May 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 33

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

public galleries several groups. The first is a group of visitors from the

Caribbean, a delegation from the Barbados Community College, Mr. Vincent

Sisnett, Senior Tutor in the Division of Health Sciences, Bentley Vaughan,

Engineer Lecturer in Allied Health Sciences, and from the College of Arts,

Science and Technology in Kingston, Jamaica Mr. Errol Senior, Chemical Engineer

who is Coordinator of the Basic Water Technology Program, and Audrey Hussey who

is Senior Lecturer and the Head of Biological Sciences.

As well, I would like to welcome two groups of students, one

a group of forty Grade 7 students from Catalina Elementary School, accompanied

by their teachers Marvin Ryder and Lorrie Smith. Secondly, a group of

forty-eight Grade 5 students from St. Peter's School in Upper Island Cove

accompanied by their teachers Mrs Judy Adams, Winston Lynch and David White.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There have been a number of comments in recent weeks in this

House and through the media with respect to the Province's wood supply

situation. These comments have created a level of confusion and uncertainty that

I wish to address to assure the people of this Province that the forest

resources are being managed in a manner which will assure the sustainability of

the resource while at the same time sustaining the economic activities of the

Province now depending on that resource.

The 20-Year Plan for the forest resources of the Province was

released in 1992. This report was based on calculations for an annual allowable

cut, an AAC, in the Province that were completed based on the information

available up to the year 1990. The new Forestry Act was introduced by this

government in 1990 and requires a recalculation of the annual allowable cut on a

5-year basis and a report to this House of the results. The five year update of

the annual allowable cut calculations is now ongoing and will be released in

detail to this House when completed. When that is done and the new version of

the 20-Year Plan is produced, a first five years drop off so that we always have

a 20-Year Plan.

In the meantime attention in recent weeks has been directed

to a statement in a consultant's report completed for governments under a

cost-shared arrangement identifying a deficit in the wood supply in the order of

20 per cent.

The information on wood supply included in that consultant's

report comes directly from the 1992 publication of the 20-Year Plan that

was produced, based on information up-to-date as of 1990, except for minor

modifications, so the information should not be new to the Opposition or the

interested environmental groups in the Province. The 20-Year Plan showed

an approximate 20 per cent wood supply deficit up to approximately the year 2010

at which time the current age class imbalance would be corrected.

Since the annual allowable cut calculation was done in 1990,

the supply/demand situation in the Province has been altered by ongoing events

and improved by ongoing events. On the demand side there have been changes due

to the following: A reduction in demand at the Grand Falls mill with the close

down of one paper machine; conversion of the remaining sulphite units at the

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper mill to TMP units, resulting in a reduction in the

wood requirement to produce each ton of paper; thirdly, both Abitibi-Price Inc.

and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd. are investigating the establishment of

recycling equipment resulting in a further reduction in demand to some extent;

and, domestic cutting requirements for firewood have been redirected to stands

that are not designated for commercial use and in some instances a reduction in

the wood harvest on each cutting permit has been done as we did recently for the

Avalon Peninsula region.

All of these changes have served to stabilize a wood demand

situation such that the current demand is less than was originally projected to

be the case some five years ago. At the same time, on the wood supply side,

regulations and policies have been introduced to improve the utilization of the

wood which is harvested. These include: encouraging sawmills to install chippers

so that the slabs from sawmills which had previously been wasted are now being

converted into chips and delivered to the pulp and paper mills; providing a

reduced stumpage fee for the harvest of dead and dying timber and the harvesting

of timber from less favourable terrain, such as steep slopes and, investment in

silviculture and other intensive forest management activity such as planting and

thinning. This government has made a decision to continue this program through

$10 million in the current budget replacing federal cost-shared funding.

The end result of all of the above changes over time, is

that, based on similar assumptions employed in the 1990 annual allowable cut

calculation, there is a marginal increase in the annual allowable cut now. At

the same time, however, over that period there have developed increasing demands

for the management of the forest resource on an ecosystem basis taking into

account all uses. This will result in the removal of some lands from the wood

supply. The results of this approach are to be incorporated into the assessment

of the wood supply that is now ongoing.

I would also emphasize to the House and the people of this

Province that the department views with great concern the hemlock looper

infestation projected for this summer. A significant factor in the current wood

supply deficit was caused by insect infestation in the late 1970s and early

1980s. We are hopeful that through an effective spray program with the

insecticide B.t. we will be able to contain the current outbreak, but no one

should underestimate the problems that may result if there are large-scale

losses in the years ahead because of this insect infestation.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, contrary to statements from the

Opposition in recent days, the wood supply situation in the Province has

improved over the past five to seven years. Through effective management and

continued diligence, I am confident that the wood supply requirements at the

existing level of industry in the Province can be met in the years ahead with a

combination of effective utilization plus supplies from Labrador and elsewhere,

where needed, in the short term. In the longer term when the current imbalance

in the age structure of our forests is corrected through intensive management

and continued expenditures on silviculture, we will be able to sustain and

indeed expand our forest industry and, at the same time, meet the many other

demands of our citizens on our forest resources. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the Minister of Natural Resources, I would

like to say that a great number of Newfoundlanders are very concerned about the

state of the Island's forests. They are concerned because of what they see when

they look around when they are out in the woods. They are concerned because they

know Abitibi-Price has been getting wood from the Avalon Peninsula and importing

wood from Prince Edward Island. They are more worried than ever when they hear

the minister responsible for forests - the provincial minister, realizing this

is totally within Provincial Government control - deny that there is a wood

supply demand imbalance on the Island of Newfoundland. When we all listen to the

minister say that we can move on to Labrador, we are very upset. We haven't done

a proper job of looking after the forests of the Island and we have no right to

move into Labrador and repeat the mistakes that were made on the Island, in the

mainland portion of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the minister responsible

is not even willing to acknowledge that there is a problem, how can we expect to

see a solution? If the minister responsible is not even willing to say that the

loss of federal government cost-sharing and the withdrawal from the Province of

the federal forestry service with the scientific expertise on the hemlock looper

problem and other aspects of the forest is not a loss, then we have a worse

problem than some of us thought a year or so ago.

Mr. Speaker, the PC caucus has a committee on forestry. We

will be having public meetings around the Province starting in St. John's

tomorrow night. Through these public meetings we will listen to what

Newfoundlanders have to say about the forest. I would suggest that the minister

open his ears and heed what Newfoundlanders can tell him about the state of the

Island's forests and take corrective action. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: For hon. members, I wish to point out that I

prematurely welcomed the delegation from Barbados and Jamaica. I had thought

that they were in the House and they were not. They subsequently arrived during

the minister's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about the Newfoundland

Dockyard. Last Thursday when I asked the Premier about his lack of action to

ensure a future for the Dockyard,he said he would be getting information and

then he would think about whether to go to the Federal Government and make an

intellectual case for the Dockyard. Would the Premier tell us today what

information he got from Marine Atlantic President, Rod Morrison?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the

Opposition has again misstated. I said nothing about thinking about whether I

would go to the Federal Government. What I did say is I would get information

first. My normal practice is to treat things on an intelligent and intellectual

basis and deal with it in that way.

With respect to the meeting I had this morning with Mr.

Morrison, while I'm not prepared at this moment to discuss totally all of the

comments that were made by Mr. Morrison and by myself and others at the meeting,

I can say that Mr. Morrison has assured me that most of the horrendous

statements coming out of the Opposition in the last week were totally unfounded.

He told me that Marine Atlantic was continuing to bid work and continuing to

accept work and intended to continue to do so unless and until they advise me to

the contrary. I also told him, went through it in great detail, what the

Province was doing with respect to Marystown Shipyard, and said to him that we

would endorse their taking a similar approach with respect to the St. John's

Dockyard. I said to him: I have no problem with your announcing that the St.

John's Dockyard will close - if you put in place a board of directors, a system

that will ensure good sound management, elimination of the ineffective and poor

quality operating procedures that are there now, corrections of the collective

agreement, corrections of the massive management problems. If you do that, then,

if after a reasonable period of time, twelve or eighteen months, during which

time you should support it as we are supporting Marystown, if you do that, and

make that honest effort, and it can't succeed without subsidy, then I, for one,

will not be able to quarrel with your closing it; but if you simply throw it

overboard in the harbour with a massive chain around its neck and say, `Sink or

swim', that is unconscionable and I ask you not to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Premier think it is unconscionable for the Federal

Government, through Marine Atlantic, to lay off all the managers of the

Newfoundland Dockyard and shut down the bidding department? Does the Premier

think it was unconscionable for the Federal Government to order the Dockyard to

turn away contracts they bid on and won to do work on the Beaumont Hamel

and the Teleost ?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, either Mr. Morrison was

deliberately lying to me, sitting across the table lying deliberately, or what

the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just said is totally and completely

wrong. Now, she may honestly believe it, but if she does then she is clearly

misinformed.

Mr. Morrison sat across the table from me a little more than

an hour ago and told me no, they were accepting these contracts, not rejecting

them; they were proceeding with the work. Now, unless he was deliberately lying

to me, three, four other ministers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The minister wasn't there. The Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology was there, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation was there, and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

was there. Now, the four of us heard exactly the same thing. So unless Mr.

Morrison was deliberately lying then the Leader of the Opposition is doing as

she usually does, making totally unfounded allegations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So is the Premier saying that the Newfoundland Dockyard will

proceed with the contracts it bid on and won to do work on the DFO vessel

Teleost , and the provincial ferry Beaumont Hamel ? And will the

Premier, when he gets to his feet, tell us whether the Federal Government,

through Marine Atlantic, will now allow the Newfoundland Dockyard to compete for

work due on the Leonard Cowley , and will the Premier indicate whether in

fact the bidding people at the Dockyard will be rehired and allowed to do bids

on future opportunities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the House

that when I spoke with Mr. Morrison he told me directly in direct answer,

because I put it to him very clearly, that they were proceeding to do the work

that was contracted or for which they bid and won the contracts on the federal

government vessel and on the provincial government vessel.

As to the Leonard Cowley I wasn't personally aware

that contracts were called. I didn't have the detailed inside information that

apparently some member has with respect to Marine Atlantic so I didn't have that

information to ask him about it. If it is important to the House I will

certainly contact Mr. Morrison this afternoon and ask him if he is going to bid

on the Leonard Cowley as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would think it is

obvious to most people that the future of the Dockyard is extremely important

and the opportunity of the Dockyard to compete for the work on the Cowley

is important. Jobs are at stake. I would ask the Premier to get that information

and report to the House. Will the Premier also indicate what information he has

about staff at the Dockyard, and specifically staff in the bidding department

that will enable the Dockyard to compete for other work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when I met with Mr. Morrison

- I guess the meeting probably took about an hour and a quarter or so, so it was

a fairly substantial meeting. I advised Mr. Morrison of our strong opinions on

the matter. If I were to characterize the meeting I would say that we told Mr.

Morrison in no uncertain terms what the Province thought about an approach that

would simply see the Dockyard allowed to deteriorate and not be given a fair

chance to compete and to succeed. Unless he is misleading me or deliberately

deceiving me, he clearly told me: I share your views on the matter. We are

impressed with the approach you are taking in Marystown. We will certainly

consider that as an approach for the Dockyard. He took notes on the detail that

we gave him. Whether or not he will do it I can't say. I can't vouch absolutely,

I can't guarantee the man's performance, but I can say to the House exactly what

he told me.

He led me to believe very clearly that they were proceeding

with work as usual to do whatever work that they can get. In the meantime he is

going to propose that they take an approach, the same as the Province took with

respect to Marystown. We offered him whatever services and advice Marystown

could make available to them to help out with the Dockyard. We assured them we

would go to the board at Marystown and ask them to do whatever they could to

help out, short of giving them proprietary or competitive information. They

can't expect that. But in terms of the process that the Marystown Shipyard used,

in terms of the advisors that they consulted, and in terms of the guidance they

got. By the way, I should say the preliminary indications that I have is

Marystown Shipyard is doing a good job of starting to put its house in order.

The indications that I have is that the union too is working cooperatively with

the new board of directors to put the Marystown house in order.

If Mr. Morrison follows a similar approach and gives it the

kind of support that we are giving Marystown for a reasonable period of time -

and by the way, he asked me how long that time was and what limit we put on the

amount of financial assistance we were prepared to provide in the meantime, and

I told him there wasn't an absolute. We just said: You have a reasonable amount

of time to turn that around and produce a black bottom line because we aren't

going to finance red bottom lines any more. We didn't set an absolute time limit

but we expect that something in the nature of twelve months or so would be a

reasonable time. Because after that I can't come to this House and ask it for

more money to continue to operate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier,

it is a bit late to be getting Marystown in order after Hibernia. But now, back

to the St. John's Dockyard. Why does the Premier insist on comparing St. John's

to Marystown? Why is he not comparing the Newfoundland Dockyard with Halifax,

Quebec City, Vancouver and the other federally-owned and operated dockyards in

the country?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Because, Mr. Speaker, St. John's Dockyard

is in Newfoundland, not Quebec not Vancouver or somewhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: The fact that the Newfoundland Dockyard is in

Newfoundland is a point, I say to the Premier. He is supposed to be representing

the interest of the Newfoundland Dockyard in his dealings with the federal

government, not looking after the interests of Halifax, Quebec City or

Vancouver, which he is so fond of referring to when he's saying the federal

government cannot give preferential treatment in Newfoundland. Doesn't the

Premier see that the Newfoundland Dockyard has a huge location advantage over

competitors on the mainland because of its strategic location in the Atlantic

shipping lanes and isn't the Premier doing anything to capitalize on that

natural advantage? When is the Premier finally going to go to a higher level

then a bureaucrat and go above Rod Morrison and talk to the political masters,

meet with and lobby with Doug Young, Brian Tobin and Prime Minister Chrtien?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I also brought in, for the

meeting, a person who is very knowledgeable in marine matters, marine shipping,

repair and so on, to have him available to provide information to Marine

Atlantic and to make sure that the Province was fully informed so that we could

deal very effectively with the Marine Atlantic. He made a significant

contribution, provided us with a good deal of advice and did some preliminary

assessment as to where opportunities were for Marine Atlantic in terms of the

St. John's dockyard. He gave the officials of Marine Atlantic that kind of

advice, told them an area of business on which they could focus for which there

was little competition in Eastern Canada, where some of the work is going now to

be done in Europe and it could be done here at a lower cost if Marine Atlantic

put the St. John's dockyard in order as we are putting Marystown Shipyard in

order. If they did that they could attract to this dockyard here at St. John's,

work that at the moment is going across to Europe to be done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we covered a lot of territory. We tried to

give St. John's dockyard a reasonable chance of success in the future and we

expect Marine Atlantic, acting on behalf of the federal government, to act in

good faith, not to go around and almost - in a quiet subversive manner let the

thing deteriorate and fall to the point where it is inefficient and ineffective

and then say we have no alternative but to close it. Give it a reasonable chance

to function properly and I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the St. John's

dockyard could be very competitive and will.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows full

well Marine Atlantic is only a Crown corporation that reports to Doug Young, a

minister who represents the maritimes. Now when is the Premier going to do his

job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and go lobby with the federal

politicians? When is the Premier going to be meeting with Brian Tobin, Doug

Young or Prime Minister Chrtien to argue for a future for the Newfoundland

Dockyard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do it on a constant basis.

I am meeting with Mr. Young later this week with the latest

schedule that I have

on the meeting, whether that has been changed or not in the last few days, I

don't know. I will be meeting with Mr. Tobin on Saturday of this week to discuss

this amongst other things, a host of other things. So it is silly for the Leader

of the Opposition to ask: when will I go and meet? I am doing this on a constant

basis. It is done constantly, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Has the Premier asked anyone in the federal government if

they will recapitalize the dockyard? In other words, invest in modernizing the

dockyard so that it is guaranteed to remain competitive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have said the same thing to

Mr. Tobin. I am just trying to recollect now, Mr. Young. I know the minister has

said it to Mr. Young. This is not a one person government, there are thirteen

other ministers in the government. They are in touch on a constant basis. I know

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has done it and I have spoken

to Mr. Tobin about it. So yes this goes on all of the time and for the Leader of

the Opposition to ask questions as though this did not happen or is not likely

to happen only because she asked a question about it in the House is utter

nonsense.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions

for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Is the minister satisfied that employment opportunities at

the Hibernia site are being maximized to there fullest for all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who are skilled and ready to go out there?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, there is no reason for me to think that anything less

exists. I have had no official complaint, either from workers specifically to

me, and/or the representative of workers, namely, the Building Trades Council.

So there is no reason for me to think, nor have staff informed me anything to

the contrary. I say to the member that I think 94 per cent of the workforce

right now is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister this, then:

Obviously, he is not aware that welders from British Columbia, Alberta, Nova

Scotia, in the last two weeks, upwards to thirty or maybe forty, have been

brought into the Province, while there are welders with the same qualifications,

the same technical background, who are sitting home waiting to go out to the

Hibernia site. If the minister is not aware - he has just indicated that no

representations have been made to him - will he check into this matter and

report back to the House before it closes?

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

Labour Relations.

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

As a matter of fact, tomorrow morning, the Minister of

Natural Resources and myself will be meeting with Mr. Cain and Mr. Parsons from

the Building Trades Council, and it is an ideal opportunity to raise that

particular issue. We meet periodically. I meet periodically with the Building

Trades; the minister meets with the management group. We are constantly trying

to monitor and make sure that opportunities for Newfoundlanders are filled by

Newfoundlanders.

The only thing I might say to the member, and I don't know -

I will certainly check it out - but I think there may be a special technique for

certain type welders that exists, whether they are TIG or special type welders

on different types of metals or what have you, that may not be available

locally. That might be the reason for it, but what the member is saying today is

not unusual. The member says these kinds of things constantly, and makes much

to-do about them, and in the end they are not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

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

the Minister of Natural Resources.

As the minister and all of us know, this is the time of year

when we see an increase in activity in silviculture in the Province, but with

respect to the silviculture, tree nurseries play a very important role, as the

minister knows. Can the minister comment on the role of the tree nurseries, and

does he forecast the same level of activity in these tree nurseries for this

summer?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right, that

we are into that period of the year when we are getting on with our various

silviculture projects, whether they are thinning projects or planting projects,

or anything related thereto. Just before I came to the House today I signed two

contracts in the forestry department related to silviculture. On Friday, I

approved two more news releases relative to silviculture projects in some parts

of the Province, and over the next little while there are going to be many

millions of dollars worth of silviculture projects approved and announced.

I am not sure of the exact number of trees that we are going

to plant this year, but over the last six years we have been planting in the

order of 8 million to 10 million, and I expect this year we will be up in the 8

million range again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay, a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said to the minister, we are well into that season now

and I would like to ask the minister, since we have just a couple of days left

with the House open, if tomorrow he could table in the House a breakdown of the

funding for silviculture for this year, and be specific to any provincially

initiated programs that may be oncoming for this year? Would he do that

tomorrow?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have a list prepared of

every project. The officials in the forestry department, last Fall, had a

package that was about $23 million long of silviculture projects that they had

on their priority list, projects that they want to do, and we did about $1

million worth through the Fall. We have started identifying priority projects

again right now out of that $20-odd million package. As I said, on Friday I

approved press releases for two of them. I signed contracts today on two other

aspects of forest management, and over the next few weeks the management people

will come forward to me with other silviculture projects, but I do not have a

list right now that I can put on the table tomorrow and say, `Here are the

projects we are going to do'. But there will be a lot of projects, and

altogether certainly pushing the $8 million range.

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

for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You would think at this time, at this stage now, the minister

could table that in the House tomorrow and tell us how that money is going to be

spent.

Mr. Speaker, he always boasts about silviculture in the

Province. Well, I have a question for the minister. I just had calls again today

from people in tree nurseries, specifically in the Wooddale Tree Nursery in

Grand Falls, who have been working there for the past fourteen summers with tree

planting; we know how important that is to silviculture. As of today they have

not been recalled for this summer. Those people have always been recalled by at

least this date in the year.

Can the minister tell me if there is just a delay in the

recall or if in fact they will not be hired back at all?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, what I want to be sure of is

that we have enough trees for our planting projects, for our silviculture

projects this year, and I am sure we will get enough. Wooddale is our major

source. That is the major source of all of our trees this year. We get a few

from Brookfield Road, and we get a few from Labrador, from Goose Bay. I don't

know the details of exactly how many people are going to be called back, and

when they are going to be called back. Obviously, people get called back as

needed to make sure that we have the trees available that are required as our

silviculture projects are carried out.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

As the minister knows, the Burin Peninsula South Coast region

has what is probably the largest unemployment rate in the Province, yet the

Federal Government have plans to reduce the staff at the Human Resources Office

in Marystown by one-half, from forty to twenty employees. This will no doubt

mean a 50 per cent reduction in programs and assistance to the people who depend

on this service.

Is the minister concerned about the downgrading of services

by the Federal Government to these unemployed residents?

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

Labour Relations.

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

I appreciate the question from the member. As a matter of

fact, this Friday I will be meeting with Minister Axworthy in Charlottetown -

the Minister of Education, Social Services and myself - and I will certainly

raise the concerns of the member. we all should be concerned.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, while twenty jobs will be lost in

Marystown there will be many more jobs lost in Human Resources offices

throughout the Province, I say to the minister. While the underlying concern is

about the loss of services to these people it cannot go without being noted that

if twenty jobs were being created in this Province the Premier would be on

announcing an EDGE program, giving away land or whatever it may be, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister tell this House if he has done anything so

far to prevent the Federal Government from robbing the service from these people

of our Province, a service they have been used to for decades?

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

Labour Relations.

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

Let me say to the hon. member that we have had some ongoing

meetings with Minister Axworthy. I am sure the minister knows, as all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know, that it is a very tough time fiscally for

both the Federal and Provincial Government. I think in our negotiations, our

cost-sharing, the $20 million to create some employment in the Province for

graduate programs, student programs, we are constantly, as a government, dealing

with the Federal Government and Minister Axworthy. As I told him, I will raise

the issue concerning the twenty jobs on the South Coast, and I will have an

answer for the member. If the House is not open then the member can be assured

that I will respond to what Mr. Axworthy replies.

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

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I say to the minister, I am delighted he is

going to do it but it is probably kind of late because this government has stood

silently by and watched the Chrtien government slash millions of dollars and

cut programs throughout this Province. What I want to know is, would the

minister and this government, in a meaningful way, not to have a discussion with

Mr. Axworthy, will he,in a real meaningful way, stand up to the Federal

Government and defend the rights of Newfoundlanders, or are you going to

continue to sell out the Province?

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

Labour Relations.

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

I would have loved for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

have an opportunity this morning to see the Premier of this Province respond in

a very meaningful way to Mr. Morrison. I say that without contradiction, and let

me say to the member that there is no other plan that this government has, only

to negotiate sincerely with the Federal Government to protect the jobs of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why don't they go and meet with the

produce manager at Sobeys, or something?

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture. There are reports circulating throughout the country that the

Federal Government, in its ongoing discussions with the European union on the

turbot fishery and the implementation of the supposed agreement, is willing to

give more turbot to the Europeans in exchange for a guarantee on the Observer's

Program. Is the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, aware of that, and

if so, could he inform the House of what reports he is getting from his federal

counterpart?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no question that the conservation of the remaining

stocks in our waters is paramount in our approach to the fishery of the future.

The question that the hon. gentleman has asked, I can't give you an answer

today, to that question. There are ongoing negotiations and discussions with the

European Union and those discussions will become clearer as time goes on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Let me ask the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture,

would the Provincial Government support the Federal Government's giving away

more turbot to the Europeans in order to ensure the Observer Program is kept in

place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is most concerned with protecting the

remaining stocks out in the ocean and that will involve various approaches, but

whatever the case may be, the paramount issue is the protection of the remaining

stocks.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to

the minister.

In light of the minister not answering the question now for

two months, would he undertake to contact the federal Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans, Mr. Tobin, and ask him if, indeed, Canada is considering giving up more

of its turbot quota to the European Union to guarantee that the Europeans abide

by the Observers Program? Would the minister undertake to do that for us, would

he undertake to do it today and report back to the House tomorrow because we may

not be here on Wednesday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be talking, actually, to Mr. Tobin later on today. I

am sure various issues will come up in these discussions and I will decide on

what will be appropriate to report to the House tomorrow.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question

replied at the time, that the fact was, they were planning to build a new Caboto

Centre or John Cabot Building, whatever you want to call it, and that they were

not planning to spend dollars at the time, more or less throwing good dollars

after bad.

I would like to ask the minister: In light of the fact that

the Caboto Building may not be built until the next century, I am wondering if

Newfoundland Museum?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question, because it was one of the issues

that was raised, and may have been raised with other hon. members as well, when

we met at the Legislative breakfast last week for National Access Awareness

Week. I think again, they were very pleased with the participation of a large

number of members of the House from all parties.

One of their outstanding concerns, of course, is

disabilities and so on; and I indicated again to the group at that table and

with officials from the consumers group and so on, who have made representation

largely now, to our minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations

that, in all of those issues and with respect to the museum directly, since we

are still in the process of some consideration and discussion with respect to a

new facility for the museum, for the archives and the possibility of

incorporating a Provincial Art Gallery for the first time, that we still don't

have any immediate plans, as disappointing as that is to the group, to spend

money at this time making the Newfoundland Museum on Duckworth Street more

readily physically accessible at this point; but that we understand the issue,

we know there is a need and once the decision-making goes a further with respect

to the long-term future of the museum, the archives and the gallery versus the

need to improve the current buildings, Mr. Speaker. We will be readdressing the

issue at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

table the annual report of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities with

respect to their operations under The Automobile Insurance Act for the year that

ran from April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995. There are twelve copies here. If more

are needed we would be delighted to provide them.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table

the Annual Report on the Administration of the Pension Benefits Act, 1985, for

the year ending March 31 1995.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I ask you to call the

first order which will be Order No. 9, Bill No. 11, the smoke-free act

amendment, let me say that we will ask the House to deal with the following

orders in this order, but we can change it if that is the wish of members.

First, Order No. 9, the smoke-free environment act amendment.

Secondly, Order No. 14, which is the amendment to the City of St. John's act.

Thirdly, Order No. 16, the judicature act amendment. Finally, Order No. 18,

which is an amendment to a number of acts standing in the name of my friend the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. That is the one to implement the

free trade agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, I say to my friend for Burin -

Placentia West?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I would say to my friend for Burin -

Placentia West, not only is the minister one big act, he is a very good act

indeed, and a very hard act to follow.

Your Honour, would you be good enough -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, we want to do the pension benefit

bill as well. I had forgotten. Order No. 13. We will carry that after Order No.

9 if that is in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Do you want to do that later in the

day?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) yes, maybe tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Let's start with the smoke-free

environment one. We do want to do the pension benefit one. My friend for Grand

Bank seems to be very interested in pension benefits these days. We will do our

best to oblige him. Would you be good enough to call Order No. 9 please, Mr.

Speaker?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Smoke-Free Environment Act". (Bill No. 11)

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year the

government introduced into legislation a bill known as the Smoke-free

Environment Act. After having that piece of legislation function for a year I

guess I'm happy to tell the House and the Province something that is no secret

to them: That it is probably one of the most important, one of the most

successful, and one of the most widely-received pieces of legislation that has

been introduced for some time in the House. By last count of people being polled

and that sort of thing, there was about a 92 per cent I believe popular support

for the thrust of this legislation and for the bill itself and what it seeks to

accomplish.

In any new piece of legislation of course there are always

some anomalies noted as it comes to be operational. In that respect there are

three or four necessities to clear up or make clarifications to certain clauses

in this particular bill. So that is what the thrust and the spirit of the bill

are all about, the amendments that are before the House.

There are amendments to clause 1 that really seek to clarify

the definition of a food establishment. It refers also to a restaurant, a snack

bar or any regular or similar food establishment. Clause 2, there is an

amendment that seeks to clarify that the seating area of a bar should also

include of course the standing area for calculation of total seating spaces that

the establishment has.

Clarification to clause 3 by way of amendment really is to

ensure that the act applies both to workplaces as well as public places, and

unless there is a question about definition, this amendment seeks to make that

clarification.

Clause 4 of the act, there is necessity to ensure that it is

understood that the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act also

applies to this particular act. Probably the most significant amendment though

of the five that are proposed to the act is amendments to Clause 5. This

particular amendment is to allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of course to

make regulations exempting buildings or parts of buildings from the application

of the act where it is deemed appropriate.

Let me just point out to the House briefly two anomalies or

two situations that we have identified in this particular act that need to be

addressed and need to be cleared up by way of giving approval to make certain

designations in that sense. One of them applies to the area of long term care

institutions that are apart of acute care facilities. We do have, as people in

the Province and the House know, situations where we have residents of long term

care facilities also residing in the same physical building that is an acute

care facility or commonly know as a hospital.

As we have found ourselves with excess space in hospitals we

have redeveloped some of that space into long term nursing home type beds and

that of course is most appropriate to do. The difficulty with the act, as it

applies, is that by way of definition of course smoking is not prohibited in a

hospital or an acute care institution.

In the case of parts of that institution however, where

people are going to be living the rest of their lives because they are nursing

home residents, obviously for their purposes that setting is in fact their home,

that setting is in fact where they will reside the rest of their lives probably

and so we think that they should have the same provision made for them. They

should have the same ability, if they want or the operator should have the same

ability on their behalf if they want, to make some provision for them so that

they can have a smoke if they like just the same as if they were living home in

their own house. So amendments to Clause 5 will make that happen.

The other thing that I would just point out before I sit down

is in the area of recreational facilities. Recreational facilities by definition

and by nature have been declared totally smoke-free. We think that is

appropriate and that will not change under any circumstances, however, there are

periods of time in the year, for instance, when recreational centres have been

traditionally used by commissions and committees who run them, to be rented out

for other functions, particularly during the summertime. They have done this so

as to be able to raise money, to be able to run the recreational programs during

the recreational winter season, in terms of stadiums and that type of thing.

We don't think it is particularly inappropriate to allow the

rental of these places for purposes other than recreation. When that happens we

don't think it is inappropriate that the same rules should apply to them in

terms of the ability of patrons to smoke any different than it would apply to

say, any other type of centre, be it a Legion hall, a Kinsmen or a Lions Club

hall or something like that. So this amendment will do something that the

recreational organization, the provincial recreational people have asked us to

consider. We think it is appropriate that where stadiums and rec centres are

rented out during the summer that they would have applied to them, while they

are being rented out for that specific purpose, the same smoking or non-smoking

rules if you like, as it would apply to any other facility that they could rent

to have that type of thing. It may be a wedding, it may be some other type of

event but under no circumstances will these amendments cause, permit or allow

any change to the smoking requirements of a recreational centre when the

facility is in fact being used as a recreational facility.

I think that is a sufficient explanation as to why these

amendments are being brought forward and if necessary I would be happy to answer

any questions in that respect if they are raised. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I say to the minister, there are a few things I think

that will need some further clarification to make sure I am interpreting those

properly. I guess with reference to Clause 1, I know we are in second reading,

but still I will make these points and when we get into committee later, I am

sure the minister can respond to these. For example, in the first one, it is my

understanding they have now deleted a grocery store from the definition of a

food establishment, which means a grocery store now would be treated under this

act as coming under public places, and if you look at the act under

section b of

h, subsection 1.(b), a retail store or other commercial establishment, a grocery

store would now come under that section. It is no longer defined under `food

establishment', which means - and I want the minister to clarify this - it does

not have to allocate up to 50 per cent of that space any more for smoke-free,

because food establishments may designate up to 50 per cent, but by removing

grocery store from that list, it means now a grocery store is removed from that

and is now treated as a public place.

When the former minister, on May 30, 1994, circulated a list

to employers and owners of public places, he indicated that the following

workplaces and public places must be smoke-free and are not permitted to

designate a smoking area or room. In that list there were six different types of

buildings identified: daycare centres or nursery schools, primary, elementary or

secondary schools, acute care health facilities, retail stores; now, that is the

point of interest at the moment. In other words, the following workplaces and

public places must be smoke-free and are not permitted to designate a smoking

area or room, which means now, I guess, a grocery store would now come under

retail store, basically, in which there would be no permission allowed to smoke

in such an area even if a person so chooses to designate a certain space.

Basically, what I am saying is, certain public places may

designate up to 20 per cent - food establishments can designate up to 50 per

cent - but certain public places may not have smoking at all, not in the public

place, except if they go to a separate area and have a separate isolated smoking

room - not a smoking area, a smoking room - in which a person could leave and go

into a separate room and smoke, that is not open to anybody else within that

particular establishment. I would assume, in fact, that if you do, if provision

is there for that, it must meet the ventilation and air circulation standards

and so on that are set down in the regulations there, that were circulated also

under the smoke-free environmental regulations 1994, under the Smoke-Free

Environment Act; now, it specifies the appropriate ventilation system.

When the minister has an opportunity to respond again, I

would certainly like him to clarify: Is that the intent, to remove `grocery

store' from a `food establishment' because a grocery store now doesn't have to

designate up to 50 per cent; of course, it is now under `public place' and is

exempted from that. That is one point where I noticed a difference in the

previous bill that was passed, the previous Bill 18, that is now the act.

The second point, Clause 2 of the bill that the minister

referred to, the only area there basically, I think, is that 50 per cent of the

total seating area there, they have added in, `or other area normally occupied

by the public...' in other words that is, I guess, something positive in a sense

because we could not just confine - I would assume the minister, too, and maybe

he can respond to this, or at least nod his head for an indication... For

instance before if you had a building that was let's say, 1,000 square feet, you

could designate up to 50 per cent, or 500 square feet, as a smoking area. Now,

you might have other areas, hallways and washrooms that were probably another

200 square feet, so now you may designate up to 50 per cent of the total,

including all the space and not just the seating area; it is 50 per cent of the

total area availed of. Does the minister follow what I am saying, or will I use

a specific example?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) because in restaurants you

don't normally have standing space,

whereas in bars you do, so that is the

reason for it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that clarifies it. So basically, I

think the intent of the bill, initially, was to allocate up to 50 per cent of

the total space in that establishment that is opened to the public, not just the

seating area space, so it got into a technical word of seating I guess, and they

wanted to encompass the whole seating and standing space now to be treated as

one.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: In cases where standing space is

normally considered to be the same as seating space which is only in bars.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, but what about the seating space in

an open establishment if there were 1,000 sq. ft; 500 for smoking, 500 for

non-smoking, but the corridors and washrooms and so on were another 200, that

would bring it up to 1,200. Would you allow up to 600 square feet then or 50 per

cent?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: This change only ensures that bars

designate standing room as if they were seating spaces, that's all. Nothing else

changes.

MR. SULLIVAN: It doesn't affect a little annex to a

place, and corridors or washrooms are not affected by the change in this?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: No, only as it says.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, the third point here, the third

clause, makes reference to two things, one of which the minister did not make

reference to; there is one change I detected there I think. He did mention -

that's in 9 (1) of the act: `Where an inspector finds that an employer or owner

of a' - you have added in workplace or public place - I know workplace was

already there, farther down in the section, so I guess it is probably just an

oversight initially I would think by not putting workplace there, because it

says workplace or public place, farther down in line four there. That is just

probably an omission, I would assume. But one other point he didn't mention is

that, it says, if it is not complying with

section 4 or 6 - that's what the act

said previously - now, it is changed to 4, 6 or 7.

I think 7 has been added also because 7, indicates it was the

responsibility of an inspector before, and says: `Where an inspector finds that

an employer or owner of a workplace or public place is not complying with

sections 4 or 6'; now, it is 4, 6 and 7. Would that be correct? You have added

in 7 because keeping signs posted and appropriate, the inspector technically

according to the act before and now, as it stands now, could not prosecute or

take action against that but now, I guess that loophole or oversight or whatever

it was in the beginning is now being corrected.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The responsibility to ensure that

signage is also appropriately (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Under the powers of the inspector,

basically, to be enforced.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Exactly.

MR. SULLIVAN: The next point is the fourth reference

there in Clause 4 of the bill, is just bringing in line, I guess, with the

appropriate sections of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which is now: 49,

50, 51 and 52 as opposed to just 49 and 50 before, so I would assume that 51 and

52 are also applicable and weren't included initially and now this act must

follow and be in line with sections 51 and 52 also. I guess there is no other

intent behind that?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) appropriately complimentary

to the other.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Now the last point here, is an

interesting one I guess, and it leaves open to government, the Cabinet

basically, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the powers to be able to make

regulations now governing a whole range of things. It is one that gives a fair

amount of power to the Cabinet to make these regulations and the concern there,

I guess, is, defining. Let's say in a rec. centre or in an arena, let's say you

play skating and hockey all day long and you go into an arena in the nighttime

and you want to have a big fund raiser and you roll out the mat on the ice and

you have a bingo, and you have your smoking or whatever, then people come back

in that facility in the morning again and they can go out and participate again,

that will give the minister power now to allow that to happen,

whereas it

doesn't happen now under the act or, to a rec. centre, the Reid Centre, wherever

it is or some high school gymnasium now, technically, even in a high school

gymnasium where there is no smoking, that is one of the six that is outlawed now

basically under the government regulations, we can't have any smoking in

primary, elementary or secondary schools now, so basically this would empower

the Cabinet to make regulations that would permit the school to have a bingo in

the gymnasium and have smoking there that night.

You could have Wednesday night bingo, there could be smoking,

kids would come to school the next morning in that gymnasium again, and carry on

with regular activities. So that is what the Cabinet is being empowered to do.

Wouldn't that be correct, I ask the minister?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: That is not, in the first instance, the

specific intent.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but it can do it.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The intent is to deal with recreation

centres pure and simple, freestanding and used only on a normal basis for

recreational purposes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, but that is not exactly what it

states here.

I am saying to the minister that it is not what the intent

is, the act will now, after this change, allow - I would like to know, yes or

no, if this part goes through, this fifth clause change, a school then could

have a bingo game or whatever activity it wanted, run a bar or whatever it is,

with the appropriate license, in a school gymnasium, have smoking, if this act

goes through. It doesn't specify `restricted to recreation centres'.

It empowers the Cabinet, as I see it here in the bill,

`defining a term that is not otherwise defined in the Act;' or, `exempting

buildings or parts of buildings' no matter what they are, schools, recreation

centres, or anything, to permit that to go ahead. I know there are concerns

raised from recreation buildings who want to do fund raising to support

recreation programs, and I can certainly see that point, but it will also allow

schools and so on to do that, too. Would that not be correct, I say to the

minister? You can now have in a school gymnasium, bingo and fund raising, with

smoking going ahead there now if this changes. Would that be correct? All I am

saying is that the power is there to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not asking him to answer. He does not

have to answer. I said at the beginning, I say to the minister, we are not in

Committee so I don't mean for him to get up and, in fact, I didn't sit down, if

you noticed. I stayed standing and I don't intend for him to answer now. He can

come back, as I suggested, when we get in committee and respond to these, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you for you compliment, but it is

still not going to lessen my resolve to deal with this bill.

I say to the minister that I have also addressed the five

points that are the causes, and I will get back to him. I tell the Minister of

Education and Training that I will get back to him again in Committee, looking

for answers to these and putting forth those points, because they are concerns.

They are concerns when all schools in the Province now are going to be subject

to having smoking there, and this, according to the act, gives the Cabinet power

to do that.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation, who is not even in his seat and speaking, that it is better to

be ever-ready than never-ready. In the last few months he is after sitting in

every chair in this House doing his politicking, the back row, the second row,

and all over. I say to the minister, if you want me to continue just keep on

talking.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is going over there.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no point in coming over here.

There is nobody over here who has any more faith in him than in any of the rest

of you. You have no worries about that. I cannot help him if he is not

successful in little wagers he carries out. I did my best to enrich his assets

and to enhance his value, and to improve on his statements to the commissioner

in member's interests. I did my best.

Now, we will get back to some pertinent points here.

Actually, the overall act that came in was not positive with regards to

enhancing the lifestyle of people and trying to eliminate and take action

against people who smoke in public places endangering the health of other people

who do not chose to smoke. In fact, roughly 70 per cent of smoke is passed out

into the environment which effects other people who are not smokers, and that is

very important.

I was going through a few health magazines that I subscribe

to and read some interesting statistics, and here is a real interesting

statistic on advertising. It said: Researchers found that magazines with

cigarette ads are far less likely to publish articles on the risk of smoking

compared to magazines that refuse money from cigarette makers. A very

interesting statistic. They found that magazines restricted their coverage of

the dangers of smoking out of fear of economic reprisals by cigarette

manufacturers. That is a very interesting point. They do not bite the hand that

feeds them, in other words.

It said: In the New England Journal of Medicine

scientists noted that cigarette makers spend - there is an interesting one -

$3.27 billion on advertising and promotion alone in the United States in 1988.

That is $100 a second, it indicated, for every second of the year that they are

spending on cigarette advertising. For every 1 per cent increase in cigarette

revenue a magazine was three times less likely to cover the risks of smoking.

For every 1 per cent more they got in revenue, they were three times less likely

to carry something against smoking. So you can see, once again, they are not

going to bite the hand that feeds them in advertising that is paying for the

publication of their magazine.

Now, smoking is the leading preventible cause of death, as we

are all aware. A few other little points. Circulation magazine says

environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS, as it is called, is a major preventible

cause of cardiovascular disease and death. It is the major cause. It noticed

that the risk of death due to heart disease is increased by 30 per cent among

those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at home, and it could be much

higher in those exposed at the workplace where higher levels of ETS are present

- so, much higher.

That is one of the reasons, I guess, behind governments

bringing in legislation to govern the control of smoking in public places that

is endangering the lives of other people who do not wish to have their lives

endangered. It says: The increased risk translates into an estimated, in the

U.S. alone, 35,000 to 40,000 cardiovascular-related deaths, and in Canada

between 3,000 and 4,000 people die from cardiovascular disease related to

smoking. Most people think lung cancer is the main, I guess, problem associated

with smoking, disease, but it is not. Heart and circulatory diseases are by far

one of the largest of those affected.

Another

article indicated: Cigarette smoke contains 4,000

chemicals including such poisons as DDT, arsenic, formaldehyde. These are just

some of the things found in cigarette smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The lungs retain - I'm not sure if the

Member for Eagle River's lungs retain that much because they are usually fairly

active and there is a high circulation rate - but lungs retain 70 per cent to 90

per cent of the compounds that are inhaled. I say to the Member for Eagle River,

it is probably not in his lungs as long as a normal person but it still gets in

there.

One of the biggest concerns with smoking is with younger

people. I didn't see the most recent statistics but overall there is a decline

in smoking I think among all age groups except probably young females, teenage

females. Statistics show that people who smoke don't start smoking after the age

of eighteen. Almost everybody who smokes starts before the age of eighteen

years. That is where magazine advertizing is focusing on young people. That is

the area that we have to control. The sale of cigarettes to minors - smoking is

addictive, it is not a habit that people can easily break. Young people get

addicted to smoking at a very early age and they just can't break the cycle.

Numerous methods have been tried. We are all familiar with

some of the methods that have been used to try to break away from the smoking

habit. In particular, we would say the nicotine patch has been a common one.

People have gone through hypnosis and numerous different methods of trying to

break away from the addiction of smoking.

There is a question-and-answer I saw written in a magazine, I

just kept the article. It said: My husband smokes a pipe. Is this less hazardous

than smoking cigarettes? Well, I suppose there is no such thing as safe smoking.

Most pipe-smokers do not inhale the smoke, they absorb the nicotine through

their mouth. But the people out there in the room and all around us are just as

much affected by smoking from pipe-smoking as cigarette smoking. It doesn't make

any difference. The smoke comes out from a pipe as well as it does from a

cigarette and it affects everybody in the surroundings. Over 70 per cent of that

is exhaled out into the atmosphere and that is causing a significant problem.

Pipe smoking itself causes cancer. The lip and tongue are being commonly

associated with pipe smoking and it goes on to say that early detection,

effective treatment can lead to a five year survival in 90 per cent or more of

the cases which is not very encouraging to say that your survival is not that

great. Now second-hand smoke from a pipe is equally as dangerous as that from a

cigarette.

Now I do have some concern with one particular aspect, as I

said to the minister, but overall the intent - and the regulations that came in

last year dealing with smoking in a public place I think have to be positive.

They are certainly going a long way to make people aware of the hazards

associated with smoking. A very good letter went out from the former minister

back on May 30, 1994 to all employers and owners of public places that

highlighted some of the key things and rationale behind bringing in this

legislation.

An interesting point too, I noticed with smokers, is that

smoking contributes to a higher absentee rate among employees. I don't know if

we find that here, Members of the House of Assembly, I won't comment on that -

you missed that one, you will have to read that one in Hansard - and I am sure

it will surprise the people on the other side of the House. It cost more, higher

insurance rates, everybody pays the price for smoking, not only my colleagues

who smoke and who pay high insurance rates or higher life insurance - I am not

sure if car insurance rates, if you are more of a hazard when you are tying to

light a cigarette when you are driving along, a higher risk factor. Maybe we

should take those things into consideration.

MR. OLDFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I say to the Member for Trinity North,

I don't see the little yellow stripe on that one. Actually joking, it is on it.

So that is a big concern. Not only in schools, as I said to

the minister earlier, not only in high school gymnasiums, not only in recreation

buildings, arenas and so on, we are going to be able to have smoking in a car

now. If the minister decides, if Cabinet decides now - and I am sure the intent

of this Clause 5 - Clause 5 would not be brought in if we did not intend to

change the regulations. So right now we do not know what the minister intends in

Clause 5. What he intends to bring in regulations and for Cabinet approval of

those regulations that are going to enable smoking in a car and in numerous

buildings around the Province that are not allowed to have it now.

He did make reference to - the minister can designate or I

shouldn't say the minister but the Cabinet, Lieutenant-Governor in Council or

the Cabinet can also designate smoking in - he mentioned long term care

institutions, within their own private room or within a specific room that is

designated for that purpose with proper ventilation. My

interpretation of what

he said is that if I am residing in a long-term care institution or chronic care

unit and I have my own private room, I can smoke in that room provided - and I

am sure the Cabinet is planning on doing it, otherwise they would not bring in

Clause 5.

They are going to make changes because people have brought

those concerns to the minister, I am sure. So maybe when the minister gets up in

committee stage, he can indicate to us what their plan is because he has not

told us. He did not state it when he explained it, whether in hospitals they are

going to permit smoking, whether they are going to permit smoking in recreation

buildings, in schools, churches as far as that goes or any other facility around

the Province because right now, under this act, you cannot smoke in daycare

centres or nursery schools.

I say to the minister, you cannot smoke there now, you cannot

smoke in any primary, right up to high school, you cannot smoke in hospitals,

you cannot smoke in retail stores, recreation facilities, buses or taxis and the

minister should tell us in this House - he did not do it when he introduced the

bill - he should tell us where he intends to make changes and bring it to

Cabinet. Which of these six types of facilities are now going to be permitted

smoking under certain conditions? I think we deserve an explanation of that

before we vote on this particular bill, in favour or against, and I will be very

concerned and be looking for an explanation on which of these areas the minister

intends to change.

I know he mentioned already that he intends to make changes,

probably, and he figured it would not be inappropriate, I think is the word he

used, to allow smoking to occur in those places - the words he used - so

hopefully he will tell us if it is intended to just change it in recreation

facilities. Do you intend to change it in acute health care facilities? You said

long-term care facilities. Now long-term care facilities, or chronic care units,

were not ones that were exempted before. You were allowed to have smoking in

certain designated areas of these before, so I guess that still can be done

without coming here, provided you have the per cent. Was the minister's intent

that in acute care facilities we may now allow smoking under certain conditions,

I gather? Not his intent? Recreation facilities? Which one of those six is the

purpose of bringing in Clause 5, I would like to know when you get a chance to

speak on it - you don't have to do it now - and if you are planning on having

schools there, I would like to know that, too; I think that is important.

Those are the points I would like the minister to comment on

when he gets into Committee of the Whole, and I conclude my comments on this

specific bill at this time.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to say

a few words about Bill 11, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act".

There are some changes being made in this act that, of

course, are basically housekeeping and I agree with. Before I get into my

comments, though, I would like to qualify them somewhat and say that we are

simply speaking about the smoking in public places and workplace. I, personally,

have never smoked in my life. I don't smoke now and have never smoked in my

life. My wife doesn't smoke, and she has never smoked in her life, and my son

who is fourteen years old does not smoke, thank God, yet. I believe it is a

dirty habit and anything we do to correct smoking, of course, or to end smoking

altogether, has to be a positive move.

The legislation itself that was brought in last year, in

1994, I had some concerns at that point in time with respect to the

enforceability of the legislation because when you talk about restaurants and

bars, and that type of thing, you have to allow a certain percentage of the

space available for smokers or non-smokers, whatever the case may be. Smoke

carries in a given room, and to say that you have to have a certain area laid

out, you are almost talking invisible walls and I don't believe smoke would

adhere to an invisible wall.

The other thing with respect to the enforcement of this

legislation itself is, who is enforcing the legislation? Do the RNC enforce the

legislation? Do the representatives from the Department of Health enforce the

legislation? Do the people who work with the Department of the Environment

enforce the legislation?

I would like, when the minister gets up to respond to

speakers on this amendment, could he tell us how many breaches of the act were

brought up last year before the courts, and how many convictions, and how many

fines were put forward last year? I am just curious to know if this legislation

is really enforceable, and has it been enforced over the past year?

Clause 1 of the bill defines basically now, or refers to a

restaurant and a snack bar, that type of establishment where food is being

prepared and/or served. Now I believe that this clause itself will basically

require grocery stores to set aside a smoking room on the premises for smokers

who may wish to smoke, so would the minister refer to that? That

section now is

changed not to include a grocery store. Again, is that going to be more

inconsistencies in the legislation with respect to the regulations themselves

being enforced?

Clause 2 of the bill talked about a smoking area not being

limited to a seating area any more, but also to an area where it is generally

accessible to the public, so that would change the amount of floor space that

would be required to be set aside for smokers or non-smokers. Could the minister

refer to that and say a few words on it along those lines?

With respect to this again, areas in establishments such as

bars and restaurants, how are these areas marked out? I have been in a number of

restaurants since this legislation was brought in, and basically you just see

signs up that say `smoking section' or `non-smoking section', but they are not

really clearly defined. Are we going to get down to actually marking lines out

on the floor, and you are not permitted to cross these lines with a cigarette in

your hand?

I remember a show that used to be on, WKRP in Cincinnati ,

and there was an individual on that who had a line marked out on his floor and

you had to knock on air, an imaginary wall, before you entered his office. Are

we getting into that type of thing? I think this legislation is very difficult

to enforce.

Clause 3 of the bill clarifies the application both to the

workplace and to the public space itself. Really, does the public understand

that there is a difference between a public space and a workplace? I think most

individuals who would go into a workplace and would consider that to be a

workplace; if they go into a workplace they would consider it a public space. If

they came into Confederation Building they could consider this a public space or

a workplace. I know that it is probably there just for legal and technical terms

for enforcement purposes, as I said before, when and if it is enforced, if this

legislation is enforced. I have yet to hear tell of or see anybody being charged

anywhere that I've been with respect to this legislation.

Clause 5. That is the one that I was most interested in, the

changes of the bill - or clause 5. It says that they "...would amend

section 12

of the Act to permit the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations

defining terms that are not already defined in the Act and to make regulations

exempting buildings or parts of buildings from the application of the Act."

When we are talking about buildings or parts of buildings the

thing that came to my mind of course was hospitals. I've had occasion to visit a

number of people in the hospital over the past year since this legislation was

brought in and a lot of those people have been smokers. I feel for these people.

Although I don't smoke myself I know how stressful being in hospital is for some

people, for various reasons. I've been in hospital myself so I know how they

feel.

A lot of equipment was installed in some of the hospitals

from my understanding, I say to the minister, particularly in the Health

Sciences. I believe on each floor there was - I know for sure one floor over

there, I think it was the fourth floor, there was a room set aside with big

glass walls, four inches thick, with the ventilation system put in and a vacuum

system to suck out the smoke. The patients are not permitted to smoke in this

room where the government spent a lot of money on the ventilation system and

then told them it couldn't be used.

There are non-profit organizations such as the Lions Clubs

and the Knights of Columbus and the Kinsmen which have clubs. They are

non-profit organizations. They depend on fund-raising to run the facilities and

they donate thousands of dollars each year to help out the people in the

Province. They are required now to put in ventilation systems costing thousands

of dollars which may or may not work. I've heard that some of these systems that

were required to be put in are not properly functional or do not do the job that

they were supposed to do. Maybe that is something that should be looked at, the

equipment itself that is being required to be installed, if it makes sense to

instal it or not.

With respect to this equipment, I have the Lions Club in Shoe

Cove which has to instal this equipment which is supposed to suck out the smoke

and have a proper ventilation system in for the 50 per cent of the floor space

that is required to have for non-smokers and 50 per cent for smokers, I believe

the figures are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) blowing smoke.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is something I've never done in my

life, blow smoke. I don't smoke and I'm not intending to smoke. Who will inspect

the equipment that is put in, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say. I see the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs out on the back step every now and then having

a drag, I do believe. Am I correct there? The Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs smokes?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you can't do without your nicotine.

There is a lot of people like that, Mr. Speaker. Believe it or not, that is who

I'm speaking for, on behalf of these people today, those people who can't do

without nicotine. As I said, I don't smoke but I understand a lot of people do

and I know they do.

I grew up in a family that had eight brothers who smoked,

three sisters who smoked and both parents smoked so I know the addiction or the

affliction it can have on an individual. It is hard for these people to give it

up cold turkey, especially when they end up in hospital where they are under

enough stress and all of a sudden, they are not permitted to smoke. With respect

to the equipment that is required to be installed, Mr. Speaker, that is a cost

to the government itself, the inspections themselves and is passed on to the

taxpayer, and for what benefit, I really don't know if the equipment that is

installed or is required to be installed, does the job that it is supposed to do

or is required to do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hospitals themselves

and as I mentioned earlier, there was a number of equipment installed in certain

hospitals, the Health Sciences Complex being one, there is a smoking room set

aside for the patients, and the patients now are not permitted to use these

smoking rooms and I would have to ask: why not? I mean, if they are not going to

adversely affect some other individual, why would they not be permitted to use

it when the government spent money on it in the first place?

I know of a patient who was at the Health Sciences Complex

last February, a lady, who was in and I believe she had cancer and was outside

the doors where you see the `Emergency Entrance', with other patients of course,

people in wheelchairs, people with intravenous in their arms, out in the cold,

February weather trying to get a smoke. Now, this lady had an unfortunate

accident while she was there at the hospital. She actually fell, while she was

out trying to have a smoke, and broke her arm. She broke her arm while being a

patient at the hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will talk about addictions now.

MR. J. BYRNE: Talk about addictions.

MR. ROBERTS: I have seen people out by the (inaudible)

wheelchair, with an IV in the arm having a cigarette.

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly, I say to the Government House

Leader. I have been there on a number of occasions, I have had reason to go

there in the past year for check-ups and what have you and every time I go in

there I see the same situation and it is really pitiful so I really don't know

where we are coming from with respect to not permitting patients to smoke. Now I

have spoken with a lot of people who work in the hospitals and these people

smoke themselves and they say to me, you know, they really don't want smoking

areas for themselves but they really feel for the patients.

As I said, this person fell, broke her arm and had to spend

more time in the hospital than she had been scheduled to in the first place, so

I really believe that patients should be permitted to smoke in hospitals,

especially in areas that are available to them at this point in time. As I said,

the Health Sciences Complex - as an example - I will tell you of another one

which is down at the Janeway Hospital. The government spent a fair chunk of

money to build an outside deck and enclose it for patients I suppose and the

employees at the Janeway itself, but I really don't understand why you would put

that kind of money in an outside facility and not in a smoking room where

patients can go, especially the patients, could go and smoke.

I believe that government has to have more compassion for

these individuals. If you have a person who smoked say, twenty years or thirty

years or fifty years maybe; it is cruel basically to not permit these people to

smoke in the health facilities. Now that may be a bit of a contradiction when

you have a person going into hospital to be cured of a certain disease or broken

arm or heart problem or what have you, but if a person has been smoking for

twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years, and they are in a stressful situation

now, being in hospital, of course when they are not permitted to smoke it is

inflicting more pressure or stress upon these individuals and they may end up

being in hospital longer because they will take longer to heal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, I say to the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes.

Here is one too that I think the government has had a bit

more compassion in. At the Janeway Hospital itself, we have children there with,

often times terminal diseases or they may be in because of a car accident,

children up to the age of sixteen I believe or seventeen, or they may fall off a

bike and hit their head and have a head injury, if the parents bring in these

people, and under a lot of stress again, waiting around, probably before they

have a response from the doctor, or the child may be in surgery or what have

you, and they are not permitted to smoke, I believe that these people are under

enough stress without having to put up with that, and it would not really cost

the government a lot of money to put in these smoking areas even if they had one

in the hospital; some hospitals I believe had some put on each floor.

Not only is it stressful I suppose for these people but I

think really, if you sit back and think about it, the government is really being

hypocritical to a certain extent when it is talking about bringing in

anti-smoking regulations or legislation. We have government collecting all kinds

of revenues - probably one of its biggest revenues within the Province, when it

is taxing people who smoke and the cigarettes. I don't know what the actual cost

of a package of cigarettes is, Mr. Speaker, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Six dollars and twenty-five cents.

MR. J. BYRNE: Six dollars and twenty-five cents? But

probably $4 of that is probably taxes for the provincial government. I really

didn't investigate that but I know taxes are quite heavy on cigarettes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I was just informed here that it depends

upon if it is a twenty-cigarette pack or a twenty-five cigarette pack.

Mr. Speaker, there are those who would argue that smokers pay

in excessive taxes anyway. I've had smokers telling me, and I suppose it depends

on your perspective, from where you are coming from, that they pay over their

lifetime, say ten, twenty, thirty or forty years or whatever they are smoking, a

lot of money in revenues in the form of taxes to the provincial government. They

pay of course this amount of money that the non-smoker does not pay. Of course a

lot of non-smokers end up in hospital anyway. So they are of the opinion, some

of these people, that if they do get sick after smoking for twenty years or

thirty years that they've covered the cost of their hospital stay anyway.

That is something that can be argued I suppose either way,

but it is a logical argument I suppose from one perspective. So I would say that

again smokers, I suppose, have rights to a certain extent. As long as they are

not inflicting their smoke or second-hand smoke upon the non-smokers. But it was

never a problem with me, I must say. I've attended lots of functions where

people smoked. Never smoked in my life. It doesn't bother me and has never

bothered me. But it does bother some and I suppose these people have their

rights also.

As I said, I believe that patients, especially those patients

who may be in hospital long-term, should definitely be permitted to smoke, and

the government should supply or make available to these people areas where they

can smoke, especially where they are not inflicting second-hand smoke on other

individuals.

The Minister of Health when he was up speaking made a comment

with respect to the legislation that it was widely-received. I don't know the

percentage of the population who smoke, but he referred to a figure of 92 per

cent of popular support for this legislation and what it seeks to accomplish. I

wouldn't argue with the fact that 92 per cent of the population would support

anti-smoking legislation, but I find it hard to believe that if there is 50 per

cent of the population which smoke that it would support this legislation. I

would have to question that figure of 92 per cent popular support.

He spoke of clause 2 which was there to clarify the seating

areas in bars and in restaurants, which is no problem there. That is already

addressed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Education

and Training, is it?: Be prepared for a while yet. Not by me but by other

people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) have an hour.

MR. J. BYRNE: Only have an hour. I won't take an hour.

I'm only going to take another couple of minutes myself, but there are lots of

other people who wish to speak on this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the Minister of Health, he referred to clause

5 also with respect to two situations: The long-term care facilities and the

recreational facilities. I believe I said enough with respect to the hospitals,

but the long-term care facilities I suppose are old-age homes and what have you.

I believe that is what he was addressing when he talked of long-term care

facilities. I believe that these people do have a right to live out the rest of

their lives in the way that they choose to spend the rest of their lives as long

as they are not adversely affecting someone else.

With respect to recreation facilities; I think this is a

reasonable approach to allow facilities, such as the stadium or public areas

which are rented out, that the people renting them would be permitted to allow

smoking in certain areas within those facilities. Again, I really want to stress

the point that I feel for those patients in hospitals who are not permitted to

smoke, who have smoked all their lives and I believe that it really is heaping

upon these people an undue stress that is not necessary, especially when there

are areas available for these people to be permitted to have their smoke and

release some of the stress.

Again, with respect to the parents of young children at the

Janeway who are under very stressful situations, Mr. Speaker, I would also say

that the government should really take a hard look at setting aside an area for

parents to go and have a cigarette. I know it may be somewhat of a bad influence

I suppose to a certain extent but if a person is going to smoke, he is going to

smoke. He is going to have his/her cigarette somewhere along the way. As I said,

I grew up in a family of eleven smokers, thirteen really and it did not affect

me, I didn't smoke.

So basically, I think we should be putting more money into

education and to basically try and educate the young people. Statistics show now

that young teenage girls are smoking more than young teenage boys, Mr. Speaker.

I remember when I was a young fellow myself and the peer pressure was on to

smoke and I always resisted it because of one thing - and I want to refer to it

- the education. I remember seeing a picture of a good lung of a person who did

not smoke and a lung of a person who did smoke. One was black and the other was

basically a good healthy looking lung and that made an impression on me. So I

think maybe that we should be spending and putting a lot more money into

educating our young people and trying to deter them from taking up smoking in

the first place. I think that is where we should be putting our money and I

think that will have its best effect on young individuals.

With that I will sit down and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

your time.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and say a

few words on Bill 11. The Minister of Health has brought it forward in the House

and I want to make a few comments on what I believe is the flip-flop legislation

that the minister brings forward as part of this Bill 11, for the simple reason,

I see in some parts of the legislation a double standard. I would like to make a

few comments on this and hopefully the minister in his wisdom, when he gets the

opportunity later, will make some comments and answer some questions that I may

raise over the next few minutes as I bring forward some of the concerns that I

have. Not only this but it definitely has to do with the smoke-free environment

that the government is trying to create in the Province.

Part of the legislation that we have in front of us today, as

the Member for St. John's East in his turn touched on in his few comments, had

to do with a grocery store and would have to designate a smoking room. Just last

week I was in my district and a lady who has been in business for over forty

years told me that she had received a letter from the Department of Health

stating that she has to put a washroom in her store and her store is not built

onto the house. It is a store unto itself, a building unto itself on her

premises and she told me that due to the legislation that has been brought

forward by the Department of Health to install a washroom facility in her store,

she is going to be forced, after spending almost fifty years in business, to

more or less have to close up the store. She is operating the store on her own

now, her family has all moved on. Due to the fact that she has been there for

almost fifty years, now she has to go and put a bathroom in, she is going to

have to close up.

Now we see in today's legislation, in Bill No. 11, we see

that if a grocery store wants to have anybody smoking in the store they are

going to have to put in a smoking room. We are going to have grocery stores that

are going to have full fledged washrooms and full fledged smoking rooms, Mr.

Speaker. I think it is a bit too much that we are asking. I certainly have

never, that I can remember anyway - I suppose I had a few years that I did not

remember what I was at - I do not remember smoking myself but I respect the

right of those who want to smoke. I believe that they should have an opportunity

to do so.

I want to touch on a few places, our workplaces, and our

hospitals, that other members have touched on also.

I just want to go back to the grocery store and the fact that

if a small grocery store out in rural Newfoundland now, or in urban parts of the

Province, wherever the case may be, want to continue to operate, they are going

to have to put in washroom facilities and they are also now, under this

legislation here today, going to have to put in a smoking room if they want to

have a smoke. I think it is a bit too much, I think it is a bit too heavy-handed

of the government, to bring down this sort of legislation and expect people who

have been in business for decades now to turn their facilities or their

operations upside down to accommodate these rules.

I would like to make a comment, if I could, on restaurants

and bars. I had the opportunity, before I came to work here in the House of

Assembly, to operate a night club for almost ten years and I found in my

discussions and talks with people in my district over the past couple of months

in relation to the smoke-free act that the Province is bringing forward, that it

is creating some major problems for people in the bar business and it is

creating some major problems for legion clubs, Lion's clubs, and fire

departments that operate facilities that have weekend dances.

These establishments out there, in many cases for the

betterment of their communities, and for the betterment of the people in their

communities, trying to raise some necessary funds to operate a fire department

or to operate the local Legion club, or whatever, are not being socked - I say

to the Minister of Health, they are being socked with regulations that are

making them put in smoke eaters or something that will take away the smoke, or

certainly cut down on the amount of smoke in buildings.

That is the first point I would like to make in relation to

the expense that is being incurred, or that the Province is hoping will be

incurred by these establishments. I say that at the same time government comes

down with a law which says that the Legion club or the Lion's club, or the fire

department out in a small rural community is going to have to spent tens of

thousands of dollars putting in equipment that will take away the smoke, at the

same time the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation refuses to put a

wheelchair ramp in the museum.

It is a double standard of this government, and it is a

double standard of the ministers. I say that the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation goes along with bringing in acts, rules and regulations that will

force fire departments or force Legion clubs to install thousands of dollars

worth of equipment to take away smoke, and at the same time that same minister

refuses to put in ramps or proper facilities to accommodate people who are

confined to wheelchairs to allow them to visit the Newfoundland Museum. What is

that, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a double standard we have here with this

government? It certainly doesn't surprise me that that double standard is coming

forward in this legislation again today.

At the same time that we have to deal with this particular

issue in relation to the equipment, and the cost of the equipment to these

volunteer organizations, and to private enterprise, we cannot forget the very

important aspect of our society that has to deal with private enterprise, and at

the same time private individuals or private companies are going to have to

invest thousands of dollars.

Right now it is a very tough economy we are dealing with and

a lot of these businesses are struggling to survive, then the government comes

down with these almighty rules from on high and says, you have to do a, b, or c,

or if not we are going to close you down within thirty days, sixty days, or

whatever the case may be. I think this is grossly unfair to the people of the

Province and especially to people who are operating these facilities, that

government can operate under this heavy-handed law and bring down these rule.

I also want to comment on bars, restaurants, and the fact

that we have designated areas, whether it is 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per

cent, 50 per cent, whatever the case may be. The government, for some reason or

other is bringing down a law that there is a certain percentage of that facility

that has to be smoke-free and the remainder, people can sit in smoke. I have to

ask the Minister of Health if he really thinks for a minute, or does any

minister on the opposite side think for a minute that if you are sitting at this

table in a nightclub or in a restaurant and you are not allowed to smoke and at

the next table the people are allowed to smoke that the smoke does not rise and

move around the room? Does the minister think that the smoke is going to stay at

that designated table for smoking and that people in that restaurant sitting at

other tables can't smell the smoke or inhale the smoke from the next table even

though one is designated for smoking and one is designated not? I say to the

minister, it is a flip-flop. Either have the guts, I say to him, to stand up and

wipe out smoking altogether in public places, or leave it at the status quo. I

don't think we are improving on anything here. All we are doing is causing

hardship to the operators of the businesses. We are causing hardship to the

people in the restaurants or the bars and trying to enjoy their supper or a

night out on the town, and so on. I think the minister is definitely - I say

that the minister is not playing with a full deck when he says that we have to

have smoking at this table and non-smoking at this table, and expect that the

smoke is going to stay at the designated table.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, he

sits at a table that supports this and at the same time, as I said earlier, this

minister does not go along with providing the proper facilities for people who

are confined to wheelchairs to enjoy the Newfoundland Museum.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to make a comment, if I could, on

non-smoking in the workplace. I see that the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation put a couple of signs out on the front of the Confederation

Building here and barred any smoking on the front steps, and he went along with

putting it on the back steps, but from what I see happening on the back steps of

the Confederation Building over the past couple of years that I have been here,

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wouldn't get much support

from his colleagues on barring smoking on the back steps of the Confederation

Building. He got support for barring it on the front steps because none of the

ministers, or none of the members of his caucus, went out and smoked on the

front steps, but the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would have a

job to be allowed to put a sign up `no smoking' or `smoking prohibited' on the

back steps, because he would need the support of his caucus, and I doubt if you

would get much support from what I have seen the past few years.

I have to say that there are several members on our side of

the House who enjoy the back steps also, and they have the right to have a draw,

or have a smoke. I certainly do not condemn them for that, but I will just say

that it seems as if we have a double standard here. It is all according to what

steps you are on if you are allowed to smoke. The same thing is happening in the

restaurants and in the bars; it is all according to what table you are at. I

believe the government should have the guts to really determine whether they are

going to cut it out altogether or if they are going to play fiddle with it, Mr.

Speaker.

I would also like to comment, if I could: Before I came into

the House of Assembly I had the opportunity to be employed as an ambulance

driver for a couple of years. During my tenure as an ambulance driver I made

many trips to all of the hospitals in St. John's, and indeed out in my own area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, Mr. Speaker, we were not fortunate

enough to have him in the back of her either, I say. I would have made sure that

he was well taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, during my tenure working with the ambulance

operator for a couple of years, I had occasion to visit all of the hospitals in

the St. John's area, and indeed out in my own area, and to talk to people who

were up in their seventies and eighties who, due to ill health, were in hospital

in the middle of December. I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, this is factual. I saw many times people up in their seventies and

eighties and older, out on the steps of the hospitals with their IV poles,

trying to get a smoke. I think it is a shame for this government that they force

people to be out on the steps in the middle of the winter trying to get a smoke.

I think there should be a designated smoking room. People

should have the right to have a smoke in the hospital if they want to have it,

especially people who have enjoyed smoking for fifty or sixty years. I think to

expect those people to be out on the steps of the hospitals - not only does it

say something for the gentleman or the lady who has to be forced to go outside,

but I think it says something for the people who are going there on a continuous

basis to visit the sick, or drop into the hospital, and have to pass by those

people on the steps, with cigarette butts all around the ground. I think it

definitely should be dealt with, and there should be designated rooms in

hospitals for people to smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I don't huff and puff, I say to the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I haven't smoked in the past

thirty-one years.

I believe that if we are going to bring down a rule or a

regulation or a law that is going to wipe out smoking, we should wipe it out

altogether or we should help those people who really have an addiction to

smoking, and one of the ways we can help them is to designate, in hospitals or

wherever, smoking rooms, or designated smoking floors. I think it is something

we should look at, Mr. Speaker.

Also, I think we should be spending some dollars on education

in relation to smoking in the Province. Nothing hurts me as much, I say to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, as to drive along by a high school

and to watch teenagers out by the side of the building smoking. Nothing bothers

me as much, I say, it really bothers me. I say to the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation that if you sit in your seat where I could ask you a few

questions you may get more scrums. I only got to ask one today and he got a

scrum. If I had had the time to ask two or three questions he would have gotten

on national t.v., I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. And

you owe me $20 for asking you that question.

If I could get back to what I was saying before I was so

rudely interrupted by the `three musketeers' there, if I could get back to

discussing what I think would be - that the government should come forward with

spending some money on educating our young people to the hazards of smoking, on

educating the parents on how to touch base and talk to their children about

smoking. Because as we drive by those schools or we drive by on a Friday night

in our local communities out in our districts, you see the groups of teenagers

standing around, a number of them smoking. I think that we should be able to

spend some dollars on that and educate those young people on the hazards of

smoking.

I remember back years ago when I saw a picture of two lungs.

Really, what turned me off from smoking is that I saw a picture of two lungs,

one a healthy lung and the other was the lung of a heavy smoker. I guess after

seeing that and experiencing that concern, that is what really turned me off

from smoking. I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs who

likes to have a smoke that I watch him daily as he sneaks out to the back step

to have a quick draw. I have no problem with that, I say to the minister. You

have a right to have your smoke, but I think there should be a room designated

here in the building where you could go in and have your smoke. You shouldn't

have to be out on the back steps. The minister shouldn't be out there, nor

should anyone else have to be out there to have a smoke.

I say there should be a designated room here in the building

to have your smoke. Along with that, the look of it alone, having twelve or

fifteen people out on the back step. I think the minister should bring it up to

his Cabinet colleagues to designate a room here in the Confederation Building

for anybody who likes to go have a draw. In the same way, it should be done in

the hospitals and in any public institutions. Those people should be allowed the

opportunity to go and have their smoke in a designated smoking area.

If I could get back. One thing for sure is that in relation

to a double standard that I talked about, we are going to have recreation

facilities in this Province now that are going to have `NO SMOKING' plastered

all around the walls of their building during ten months of the year, or

possibly even eleven months of the year. Whenever they decide that they can

designate it a smoking area - according to the bill that we have before us

today, that can be done by an Order in Council. If I could touch on it for a

moment, I think it was in - "...Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make

regulations defining terms that are not already defined in the Act and to make

regulations exempting buildings or parts of buildings from the application of

the Act."

Here we are, we are going to have the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council say that the lunch room of a certain recreation building can be

designated a smoking area, but on the other end of the building we are not

allowed to smoke. Here we have another example of what I would term as a double

standard by this government, a flip-flop legislation that this government brings

before the House today, in trying to tell us that we are going to have parts of

buildings that are going to be non-smoking. And whenever the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council decides that we can have parts of the building designated for

smoking, that is okay. So we are going to have a recreation complex in the

district that for eleven-and-a-half months of the year, or whatever, is going to

be designated as non-smoking, and whenever the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

decides that it is okay, they can go and have it designated for smoking.

I really ask, is there any need to be pushing this type of

legislation down our throats? I think it is a double standard by the Minister of

Health as he stands today and tries to bring forward this piece of legislation.

I think he should stand up today and decide - the Cabinet should decide if it is

going to bring in a piece of legislation that will outlaw smoking altogether or

not allow people to smoke at their will.

You go out to a nightclub and you have six tables here that

are designated non-smoking, and right next door you have six tables that are

designated smoking. I say to the minister, smoke moves around the room. It rises

and moves around the room, and for some reason or other the ministers on that

side of the room don't think that smoke moves from one table to the next. I say

to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, smoke moves around the room,

so it is just as well to designate the whole works of the building as

non-smoking, or designate it all smoking.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, he

stands up and supports bringing in legislation that sees private businesses in

this Province, that sees legion clubs and fire departments, having to go out and

spend thousands of dollars to put machines in their buildings that will take

care of smoking problems. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

supports that all in the name of good health, when you come in and say: I

support bringing in legislation that will force clubs - lions clubs, legion

clubs, etc. - to bring in thousands of dollars to put smoke-free machinery in

their buildings to take care of the smoke.

At the same time he refuses to spend a couple of hundred

A flip-flop minister is what he is. Whatever suits him, that is the best kind

with him, but he will never... He is going around over there now for the past

couple of weeks on a steady campaign. I will say, like I said the other day, in

the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation will be a long way behind you when you stand and

become the new leader over there. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation will be only playing catch-up to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology. He is every day trying to get me to ask him questions so he can get

out and get a little scrum and get his face... but that is not going to work.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is far ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) scrum.

MR. MANNING: Oh, I only asked him one question and he got

a scrum. I said to him earlier, if I had to ask him three he would be on

national TV, but he owes me big now for asking him that question, I say to the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I say that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is

far ahead in the race. I do some talking to the people around, and the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology is far ahead in the race, and the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation knows that full well. That is why he is heavy on

the campaign trail over there.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I say, will

be ahead of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and that is saying

something, I say to the ministers opposite. That is really being generous on

this side of the House.

If I could get back to this very -

AN HON. MEMBER: Generous to who?

MR. MANNING: Generous to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. I hope he will be generous to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a good man, though.

MR. MANNING: He is a good man, I say to the minister. He

is not running around the back benches over there trying to get support.

If I could get back to this very important piece of

legislation, before I was so rudely interrupted, I say to the Minister of

Health, to finish up my comments I will go back to the first few I made in

relation to a small grocery store having to designate a smoking room on their

premises.

I talked to a lady the other day who is over forty years in

business, who got a letter from the Department of Health saying that she is

going to have to put a washroom in her business. Now she is going to have to put

a smoking room in it. The next thing you know she is going to have to put an

apartment in it. We will soon need a permit to go to the washroom, I say to the

Speaker, the way things are going in this House now. I think it is unfair,

unconstitutional, to be up here and to be bringing in laws that really affect

almost everybody -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, I am just making that great word that

the - I cannot hear him, Mr. Speaker. What did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said: What is your basis for that?

MR. MANNING: I don't mind him. I say to the Member for

Eagle River, you are too busy - no, I won't say that. That might be

unparliamentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: That is right, as long as I am protected in

here - I think I am, anyway - but I will keep my tongue in my mouth with the

Member for Eagle River. You have a busy job trying to make sure that you are on

the right side when the leadership race comes up over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to him, don't worry about protecting

me from Nick. I would rather have Nick by my side any day at all than have the

Member for Eagle River in front of me, behind me, or on my side, I say to the

Member for Eagle River.

The Member for Eagle River had a couple of visits to my

district in the fall of 1993, and all that the Member for Eagle River did for my

district was brought us Payne, I say to the minister, he brought us Payne and it

is P-a-y-n-e, that's what he brought us, a whole load of Payne that we can't get

rid of until the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, I would say to the minister, don't you

go talking because you don't know what side of the House you are happy on. Sure,

a couple of weeks before the election you were up in Ottawa flapping around with

your big, fancy, party card, I say to the member so don't you go talking about

things now because we all have a little bit that we don't like to talk about.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh yes. I leave that to the Member for

Placentia but the Member for Eagle River, yes, he is very worthwhile in his

efforts trying to bring Payne on to the people of St. John's West and to the

people of St. Mary's - The Capes, and I have to say he was successful in the

part he played but I am sure his conscience bothers him as much as it bothers

him in what he did to Harry, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: What he did to Harry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, you don't know about Harry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh my God, you don't know about Harry? We

would like to do the same thing to our Payne as he did to Harry, but the problem

is we can't get to do it until the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is Harry?

MR. MANNING: The Member for Eagle River was on a little

visit or a little party, gallivanting, I say, Mr. Speaker, gallivanting down at

the Premier's house when he ran into the Premier's poor, little dog out in the

porch -

AN HON. MEMBER: Really, what (inaudible)?

MR. MANNING: I am not sure what type of dog it was, but

he was very small, I know that but then the Member for Eagle River likes to pick

on people who are smaller than him or pick on anything that is smaller than him,

but you see the way he bends over when the Premier shouts out to him so it is

all a bow-wow pretty quick I say to the Member for Eagle River, but he tried to

do the job on Harry and that is what kept him out of Cabinet because the Premier

found out about it, but hopefully, he will make up with Harry over the next

couple of months -

AN HON. MEMBER: Kiss and make up.

MR. MANNING: He may kiss and make up with Harry over the

next couple of months and the Premier may go along with the point and that is if

the Premier is still around himself.

Oh, look at the Member for Harbour Grace, really where he

wants to be but he just can't stay over here, that's all. He wants to come over

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, look, there you go.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I say to the Government House Leader, with

friends like John who needs enemies, and I say I would rather have John than

have you too, I say to the Government House Leader any time at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would rather have John as an enemy

than he as a friend.

MR. MANNING: Yes, I would rather have John as an enemy

than you as a friend, I say to the Government House Leader; but in cluing up,

the few words I have to say on this legislation, I say once again that the

Minister of Health brings in what I consider to be a bit of a flip-flop

legislation in relation to the fact that he has rules that really are very

difficult to enforce, very difficult, and I think that it is unfair that we are

coming down on the likes of small grocery stores that have to continue on and

bring in changes to their premises to allow for smoking rooms. I think it is

definitely unfair to those people who now are having a job and are struggling to

survive in the Province.

I would like to finish up as once again we talk about the

education of our young people. It is very important that the government try to

find some dollars to spend on educating our young people to the hazards of

smoking, and hopefully statistics will prove in the long run that this money

will be well-spent and hopefully, in the years ahead, we will see more, younger

people, turning away from smoking and indeed the hazards that come with it

because in the long-term it costs us all, I say to the minister, and hopefully

we will see some legislation that will come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to have a couple of comments on Bill 11. My

concerns are basically in a couple of areas and one is, that I want to get

further clarification from the minister on the grocery store example. I want to

find out clearly whether or not grocery stores would now be totally smoke-free

and whether or not it would apply to the snack bar or to the deli

section of a

grocery store - that is in Clause 1. To find out from the minister whether or

not the removal of the - or the clarification here would mean that all grocery

stores would be totally smoke-free and where this applies to major grocery

stores -like Dominion or Sobeys where they have inside the store a snack bar -

whether or not you would be allowed to have a designated portion of that deli or

snack bar as a smoking area. My understanding is that the entire facility would

be smoke-free however, the minister may want to clarify that.

Mr. Speaker, with Clause No. 2, which basically, as the

minister has said, simply clarifies the standing room part of a bar and to

consider that to be part of the total area. I don't have much difficulty with

that and it does mean a