense. The government provides only limited financial assistance to defray the

cost of travel for medical services that are available only away from home and

has not publicized even that limited program adequately.

Yesterday, during Question Period I raised with the minister

the need for government to improve financial reimbursement for patients who have

to travel, and I asked him if he would provide reimbursement to patients for all

reasonable travel accommodations and meal expenses, and I was glad that he

undertook to review that program.

I remind the minister that the government has decreased

spending on the limited program that exists quite sharply. $350,000 was spent

last year and the same amount is budgeted for this year, but if he checks only

two or three years ago close to twice that was spent. I would like him to look

into that situation when he is considering improving the program overall.

Even with the radiation specialist visiting the Outreach

Clinic in Corner Brook once again, and we trust that the visits will continue on

a regular basis and will be frequent enough to at least give the level of

service that was provided for twenty-one years up to last September, patients

will have to come to St. John's for radiation therapy and other services that

are available in this Province only in St. John's.

At a time when the Maritime Provinces are expanding the

provision of radiation therapy by setting up additional units our Province is

embarking on funding a new $13 million cancer clinic in St. John's with no plan

to provide any new facility anywhere else in the Province, so once again I urge

the government to at least study the feasibility of putting a cancer radiation

unit in Corner Brook to serve roughly one third of the population who live in

the Western Region.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said yesterday that a clinic in

Corner Brook, or a radiation unit in Corner Brook would not help people on the

Northern Peninsula. Well, I would suggest that if he talks to his colleague the

Member for St. Barbe, or his colleague the Minister of Education, he will find

out that people in those districts would much prefer to go to Corner Brook for

these kind of services than travel all the way to St. John's. People on the

Northern Peninsula frequently come to Corner Brook for services.

Mr. Speaker, forestry and land use planning are extremely

important to the Corner Brook area since the newsprint mill is our most

important basic industry. It is an industry which is employing fewer p**eople in

the Province than ever and which depends for its future survival on good

forestry management and good harvesting practices. Now, yesterday my colleague

the Member for Baie Verte -White Bay asked the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, who also happened to be filling in at the time for the Minister of

Environment and Lands, whether the government has assessed the environmental

impact of the harvesters that the paper companies are using more and more for

their harvesting.

Mr. Speaker I was shocked, actually, to hear the minister

blithely, glibly, say that no, the government has not considered the

environmental impact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope

I do not have to sit down in the case of my wrong move again. Otherwise I will

be very tempted to do what I read in The Globe and Mail last week about this

British lord who made his maiden speech last week. This British lord sat in the

House of Lords for forty-three years, and after forty-three years decided to

make his maiden speech. Mr. Speaker, I will not wait that long; however, I would

like to, in my initial address to this hon. House, without prejudice due to, and

without disrespect for the hon. House, I would like for a few moments to address

my constituents in my own native language.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: Itsivautak, sivullipamik tamani

ukagumavunga Kujalitlatunga Labrador Taggani Torngait Kakkasuangit taijaujunik

Kiggatuktiugiamut. Ammalu itsivautak, uvannik annigusulauktuit angijualumunik

nakummejakka. AmmaliktauK Kujalitlamijunga sivullipangugiamut InullagiujuK

Newfoundland and Labradoriullu Kavamangani Kiggatuktiugiamut. Ammaluliktauk

ilitsinik ilongnai sinik salottimijunga tamaunga-titausimannisi pitjutigillugo.

Itsivautak, imalli uKagumavunga Kiggatuktiugiullungitunga

inunniK jarinik 17-nakasanik KiggatuKtiusimaligama Ammalu

ikpigusugaluangmitlunga InutiunnanilungituK KiggatuKtiunialiKtunga Taimaimmat

inongnigijaga Kaujimajaugaluaktilugo tuKisikKujivunga Torngait Kakkasuangmiungit

ilongnatik atjigetilillugit KiggatuKattaniaktaKa piginnausiKKut.

Mr. Speaker, these are a few words I have addressed to the

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: My hon. colleague understands

Inuktitut, so...

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: Mr. Speaker, first it is an

honour for me to be the first ever, I believe, Inuit, or formally known as an

Eskimo, to become a representative in the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: For the district of Torngat

Mountains.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to now address the people

who elected me, and to assure my people, be they Inuit, Innu, the settlers or

the newcomers into the district of Torngat Mountains, that I will do what I

believe to be the honourable thing for and on behalf of that district.

It is also a pleasure to become a part of, on one hand a

restrictive kind of representation in that I am now in the provincial

Legislature as opposed to the past nine years I have been very much involved in

the regional, provincial, national and international forum as far as Inuit are

concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I will now speak to the issues that are a

priority to my district, not only to the Inuit and Innu but the district as a

whole. With respect to the fishery issue, not only the Cod Moratorium but the

fishery issue overall, the District of Torngat Mountains on one hand is seen as

a fulltime fishing area but on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the best our

fishermen can ever carry out in the way of the fishery is four months per year,

which I think is very much a toss up between fulltime and part-time.

However, with respect to the Cod Moratorium there are only a

small number of people in my district that are benefitting from the Cod

Moratorium. Yet, there is a large number of fishermen who lost their cod fishery

some twenty-five years ago by the overfishing of the inshore fishery by the

maritime fishermen, not only on the Island of Newfoundland but the maritime

fishermen in general. These fishermen who are not eligible to be recipients of

NCARP or anything to do with the Cod Moratorium, lost a fishery and are not

receiving anything for that loss. They are not eligible for NCARP, they are not

eligible for any benefits through the Cod Moratorium but yet they were cod

fishermen for generations and generations. It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to

ensure that these fishermen do get something in return for what they lost.

Mr. Speaker, continuing on with the fishery issue - the

sealing industry. Labrador Inuit were the first ever North American residents to

deal internationally in the seal trade and ironically enough that international

trade was with Germany some 200 years ago. Yet, when the seal fishery was

demolished by animal rights activists there was nothing in return for that loss,

no compensation - well there was compensation and the compensation offered by

the federal government some five years ago was a slap in the face to what the

people lost. A $50,000 compensation package for all of the families that lost

their right to the seal fishery.

Mr. Speaker, there are social problems I think in my district

that are unparalleled anywhere in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Problem suicides, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, substance abuse and these problems

have to be answered and dealt with. I am hoping that I will be of some relevance

to the way in how my hon. colleagues here in government and hopefully with the

support of the hon. members of the Opposition and of the NDP, that we will start

to look at answers to those social problems in the way that aboriginal community

might see best to do it.

I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that my understanding of not only

the aboriginal language but the culture and traditions will be of some

assistance in how the answers to these problems are approached from the

provincial government level.

On the issue of health care, Mr. Speaker: I have heard over

the last number of days the problems with the health care system. Regardless of

how good the system is, we still face one problem in my district, that of

interpretation; and it is twofold because we have two aboriginal cultures. We

have many people in my district, Mr. Speaker, who are unilinqual, Inuktitut

speakers or Innuin speakers. Oftentimes, even just to get a checkup, there is no

interpretation for that. I think it is the right of every individual in this

area, not only in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador but in Canada, to

have access to understanding what it is that is being delivered to you,

especially in the area of health care.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intent - and hopefully I won't put my

foot in my mouth here - to ensure that Labrador gets a regional hospital. Right

now it does not have a regional hospital. The little services, like X rays and

checkups - people from my district have to fly away from home to get an X ray.

People from my district of Nain, Labrador, a community of 1200, have to fly to

Goose Bay to have work done on their teeth. In a lot of areas of the country,

and in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is taken for granted that a

service is available at any time. In my district that is not the case.

The issue of municipal services falls under the

Canada/Newfoundland Native Funding Agreement, an agreement that is outdated so

badly a lot of the civil servants, not only within the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador but with the federal government, say they cannot

understand why it continues. Yet, Mr. Speaker, through this Canada/Newfoundland

Native Funding Agreement the communities of Nain, Davis Inlet, Hopedate,

Postville, Makkovik and Rigolet, with a $35 million agreement over five years,

are supposed to get housing, water and sewer, municipal infrastructure,

education - elementary education, that is - and cultural and economic

development programs. This agreement has been more of a penalty to the District

of Torngat Mountains than it has been an asset. It is my intent, as the

representative of that district, to ensure that that changes.

I have always been a believer of compromise and of working in

harmony. I am sure, with the understanding I have of that funding agreement,

that I will eventually persuade my hon. colleagues to work on changing that so

that it is more beneficial to the district itself. If it is not, then it should

be done away with.

Education and training: Over the past ten, twelve, or

fourteen years I have been very heavily involved in the need, and work towards

the education and training needs of Labrador in general, but now it is going to

be the district of Torngat Mountains. In my tenure with the Labrador Inuit

Association I negotiated two programs and services that are now implemented for

the benefit of the Inuit of Labrador. The post-secondary education support

program which up to 1985-86 was worth $100,000 a year through the native funding

agreement, today is worth $1.6 million a year, and I am proud to say that we,

the Inuit of Labrador, are funding 160 students this year to attend

post-secondary institutions, but there is the need for counselling people

entering post-secondary institutions.

A lot of our students wanted to go to university just because

you are going to university but there has to be an objective, and it will be my

responsibility, Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, the Minister of Education,

to earmark what the training needs are with respect to how the future might look

in the district of Torngat Mountains, whether it is in the area of tourism,

fisheries development, conservation, justice, health, we need to have specially

trained people in all those areas.

Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to become party to a

government just some months ago that signed an intent to create a national park

in Torngat Mountains. It was a pleasure for me as president of the Labrador

Inuit Association to sign an undertaking to carry out a study to develop a

national park in the Torngat Mountains, and now I look forward to being a party

from the government side in continuing that project.

Mr. Speaker, back to education, I would like to, without

being pushy about it, see the Inuktitut language come back and to have it taught

in the education system at the highest levels, and I say the same for the

Innuin, the Naskaupi Montagnais Innu of Labrador. Even though I do not speak

their language I can understand the assimilation of a language. I speak about it

by the time I left school in the 60s I nearly lost my language on the one hand

but on the other hand I left school being ashamed to be an Eskimo. I have worked

out of that and once again I am not afraid to say that I am proud of who and

what I am, and I am going to promote it in that way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: Mr. Speaker, this is not to

push it on people who do not want it. All we need is a mutual respect of who and

what we are, and I certainly look forward to working with this hon. House to

achieve those ends.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Baie Verte -

WhiteBay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I would like

to commend the member for Torngat Mountains for his fine address to the House

today and especially for his choice of using his native tongue to address his

people. I think that his people will respect that, and members on this side I'm

sure respected that.

I've also got to say that for the first time since I've been

here anyway, which is only a short time, I don't know what secret he has, but it

was the most attentive group I've ever seen in this House, and nobody understood

what was being said, so....

MR. ROBERTS: Say little but say it well is good advice.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes. It's good. I commend him on his choice

of using his native tongue. I must say that it was a very informative

part

coming from the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You did. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

first of all say how honoured I am to finally get my chance to stand in this

hon. House as the newly elected Member for the district of Baie Verte - White

Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I thought it would be a little bit sooner

but I'm glad that we didn't have to wait the forty-three years as the hon.

member mentioned earlier. First of all, I'd like to congratulate the Speaker,

the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Deputy Speaker for their elections. So far

things have been going fairly well and I hope they'll continue. I'm sure they

will.

I want to bring up a few things about during the election and

also especially about my district and some of the resource related issues there.

Because it is a district that I come from that is basically what I call a full

rounded res