The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with regret today that I rise to inform the House that the North Coast of Labrador has lost one of its most respected elders and one of its beloved sons. Uncle George Sheppard, at the age of ninety-one, passed away in the community of Postville yesterday.

Uncle George was a man who fished for sixty-six years. He was also a trapper. He was a leader in his community; and at times when we felt that the fair share of wealth did not come our way he was always one to say that there were people who were worse off than we were.

Perhaps one of the most amazing things of his career was at the age of eighty-three years old, he walked thirty-five miles in snowshoes from Postville to Makkovik and raised $5,000 for the Janeway.

Mr. Speaker, as we go through some difficult times on the North Coast I am sure that all of us can draw strength and courage from Uncle George. Certainly, I am honoured and humbled to have had, and known, such a friend as Uncle George Sheppard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, society has long been aware of the health risks associated with smoking. There is irrefutable evidence to link smoking with heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, cancer and a host of other health-related problems.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's ministerial statement - there is an opportunity in the introduction of a bill to give an introduction by the minister on a specific bill that is on the Order Paper before this House, and the ministerial statement is not the time to do that and use up valuable time of the House. There is an opportunity; it is on the Order Paper.

When the bill is introduced I will be delighted to hear what the minister has to say. I have looked through the bill and certainly support an issue that is there, but this is not the proper time to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair certainly does not know what is in a bill and certainly does not know what the hon. minister is going to present here today. I am sure that we have had, in the past, ministerial statements dealing with issues that are on the Order Paper and in the House.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, society has long been aware of the health risks associated with smoking. There is irrefutable evidence to link smoking with heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, cancer and a host of other health-related problems.

According to the National Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health, smoking kills nearly 1,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador every year, claiming more lives than all other cases of preventable death combined. About eighty of those deaths can be attributed to second-hand smoke.

It is clearly evident that individuals often start smoking in their youth - and then have tremendous difficulty breaking free from this destructive habit.

In recent years there has also been a greater understanding of the negative effects of second-hand smoke on the health of the population generally - particularly our children, who often have no choice but to be exposed to this danger.

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, government passed the Tobacco Control Act and the Smoke-free Environment Act. These pieces of legislation were designed to reduce or eliminate smoking in a variety of public facilities and limit young people's access to tobacco products.

These legislative initiatives, coupled with ongoing campaigns to educate the population about the dangers of smoking, have had a positive effect. However, many young people continue to gain access to tobacco products and many restaurant patrons and others are still being exposed to second-hand smoke against their wishes.

In recognition of our responsibility to protect our citizens from the risks associated with second-hand smoke, and to discourage our young people from acquiring this dangerous habit, I am introducing, on behalf of government today, legislation that would amend both the Tobacco Control Act and the Smoke-free Environment Act.

With respect to the Tobacco Control Act, government is proposing the following: to provide for an eventual ban on the sale of tobacco products and tobacco accessories from pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador; to require photo identification of any person actually or apparently 19 years of age who wishes to purchase tobacco or tobacco products; to include convictions under the federal Tobacco Act as prior convictions when considering the judicial consequences of violations to the provincial Tobacco Control Act; and finally, to amend passages of the Tobacco Control Act to provide greater clarity as to the intent of the provisions.

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

With respect to the Smoke-free Environment Act, we are proposing: to provide for a complete ban on smoking in restaurants and other public places frequented by children, to become effective January 1, 2002; and also, to increase the enforcement option available to inspectors by providing them with the ability to issue provincial offence tickets to violators of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, these proposed amendments are supported by the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, whose more than fifty members include the Lung Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Health Boards Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmaceutical Association, the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Faculties of Medicine and Nursing at Memorial University, and many other groups.

After consultations with the community at large, we also believe these amendments are supported by the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, we believe our children have a right to enjoy a smoke-free environment during the critical years of their development. In fact, we believe all our citizens deserve to be protected as much as possible from the negative effects of smoking. I am proud to bring forward these legislative amendments on behalf of government, which are the latest in a series of initiatives designed to reduced the negative effects of smoking and provide for a healthy environment for all Newfoundlander and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My caucus and I will support any initiatives that will improve the health of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have seen and looked at the bill that was circulated here yesterday. I will put forth my particular comments at the appropriate time, when the bill is circulated here and our members have it, and when we have the debate in the House under the appropriate readings to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The changes to be made to the Tobacco Control Act and the Smoke-Free Environment Act are in some detail, but in general I want to be on record as saying we support the measures to control the tobacco environment, particularly with respect to second-hand smoke.

I am a little concerned that government has chosen to delay the implementation of the smoke-free environment for public places frequented by children to January 1, 2002, instead of May 1, 2001, as recommended by the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco. The minister says eighty deaths are attributable per year to secondhand smoke. Is he saying that we can allow this to go on for a year from January 1, rather than implementing this right away?

When the Tobacco Control Act was brought in, in 1994, we supported that legislation and, in fact, at that time felt that it did not go far enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today with regard to the introduction of the Province's new Health Care Cost Recovery Act. Every year over 45,000 Canadians die -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order with respect to the nature of Ministerial Statements, and in particular this statement. I know this issue has been raised previously by my colleague, the House Leader, and yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. This statement clearly states that the minister is rising to introduce the Province's new Health Care Cost Recovery Act. It is certainly the practice of this Legislature, and I feel certain in saying almost any Legislature in the country, that when a piece of legislation is introduced it is the obligation and the duty of the minister who sponsors that piece of legislation to, in fact, appropriately introduce it and speak to it at that time. It raises a question, once again, about the whole nature of what is taking place in Ministerial Statements in this House.

Yesterday, we were almost ninety minutes in this Chamber dealing with the issue of Ministerial Statements. I refer again, if I just may, very briefly, to rule 348 and rule 350. Under §348, it states, "Under Standing Order 33(1) Ministers may make a short factual announcement or statement of Government policy...". Under §350, it states, "The Speaker has emphasized that both the Government and Opposition contributions should be brief and factual."

What we saw yesterday was abuse of these privileges.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: His Honour indicated yesterday that we have no rules under our Standing Orders; however, it is my understanding that, in the absence of such rules, we adopt the principles and the procedures and the recommendations as found in Beauchesne's rules, as found in Sir Erskine May, for example; what are the practices and the precedents already established in our own House of Commons in Ottawa. These are the practices, I would respectively submit, that ought to be taken into account in the absence of our own rules.

I would ask that His Honor give this issue serious and due consideration, take the matter under advisement and give all of us, as legislators, the opportunity of knowing forthwith what the rules and procedures are in this House with respect to ministers standing up, wasting the people's time, and giving information which is untimely and inappropriate under the circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be given the courtesy of being heard. A member is entitled to be heard, and to be heard in silence in this House at all times.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no substance to what the hon. members are saying. Probably the only point worth commenting on is that it should be brief and it should be factual. Again, the tradition of this House - I can tell hon. members that what happened yesterday is not long by comparison to some of the Ministerial Statements that I sat under in this House many times.

Mr. Speaker, the tradition is there for long statements but I, personally, do not subscribe to that. I believe that the statements should be reasonably brief, that they should be factual, and this is what the hon. ministers are doing today. They are factual and they are relating to policy, policy that the government intends to pursue. Mr. Speaker, outside of that there are nor restrictions, no limitations, placed on Ministerial Statements. I would suggest that they are all in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just to clarify what the Chair had said yesterday when this point of order was raised, the Chair indicated that while we do not have anything specific in our Standing Orders, if we don't have that, then, of course, we go to precedent. The precedent in this House, since I have been here, is that ministers have made Ministerial Statements which have been fairly lengthy on occasion, and on other occasions they have been very, very short. As well, of course, many, many times the statements have dealt with policy and dealt with legislation that has been before the House.

The Chair rules that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Every year over 45,000 Canadians die as a result of tobacco related illness. In Newfoundland and Labrador alone, two people die every day as a result of illness caused by smoking. Government has incurred health care costs on behalf of thousands of individuals.

The negative effects of tobacco products on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have placed a great financial burden on government in the provision of health care for people who have suffered illnesses due to tobacco use. Initial estimates indicate that tens of thousands of dollars are spent in this Province each year to treat people who have become ill due to smoking cigarettes. Government believes these costs should be borne by the tobacco industry.

Due to the insurmountable difficulty of proceeding with thousands of individual court claims, the proposed Tobacco Health Care Cost Recovery Act will provide an alternative method of claiming reimbursement of those costs. The bill will allow government to take direct legal action, on its own behalf, against the tobacco companies for the recovery of tobacco related health care costs.

The Province will issue a statement of claim for the purpose of seeking the recovery of health care costs from the tobacco companies. The bill, once it becomes law, will facilitate government's court action.

Newfoundland and Labrador has also entered into a collaboration agreement with British Columbia to share legal research and other information related to potential claims against tobacco companies. We are also encouraging other provinces to take legal action, and several have shown interest in what this Province and the Province of British Columbia are doing.

The government will also work with experts from Health Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada in preparing this action.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States, tobacco companies have paid state governments in excess of $240 billion as a result of legal actions commenced by state governments to recover health care costs from these companies. It is time that the tobacco companies assumed their obligations to Canadian provinces, including our own, for the costs incurred by the health care system in treating tobacco related illnesses.

With the introduction of this bill, the tobacco companies will be put on notice that this Province will be seeking reimbursement for amounts expended by the health care system for treating illness which is the result of tobacco use. It is with this sense of purpose that I bring this legislation forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will be happy to participate in debate at the appropriate time and to adequately make a response on this side of the House when this particular piece of legislation is appropriately introduced, as it should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only encourage the government to proceed quickly with this particular initiative. Other jurisdictions have taken some missteps, particularly Ontario, with an ill-conceived action in the United States and some problems with the B.C. legislation, so I am glad to see that government is working with the Province of British Columbia and I hope we can move forward quickly on this. I look forward to a debate on the bill in the House.

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

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure to stand before the House today to update hon. members on the progress of a business that is establishing a new operation in our Province.

One of the focuses of my Department of Industry, Trade and Technology is investment attraction and we work with companies from around the world to show them the business advantages of operating in Newfoundland and Labrador. We promote our highly skilled and very loyal workforce, our strategic location as a gateway between the rest of North America and Europe, and our cost-competitive location, among other things.

These and other factors were recognized by an international company that has its North American corporate office in Vancouver. That company is Hospitality Marketing Concepts, and I am pleased to inform hon. members that it is opening a customer contact centre in Gander, which will create 200 new full- and part-time jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Hospitality Marketing Concepts operates fourteen customer service centres throughout the United States; the one opening in Gander will be the seventh and largest one in Canada. The company was formed in 1988 and is a leading provider of club membership programs for prestigious hotels and other businesses in international and domestic markets.

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

The incentive package we negotiated with the company is competitive with those offered in other areas. The provincial incentives will be in the form of a wage rebate on gross payroll, which will be up to a maximum of $250,000.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: We have negotiated a fair deal for the Province - one that will benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through job creation and other economic spinoffs.

I would like to conclude by acknowledging the support of several groups and individuals that made this happen. First of all, I would like to recognize the excellent work of NETWORK Newfoundland and Labrador, a private/public partnership between the provincial government and NewTel which has been very successful in the five years it has been working to attract customer contact centres to our Province. In addition, many other groups and individuals have played a major role in making this happen, including the economic development department of the Town of Gander, the Human Resources Development Canada office in Gander, Mr. Dave Dyer of Resource Development Associates and, of course, my own staff.

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

I am sure that this company will be pleased with its decision to locate in Central Newfoundland. With our friendly and qualified people, our strategic location and many other advantages, we have proven that Newfoundland and Labrador is an excellent place in which to do business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

It is always good to see companies set up here in this Province. We do have a qualified workforce; we do have tremendous things to offer in this Province. I would like to give my stamp of approval to any company who sets up here, but prior to doing that we want to see this company last, we want to see this company do well here before we give it our final stamp of approval. We have seen many companies being brought here by the provincial government, some of them did quite well, some of them did not. We do not have to mention any names. We do not have to look too far into the past to see which companies did or did not do well.

It did not say here whether or not the companies received EDGE status. That is something I would have liked to have seen in the ministerial statement, whether or not this company did receive EDGE status; because many of the companies that have been brought here, lured to the Province, have received EDGE status.

Again, we applaud any initiative by government to bring a company to this Province, to employ people here locally, and to give economic spinoffs. We will await giving final approval, and our final stamp of approval and applause to this company to see how well it does here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased to see that the community of Gander, its residents, and areas will potentially have some employment in the community as a result of this project. We hope - recognizing that the minister was equally enthusiastic some months ago in promoting another call centre in St. John's - that they have done a thorough job of checking out companies who are receiving these subsidies.

I would add one concern, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the attraction to Newfoundland is not one of those attractions that is promoted by Industry Canada on its website on call centres which notes the attractions for Newfoundland and Labrador as having the lowest minimum wage in Canada. The new industry minister's website has this on it as an attraction to come to Newfoundland. I hope that is not reflected in the wages that this company intends to pay in this Province.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, at this time, to acknowledge the White Ribbon Campaign, an annual event which has spread across Canada, the United States, Australia, Europe and Central America, as a symbol of opposition to men's violence against women.

The campaign which began on November 25, concludes tomorrow on the 11th anniversary of the massacre of fourteen women at Montreal's École Polytechnique.

I am wearing a white ribbon as a personal pledge that I will not commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. I am also encouraging all members of this House to make this same commitment. Female members are encouraged to wear purple ribbons, which is the colour normally designated for anti-violence.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to working with communities to eliminate violence. A vision that will see the people of this Province living in safe, caring communities where there is an inherent respect for each other, and where violence is unacceptable.

While the White Ribbon Campaign remains dedicated to reaching men and boys with a message of non-violence, it also continues to encourage fundraising for women's shelters, rape crisis centres and transition houses.

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important issue and an important statement. What the minister is saying is reflected, perhaps on a daily basis, in our court system more and more where - in our courts, certainly in this Province, and in particular in our provincial courts, judges treat this issue very seriously. They treat these allegations very seriously. In almost all cases, as far as I understand, the courts usually call upon what is known as a victim impact statement, so that the seriousness of the allegations can be brought forward in a very public way. It is an important issue and I think it requires the attention that the minister has given it, but I would just go one small step further. It is okay to recognize the fact that fundraising is important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - but government must also show a commitment in real dollars and cents and resources for these shelters, rape crisis centres and transition houses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few short seconds; I will say that I support the White Ribbon Campaign but it requires action, not just words. We have an abysmally low conviction rate for sexual assault in this Province and we have twice the national reporting average, yet we are the only Province who does not have a fully-funded centre to do crisis and intervention work.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

- a flyer being distributed by Piper's Department Store which has on its advertising: For the child in us - assault rifles with sparkling lights and realistic sound, an M-16 on sale for $2.99; along with a lot of other toys, mostly guns. To indicate that this is for the child in us, that we should have an M-16 assault rifle - the very weapon, I think, that was used in Montreal on December 6, 1989. This is being distributed in our Province today by a department store.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, today we join with others throughout the world in officially launching the International Year of the Volunteer, as declared by the United Nations' General Assembly. The International Year of the Volunteer will provide a unique opportunity to highlight the achievements of millions of volunteers worldwide and to encourage more people globally to become volunteers.

I am pleased to inform you that I will join with volunteers from throughout the Province and the country at an event this evening, hosted by the Community Services Council, Volunteer Canada and the provincial government, to officially declare 2001 as International Year of the Volunteer.

Mr. Speaker, as Lead Minister for the Province's Strategic Social Plan, I am pleased to have the opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute to the contributions of volunteers and the voluntary sector that form such an important part of the social and economic fabric of the Province. The Strategic Social Plan grew out of extensive consultations with the people of this Province,
many of whom were volunteers, and who continue today to work toward making the vision, values and goal of the Strategic Social Plan a reality at the community level.

Mr. Speaker, community service agencies, municipal governments, school boards and school councils, the boards of health, regional development boards, and a host of other organizations, both formal and informal, comprise the volunteer base of our Province. There has always been, and there will continue to be, a need for our voluntary sector; therefore, I am also pleased to announce that the Province has taken steps to officially recognize the contribution of volunteers by striking a Volunteer Service Medal. A selection committee will choose the recipient each year beginning in 2001.

I am pleased to announce the members of the Volunteer Service Medal Selection Committee. They are: Wayne Trask, Chair; Hon. Justice W. Mahoney; Joan Pinsent from Stephenville; George Saunders from Bishop's Falls; Isabel Watts from North West River; Dr. Axel Meisen, President of Memorial University; and Gary Norris, Clerk of the Executive Council.

In keeping with the themes of the Strategic Social Plan of educating, planning and building community capacity, I am also pleased to announce that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be allocating $100,000 to the Community Services Council to support a range of initiatives throughout 2001 to celebrate locally, throughout all of our Province, the many volunteers in our Province, and to further promote volunteerism.

I know that I have the support of my hon. colleagues in extending to all volunteers in the Province a sincere thank you for a job well done!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement in advance. I, too, would like to extend a sincere thank you to the many volunteers throughout the Province. It is a wonderful idea to be striking the Volunteer Service Medal in recognition of them.

We have people, as the minister mentioned, throughout the Province who are volunteers, such as in the volunteer fire departments throughout our municipalities. We have people who work as volunteers throughout the health care, in community services organizations and crisis centers. At this time of the year we have a multitude of people who are working in food banks. Especially this year, from what I am hearing from the people at the food bank, the demand is exceptionally high. I would like to sincerely thank those people who provide food to people who, with the high cost of home heating fuel, have to now make the choice whether they will buy fuel or buy food.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, applaud any initiative that is undertaken to acknowledge the efforts and the worthwhile cause of volunteers as they contribute to the communities in which we live.

In addition to the ones that are highlighted there, of course, we also have many volunteers taking part in sports for young people, which contributes significantly to their physical and mental well-being. I think they have to be acknowledged as well.

In addition, of course, there are many other areas in the Province where people volunteer out of necessity, sometimes in organizations that should be funded by government rather than being performed by volunteers in areas such as crisis shelters. While we acknowledge that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. In recent weeks he has talked about how he would reintroduced a child advocate, would not close any more hospital beds, committed to more open and accountable government, and more transparency. I will give him a chance again today to put his words into action on the floor of the people's House of Assembly.

The people of the Province want to know, Minister, about the agreements that you, the former minister, signed with Hydro-Quebec, namely the Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract, the shareholders agreement, and the agreement on the sale of 130 megawatts of recall power. You indicated in your Ministerial Statement yesterday that you have requested CF(L)Co's Board of Directors to release it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

You were going to request CF(L)Co's Board of Directors to release it. We have on record the CEO of Hydro saying: These agreements will never - and I repeat - will never be released.

The question for you is: These people work for you. The shareholders of the company are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Stop hiding behind Hydro. Why won't you release those documents today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. First of all, I will correct him. The Chairman of Hydro and the Board of Directors do not work for me. They work for the people of the Province of Newfoundland. They are appointed by the people's representatives and they have the responsibility to properly manage the affairs of the company for the benefit of the people of the Province.

Hydro, the same as any other utility in North America, in all businesses, follows a practice of not making commercial documents public, and that is for a very good and valid reason. In the utility industry, if those documents are generally made public, then they form a basis or a floor for other negotiations that the utility may enter into.

In this case we have asked them to consider whether or not it is appropriate, if there is no persisting commercial reason at this time, to consider releasing them. The Hydro board is meeting on Friday, I am advised, for its regular meeting, and will, in fact, consider that issue.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is unbelievable. The former Premier indicated that all agreements would be released in a timely fashion for everyone to see. In Hydro's 1999 annual report, here is what it says: Those agreements changed the nature of the relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, with respect to CF(L)Co, from the majority and minority shareholders respectively to that of joint venturers, whereby Hydro-Quebec now has veto power to directors, has veto power over the majority of the board; but the minister, on the August 30, said: No, that is not so.

How are we to know, Minister, who is telling the truth: the annual report of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or you, if you do not table those agreements?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should indicate to the House, if he wants to talk about truth, that the word veto is not in the Hydro statements. What you are dealing with is a member who does not understand the meaning of the word veto. A veto is an unfettered right of an individual to either give or withhold consent. There is no veto given.

What has been agreed to is that all of the directors, including one from each of Hydro-Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, will have a say in what the decisions are in certain matters. Most of those rights already exist at law in either the Canada Business Corporations Act - there is a specific by-law 23 of the company, section 20, which sets out a whole series of issues on which the concurrence of either two-thirds or three-quarters of the majority of directors has to be obtained, which necessitates the consent of Hydro-Quebec which owns more than two-thirds of those shares. Finally, there is common law or judge-made law, interpretations which say that the majority owner of a company does not have the right to dispossess a substantial minority shareholder of certain rights and interests in the operations and distribution of funds of the company.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, what is negotiated in the current agreements is not only the fact that Hydro-Quebec and Newfoundland Hydro have a say, but also that the right to have a say is fettered by their obligation to act in the best interest of CF(L)Co and, secondly, that they have to maintain the assets of the corporation in good and substantial repair in accordance with common industry practice.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What is patently and apparently and blatantly transparent is your unwillingness to give the people of this Province the facts of the matter, tabling the agreements which they deserve. You have no right to deny them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this. In his statement yesterday - this will tell you the type of spin of information that this crowd here are trying to put on us. Here is what he said yesterday with respect to the Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract. He says: In addition, the resale of - the Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract will bring $1 billion into the Province's revenues.

Now, let's get to the truth. Is it not true, Minister, that agreement expires next year? Isn't it also true that you have no other customer, that you have to renegotiate with Quebec for the remainder of that; and, in fact, isn't it true that you are counting money that you do not already have?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Most people of the Province recognize that the greatest detriment to Newfoundland and Labrador in the agreements that were entered into back in the 1960s and 1970s, was a fact that it was a long-term contract taking us out, in fact, to the year 2041. What this government did was to say that we would not enter into a long-term contract for the sale of the 130 megawatts of recall power.

There are good and valid reasons for this. We wanted a three-year term, first of all, so that the power could be recalled for use in Labrador, if it were necessary, and, secondly, because markets change.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has come forward. Then his statement yesterday, saying we will get an additional $1 billion, is not true, because it is not already there. They only have an agreement up until (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, the minister has made a big deal about how much money we will get out of the winter availability contract. Let me ask him this today: Isn't it true that this year on winter availability, the recall of power, we will not get back as much money because the equipment, some of the transformers and the cable itself, is down, and the downtime will ensure that what you have projected we will get this year we will, in fact, not get? Can you confirm that for me today?

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

MR. DICKS: What I will confirm to the hon. member is what everyone in this Province knows. Despite all the efforts of his predecessors, the Tory government, not a single extra nickel came to the Province as a result of their expenditures on two unsuccessful court cases -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: If he should like, I would be delighted to table a news release indicating that the members of this House spent and approved spending of $51.7 million for the project at Gull Island, with some dissension at first that was eventually approved by his predecessors in this House.

Clearly, the issue here is that the people across the House from us are in a position where they want to try to denigrate the achievements of this government. For the first time since this contract was entered into, we have achieved additional benefits. The guaranteed winter availability will return to the Province $1 billion over the course of the life of the project to the year 2041. The sale of the recall will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: He is right, that is not the right amount. It will be more than $1 billion because over time we will realize increased sales and increased value for it rather than less. The $1 billion figure is a conservative one.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I have to ask the question: Isn't this the same minister - the minister who now lectures us on court cases - who was part of a select Cabinet committee on trans city hospitals, that gave away about $30 or $40 million extra dollars? Isn't this the same minister who, at one time, was the Minister of Justice and made decisions that we had to compensate in excess of $60 million to $70 million?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Isn's this the same minister who is trying to lecture me and people in this House today on the basis of law suits? Come on, Minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Minister, isn't it a fact that over the life of this project, because the equipment at Upper Churchill that runs and creates the power, because of the downtime that we are now experiencing, that we are anticipated to experience, because of the age of the equipment - it is going to realize and it is going to cut into the profits that we are getting, and that your anticipated revenue is nothing but a spin and is nothing but anticipated, and it is not now money that you have in your pocket? Isn't that the truth, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously does not know much about the running of corporations, businesses, or utilities. This ordinary maintenance occurs anyway. What we have is an additional $1 billion in gross. What he is talking about are expenses or expenditures that would incur in the normal course of operations. Had we not had the $1 billion these expenses would have been incurred anyway. It makes no difference for our bottom line on the return to the Province.

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

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

It will be a very direct question so all can understand. If you believe that we are wrong - and you possess the knowledge because you and your former buddy over here, the Minister of Health, were the ones who signed the agreement, from the direction of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

If you believe that what we have said in the last six weeks and what we have asked in this House today, and will ask again tomorrow, is so wrong then why don't you just table the agreements for everyone to see how wrong we are? If you will not, why not?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province realize that the Opposition's duty is to oppose whatever government does. It is unseemly, however, that the hon. member keeps taking a persistent approach.

When we table things that he demands, and when he says they contain this, that, and the other thing - and when that is not, in fact, the case - when we disclose the documents he then says: Well, if it isn't in these documents, it is in another document. It is an old trick; and I can assure the House that we have given to the people of Newfoundland an assurance that when commercial dealings with Hydro Quebec are concluded - and they may be at a stage where we can release some of the documents - we will release them for public view. That is contrary to the practice but we feel it is in the public interest to do so.

What we have asked the board to consider is: If, because of the change in negotiations, it is now appropriate to do so, to do so at a sooner time. We would be delighted to have those documents see the light of day so that people can see how ridiculous the hon. member's positions are on these matters.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. The lack of ambulance service at the Health Care Corporation is having a very serious affect on people's health; and in some cases, minister, jeopardizing their lives. There are six ambulances with the corporation but there are only four in use some of the time. Often there are only two in use, depending on the time period. The ambulances just cannot keep up with the workload created by having to serve about 200,000 people when you consider the universities and colleges, in addition to the area they serve. There are only about half as many ambulances per capita as to many comparable sized cities in Canada.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are providing levels of services in Newfoundland and Labrador today, in the year 2000, that are above and beyond any level of service that was provided previously, particularly when the other group was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have made continued, steady, and regular improvements in health care funding in the last five years in particular. Mr. Speaker, the service levels are continuing to improve.

I do understand, on an operational basis, that the particular representatives of the ambulances at the Health Care Corporation, and the management group, have had a liaison committee that have worked at these issues for the last several months; and they have agreed to a budget proposal that they are putting forward for consideration in the budget process. They all know, everybody knows, that each of the jurisdictions here in Newfoundland and Labrador, like elsewhere in the country, will have limited capability to increase some funding for those items which are considered priority items beginning April 1 of next year, because of the fact that the Government of Canada has reinstated some $21.5 billion over the next five years, largely for health care expenditures.

There is a process that has been gone through. This one of about three or four dozen issues that will come forward to the government just from the Health Care Corporation of St. John's alone; not counting those which will come forward to the government for consideration from all of the other corporations in Newfoundland and Labrador, and from the health and community services boards which provide health services not related to hospitals and institutions.

We are anxious to receive the proposal that has been worked on by the management personnel, representatives of the paramedics, and the ambulance operators. We will see if we can address that as one of the priority items in the budget for next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are waiting about fifteen months to get an answer from this government. You have closed, since 1989, 1,300 hospital beds creating extra, I might add, pressure on the ambulance services in our Province, and you have not responded.

Why do patient after patient have to wait hours at hospitals for an ambulance with a health care worker getting paid overtime to stay with that person beyond their regular shift? This is a common practice. Minister, you are being penny-wise and pound foolish.

One lady waited for nine hours last week and never did get an ambulance to get transferred to the Miller Centre. There are long waits at cardiac and catheter labs, at the cancer clinic, and at numerous areas within the health care corporation. They cannot get the service. Does the minister realize that an extra ambulance would cost as little as sixty-some hundred a month extra? It would be cost-effective, and not only that, but improve the quality of health care here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the critic feels he has to yell and scream. That is his usual approach. As per Stephenville; I guess it is the flavor of the day, would be the phrase for the health critic. What ever the group is, that comes forward on a particular day, he supports their cause.

Let me remind everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador about the record of the critic for Health and Community Services. Just with respect to Stephenville, there was a report in the Atkinson Report that suggested there should be twenty-five bed facility in Stephenville. The health critic was crying out that the report be released because he supported the Atkinson Report and wanted it implemented.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to withdraw his statement that I could not support a report which he blatantly hates and his predecessors hated for two years!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

The issue was that he claimed he knew there was a recommendation in the Atkinson Report calling for a twenty-five bed facility in Stephenville. He called for the release of the report and he demanded that it be implemented as it was. When the government announced that we were building a fifty bed facility in Stephenville instead of a twenty-five bed facility, he complained that we were overbuilding. He came out with the argument that we should not be doing that, we were overbuilding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: When there was an issue with respect to a kitchen not being included, he claimed then that we were under building because he wanted to support the workers who wanted the kitchen built on that particular day. So, he has already turned himself inside out five or six times on that issue, just like he is doing on the other issue!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is that type of nonsense and untruths that have the people in this Province worried about the type of government they are getting here. Complete inaccuracy, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Ambulances are busier than they ever were. The closure of beds at Western Memorial Regional Hospital is resulting in more patients coming into St. John's. They have to be transported by ambulances from the airport to the hospitals here in the city. Ambulances are continuously being diverted to hospitals which are farther from the source of where they pick up a patient. There is a continuous shuffling of patients going on from hospital to hospital. It is like shuffling cards in a deck because it is going on so often, I might add. The system is underfunded and in chaos.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me try to give the serious answer that I tried to give the last time, until he started shouting. We do expect about twenty-five, thirty, maybe thirty-five serious requests from the Health Care Corporation of St. John's alone in the next budget process, one of which is an approved ambulance service. We expect that. We know that there is a proposal which is being developed by the representatives of the workers themselves, and also by management, and it is in the process. We also know that we are going to have another 200 to 300 requests for improved services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We, Mr. Speaker, have a very limited capability to answer a call for those improvements. We have said that, with the reinstatement of funding from the Government of Canada, we should not have to reduce in Newfoundland and Labrador any medical or clinically-based service because we do have security funding from the Government of Canada; however, there is a real limit as to any improvements and advances that we can make because there is insufficient money.

Let me finish with this, and I have made the offer before to my critic. If he is serious and if he really thinks and believes and knows in his heart that he can put together a proposal to answer every single request that has been made - just like he did today, and promised that he would do what this particular group wanted, because they were here today, and just like he did last week with another group, because they met with him and he promised to fix their problems - if he has those answers, I will make the offer again of stepping aside from this job and I would encourage my colleagues here to immediately name him the Minister of Health and Community Services -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - and he can come over here and answer the questions and realistically deal with the situation, instead of crying wolf every day and pretending that he is everybody's friend, and pretending that he has all the money in the world and all the answers. I would gladly step aside and let him do the job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. For many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians this year, the arrival of winter means making the choice between food and fuel. Every time the price of home heating oil rises, this government reaps a windfall, at the expense of overtaxed consumers such as our pensioners. Other provinces are planning to cut taxes or provide rebates to relieve this pressure on our consumers. Is it not time, I ask the minister, that the Province with the highest gas taxes in the country, namely this Province, follow suit and offer some relief to those who rely on home heating fuel?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will not speak for the tax reductions because that is the purview of my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, but I will say to the hon. member that he should (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the honorable member said several things. First of all, the thing that needs to be cleared up is that there is a windfall to government. There is no windfall to government because the government is also a consumer of fuel, both fuel in its vehicles and fuel to heat its buildings. In fact, there is substantial additional cost to us. There is no windfall, because just as everybody else in the Province is experiencing additional expenses, so are we.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, or the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, whoever wants to answer it. High gas and fuel prices hit consumers in the pocketbooks in many ways, not the least of which is by raising the cost of the numerous goods that travel this Province as freight. High freight costs are also hurting local exporters and local jobs. I ask whatever minister, when he knows that half the price of a litre of gas is tax, three-fifths, I say to the minister, of the tax is provincial, and every rise in gas prices does mean more money in government's pocket, when is this government going to stop profiting off people's misery and start giving some badly needed tax relief to the consumer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: No, it is not free. The hon. member is absolutely right; petroleum products are not free. That is really the genesis and the real point of the question that the minister, or the member, raises - the member who wishes to be a minister.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to the increased pricing of the gasoline that we use, of the home heating oil that we use, of the diesel that we use in our various activities in life, it is zero per cent driven by the increase in provincial fuel taxes and 100 per cent driven by the cost of petroleum at the OPEC producers level. Therefore, the issue is not a taxation issue. It is a product pricing issue at the production level. We have no control over that. The Government of Canada has no control over that. Bill Clinton has no control over that. The nations of the world outside of those who produce petroleum products have no control over the price of the product as charged on the world market. Therefore, we have no ability to correct what the hon. member alleges as being a tax issue in the Province.

The fact of the matter also is this: With respect to home heating oil, which he just raised, there is no provincial fuel tax on home heating oil. I do not know how many times we have to say that. There is zero cents per liter of tax on home heating oil. The only tax that is adjusted when the price goes up is the HST and, for the member's information, as compared to last year, today - one year ago, as compared to today - there is 1.2 per cent increase as a result of HST only.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: This is clearly not a taxation issue. It is a petroleum products pricing issue. It is a worldwide issue, and if the hon. member has the ability to influence and help us get it down, we would be happy to have his help on that account.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A considerable portion of the cost of home heat in this Province, whether it be through home heating fuel or electricity, is the 15 per cent HST that the Minister of Finance puts on home heating fuel. Will the minister give some relief to the people of this Province, particularly those on fixed income, seniors and other, by initiating a rebate of 15 per cent of the cost of home heat to consumers in this Province?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your tie?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I understand that the hon. member will soon have a new boss who will give a whole new meaning to the concept of bags of money. That is going to hit you pretty soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the only expression of understanding or concept that I can express to the hon. member with respect to my knowledge of bags of money is a $4 tie. That is as good as I can do for you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: My frugal colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, suggested I spent too much on my tie. I will take that issue up with my wife, I say, on your account.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the issue that is raised by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is an important issue and is a serious issue because it has to do with the cost of petroleum products. It affects seniors, and it affects everybody equally in terms of the consumption.

The fact of the matter is that with respect to revenues as a result of the pricing increase in petroleum products, we are probably this year going to be out of Treasury about $10 million in costs or lost revenue as a result of this issue as well. So, in terms of suggesting that we have an increased ability to refund HST money, the opposite is quite true as opposed to the concept that he puts forward.

This year our Department of Work, Services and Transportation is incurring about $5 million to $6 million extra in costs because we are a large consumer of petroleum products. We clear the highways, heat buildings, plow the roads, and that sort of thing. In addition to that, we are seeing a significant decrease in consumption of the product, and thereby less revenues are coming into the Treasury.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make note - I should have done it yesterday - of a rather important event. The Vice-Chair of Committees, the Assistant Chair of Committees, is Mrs. Hodder. This is the first time that we have had a lady in the elected position in the Speaker's Chair, or in the Speaker's office, in that position, so I thought we should congratulate her.

[Applause]

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill entitled, An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs." (Bill 41)

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

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

In regard to this particular piece of legislation, Bill 41, the purpose, of course, of its creation is in regard to recovery of health care costs. The illnesses caused due to tobacco smoke, of course, are well known, and the American states were probably the leaders in this initiative of recovering from tobacco companies the costs that their treasuries incurred as a result of health costs incurred as a result of smoke and smoking. In Canada, the forerunner of this type of legislation is in the Province of British Columbia.

You have to commence the process by putting the proper legislative framework in place in order to initiate a statement of claim. That is the purpose of this bill, to set that legislative foundation upon which we can take a claim, as a province, against tobacco companies to recover these heath care costs.

There are several very important provisions of this act. They are all important, of course, but the major focus or the main provisions deal with the direct action provisions. This act will provide government with the ability to sue manufacturers of tobacco products to recover for those costs, and it permits government to take the action in its own right and is not dependent upon a right to sue on behalf of or in the name of any particular individual.

Also, the action is taken on an aggregate basis on behalf of the population of insured persons here. It protects the privacy of the individual while at the same time allowing us to recover for the whole group. As in any statement of claim that one might initiate, proof of your claim is essential. The act provides for proof of the aggregate claim based upon evidence relating to the group as a whole.

The act creates certain presumptions on the legal issues of exposure and causation. On such matters, tobacco manufacturers who have committed wrongs must present evidence that their activities and the products do not lead to increased smoking and do not cause harm.

When government has proved that: number one, the manufacturer has breached the legal duty; secondly, that exposure to tobacco causes disease; thirdly, that the manufacturer sold the product in this Province, it is presumed, under this legislation, that the manufacturer caused exposure and disease. This, of course, is subject to proof by the defendant manufacturer that its activities did not cause such exposure or disease. It is also an important provision of this act, a joint and individual liability. It ensures that the common law principles of joint and individual liability are applicable to government's action. Joint liability arises where more than one manufacturer acted together, or where one manufacturer acted on behalf of another in committing a tobacco related wrong.

The act also ensures that statistical and epidemiological evidence is admissible in an action against tobacco manufacturers. It is worthy of note that it has a limitation period of two years. Once the Province proclaims this legislation, after it is enacted, our statement of claim must be initiated within two years. There is also a very important provision concerning market share liability and the apportionment of liability amongst the defendant manufacturers.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, this is a novel and innovative piece of legislation for this Province. We are following the course of other jurisdictions, particularly that of British Columbia. There was some concern, initially, with the British Columbia legislation in that certain provisions of it were struck down by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Those provisions have been deleted and amended in British Columbia. They have, in fact, reentered and had their bill enacted in that Province. They expect to an issue their statement of claim in the near future. Likewise, once this bill becomes law in this Province we have two years to initiate the statement of claim, but we certainly anticipate that it will be done in the short order rather than in the long course.

Again, in summary, our Treasury incurs millions and millions of dollars of costs each year as a result of illnesses related to tobacco smoke. The intent of this legislation is to recoup from the defendant tobacco manufacturers the cost that we incur in that regard. I think that is a very noble aim. I will leave it at that, for this point, and second reading.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity, just for a few minutes, to respond to the introduction of Bill 41, An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs.

I share the overall sentiment of the Minister of Justice and I share the sentiment from the point of view that, obviously, the time has come when governments have to take seriously the impact that tobacco has on the general population. Obviously, the statistics speak for themselves.

To use a legal phrase, in terms of tort law - which I am sure the minister is very familiar with - the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, I suppose, is the phrase and doctrine that perhaps this act tends to be relying upon; particularly when it talks about statistical evidence, and particularly when it talks about population-based evidence. It seems to me what this act is proposing, is to introduce to a court the type of information and type of evidence which is perhaps novel in the sense, that built right in the statutes, there are some guidelines which a court, and a judge of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, ought to consider on the overall issue of evidence. In other words, this type of statistical or population-based evidence, in the statute itself, gives direction to a court as to how this evidence ought to be received. I would think that when the minister speaks about some new provisions, that this is indeed, one of them. In fact, he spoke particularly on that point.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the minister speaks of a reverse burden or a reverse onus. So it seems clear that again, by virtue of this legislation, we put the onus or the burden on the defendant to show that its conduct, its behaviour, its obligation or its duty has in some way impacted upon or was a direct cause, or perhaps even an indirect cause, of the burden placed upon society as a result of tobacco usage.

It is interesting to note that the definition section outlines the type of tobacco products that this particular piece of legislation will have jurisdiction over. It refers to cigarettes, loose tobacco intended for incorporation into cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, nasal snuff, oral snuff and a prescribed form of tobacco. It tends to be all-inclusive, I would suggest, and indeed incorporates perhaps any form or any derivative of tobacco that may be available on the open market.

Mr. Speaker, one observation I have for the minister is upon the issuance of the statement of claim - and I concur with the minister, that this is something that ought to be done relatively quickly; obviously within the two-year period that is pointed out in the legislation. I think this issue came up before when there was a previous ministerial statement, if I remember correctly, of approximately a year ago when the minister stood in his place and, I think for the first time, gave notice to the public at large in the House of Assembly, that this legislation was forthcoming. I remember at the time either discussing with the minister or raising the question with the minister: Upon the issuance of the statement of claim, why don't we simply wait and see what the outcome of such legal action may be in other Canadian jurisdictions? We could, I believe, as the agreement already suggests - I understand there is an agreement, minister, and you can correct me if I am wrong, with the Province of British Columbia in terms of joint efforts with respect to research and preparation of pleadings, and preparation of documentary and evidentiary or objective testimony and so on. There is an agreement between this Province and British Columbia.

The question I asked at that time and I repeat the question: Why do we not wait and see what the outcome is in that jurisdiction, or indeed, any other Canadian jurisdiction, before we embark upon what potentially could be very costly litigation to the people of this Province in the pursuance of our own legal action? So, it is something that, maybe as we move along in debate and maybe in further reading of this particular bill, the minister could make some comment as to what our role is vis-à-vis the Province of British Columbia. Why is it that consideration may be given or may not be given, as to simply waiting to see what the outcome is in other jurisdictions?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that some of the provisions have already been tested at the Appellate Court level in British Columbia. Obviously some of the corrections have been made. Some of the anomalies have been corrected in the legislation in British Columbia so therefore this legislation appears to adopt an improved and corrected bill as is found in the jurisdiction of British Columbia.

In summary, I would say to the minister, we certainly agree with the thrust and the spirit of this act. I would be curious to know, once the statement of claim is issued, why it is necessary to embark on immediate and costly court proceedings. However, the spirit of the legislation is important and to follow other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States in this particular area, as a result of following their example and their practice the people of this Province may indeed be the recipients of some real compensation to help in offsetting the incredible cost of cigarette smoking to the public at large.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and speak for just a few moments in support of this particular piece of legislation. As the minister said in his opening comments, it is the second time this afternoon that he has introduced it.

We on this side have been following what has been happening in British Columbia. Our critic has certainly kept us apace of the progress that has been made in that province, and he, himself, has an interest in making sure that our caucus is kept informed of this particular matter on a continuing basis.

We believe that tobacco companies have to accept responsibility when they manufacture a product and then that product causes hazards to people by its consumption. The tobacco industry is no different than the food industry. When we have things that are made and manufactured, put onto the supermarket shelves, if they happen to be wrongly made or are contaminated in some way and cause illness to people, then the people who are affected by that particular product have a right to expect compensation. There is not much difference between someone going into a supermarket and buying a product - and having a right to assume that it is safe - and a young teenager going into a store and buying cigarettes because teenagers believe they are going to live forever, that nothing can harm them. They do not see the risk to their health that is posed by their consumption of tobacco and tobacco products.

We are saying to the people who manufacture goods for our consumption - whether it is the clothes we wear, whether it is the cars we drive or the food we eat - that there is a responsibility on the manufacturer to assume that these items are safe for our consumption. We know that research shows that the tobacco industry has had great reluctance in acknowledging their responsibility when it comes to saying publicly that tobacco is harmful for your health. It has taken a long time for the tobacco industry to acknowledge that they manufacture a product that is hazardous.

We, on this side, are saying that if we look at our health care costs, if we look at the cost that is borne by taxpayers all over the world, in particular, we are speaking of Newfoundland and Canada; we are saying to the tobacco industry you must be responsible. Just like we are saying to the people who manufacture our food: if you do not do a good job you are expected to accept liability for the contaminated food that you might sell. If you are manufacturing any kind of thing that is sold to the general public - it could be cribs for babies or clothing that children wear. All of these things have guidelines and rules that say if you do not abide by those guidelines then you can expect some consequences and you can expect to be found liable. What we are saying in this act is that when tobacco industries go out and manufacture products that are hazardous to our health, they have to be responsible and liable.

As a former educator, I know what it is like to see all those teenagers outside of a school. I taught in a school environment where there were nearly 1,400 students. You can imagine that if we only had 10 per cent of them who were smoking on a regular basis we would have 140 students smoking every day, but we know it is much higher than that. When we see that kind of consumption among our youth - and by saying this today I am also applauding initiatives of the government to try to get our young people to stop smoking. When you look at the impact on the long-term health of these people, when you see what is happening to people as they get older, we are saying to these industries: You have to accept the responsibility for the hazards and dangers that you present by the manufacturing and sale of your product.

We, on this side, want to support it. We think it is commendable. Again, I want to acknowledge and thank our critic for keeping us appraised of the initiatives that are going on, and particularly the ones in British Columbia, and also to thank the minister, because I know he has done a lot of work on this particular matter. I know that when we were doing the Estimates last year, this came up in the Estimates and there were some comments at that time. It is nice to see that he is moving forward with this particular initiative.

We want to say to the minister that this is a step in the right direction. Let us combine our efforts and tell the people who manufacture these products that they cannot do it and not expect to have any consequences. If you sell a product that is hazardous, you can expect that we as a people and we as taxpayers are going to expect you to bear a fair share of the responsibility for the hazards that you create.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue raised by the hon. Member for St. John's East concerning why we might proceed on our own rather than await the outcome of the B.C. decision, first of all, it was not a year ago that I commented on this act. It was some time more recent than that, in April of this year, that I actually initiated the first statements concerning the introduction of this bill, and at that time indicated that we hoped to have it ready for introduction in the fall sitting, which we have been fortunate enough to accomplish.

I guess there are arguments one can put forth either way concerning a wait-and-see approach, or a piggyback approach; however, one has to appreciate that, in preparation for such a massive case, not only is it very time-consuming and very expensive but the preparation of the factual case that you need to prove will take quite a substantial time and it has to be based upon the particular statistics from within your own province.

If the manufacturing companies are true to form, we can probably anticipate that this statement of claim will be vigorously contested. If that happens, we could easily find ourselves years down the road before we ever got started, and if we did then start we would have to start with our statistical formation of our damage model.

It was felt most appropriate because we have a different type of society. Size wise, we have a very homogeneous society versus British Columbia, for example, which has a large immigrant population, so the studies and the statistics that you are going to need in your damages model are quite different in proving your claim.

I think it is not only quite innovative from a provincial point of view to have this type of legislation; I think it is also good for us as a Province to be trailblazers rather than mere piggy backers.

It is a problem that has been with us for some time and I think we, along with British Columbia, from the other side of the country, are taking the initiative to get this started. We hope, in fact, that the other jurisdictions in this country will get on side so that if there is a united front, as it were, from all provincial jurisdictions towards the manufacturing industry, it probably would even be more beneficial to the cause of recovering health care costs in this country.

Yes, we do feel it is important for us as a Province, in this most serious issue, to pursue it on our own, and not to simply await the outcome from some other province. Our legislation may be mirrored after their legislation but out factual circumstances are quite distinct and different, and it is important that we commence this cause of action not only in a timely fashion but also to get the necessary statistical information we need done in a timely fashion to ensure that, if there is going to be recovery, we can recover and have it in our Treasury sooner rather than later.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 41)

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 10.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just take a few brief minutes to introduce the amendments to the Smoke-Free Environment Act that are contained in Bill 38. These are all part of initiatives by the government, in conjunction with the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, to accomplish a couple of things: first and foremost, to try and limit access to tobacco products for the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador; and, secondly, as is the main feature of this particular bill, to try and restrict the number of circumstances and places under which members of the general public are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke or second-hand smoke.

There were some advances made in 1993 and 1994 with the tabling of this particular legislation that moved to some smoke-free spaces. Arenas, recreation complexes and so on have been smoke-free for several years now. We have had some voluntary compliance in the Province, most notably with the operators of the malls here in St. John's, who, in this current calendar year, on May 1, 2000, voluntarily went to smoke-free status for malls in and around St. John's. There have been others in the hospitality business, particularly restaurants, who have voluntarily declared their establishments to be smoke-free, because they have bought into the argument of the harmful nature of environmental tobacco smoke, second-hand smoke, and they have, for their own purposes, decided to try to create a competitive advantage in the marketplace, in certain restaurants and food establishments, by declaring themselves to be completely smoke-free.

There has been work done with the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco in the last year or so to look at the industry with respect to bars and restaurants, and also to examine public view as to where the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador would like the government to go next in this whole issue of a smoke-free environment to the greatest extent possible.

It is clear that the general public of the Province firmly and squarely support the notion that establishments that serve food should become smoke-free completely, and also that in areas where children under the age of nineteen, under the age of majority, are legally entitled to be at any point in time, they should not be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

Those are the two main features that comprise the amendments that are contained in this particular bill, Bill 38. First and foremost in section 5 - the language is there that people can read - the intent and effect of it is that it will have food establishments, restaurants in Newfoundland and Labrador, declared by law to be completely smoke-free and, secondly, in public places where a person shall not smoke because those places are open to persons who are under the age of majority.

The real content of this bill is contained in clause 5, to indicate that restaurants - it does not extend to bars, lounges, night clubs, bingo halls and so on, to that extent where children are not normally present at this point in time. That is a matter for another debate on another day, and I am sure the debate will continue. Today it is abundantly clear that the people of the Province, and all of those people who are basically a part of the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, do support the concept of going smoke-free for food establishments, restaurants, and also in public places where children are allowed to be present and are normally present at any time during a day, a week, a month, or a year.

The second clause, clause 2, puts particular onus on the owner, the employer, or person acting on behalf of the owner or employer, to ensure that persons refrain from smoking in the food establishment; so, there is an onus placed on the owner/operator, or anybody else representing them at that point in time, to see that there is compliance with this legislation within their establishments.

The third piece which is significant is contained in clause 3, where it indicates that the inspectors who would be looking at the enforcement of this particular legislation, the same ones who do it today, would be given the power to issue tickets for offences rather than to go through court proceedings where they would have to swear and suggest that someone had violated the law, go to a court and have it proven and so on so. If it is clear, it will be much like speeding tickets and violations under the Wildlife Act. Right now the inspectors themselves, and law enforcement officers, will be given the right to issue tickets upon seeing the offence actually being committed in an establishment or in a public place where smoking is supposed to be prohibited.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there are some regulations in clause 4, talking about the signage, talking about the proper definition of what an eating - a food establishment is, how that is distinguished from a pub, a restaurant, a lounge, a bar, and we will work with the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador representatives in the next year to make sure that those regulations are the proper and appropriate ones to make the distinction that the act and the new bill tries to make as clear as possible.

Finally, clause 5 indicates clearly that it is the intent of the government for us to work with the industry association, to work with all of those involved, for the next calendar year of 2001, to make sure that we have the regulations properly drafted, to make sure that the proper issues around notice, signage, enforcement and so on are fully fleshed out in that year, to make sure that the operators of bars and restaurants - restaurants, I should say; bars are not included at this point - and other eating establishments have a full year to start accommodating their businesses to the fact that they will be completely smoke-free. There are some business issues that they would like some time and have requested some time to address, and we will give them a year in which to do that.

In the meantime, throughout that year we fully expect that there will be continuing and growing voluntary compliance with respect to this legislation within the food services sector, and that people should expect that to happen in the Province in any event; but, on January 1, 2002, the law of the land will be that there will be a prohibition with respect to smoking in restaurants, eating establishments, and other public places where children are permitted to be by law.

With those few words, by way of introduction, I look forward to the commentary that will arise in the debate and I look forward to the passage of this bill, hopefully, after full discussion of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted. I have been trying to get the minister now to address those things here in due course rather than earlier today. He did now what he should do now. We didn't need all of that gibberish.

I indicated that we had an opportunity to look at this bill. We received it and went through it yesterday, and we support the initiatives taken in this particular bill. People should not have to be subject to second-hand smoke.

One thing I want to say to the minister, in particular, is that when this is enacted he might not be in that position. If he is not, if his government is there, they should - after January 1, 2002, when this comes into effect, there should be a stepped-up type of supervision or enforcement initially, because during that particular period I think it is necessary to make sure that we do not allow any violations from day one, because once it creeps in it is more difficult to control the situation.

I know from my experience, and I am sure from the experiences of other people, when you are in restaurants, I do believe they respect the smoking and non-smoking sections. That is being done, but it is not the answer. I never agreed, from day one, that you solve a problem by going halfway with it, and designating areas, because people walk through an area, they breathe, they take in the smoke, and we should not have to be subject to it. In areas of food establishments, especially eating and having to inhale smoke in the process, it is not healthy. It is not conducive to your health, and it causes severe and sometimes fatal diseases as a result of that. In particular here, the protection of children - children should not have to be subjected to it, and I feel we have a responsibility, as legislators, to ensure that children are not subjected to it.

We have a right to protect them from that smoke in public places. Their parents have a right, I guess, to impress upon them within their home and their environment, but when they go out into public places and food establishments we have to be extra cognizant of the dilatorius effects of smoking and protect them from that.

We certainly endorse this aspect of the legislation. We have seen the untold cost on our health care system due to smoking. We know government takes in a tremendous amount of money in taxes. We take in some $80 million a year, I think it is now, in this particular budget. That is a lot of money to be taking in, but the cost to the system is far greater. If we didn't have any smoking whatsoever, we would lose $80 million in revenue, but we would probably gain hundreds of millions in our health care system. That is interesting. Even though under the previous bill, actually, is probably a more appropriate place to make the comments, I would love to see an analysis, a study, done in the system to look at diseases and treatments, and a reporting system that would show the effects of smoking or other environmental basic carcinogens and other things in the environment, to know what the costs on the system are.

This particular legislation protects children and also protects adults. When I go into a restaurant I like to sit down in a smoke-free environment. I am sure many other people do, especially people that do not smoke. Anybody who desires to smoke, they have a right, as long as it is not going to interfere with the health of other people in public places. In their own private place, I guess, there are certain rights that individuals have. Respect those rights, but not at the expense of others in public places.

Appropriate reference, I think, is made to appropriate signage and that is important. We need a phase-in period - I agree with that - and one year is long enough. One year is plenty of time, by January of 2002, to have this particular legislation come into effect. During that time, I am sure, government will do the necessary advertising, notifications and so on to people, and the proper signage in those establishments, to let them know that effective January 1 smoking cannot occur in such public places.

I will certainly conclude my comments by indicating that I support it. It is an initiative that is overdue. I supported it when legislation came here a few years ago to make it 50 per cent, I would have supported it 100 per cent at the time, and I support it now. The faster we get it through and into effect the better. One year is probably fair, giving notice on legislation that is going to basically affect - an owner is going to have to deal with customers with the proper notifications. I am sure government will have a plan over the next while, through their community health boards and other avenues, to get the message out to people, so that it is not just incumbent on these owners.

I will just say once again, in conclusion, to the minister, in case he missed it, that during the initial period when this comes in it is important to have a closer inspection and enforcement of services there to make sure that it gets off on the right foot and we do not have any particular abuse of that. Being able to issue tickets, I think, is a positive thing, because it cuts down on a lot of unnecessary time and costs associated with it, and going through the procedures in court. That is positive. If someone contests it and has a case, well, obviously, they have the right to take it to that level.

I support this particular piece of legislation, and with that, I conclude my comments on this bill.

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

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

There are a couple of questions that I have about this particular bill. One is: What type of fines will be levied? There is already some legislation out there that addresses this, legislation pertaining to smoking. While some restaurants and some public places are observing it, I also notice that a lot of the patrons of some of these public places do not observe it because there are well aware that it is not being policed that much. One of the things I would like to know is: how severe will the fines be and how many inspectors will we have out there? Because there are a lot of places, as I said, where you go now and the no smoking signs are up alright - they are complying with the law in that fashion - but in terms of ensuring that the patrons of these particular establishments observe the law, that is another thing.

As my colleague said, it is important that children be kept out of places where there is smoking, but this is important for adults as well. It has been demonstrated in the last little while that second-hand smoke is responsible for a lot of diseases. Women who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to get breast cancer. Second-hand smoke affects people who have emphysema, who are asthmatic and certainly second-hand smoke contributes to lung cancer and to emphysema and to other lung ailments that people have.

This particular legislation will prohibit smoking in food establishments and public places that are frequented by children. I know that in bars it is a little bit more lax. One of the concerns that I have - there are places that I go and one place I particularly like to go is the St. John's Curling Club. While they observe the smoking legislation there and the signage is up, because of the fact there is a bar in that establishment, there is still a good portion of that particular establishment where smoking is allowed.

In this day and age it is correct to make all places accessible to all people. There are people out there who are physically disabled, and this is a visible defect, and we make these places accessible to people who are physically disabled, and well we should, but what about the people who have disabilities that we do not see. What about people who have emphysema and what about people who are severe asthmatics? When you look at those people you do not see the disability that they have, but to put a person who has a lung disease in a place where there is smoking is the same as putting a person in a wheelchair at the bottom of ten flights of stairs and expecting them to get there. These places just are not accessible. I know this because some members of my family have asthma and I know that the places we can frequent socially, like the St. John's Curling Club and other places, are very limited which make them inaccessible to us. I would suggest that there are many, many people in the Province who are prohibited from going places because of the smoking legislation and the lack of the enforcement of the smoking legislation.

I am glad that this act will be enforced by January 1. It cannot come soon enough. Actually, I would like to see that time period advanced to six months, if possible, because there are very many people out there and it is a topic of discussion pretty well everywhere you go: Oh my, I could not stay there because of the smoke. So, I look forward to the enactment of this bill. It cannot come soon enough because, as I said, there are many, many people of the Province to whom places are inaccessible because of the smoking. I look forward to learning what fines will be levied and how many inspectors there will be out there to really put teeth in this very, very, very good legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very happy to speak on this particular piece of legislation, An Act to Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, Bill 38.

This piece of legislation is, I think, well intended and it certainly reflects what the general population of this Province is saying. I do note a couple of things about it. I do note that, as my colleague, the critic, has said, we are going to take a year to familiarize the various food establishments about the new act. I also note that we are going to be prohibiting smoking in food establishments and public places that are frequented by children. I would advocate that we should be prohibiting smoking in food establishments and in public places that are frequented by anybody; by people in general.

Mr. Speaker, while I know that we have a greater sensitivity to the health of children, and I would totally agree with that, I also note that smoking is bad for all of us regardless of what age we are. I happen to believe, in that regard, the piece of legislation does not go far enough.

I do note, going into a restaurant on Kenmount Road just a while ago and being told there were two lineups, one for the smoke-free spaces and one for the people who were smoking. I did note that the people who wanted to have smoke-free had a lineup of perhaps fifteen people, but you were willing to go into a smoke space, your lineup was practically nil. I was really perturbed by this because obviously the number of spaces made available for smoke-free clientele were far too few. So I wrote the national chain and complained about it. They wrote me back a letter and said, yes, they would talk to the local management, and they also gave me two complimentary tickets to go back to the restaurant again.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe that all restaurants should be smoke-free. I could also tell you that in the school where I became principal in 1986 we had the first junior high school in the Avalon Consolidated School Board that declared itself to be smoke-free. Back in the mid 1980s, schools were not smoke-free places. As a matter of fact, in the 1980s it was not unusual to go into a staff room in a school and find the place was quite smokey. Many staff rooms in our school in the 1970s and 1980s were known as places where you would go and they were not always as healthy as you would think they might be.

In the mid 1980s, in the school that I was connected to, we made our school smoke-free everywhere. There was some resistance to that at the time, but after a while everybody accepted it. I remember the advocate in Mt. Pearl for a smoke-free environment was the current minister of employment. Her advocacy, when she joined the Mt. Pearl council, and I will acknowledge here in a public forum, that she was a strong advocate for smoke-free spaces in Mt. Pearl while she was serving as the deputy mayor. I was the mayor. We did make some significant changes. We did have some resistance, and when I say some resistance she looks across the House and smiles, because we can tell stories of going up against some of our colleagues who were not exactly in keeping with our thought processes on that particular topic, but it was the right decision. Nowadays you look back on it and say, you know, we could have been arguing about these things in the late 1980s, but we were. We were arguing about making public spaces smoke-free. I do remember when the Mt. Pearl Glacier was built we wanted also to have that one a smoke-free environment. We had some resistance to that, but it was accepted, and nowadays nobody questions it whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we have to not only look at food establishments where children are patrons, but where anybody is. I would just say, to my trend of thought, that this particular piece of legislation does not go far enough in that regard, because all of us should care for our health, and we should not be obligated to go into a restaurant and be exposed to any second-hand smoke whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, in that regard, I should be bold enough to say to the minister, even coming into this building at times, we have to be somewhat consistent. I have a right to come into this building and not have to walk through a wall of smoke. While we have an entrance at the front of the building that is smoke-free - but as you know now, MHAs do not park down that way anymore. They have changed that and perhaps it is a good idea. I would much rather park out here. Nobody should have to come into a public building, like Confederation Building, and have to walk through a wall of smoke to get into it.

Mr. Speaker, I am also advocating for the fact that the time has come for us to - not only just to say that this building is smoke-free, but for us to say to people that if you want to smoke, you are going to have to move away somewhere. Maybe we should do like they do at the Health Sciences, have a kiosk or something. I do not know what the answer is, but I am saying that I would like to come into the building and not have to walk in through a wall of smoke on the way. Yet, at the same time, I know there are people who work in this building and find themselves unable to go through the entire day without having a cigarette. I am aware of that, and I say to the minister, we should be able to find some resolution that reflects the rights of these people to have a cigarette if they wish to, but at the same time, those of us who do not smoke and do not want to be exposed to it, have a right as well to come into the building without having to be exposed to secondhand smoke.

I do note as well, I say the minister, that I was reading somewhere the other day that the State of California is also now looking at legislation that governs the outdoor smoke environment. I am not totally familiar with it but I did read a little article on it. It is pretty progressive and very forward in its intent.

Mr. Speaker, with these comments I commend the minister and acknowledge that this is another step in progression, and I am sure that five years from now we will look back and say: Why didn't we do this a long time before now? It is progressive. It is forward-looking and because it is a topic I have some interest in, I totally and completely support it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if I could with leave, I want to bring to the minister's attention section 3. I could have done this in committee but I am going to do it now, if I could.

In section 3, where the minister talks about: "may commence proceedings, which may be in the form of a ticket...". I just wanted to say to the minister, this is not a bad idea except that we have to have some idea as to what kind of range of tickets we are looking at because if we have tickets that are in the $10, $50 or $100 range, we are really not going to be effective. Also some provision that after so many tickets there is a court procedure that would follow from that - with the possibility as well as having a statement made in the public forum, a public statement, saying that after you have had so many offences then there will be a statement made of those places which are consistently found to be in non-compliance with the law. Well, we will know because if it goes to court, all court documents are public anyway. At some point or other we do not want those tickets to be meaningless pieces of paper. It is like, in some cases, when we were charging $5 tickets for parking downtown. It was cheaper to pay the $5 ticket than it was to pay the parking meter all day. I will say to the minister, if we are going to be effective we have to make sure that the ticketing system has some teeth in it.

Thank you very much for the consent to make these points.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the last comment made - I am sure, if I looked a little more closely, I would probably even have the information here with me; but before we finish at third reading certainly I will have the issue of the dollar amounts of the ticketing. I believe that is in the legislation now for violations of current environment smoking spaces to legislation.

Secondly, the issue of repeated offences and some public disclosure; I will check that, Mr. Speaker, to make sure it is clear as to exactly what is happening because it is important.

I believe that the debate and the points made reflect the mood of the Province at this particular point in time. I fully understand that there is certainly a wish to continue to move forward with respect to - even the issue of walking through an entranceway, even external to a building, because there is a preponderance of smoke still in a fairly confined area, that some people would like for those kinds of issues to be dealt with at a future point as well.

As we know, there will be a continuing debate in the Province with respect to nightclubs, lounges, bars, bingo halls, and those issues. Full expectation is that at some point in the future there might be a requirement for another further amendment or two to this particular piece of legislation. We have made great progress since the middle of the 1990s. We are continuing to move forward. I believe it is an area where we are continuing to reflect the wishes of the vast majority of the people of the Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made during the debate and would move second reading of the bill for consideration of the House.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 38).

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

MR. LUSH: Order 11, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 11.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act. (Bill 39)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is with pleasure that I stand on behalf of the government to commend Bill 39 to the attention of the House for second reading and debate, The Tobacco Control Act.

With these amendments we will follow up on the work done since the middle of the 1990s, in 1994 and 1995, where the second piece, as we have indicated, of the tobacco reduction strategy - one part is to try to have more of a smoke-free environment so that people are not exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

The second issue is to try and find ways, legislatively and otherwise, through voluntary compliance whereby we restrict the access of young people, under the age of nineteen, to tobacco products. The law in the Province today does restrict - and has for five years now - the sale of tobacco products to minors, to people who are under the age of nineteen. There has been some success with that, however, there is another issue that will be dealt with at another point in time where it is legal to possess and actually smoke tobacco products at the age of sixteen, while it is illegal to purchase them under nineteen. This is an issue that we will probably deal with at another point that hasn't come to final conclusion and resolution yet.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a couple of things with respect to the Tobacco Control Act that needed clarification, and they are contained in Bill 38. One is a minor matter of indicating that tobacco papers, the papers for rolling loose tobacco, are considered to be a tobacco accessory and are covered under this act for the ban of sale to someone under nineteen. As you will see later in the piece of legislation, the ban of the product in pharmacies themselves, which is one of the key features here.

It also talks about clarifying - now that we have had four or five years experience with the legislation - the basis on which an inspector may enter and inspect the premises of a retailer but now also a wholesaler. An inspector before could only inspect at the retail places, but can now also inspect the premises of wholesalers of tobacco products.

There was an issue, as well, before where certain offences were committed under other pieces of legislation that did not count as a prior offence under the Tobacco Control Act. The understanding of everybody involved in the enforcement of it is that the intent is to have any violation of a tobacco act or regulation, whether it be a federal act or a provincial act, count as a prior offence with respect to any further offence. That clarification is provided in this piece of legislation. If you are found guilty under one piece of legislation, if you end up in a court proceeding again with another violation, the first violation will count as a prior conviction for purposes of racking up fines and penalties, and so on. So we are trying to be more strict with the compliance.

It also goes further, on the administrative side, to suspension of a licence when there has been violation of the act, from two months to three months. This provides uniformity with penalties that courts may impose under this legislation. The inspectors are, for further clarification, able to remove a licence from the actual premises rather than just say that the licence has been suspended or removed. It is actually taken physically from the premise so that there is no physical evidence left at all in the retail section to suggest that they have a right to sell tobacco products.

A couple of the bigger issues that are contained however, is the fact that we do want, at this time, to further empower those people and further enable them to enforce the notion that you have to be nineteen years of age to buy and purchase tobacco products in the first instance. Some of the retailers have had difficulty in determining whether or not they should even ask a person for an ID because they might look like they are twenty-two or twenty-three years old, and some people are offended by being younger looking, even though they are older and being asked for unnecessary identification. That is always an issue.

For further clarification, it is now time to move to a photo ID being the requirement. The same requirement that applies for the purchase of alcoholic beverages and the entry into restricted places like bars and lounges. This act says that to purchase tobacco products, as of the passage of this piece of legislation, hopefully before we rise for Christmas, that the law will come into effect that to purchase tobacco products the retailers will be expected to ask for a photo ID, the similar IDs that are now acceptable for the purchase of alcoholic beverages. That clarification is in this piece of legislation.

The other big piece that is here is the fact that in working with the pharmaceutical association, they, a couple of years ago at their own convention, passed a motion and tried to implement a voluntary compliance with the notion of not selling tobacco and tobacco related products in our pharmacies because of the contrary nature and contradictory nature of the messages that a health care establishment, like a pharmacy, would be selling a product that was known to be injurious and dangerous to your health.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) I forget which one it is now.

MR. GRIMES: Shoppers Drug Mart. Imasco, as I understand it. Imasco was an actual owner of Shoppers Drug Mart. I do believe there has been a change in ownership.

One of the big issues was the fact that the large tobacco consortium actually owned a pharmaceutical chain right across the country. So they did lead some resistence to the voluntary compliance to ban the sale of tobacco products from pharmacies. In fact, many of the pharmacies have voluntarily complied with this already - several have. There are many others who would like to move in this direction but they cannot get the full compliance on a voluntary nature of their membership. They have been working with us to put forward this piece of legislation to have it necessary by law to ban the sale of tobacco and tobacco products in pharmacies.

The only issue remaining is that because there are some business impacts - there are large revenue streams in any retail outlet associated with the sale of tobacco and tobacco related products - the pharmaceutical association and their representatives have asked us to give them some time to make some business adjustments so they can offset the loss of revenues from tobacco products with other products that they might put into their pharmacies and stores to keep their business whole so that they do not sustain large business losses and large cash transaction losses in their establishments. That is why there is one loose end left in the piece of legislation.

In section 5(2), which says: This section - which bans the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies - comes into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. So, the Cabinet will continue to work with the pharmaceutical association to select the appropriate date on which that ban will actually come into effect.

I can tell the Legislature and the members that the pharmaceutical association themselves have worked out a time table where they would like to take three, four or maybe even as long as five years to move to the total removal of tobacco products from their premises. We differ in opinion with them. We would like to see it happen much more quickly than that. We will have the remaining discussions with them in the next few months to try and see if there can be some agreed to compromise that would see tobacco products removed and banned from pharmacies within the next year or so. That piece of work is left to be done. All the rest of the act, all the other provisions, including the photo ID and the other changes with respect to administration of the current work of inspectors in wholesale and retail situations for the sale of tobacco products will come into effect immediately upon passage of the act, and the pharmaceutical ban will require further consultation; but hopefully with the passage of this piece of legislation the House of Assembly will empower the Cabinet to choose the date on which the ban finally comes into full and total effect. They would like for us to implement a phase out which we will certainly discuss with them and then get to a total ban at what would preferably be an agreed to time which is not five or six years, or four or five years, but maybe just a year or so.

With those introductory comments, Mr. Speaker, again I look forward to participation in the debate by members opposite and any others who are interested, will take any notes in terms of the issues raised and see if we cannot proceed with this particular piece of legislation under The Tobacco Control Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I reserved the right to do it during the appropriate time on the legislative agenda, and I will take advantage of it. Maybe I should take time, now that we are on a health matter, to correct the minister's misinformation on Stephenville, just for his ears. I do not know if he knew what I said, or whether he was deliberately giving a different twist to what I said. If the minister would like to hear about this important health matter, I am going to let him know very shortly. He is getting advice there now. I want to tell him what I said. Maybe he listened to, I think it was a CBC program of about ten minutes on the radio on the Stephenville thing. I want to set him straight. I did not really want to use up too much time at Question Period to do it but I will tell him now. We are on a health matter.

I said that I would like to see the Atkinson Report. It is reported that it said for a smaller hospital and plan. I said, whatever size is suitable for the area, I do not know; but, I said, if government are building a size that is larger than the area needs then we are going to spend too much money in bricks and mortar and costs and we are going to have less to give services. So, you might build an (inaudible) if it is not needed and you might end up not able to open all the beds, like you did with the trans city hospitals all over the place, like they are closing them all over the place now. It is not prudent use of our taxpayers' dollars.

I hope the minister - I am sure he knew. He just wanted to put that little twist on things to give a different perception. Anyway, I will get back to this bill now that I have done that. I am sure he is delighted now. He now knows the truth, so I hope he will now speak the truth on this particular issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh well, now, it could be interpreted. If I upset the Minister of Finance on it, I apologize and I withdraw it, if the Minister of Finance is upset with that remark.

By the way, the Minister of Finance made a statement today in Question Period and I found it very unusual. He said the increase in the cost of fuel with an ad valorem on that tax, the extra cost is revenue neutral to us.

You did not use that word but you said we are even losing money. It cost money, all the machines. So, I say to you, if it is costing to have it, why don't you eliminate it and have no tax?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) more.

MR. SULLIVAN: It sure does. It is a funny game. These vehicles have to be driven anyway, with or without tax. It is interesting how they skew and twist those numbers to make it sound, you don't fool the people. If something is revenue neutral and you keep increasing it, and it costs the government just as much money, get rid of it and then you will see how many millions you are losing.

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly! Guaranteed!

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Madam Speaker, I find the hon. the health critic on the other side a very interesting and thoughtful person at times, and I am just wondering if, while he is on his feet, he would be good enough to expound upon his concept of how it would work if, as a government, we cancelled every tax that they want cancelled and, at the same time, increased the level of services in health care and education to the level that they want them increased. I am just wondering how it would work in the unlikely event, 100 years from now, you might find yourself in the circumstance of having to face that type of consideration. I would like to know that, because all taxes should be eliminated, all taxes should be cancelled, and all public services should be enhanced, increased, added to and made better even than they are now. I would just like to know what his concept of budgeting is in that context of thinking.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

First of all, at the rate you are dealing with the health care system, the chance of me being alive in 100 years is not very great. In fact, the chance of being alive tomorrow has diminished considerably. The chances were even greater that I wouldn't survive another week when you were the Minister of Health. They have improved somewhat since, but now they are starting to regress again.

I never stated you do away with all taxes. What I indicated, in response to what the Minister of Finance said - he said that extra cost of gasoline and the ad valorem on that tax that they are getting is costing us money; we have to put fuel in all these vehicles. If it is costing you money, eliminate it. That is my response. It is a little game they play. The trucks driven by government, the vehicles driven, the hundreds and hundreds of cars, the clearing of highways and all that is done through government services; as the fuel goes up the cost goes up. Regardless of the tax, if it wasn't ad valorem, if it was a tax per litre, the government are still going to be spending extra money on the basic cost of fuel, and you cannot eliminate the basic tax because you will lose the total pot of revenues, when you are going to have to incur those expenses anyway.

You can easily twist it to say, we are making no money on it. I heard him make that statement in public back when he was subjected to it. It was a neat little diversion, and it floats out a concept where he might sort of give the people the impression: by God, it is costing government a bit more money too in the process. Your argument is based on a false premise.

AN HON. MEMBER: My argument is flawed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, your argument is severely flawed, I might add, a severely flawed, twisted, convoluted interpretation of a basic principle of taxation that the Minister of Finance should be clarifying instead of making confusing to the people of the Province.

Now, I am not going to get carried away on the taxation bit, because that is an area that I really like so much to talk about. I will just have to get back to this subject matter, because I know the minister there. I don't know what the minister meant by a reasonable time frame. It comes into effect at a date to be proclaimed by the Cabinet, basically. What is a reasonable time to allow companies to offset the revenues that they are going to get by taking cigarettes out of stores? I think we should have set a time limit. We should have said to companies: look, here is the date.

We are telling restaurant owners that January1, 2002 is the date. You have one year now to be able to get your things in order, to be able to have a smoke-free environment in your restaurant. Why shouldn't you say to pharmaceutical companies and other people that January 1, 2002 is the time for you to adjust. Because some companies are more aggressive in compensating for loss of revenue. They want to cut into a market share in something else or there is a new product, a new variety, they want to alter margins and numerous things, and sometimes it is tough to do that in a competitive market, but they shouldn't be given forever; they should be given a deadline, that it has to be done by this date.

Number one, it is not our responsibility to protect and improve the balance sheets of companies, but we have to be cognizant that companies are operating and they employ people. I think it would be fair to say, here is the date by which you have to meet that expectation. Then they have a target to shoot for. If companies are more aggressive in reaching that, so what, they are good business people. Good business people find a way to survive.

I do not agree with section 4.1(b)(ii) that basically indicates it is to come into effect on a date to be proclaimed. I do not agree that it should come in on short notice, I understand that. It should not happen overnight, but there should particularly be consideration given. Maybe the minister might come back with a little amendment there to say a date to come into effect, on January 1, 2002, for example. That would give a year, and that would not be unreasonable. That gives a company a whole year in which to get their act, and they know it is coming. They know, so automatically, I guess, they don't wait until the curtain drops. They are already looking at avenues to be able to maintain, to expand a product line, whatever the case may be, to be able to look at new suppliers, more competitive supplying, or whatever avenues they may look at in business to be able to enhance their bottom line. They should not be given free hand at a whim of Cabinet now. I think the Legislature will pass this bill and there should be a date tied to it. A bill without a date tied to it really has no legislative impact here at all. It is the same as if it was never passed, unless there is a time it is going to come into effect. It is not serving any particular purpose.

It is a good idea, I say, to bring this bill in, to limit that in any areas where there could be a problem with the sale to youth. A concern too, for instance - it is illegal, if you are under age, to drink alcohol. If you are under nineteen - nineteen is the age, yes, that you can drink. If people go into a store and somebody else buys alcohol or beer for somebody, and they are under age and drink it, it is an offence. It is illegal to consume alcohol when you are under nineteen, I understand, in a public place. You cannot go in and buy a pack of cigarettes under nineteen, under this and under the basic legislation coming in, and I agree with that, but it is not illegal to smoke them, I think, if you are over sixteen. You are allowed to smoke cigarettes, to my understanding, when you are sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen, but you are not allowed to buy them.

We have to get some legislation parallel, we have to do something to stop that, because all they have to do is have someone else buy them. It is illegal to buy them for somebody else, but it is not illegal to have them. The question becomes, then, trying to determine who gave them to you, whereas the case with alcohol -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, you don't, but with alcohol I was making the situation there. Maybe there is an answer and maybe I might be missing something. I was saying that if you are nineteen you can go in and buy a case of beer, but if you are seventeen you are not allowed to drink it. It is an offence to have beer if you are seventeen years of age. Is that correct? That is my understanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know. I understand. We don't want to criminalize them. They might not want to criminalize them with alcohol also. Maybe alcohol at seventeen or eighteen, an occasional drink, may not be near as harmful on their health as smoking cigarettes at seventeen or eighteen. In fact, I personally believe, and medical people, I guess, the experts now on that, would say that if you had a bottle of beer at eighteen, an occasional one, it would not probably be as harmful on your health as smoking cigarettes at the age of seventeen or eighteen. That is certainly subject to experts to render an opinion on that.

We are looking at two particular things: you cannot buy cigarettes and you cannot buy beer. You cannot drink beer, it is illegal, but it is legal to smoke cigarettes. I see a discrepancy there. I see a lack of parallel. I know the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, as the minister mentioned, had that concern. They did not want to criminalize children who are out smoking. I understand that but the point is, do we go the full limit on it? If they are going to smoke, are they going to do it anyway? If they are going to have a drink, are they going to drink anyway? When you limit access and regulate, I think you reduce. I believe you reduce someone's ability to access it and therefore you reduce the level of instances occurring.

That is an issue now. There could be some strong counter-arguments that might persuade me on it. I just have not been privy to discussions putting forth that point of view, but I do see a difference. I do see a discrepancy in those two laws and they are not being applied equally there. That is a concern also that I think should be looked at. I know it was discussed. Maybe it is the next step, I do not know, but at least it is no reason not to support a bill, because the things in it are positive. Maybe we could see it being a little more positive by nailing down a date, for one, and by, I guess dealing with this other particular instance too. That is a concern.

In terms of enforcement, enforcement always becomes a problem. I would assume basically then, if anybody has access - I do not see too many children really. I see owners who might sell alcohol to children being convicted. I do not see too many children really being charged and getting records because they drank alcohol. It probably would not happen so much with smoking either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What? Oh, there is a significant number but I am saying it is not in proportion, basically, to anybody who sells it. It is an offence. Every kid who has a bottle of beer, sometimes they confiscate, but every single one does not get charged. I think there is a lot of discretion used by people there. I think it is the people that supply it, the people who obtain it for them, the people who sell it to them. We have to limit it. I think it is all a part of our society. I guess we can only bring in what citizens and parents - if parents condone things in the home, it is kind of difficult for society to enforce it too. There are concerns there.

I am sure a couple of my other colleagues wanted to have a comment on this particular bill. We certainly support it and I want to say to the minister, maybe the Minister of Health could give some consideration to getting an amendment on this bill, maybe in Committee, that would set a firm date on which this is to come into law. Then I think we could see all aspects to this being possible.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just want to say a few words, very briefly in fact, and probably to ask a couple of questions to the minister. The minister talked about pharmacies not objecting to this particular bill, but bringing about some form of time frame where they would eliminate tobacco products from the shelves. Now, I do not know how you can do that. I do not know how you can decide that you are going to eliminate tobacco products over a period of years. Is it going to be a situation where you can only buy Export A in one store and Rothmans at another?

I would like to know, number one, how the minister would see it happening over a time frame of a period of years or even months without eliminating it totally, altogether, at a particular date.

The other part of it, Madam Speaker, is the minister talked about people having to show identification when they go in and purchase tobacco products. When I hear identification, I think of a lot of things. I think of a money grab. Where are people going to go and get authorized identification. Is it going to be a situation where they are going to be able to go into the local government service centre and we are going to charge them twenty dollars as we do for a first-time birth certificate? Is it going to be a situation where they go into the local Department of Works, Services and Transportation, have their picture taken, be issued with an identification card, and here again we charge them a fee for government to make money, a way of collecting money from those people who need something and have to have something in order to make a purchase.

These are the only two things that I want to put forward as a concern. I think tobacco products should be, not I suppose wide open and allow everybody easy access to them. We all know the detriments. We all know the cost it is having on our health care. I, for one, would not object to seeing it taken out of drugstores, the very place that we go and associate with good health, receiving products and drugs in order to help us improve our health rather than reach our hand up and take down a pack of cigarettes. It completely flies in the face of why we go there.

I understand that some of the convenience stores are a little bit disappointed because now we are seeing rules and regulations brought in where they will be not be able to distribute cough medicines with codeine in them as part of the solution. The other drug - I have it marked down here - is Gravol, which is now an non-prescription drug that you can go into some local stores and purchase. I understand that some of those products may be taken away from convenience stores.

In bringing about all those rules and regulations, I would like to caution the minister, and I would like to caution the people who are making those rules and regulations, that all the little places on the Labrador Coast, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, and the thirty-seven communities in the district that I represent, are not fortunate enough to have a drug store in the community. They are not fortunate enough to have a doctor in each community, and sometimes being allowed to go the local convenience store, which is the only store for miles, I say to you, Madam Speaker, we should not deprive them of that. We should be careful sometimes when we bring in rules and regulations, and we should take people's opinions and people's concerns and keep those in mind rather than just bringing in a policy that might fit Duckworth Street or Water Street, because one size does not fit all here. It is certainly not rules and regulations that would be conducive to a lot of the smaller communities around this Province.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act.

I join with my colleagues here in bringing to the minister's attention the need for some provisions within this particular act. I am speaking in particular with regard to the young people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been my experience that young people are picking up smoking at a very, very early age. When we look at regulating the sale of tobacco, if the provisions and the amendments of this bill can stop young students, young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, from picking up the tobacco habit, I am all in favor of it.

The aspect of having pharmacies not selling tobacco products speaks well for itself. When we look at pharmacies - I know they distribute drugs but drugs that would help people. When we talk about nicotine and the effects of nicotine, these are, to say the very lest, very, very detrimental.

With regard to having identification to, I guess, purchase tobacco products, I join with my colleague in talking about the difficulties in policing that and providing young people with this type of identification. Also when we look at this bill, and we talk about the young people who may not have the availability of getting the tobacco products, it certainly will help them.

The other side of the coin, as well, is that by seriously controlling the sale, I am very much afraid the younger people who cannot purchase the tobacco products will resort to, I guess, getting others to purchase it for them. I know there is no way to police this, but we have seen it time and time again.

My experience with schools, for example; certainly the underground economy of selling cigarettes was a big one. It is too bad that when we look at the younger students smoking that they do have, I guess, the availability of tobacco products, not necessarily through stores, but through other people as well. I don't know how possible it is to police it, but it is encouraging to see that at least there will be more control. With regard to the enforcement, hopefully the enforcement will be carried out on a regular basis by the inspectors.

The pharmaceutical industry, I understand, is behind this in the sense that they have agreed to it, but I join again with my colleagues in wondering how long it is going to take before the restrictions are put in place and that pharmacies will no longer have the possibility of selling tobacco products or related products.

As well, it is unfortunate in some rural communities that perhaps there is not the availability of more than one place to purchase, not only cigarettes or tobacco products, but certainly any products. I wonder if there is a situation whereby the only store in town happens to be a pharmacy, and again what the minister would do in that case. There is the possibility of not having the products sold to people who can legally buy them, especially in some of our isolated areas. In some of these isolated areas, these rural areas, you do have just one, what we might call, a general store with a pharmacy as a part of it. I do not know if there are any exceptions going to be made in those particular cases.

The Tobacco Control Act certainly is an act that hopefully would encourage what is happening in trying to deter anyone from smoking. The bills that were presented today certainly are moving in the right direction in establishing restrictions on the sale of tobacco. Not only on the sale of tobacco, but certainly on the use of tobacco in public places.

All of these, hopefully, will point Newfoundland and Labrador down the road to a time when this habit will be eliminated. It is not, I guess, in the realm of the next few years, but I think that the attitudes towards smoking certainly have changed and these changes to the bills are reflecting those particular changes.

There was a time, of course, when there was support for smokers in society. As we see it now, smoking is a health hazard. It is recognized as a health hazard. The aspect of second-hand smoke is certainly a menace that has to be dealt with.

I certainly would support the intent of this particular bill. Again, the only restriction I would place on it would be that I would be very interested in finding out what kind of a time line would be put in place to make sure that the amendments that are put in would indeed be carried out.

I leave you, Madam Speaker, with those words.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I must say it is a pleasure to say Madam Speaker. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new role as the Deputy Clerk of Committees in the House and your new role in trying to keep order in what is often not a very orderly place, as I am sure Your Honour has observed from time to time since you joined us in 1996.

Madam Speaker, I am going to speak first of all on Bill 39 but I will, since I did not get an opportunity to speak on Bill 38, make some reference to the general points there as well. These bills are companion bills and I am sure that my colleagues here in the House will indulge me to speak on both of these bills at once since they are a piece of companion legislation introduced by the Minister of Health.

Earlier today I had the privilege of hearing from the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco. Although alliance is not a very popular word in this part of the country, as witnessed by the results in the most recent election, the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco is made up of some fifty-one organizations, many of whom, if not most, are concerned with aspects of our health and have joined together, with the support of the provincial government, to look into the question of how we can act in positive way to decrease the plague, I suppose you would call it, of smoking and its consequent effects on our population.

Of particular concern to this group, of course, and in the legislation here today, are the effects on our young people and on people who are not smokers, although I think it needs to be said that there are those - and I know there are those amongst our colleagues who are still bitten by the bug - who may need some assistance as well in smoking cessation.

There are a number of aspects to it. There are obviously the preventive measures that would decrease the negative consequences of environmental smoke to our neighbors, friends, and constituents who are affected by it.

I suppose everybody in this House who uses the side entrance - as I know, Madam Speaker, you do - knows what the smoking environment is. It is almost like we have the wide air outside, which is usually pretty good, and inside we have a smoke-free environment, but in order to get from the inside to the outside we have to go the gauntlet of this envelope of smoke. Every day that we enter and leave the House of Assembly through the side door here, we are reminded of what a smoking environment is like. So we know, and are reminded daily, of what it smells like and what it feels like. We can sympathize with those in the workplace, for example, those who work in the hospitality industry, those who are waiter persons in bars who encounter, throughout their working hours, a continuous barrage of cigarette smoke and the toxins associated with that.

It is somewhat of a surprise, I might say, that the Workers Compensation Commission has not looked into the aspects of industrial disease and related health care consequences of being required to work in an environment where you are subject to the toxins associated with second-hand smoke in the bar, lounge and restaurant business in this Province.

I say it is somewhat of a surprise. On the other hand, when the British Columbia Government, through its Workers Compensation Commission, attempted to impose an outright ban on smoking in bars, they ran into some jurisdictional problems with the courts. I think it is more appropriate that these issues be dealt with here in the Legislature, which has the absolute jurisdiction to deal with these matters under the Constitution of Canada, under provincial heads.

We are supportive fully of these measures contained in Bill 38 that will provide a smoke-free environment in the places where the public has access, particularly those places where children are able to go as a matter of course and are permitted and encouraged to attend. That is something that we fully support. We cannot subject our children to the dangers of second-hand smoke.

The minister today reflected on the some eighty people per year who, in Newfoundland and Labrador, die as a result of the long-term consequences of inhaling second-hand smoke. That is a tragic figure. It is equally tragic, of course, to see some 800 to 1,000 people who die from the direct cause of inhaling cigarette smoke themselves through a habit that is more often than not, I would say, engendered when you are of a young age. I know that the Minister of Health and I probably smoked our first cigarette before the age of fifteen. Does the Minister of Health agree with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) thirteen.

MR. HARRIS: I was about thirteen myself. I remember down at a little store on Mullock Street, it was called Will's, and the young fellas used to hang around after school. It was a great adventure to go and have a cigarette down at Will's. You could buy a cigarette for two cents, I think, and a bottle of Spur for six cents, and a krinkle or something, or a coke and a smoke and a raisin square for probably about ten cents. I do not if anybody else is old enough to remember that experience.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Max.

MR. HARRIS: Well, there were several of them down there. There was Will's and there was Max, and there was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: So, we do know. We can laugh about it now because in those days we just thought it was a great adventure doing something you were not supposed to do, you were not allowed to do, and it built you up amongst your pals. You were one of the boys, as it were, because you able to have a puff on a cigarette.

That was the experience of many young people in this Province, to do something that we thought was harmless. No one ever told us it was dangerous to your health. It might have been dangerous to your lifestyle if your parents caught you and would not let you out, or they tried some other disciplinary methods on you. It might have been dangerous that way, but it was never regarded as being particularly dangerous to your health.

Now, of course, we know very much the difference of the long-term consequences: the rise in lung cancer, the diseases of the lungs, asthma, pneumonia, bronchial diseases, and these are reflected equally in the second-hand smoke with, I think, the notion of some 4,000 toxins coming off the end of a cigarette alone.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that this is one of the most - if not the most - significant preventable health consequences in our society today. I think that we need to engender the support of public opinion but we also need to take strong measures at the provincial level to decrease the amount of tobacco smoke in the Province.

Part of it is, I think, in the words of the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, to de-normalize it, to suggest that it is an aberration to smoke, that it is something that - and their ads show - is a product of being taken in by the companies who sell tobacco, who have a concerted campaign of disinformation for the last number of years, hiding the fact that smoking causes cancer, a series of public denials challenging research that clearly shows the dangers and, what is even worse, targeting young people not only in this country.... What we see happening today is that now that the market in Canada and in the United States and in other parts of Europe is being closed in on them because of measures such as this, they are now going to the Third World and are giving out free cigarettes to young people attending clubs and bars, to try to get them hooked on the cigarettes.

These are companies headquartered in North America, and some in this country, who are living off the poison and the bad health that they are inflicting on populations around the world. It is criminal. We should be trying to find ways to criminalize the activity of manufacture and distribution of cigarettes which cause addiction, pain, suffering and death. That is what we really should be doing. If the people of Canada had sufficient ability to overcome the individual addictions, that is what we would be doing in this country. That is what we would be doing, not sort of tinkering with rules like we are doing here today.

I do support Bill 39. I will ask the minister to respond to one question. I think I might have the attention of the Minister of Health now. He might be taking some notes on my speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) straight talk that you have going there right now.

MR. HARRIS: It is straight talk. The minister is taking notes.

I just want to draw his attention to the clause 4 of the bill. I know he has been taking notes, with the straight talk from the speaker here.

Clause 4 of the bill refers to the form of ID that will be acceptable for those who will be buying cigarettes. I just wonder whether the minister agrees that this bill seems to say that the only people who can buy cigarettes are the people who know how to drive. That is what it seems to say. Where a person is required to provide an ID, they have to produce a driver's licence with a picture on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: In a moment now. I will invite him to clarify it, and I will sit down and let him do that in between.

Doesn't the liquor board give out picture IDs to people who need an ID to get inside a bar or to buy liquor in liquor stores? It seems that under this section of the act, or this clause - I looked back at the act and section 4 of the act does not talk about any other form of ID, so this is not an additional requirement. This says, "...the person shall produce an identification card issued under section 205.1 of the Highway Traffic Act ..." - which, I understand, is a learner's permit - "...or a driver's licence issued under section 46 of the Highway Traffic Act or an identification card issued under an equivalent Act by another jurisdiction." An equivalent act by another jurisdiction; that does not mean the Liquor Control Act passed by this Province. That means a Highway Traffic Act or somewhat of another jurisdiction. So, if you have a driver's licence from the State of Florida or from Nova Scotia, that is okay, but a picture ID from the Newfoundland Liquor Licencing Board appears not to be okay. Maybe if the minister has clarification for that, I would be glad to -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Madam Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I think I have leave from this side and we have the booming voice of silence from the other side. I will take that as consent and carry on with a few more remarks.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave granted.

MR. HARRIS: The thrust of Bill 38 has direct support from my party and caucus, but we do have grave concerns that the minister is, in fact, leaving the bringing into force of this legislation until January 1, 2002. We are heading into 2001. I know the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco suggested that May 1, 2001, would be an appropriate time to bring it in and it would give people lots of notice, and at the same time you would not be turfing people out of these places on January 1, into the snow and cold and rain and wet, but by May 1, as we all know in Newfoundland, the weather has turned mild and we have spring. The shock on the system, to say to people that you must go outside this building if you want to have a smoke, is not so great as if they were turfed out on January 1, 2002, and it would be a good time to introduce it.

In fact, the consequences of this legislation are generally seen to be positive economically. I know some retailers and some of the hospitality industry have concerns and have tried to lobby some members about this, and may do more work in that regard, but the evidence from other jurisdictions and the evidence from surveys conducted on behalf of the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco seem to indicate that the economic impact on restaurants is, in fact, positive. On bars, maybe initially it will be somewhat negative because those who claim that they would not go to bars as often if there was no smoking allowed - this is interesting. The regulars and the big spenders in bars - there is 10 per cent of them - say they would go less often. That remains to be seen. I suspect, Madam Speaker, that those who are big spenders in bars go there because they like to go to bars. They like the company and they like the products they are consuming, and they would probably go anyway. I doubt very much if they are going to stay home alone and not go to bars because they can't smoke there as well as drink. I think they go there not for the drink so much, Madam Speaker, but for the social interaction that they get at these bars where they meet their friends and carry out their social life, as is their right.

I suspect, though, Madam Speaker, that they will be joined by others who stay away from bars because they don't want to have their clothes - I am sure Madam Speaker, you, as well as the rest of us, have come away from an evening in a bar and wondered why our closet stank so much in the morning, because we happened to spend an hour or two in a bar where others were smoking. If our clothes smell like that, surely our lungs and our health have been affected as well.

I think, on the whole, there needs to be a bit of a push. I don't think the bar and restaurant owners would like to say: okay, let's do it on our own. I think they would like to have a level playing field. They would like to know that if they are not going to have smoking in their bar that their patrons are not going to go across the street where smoking is allowed. I don't think that they want municipalities to have this power. I think it is appropriate that this Province conduct this activity through the Provincial Legislature.

So these are the two questions I have for the minister: Why doesn't he bring it in the first of may in the year 2001 with four or five months notice, and why is only a driver's license type ID permitted for people who want to purchase tobacco products, instead of other picture ID that are accepted in liquor stores and bars for the purchase of alcoholic products. I am not trying to encourage people to smoke, obviously, but an adult is an adult at age nineteen and shouldn't have to go to get a driver's license just because they want to smoke a cigarette. There may be lots of people who have no interest in driving or getting a driver's license or may not have a car or access to a car, yet would have to go through this sort of phony process for the sake of having themselves declared an adult for one purpose so that they could use it for another. Fair is far, Madam Speaker, and that doesn't seem to make sense to me at all. I am sure the minister has a very rational explanation and we will hear it now in a moment. That question needs to be answered.

The second question is: Why not bring it in on the first of May in terms of, not the Tobacco Control Act but the Smoke-Free Environment Act? Why not bring it in sooner?

There is another related question, I think, that came up today which I don't know if this minister has responsibility for. It is the suggestion that there really isn't a level playing field when it comes to taxation of tobacco products. The taxation measures taken against existing cigarettes, custom-made if you will, cigarettes that come in packages, is one level and the taxation regime on the roll-your-own is another, which in fact makes it cheaper. The taxation recovered on roll-your-Town tobacco is less than it is on the pre-rolled tobacco. That may have an effect in influencing young people to smoke.

I think it is worth noting, Madam Speaker, that some six years ago when we had the Tobacco Control Act introduced, the Smoke-Free Environment Act introduced, we had a committee of the House, when the committee system was working - this is before your time, Madam Speaker, but we had a working committee system at one time to look at legislation and we actually had hearings. At the hearings came representatives of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association and various national bodies. They said that one of the most significant disincentives for young people to smoke was price, that in fact young people smoking was very price sensitive. That is one of the great tragedies of the lowering of the excise tax, not in this Province but in Ontario and Quebec and other provinces where they lowered the excise tax on cigarettes effectively reducing the price of cigarettes in Ontario and Quebec by about 25 per cent to prevent company - and I won't say company sponsored smuggling, but certainly company assisted smuggling. Now, I can say that here in this House because they can't sue me for saying that. I don't know if I could actually prove that. Certainly, cigarettes manufactured in Canada were actually smuggled into Canada for sale here to avoid taxes, and that resulted in the lowering of the price of cigarettes because the government response was to remove the excise tax on cigarettes. This Province was able to hold the prices. That, I would say, prevented a lot of young people from taking up smoking, because we maintained our price level. In Ontario and Quebec, the prices went down, the number of smokers went up and the number of young people smoking went up as well. I think that was a great tragedy. It may be, Madam Speaker, that the lower price for the buckets or tubs of tobacco, the lower prices as a result of lesser taxes, is also a factor in encouraging young people to smoke.

I invite the minister to talk to his colleague, who he is talking to now, about whether or not the taxes on tobacco ought to be examined in order to see whether or not there is a fairness across the board in terms of tobacco prices and hence the tobacco taxes.

Having made these remarks, Madam Speaker, and thanking my colleagues in the House for their indulgence in allowing me go over time, I will take my place and say that we support both pieces of legislation. I would like to see earlier implementation of Bill 38 in terms of the implementation date to May 1, 2001. I would like the minister to deal with that question with respect to the ID that might be needed with respect to being able to purchase tobacco products.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health stands now he will end the debate.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Again, let me add my words to that of the Government House Leader today in congratulating you in terms of assuming this particular role and creating some history in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, two issues that were raised by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - first and foremost, with respect to the photo ID. The Section 205 that is referred to, one, while it is in the Highway Traffic Act and it is basically the photo ID that is used for licences, it has been expanded in the last couple of years. It is administered through Government Services and Lands and they are in the process also, and they do now today, produce through Government Services and Lands, the photo ID that is used for the Liquor Commission. The Liquor Corporation used to issue them themselves. Those that have been issued from the Liquor Corporation are good for five years. Those that have been issued are still valid. The Liquor Corporation is now out of the business and anyone who is not a driver and would like to have an ID, they go through Government Services and Lands and get an ID. It is a twenty dollar fee and it is good for five years. Again, it is a small fee, twenty dollars and it is good for five years, Madam Speaker. It barely covers the cost of the actual process itself, of having the actual photograph taken, the lamination and so on, the production of the actual photo ID.

Madam Speaker, that is the ID that they are obliged to accept. It is one of the two ID's, the driver's licence or the other ID that is produced through Government Services and Lands. There will be a phasing out of the system of some ID's that were issued by the Liquor Corporation. In the five years they will have all gone through the system and no longer be valid or used. Any others will then be under this section, which are both the driver's licences and the individual ID's for other purposes under the Act, such as buying and purchasing alcoholic beverages and entering clubs where there is a restriction by age.

With respect to the other issue, Madam Speaker, the proclamation date for the environmental smoke-free spaces, that issue has been discussed in detail with representatives of the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco. They did propose, and still promote, May 1st as an implementation date. In our discussions with the industry, with the representatives of the food establishments, the restaurants and pubs and so on, they did present arguments with respect to recovery of some costs that they had incurred and the need for some time to do an adjustment on a business basis. We felt, after listening to the arguments that it was not unreasonable and that we would have a higher likelihood of having a voluntary compliance and less resistance if we did allow for the one year, in 2001.

The other piece, Madam Speaker: there was some concern raised by officials as to whether or not the regulations that have to be prepared under this Act would be in the best possible form and totally completed by the first of May, in any event, that we might need a few more discussions to make sure it is implemented properly and appropriately. The most complicated issue is those establishments that are restaurants by day and bars, lounges and night clubs by night. The idea of when the actual change occurs, that regulatory piece, will be worked out with the industry association over the next year for full implementation on January 1, 2002.

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging, as I have said, with respect to the other piece of legislation in Bill 38, that in Bill 39 I sense from the debate that there is a general concurrence with this approach, that people are ready to move forward with these next steps and that we should probably expect that we will see passage of this particular bill before we close for Christmas.

With that, Madam Speaker, I certainly move second reading of Bill 39.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act to Amend The Tobacco Control Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chairperson, Order 2.

Motion, second reading of a bill, " An Act to Amend The Highway Traffic Act,". (Bill 26)

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I too congratulate you on your new role as the assistant in charge of committees. You are doing a great job, by the way.

I am pleased to stand and introduce second reading to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. The Highway Traffic Act provides for the automatic suspension of a person's driver's license if he or she is found guilty of serious driving offenses under the criminal code of Canada, including impaired driving. The length of the suspension for impaired driving varies depending on whether it is the first offense which results in a twelve month suspension, or a second offense committed within that five year period which is a twenty-four month suspension, or a third or subsequent offense committed within that five year period which is a thirty-six month suspension.

In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Trial Division, the court referred to a legal principle know as (inaudible) rule. I can refer to the case that actually took place in Grand Falls. This rule states that in situations where they are increasing mandatory minimum penalties for second or subsequent offenses, a more severe penalty cannot be imposed on the second or subsequent offense until there is an actual conviction on the previous offense. That is where the problem arises. In this rule there is a distinction between when an offense is committed and when a conviction is entered.

As a result of this court ruling, the Province cannot impose a longer driver's license suspension on individuals charged with impaired driving for a second time if they have not been convicted for the first offense. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that (inaudible) rule may be ousted by a clear statutory provision in our Highway Traffic Act. Of course, Ontario has successfully done that so we are in the process of doing that today. The amendment will oust (inaudible) rule and restore penalties in accordance with the original intent of the Highway Traffic Act.

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of other minor amendments that we will make with respect to the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar appointments for motor vehicles, and updates references to the Criminal Code as well.

Mr. Speaker, I will just draw your attention to the sections that are of importance in this. I think it is only fitting that today we are introducing this for second reading, because I met this morning with the people from MADD Canada, who are very interested in this kind of approach to dealing with impaired drivers.

The most important section is section 65 of the Highway Traffic Act, which will enable us to provide longer sentences for those who are convicted, rather than waiting for the conviction to be turned into an actual conviction.

Presently, we can only charge drivers who are charged with impaired driving a minimum of twelve months suspension. Even if they have three convictions in the span of time between when the court makes a ruling on the first one, we can only suspend their licence for twelve months. What we need to do is to change the act so that we can add those penalties to anybody who is driving without a licence while they have been charged but not actually convicted. What we need to do is to take that (inaudible) rule out so that we can have the penalty served concurrently, so that if there are three charges from the point of the fact that the person is charged, then that person will be suspended for thirty-six months rather than just the twelve months for committing the three offences within that period of time.

Those are the basic issues in the change in the amendments to this particular act. Sections 65, 67, 69 and 71 are the particular issues and the particular sections of this act that need to be changed in order for us to properly convict and properly address the situation of impaired drivers in this Province.

The other two changes that we ask for in this particular amendment are quite administrative in the fact that we are looking to have the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles appointed by the minister rather than having to go through the Cabinet process, which is a standard thing. They are not very pointed in terms of importance, in terms of changes to the act.

Also, there are a few minor changes to the Criminal Code which allows us to drop the (inaudible) rule and see the actual suspensions appropriately rendered for the person who has been convicted of the offence of impaired driving.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is about sufficient for second reading. I now await, and if we have to do further debate when we come into Committee I will answer any questions that are so posed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand and make a few comments on Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. It is a great opportunity to stand and talk about the highways, and certainly the highways in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, because it is a crime, the state of some of the highways in my district.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: We don't discuss that, I say to the Member for Waterford Valley. That is kind of a state secret. It is all according to what time of the day you are traveling.

It is certainly an opportunity to stand and say that we watched, back in 1989, while the provincial government had in its coffers at the time over $40 million for provincial roads programs. We watched over the past ten years as that provincial roads program has diminished and continues to diminish under this Liberal Administration. As a matter of fact, we got down to a couple of years where, when you add it all up, it was nothing - zero. When you added it all up, it was nil. Now we are starting to work our way back up.

Over the past years - I am not sure exactly when it was, but I was here in the House when the Minister of Transportation at the time stood and applauded the largest road program in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, since Confederation. We had the trunk roads agreement; we had the Roads for Rail Agreement. They were two of the big provincial-federal programs that were signed under the Tory Administration in Ottawa, under the then minister for Newfoundland, the hon. John Crosbie. Even today, as we speak here, there are machines on the highways in Newfoundland still spending Crosbie's money, and we have a desperate need for a new roads agreement in this country. We have a desperate need for a new roads agreement in this Province, and there is not even a sound about it. There is not a murmur about a new roads agreement, and desperately we need it. We need it in Placentia & St. Mary's.

In the District of Placentia & St. Mary's there are roads that need work. I will give you a couple of examples: roads across Branch country, from Branch to the community of St. Bride's, needs money infused into it. We have a situation in the St. Mary's Bay area from what we call the nine-mile road turnoff down to St. Mary's itself, especially on the approach to the community of Riverhead. There certainly needs to be work done on that. We have the Colinet road. We are very pleased that we just had a tender awarded last week to a local firm, Brown's Transport in Point Verde, who will be repairing and replacing one of the bridges on the Colinet road. It is a vital road to the people of the district, one that is used especially by the people of the St. Mary's Bay North area in my district. These people use that road to go back and forth to Placentia, for banking, for the hospital, for grocery shopping, and for many other things. There is an opportunity there, and certainly a need, to spend money on that road. While we pleased with the bridge construction that is going to be done next spring and summer, we certainly hope that it is the beginning of more funding for that particular piece of road.

There are other communities certainly. The road down to Fox Harbour and Ship Harbour in my district is another piece of highway that needs some work, especially the road between Fox Harbour and Ship Harbour itself, and through the community of Ship Harbour. The people in the community of Ship Harbour certainly would benefit from some highway road money that could be spent.

Then you have a government on the other side of the House that gets up and talks about the largest provincial roads program in Newfoundland history, while they are spending 98 per cent of John Crosbie's money. It just happens to be, I suppose, in the right place and the right time, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we get the opportunity to stand in the House of Assembly and bring forward the concerns not only of our district but indeed the people of the Province.

When I look at the piece of legislation that we have before us today, I say to myself, we were here in the last session of the House and we had An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, if memory serves me correctly. I have it under my desk here somewhere. We are in this session of the House and we have An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act. Maybe we should have an act to amend the minister.

How often do you have to be told, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, about the situations on our highways in this Province, before you come back and amend and amend and amend, continuously amending the act. While certainly amendments are needed, it is time that we take a very serious look at the Highway Traffic Act and indeed take a very serious look at the highways in this Province.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, I am awaiting news on whiskey pit - I want to get that in Hansard - another piece of the highway in my district that needs somebody to look at it. I met with the minister yesterday and discussed that concern, and I am hoping he will have an answer for me on what we can do about the situation in whiskey pit. I know, from discussing it with the minister, that his concerns are along the same lines as mine and I look forward to hearing some positive news on a very constructive decision for the situation that lies in whiskey pit on Salmonier Line. I am sure that the minister, in his wisdom, when he consults with the people in his office, will come back with a positive answer on that.

I am very concerned with the fact that we have people in this Province who, in some cases, are stilling driving over gravel roads, in the year 2000. It is certainly something that needs to be considered and something government needs to take a very serious look at. We have roads in this Province that ambulances have to travel over, that people have to travel over to go to work in the mornings, and they need work to be done on them. Here is an opportunity, I guess, in regard to the Highway Traffic Act, and certainly in regard to the highways in this Province, that we need to have a serious look at.

It is interesting to note, as we stand here today, we have a very few members on the other side of the House. Maybe the highways in all their districts are fine, but it is certainly not the situation in this part of the Province. In my part of the Province, it needs some serious looking at.

I would be interested in knowing what the Minister of Health - the Ministry of Health covers a large area and affects a lot of things. The highway in the Province is, I am sure, of grave concern to the Minister of Health because of the situation with ambulances traveling over it, with accidents that can happen because of the conditions of roads, with all the situations that can arise from poorer highways. Now that the Minister of Health is on the leadership campaign, I would be very interested to know what he would have to say about any amendments to the Highway Traffic Act and any amendments as they relate to doing something with our highway. I am sure that whatever the Minister of Health and Community Services would like to do in relation to amending any acts, or improving the highways, or finding more money for the highways, he should be able to get it, due to the fact that he has so much people on that side of the House who support his leadership run.

I watched the news last week, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, and after consulting with my people who attended the news conference, I have come to realize that the Minister of Health and Community Services had a fair amount of support on that side to the House. I am sure if he wanted to come out with a good, solid provincial roads program for this Province that would put money out where it is needed, I am sure he would get the support, because of the fact that he has so many people lined up behind him. Now, the Minister of Mines and Energy was not so lucky.

I sat down and watched the news the next evening and the Minister of Mines and Energy was announcing his leadership bid. He didn't have too many people with him. He had two sidekicks; thunder and lightening, I like to call them. He had one on each side. I bet, if you put the two of them together, you wouldn't get a bang out of either one of them. It is going to be interesting to watch as the situation unfolds over the next month or so in regard to the leadership run.

Then we have the former Minister of Fisheries for this Province. When the opportunity came for him to step up to the plate - I am sorry he is not here; I wish he were here. The former Minister of Fisheries for the Province steps up to the plate and announces to the people that he wants to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party of this Province, that he wants to be Premier of this Province, and he goes up to the microphone, the former Minister of Fisheries. Here we have the Minister of Health and Community Services who has the whole gang with him. The Minister of Mines and Energy has thunder and lightening with him, and then we have the former Minister of Fisheries who has nobody. He stands alone. Now you would think that after spending so many years in this hon. House, after, I am sure, befriending most people on both sides of the House, that the former Minister of Fisheries would be able to stand up to a microphone and have at least three or four people with him. I will be honest with you, I was totally amazed. I talked to people in my district who are totally amazed that the former Minister of Fisheries did not have one person from caucus stand up behind. That really had me concerned.

Then we pick up today's paper - I have to ask the Minister of Government Services and Lands, according to the paper today the former Minister of Fisheries is way ahead in the polls. Just to give you an idea, of the three official candidates for the Liberal Party leadership Efford garnered 48.5 per cent, compared to 34.4 per cent for Roger Grimes and 17 per cent for Paul Dicks. Now that is according to the paper today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. MANNING: Paul Dicks.

Seventeen percent for Paul Dicks, 34.4 per cent for Roger Grimes, 48.5 per cent for John Efford. Almost half of the people who were asked supports John Efford but he cannot get one person on that side of the House of Assembly to stand up at the podium with him, not one person to stand up. There is something wrong there.

I say to the members opposite, there are a good many on that side of the House who would not even be over there only for the efforts of John Efford. Only for the support of John Efford you would not be sitting on that side of the House.

I know why the Minister of Government Services and Lands does not support him. Here comes 17 per cent and there is half of thunder and lightening with him. Here comes 34.4 per cent coming up the aisle. Now if only we had 48.5 per cent to walk in with you.

You have to ask yourself: How come a minister of the Crown, the present Minister of Mines and Energy, would stand up to the podium and only have two people stand up with him? As I said before, thunder and lightening, that is who was with the Minister of Mines and Energy. Then you have all the other members of that caucus who -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis said Tom and Jerry. No, thunder and lightening.

MR. J. BYRNE: How about Mutt and Jeff?

MR. MANNING: Mutt and Jeff? No, thunder and lightening. I am telling you that they are going to shake this place up, but they have a lot of shaking up to do according to the paper today. Thunder and Lightening have a lot of work to do. Seventeen per cent, you have to catch John Efford at 48.5 per cent.

I have to get back to the question: How come the former Minister of Fisheries does not have one member from caucus standing with him? Why? You have to ask yourselves a personal question: How many of you would not be on that side of the House only for the efforts of John Efford?

In the last two weeks of the by-election for Trinity North how many days did John Efford spend in that district? How many doors did John Efford knock on? How many people did John Efford talk to? How many people did John Efford persuade to vote for the Member for Trinity North today? When the time came to stand up with him - I am telling you, almost half the people polled think he is the right man, but none of you do. I really find that hard to understand. I have it sized up now, when John Efford stood up and announced his candidacy, who was standing by his side only the former Member for Labrador, Mr. Danny Dumaresque. I have been sizing it up, with John Efford leading in the polls here and the other Danny leading in the polls on that side, one way or the other you are all going to be ‘Danonized'.

I can't wait until John Efford wins the Liberal leadership and Danny Dumaresque is sitting down with John at the big table trying to figure out who the Cabinet is going to be. He going to sit down and figure out who the Cabinet is going to be. He is going to have to give the Minister of Health and Community Services a position, since he is going to come a close second in the race. You have to do that. The Minister of Mines and Energy, he will have to give him - he is going to be a distant third, but he is going to give him a position too. The Minister of Government Services and Lands -

MR. SHELLEY: Don't count him out. He just told me he went from 3 per cent to 17 per cent (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, sir. My understanding is that there twenty-two delegates from each district. I am sure the Minister of Health and Community Services has it all added up because I was doing some math, working on it myself today. The Minister of Government Services and Lands has twenty-two delegates coming from his district. I want to let the Minister of Health know that he cannot guarantee the twenty-two delegates because Mr. Efford was down last week and he scooped up six on his first visit. I know that from people I talked to in Goose Bay, you cannot deliver your twenty-two delegates.

We have the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation back in town. When Danny Dumaresque sits down to pick out the new Cabinet with the new Premier, he is going to say: Are we going to take him? No, sure he was a Tory one time. We are not taking him. He is gone, he is in the garbage. I want to give notice today, and be honest with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who has been half decent, I have to say, that that Danny is not going to accept you and our Danny is not going to accept you back either. (Inaudible) back so you are in trouble you poor bugger, you are gone.

Anyway, I want to sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Here he comes now, the old tornado himself. The campaign manager, thunder and lightening to them. I picked up The Shoreline last week, and seen parliamentary assistant to the Premier. I say congratulations Ralph boy, fine job, but don't get comfortable.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he is not going to be in John Efford's Cabinet; no way jose, I can guarantee it. Then we come down to the Minister of Finance, and Danny Dumaresque is going to sit down and look at the list and say he is not going there either, he was a Tory. So, he is out the door. You can't come back over on our side because you owe us $3,500. You can't come back over here until you pay up the PC - $3,500 in the red to the PC Party.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

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

I am hesitant to stand on my feet in this House again because at the risk of being repetitious, I must again advise the hon. members - who should know better, who should know the nuances of their own organization at the federal level - that the 500 Club was a $1,000 hit, not a $500 hit. If you are going to calculate what you think I owe you, it is $7,000 not $3,500. Now I know I spent my $1,000 foolishly but I want full credit for every foolish dollar I spent in my life. I would ask the hon. members to get that straight in their heads. Some of you over there have aspirations to be ministers of this, that and the other thing. I suppose there are some - the hon. member for Cape St. Freels would view himself -

PREMIER TULK: No, he is not going down to Cape St. Freels, don't worry about that. They would never have him down in Cape (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Cape St. Francis. He would view himself as a future finance minister. I want to say to the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis that if he does not know the difference between $500 and $1,000 he is on the slippery slope of finding himself not even on the list of cabinet considerations. So, for goodness sake, hon. members on the other side, get it straight. Mr. Mulroney and his 500 Club docked everybody, who signed up, $1,000. I want that to get through to you and I don't want to have to interrupt any other member over there to set the record straight in the future or at any other time.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no Point of Order.

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

MR. MANNING: I thank the minister for clarification on that. Being a humble kind of guy myself I could never afford to be in the 500 Club, that you were involved in, at $1,000 a shot. I can only look outside and look in, and I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, we might get the fish plant opened in Twillingate yet. I am telling you, you want to be careful.

I say to the Minister of Finance, whatever the amount is, I am sure that you will try and pay it off this evening and get back over, but you are not getting over here. You can get that straight. I know how close it all is but we are going to keep that.

I want to get back, if I could for a moment because there are a lot of things going to happen here in the next couple of months. You are going to have Danny Dumaresque picking the next Cabinet. I mean that is a very serious thing that is going to happen here. He is going to sit down and look at the present Premier - and I congratulate Premier Tulk. I congratulate him. He has been around this House for some time -

MR. LUSH: On a Point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a Point of Order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: You are as interesting as I find the hon. member's remarks. I do not know how they fit in with the amendment to the Highway Act. Maybe, if the hon. member can tell us that, we will entertain him carrying on with his few remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: To the Point of Order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I would call it the road to self destruction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: In all sincerity, I say to the present Premier - no, seriously, the man has been around the House of Assembly for quite some time. I came in here in 1993, and the present Premier was here at the time. I do not have the best eyesight, I admit it, but I could not recognize him. He was so far back up that way, I could not even recognize him. He was up in the nosebleed section because Premier Wells was here at the time. He tried to get you up in the gallery, I realize that, but he could not. I will tell you one thing, my only wish when the House opened yesterday was that the Supreme Court of Justice would be sitting there in the center to see who was sitting in his chair. That would have made my day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, just to see the look on his face.

I want to get back to who is going in Cabinet. When I look down and see the different ministers who are there now - and then we come to the Minister of Environment and Labour. Danny is going to sit down and look at that list again and say: What are his credentials? No, he is out. He was a Tory too.

I find it really hard to follow this. Then we come down to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Danny is going to sit down and say: We can't put her in the Cabinet because she was not sure what party she was going to be in for awhile. After awhile she figured it out but she had Tory leanings so she is gone. I am telling you that -

AN HON. MEMBER: What was my future? What did you say my future was?

MR. MANNING: Your future, when Danny and John sit down to pick out the new Cabinet, I am sorry to say you are going to be back up in the nosebleed section.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Yes, you are going back up. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, sir, you are going back in the nosebleed section, I tell you. I can see the smile on Danny now, and he will not be over where the Member for Topsail is, Parliamentary Assistant. He will not be there. He is going to be closer than that, Mr. Speaker.

There will be a lot of changes coming, a lot of new faces coming in and a few faces going out, and I can see some people who are going to jump ship very fast after February 2. Because I am not asking this question, the people of the Province are asking this question: How come the former Minister of Fisheries would spend so many years in the House of Assembly, work side by side with so many people, help out so many people, and when he stands up to the microphone to announce - how could the former Minister of Fisheries get people like the Member for Topsail, the Member for Trinity North and a good many more elected? Because you would not be here only he went out in your district, knocked on the doors, talked to the people and went to the community meetings.

The Member for Bellevue would not be here only for the former Minister of Fisheries. He would not stand a chance here. And he need not worry about using his suits because he will not get a chance to use the suits. He need not worry, because even though he his backing the Minister of Health he doesn't stand a chance, sir. The Minister of Health has so many people to take care of, I mean it is impossible, unless he makes you all Cabinet Ministers. He would try to do that with his straight talk, but that is not going to work.

I want to get back to the Minister of Fisheries because not only me but a lot of people in the Province last week - the former Minister of Fisheries stood up at the microphone and announced that he was running for the Liberal leadership and not one person in caucus supported him, not one. That is utterly amazing. I mean not one person in caucus supported him. Then we pick up the paper today and 48.5 per cent in the polls for Mr. Efford; 34.4 per cent for Roger Grimes; and 17 per cent for Paul Dicks. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where a man has spent twelve - I do not know how many years John Efford is here; many, many years here now. I look at the present Minister of Finance - when the present Minister of Finance wanted to leave our side and go over to that side, whose door did he knock on first? The former Minister of Fisheries. You went to see him secretly. He worked your way in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, sorry about that. You came in to see Mr. Simms first. Then when he gave you the message you went over to Mr. Efford.

Anyway the bottom line is, in the poll the people of the Province want John Efford as the next Liberal leader, the next Premier of this Province. The poll is right there; an independent poll that they want Mr. Efford to be the next Premier.

My question to the Liberal Caucus - and not only on this issue - is: how come you are so out of touch with the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador? But then, when you are out of touch with everything else why wouldn't you be able to touch on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: So, we have now the Minister of Health and Community Services who has a lot of work to do. I mean the Minister of Mines and Energy is gone anyway; 17 per cent. He doesn't stand a chance. Then we have the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island on one side and the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East on the other side. An elderly gentleman in my district said to me the other day: Did you see Paul Dicks standing up with thunder and lightening by his side. He said, if you put two of them together you wouldn't get a good bang out of either one of them. I said, boy, I cannot get into that.

I mean, 17 per cent! I do not even know why he is in the race. At least the Minister of Finance had sense enough, when he did his internal poll and got 2.1 per cent, to stay out of it. At least he knew that. The president -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) by Danny?

MR. MANNING: Yes. But seriously now, when I look back over the past couple of weeks and what has transpired in the Province - certainly, as we stand here today and talk about the Highway Traffic Act - the road that we are on here now is going to be a bumpy road ahead. I can see that coming.

I ask myself, and the people of the Province ask: how come the Liberal caucus is so out of touch with what is going on, when you have 48.5 per cent of the people in the Province who want John Efford as the next leader and none of you do not. Oh, here comes lightening now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Jim Walsh over here. Thunder and lightening. Paul Dicks. There you go. The good lord himself had someone on the right hand and someone on the left hand.

Seriously, I ask the Minister of Forestry: here we have almost half of the people in the Province who want John Efford to be leader of the party, half of the people in the Province want John Efford to be Premier, and you are going off and supporting someone

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Well, some people want him, not very many, 17 per cent.

I say to the Minister of Health and Community Services, watch you back. Because, when the grass roots, according to the former Minister of Fisheries, that are supporting Mr. Efford - and there are a lot of grass roots out there - and the grass roots that are supporting Mr. Dicks combine their resources, I say, you are going to have a major problem on your hands; and you can have all the caucus you want. I would ask the Minister of Health -

MR. ANDERSEN: Sixty per cent of the people they polled were Tories..

MR. MANNING: Well I have to admit, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains, that it is understandable. Every day there are more and more Tories in the polls. As the former Premier of the Province says: the tide comes in and the tide goes out. You are on the shift that is going out, I can tell you that.

The Member for Bellevue has bought so many suits to think he is going to be in Cabinet, and he is not going to be able to wear those suits at all. They are not going to work. I say to the Member for Bellevue that he jumped on the band wagon with the Minister of Health but it is a bumpy road. I am sorry, I have to admit it is a bumpy road.

I want to get back to the fact that Danny Dumeresque is going to be picking the next Cabinet. I look up at the lady who replaced him up there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I look up at the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and I can see Danny, when he sits down with John at that big table up there somewhere, and he sits down and says: What about her there, Danny boy? He says: No way, buddy, no way Jose. What she did to me, put her up in the nosebleed section too.

If there is such a thing as getting up behind the present Premier, up in the third row, you are going to be up there. He was up as far as he could go the last time - the present Premier.

You don't stand a chance either. You are going to sit down and look at the Cabinet and you are going to have to bring in a few people by the looks of things.

I would say now that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I haven't got you all straight because with Danny and John it is not going to be easy to get it straight, I admit. The first thing they are going to do is there is going to be a new minister of Health and Community Services, it is going to be the member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Health of Health and Community Services and maybe, if he gets minister, he can decide where to put the hospital on Fogo Island. You might get two hospitals over there then and you wouldn't have to vex anybody. He will know where to put that.

The Member for Port au Port, he is going to be a Cabinet minister with John Efford. He is going to be a good man. He was to a couple of PC conventions, so he is alright.

AN HON. MEMBER: Danny don't know that.

MR. MANNING: Danny don't know that. Don't mention it. He is in line, he is going to be there, I would say. The Member for Burin-Placentia West, a fine lady. I am very pleased to see her in the Speaker's Chair today. On this side of the House, we are too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Maybe it is about time someone with a bit of common sense got up in the minister's chair, and I can see that she is going to be there.

The Member for Trinity North: not a chance in Hell! The former Minister of Fisheries spent two weeks on your campaign, him and Madonna were down in your district. They talked to thousands of people, knocked on hundreds of doors, went to community meetings. He promised ten slipways, three wharves, four gear sheds and still you went and supported the Minister of Health. I am telling you, you don't stand a chance. As a matter of fact, you are not even getting a slipway when it is all over.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Health -

MR. MANNING: I have to ask the Member for Trinity North, because I tell you I heard a story the other day, that the former Minister of Fisheries was speaking to a group of people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Oh, here he comes. Seventeen per cent is back. Hold on now, I will get to you in a minute.

I was down at a meeting the other day and this group was telling me that the former Minister of Fisheries was in, speaking to this group of young people. They asked him about the leadership, and he said: I cannot understand why I have no support among my caucus. In the Trinity North by-election, I spent the last two weeks out on that campaign trail. I knocked on doors and I visited all the communities. I met with the fishermen and did everything I could. As a matter of fact, the Member for Trinity North would not be in the House of Assembly today only for me.

That is what he said. Those are his words. He said: Now, when he has the chance to stand up and stand with me, he refuses to do so.

You have to ask yourself why the man is becoming a bitter man. That is the situation. When the time comes, the Member for Trinity North will have absolutely no chance at all. As a matter of fact, I think you could end up being up in the gallery before it is all over.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes. Thanks for reminding me, I say to the member. Then the students asked the question: How many times did the Minister of Health and Community Services travel down to Trinity North during the by-election? The former Minister of Fisheries said, zilch! zilch! Whatever zilch is, I don't know, but zilch! For the poor people in Hansard, I don't know how to spell it either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: He never went down there at all, but still he stood up and got on the train with the Minister of Health because he thinks they are going places.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Efford announced that I am in Cabinet.

MR. MANNING: I wouldn't doubt it. He is going to have to go somewhere to look for people to put in Cabinet. The former Minister of Fisheries was down in Baie Verte promising a Cabinet position to the member down there, but he is going to have to get them somewhere. He lost all of his friends on that side of the House.

How many of you can look John Efford straight between the eyes and say: I am your friend, John.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, here!

MR. MANNING: How many of you? Not one of you! Not one over there. I am your friend, John! Well, if you are his friends, I would not want to see his enemies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Don't worry, I say to the Parliamentary Assistant. At one time, when you were Parliamentary Assistant, it meant you were a step up to Cabinet. Remember back a few years ago? When you were a Parliamentary Assistant back a few years ago, you were a step up to Cabinet, but the former Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair sat in that seat too, and where is he now? That is where you are going, too. You have reached the top of Topsail, buddy, you are going.

We have the Member for the Bay of Islands who thinks he is going to be in Cabinet. I am sorry to tell him that the only place he is going to be is in the Soccer Hall of Fame. That is it. He is not getting in Cabinet either.

Now, reach over to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. You are going to sit down. I know the former Minister of Fisheries has been a hard-core Liberal during his lifetime, and there is nothing wrong with that. I respect that. He is going to ask from what political stripe was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Well, that is going to take half the day to figure out, because he was with the boys down there for awhile, and then he was over here. Now he is over there. When John Efford takes over, he is going to have nowhere to go.

On the other side, then, John Efford is going to say to himself: Well he won't get me in any trouble because he doesn't talk. He will never embarrass me because he never answers a question. Then he is going to say: Well, we might take him in.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does he do, Fabian?

MR. SULLIVAN: They might appoint them outside of caucus.

MR. MANNING: Well, I can see now at least six ministers appointed outside of caucus. I can see the new Government House Leader appointed outside caucus. Danny Dumaresque is going to appoint himself as Government House Leader. Danny is going to announce himself.

You know what they might do? I am telling you, you have a lot to think about. They might bring back Ed Roberts. Now, are you going to help us stop that, or are you going to let that happen? They did it before. They resurrected him once before, and now they are resurrecting him again.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was appointed a minister before he got elected.

MR. MANNING: He was appointed a minister. They resurrected Ed Roberts before. I say to the present Premier, you have a lot on your plate and you will have a lot to shoulder if you are responsible for leading these people and bringing Ed Roberts back into this House. You will never see the promised land - never, I say to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting highway that we have been driving on over the past little while and we are very pleased to make a few comments on amending the Highway Traffic Act. I say to the members opposite that it is a long road with no turns. It is going to be interesting over the next little while.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) every day, a bit of continuity.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Finance, continuity is not in your books. I say to the Minister of Finance that it is going to be an interesting road for you too.

MR. MATTHEWS: Do you think so?

MR. MANNING: Yes, because you are here now supporting the 34.4 per cent, and the former Minister of Fisheries is well up there now with over half of the people in the Province. He has the grass roots support, and I would say that it is going to be an interesting road ahead.

Certainly, with amendments on the way to the Highway Traffic Act, I am sure there are going to be a lot of amendments on the way to your decision-making on that side of the House.

With that, I adjourn the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.