May 6, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 18


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to congratulate Peter Penashue on making the top forty of Canada's best and brightest innovators under forty years of age.

This was the seventh annual event which is sponsored by The Caldwell Partners International. The business and community leaders who sit on the committee selected forty winners from the record 1,200 nominations.

Peter Penashue received the honour for his dedicated work as president of the Innu Nation. It was through his leadership and perseverance that the Innu of Labrador have made great strides in the areas of self-government, economic development, and other community building activities.

He has been the driving force behind several initiatives to better the quality of life for the Innu of Labrador. He founded the Innu Healing Foundation and is currently spearheading a campaign to raise $12 million for recreational facilities in Innu communities. He continues to raise awareness of many other Innu issues.

The Innu Nation has made substantial progress during his three terms as president. This is a great accomplishment for an individual from our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The top forty under forty is dominated by corporate business leaders and scientists, making this accomplishment by a community leader even more significant.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Peter Penashue, who is a great friend, for the work he is doing for the Innu people of Labrador and for the First Nations People all across our country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the residents of Pouch Cove, Flatrock and Bauline, but, more importantly, the students of these three towns on the opening of their brand new K to 6 school.

Cape St. Francis Elementary was named by a competition through the students attending the school. The winners of the competition were: Matthew Whalen, Jennifer Parsons, Kimberly Parsons, Tara-Lee Shave and Megan LeDrew.

This new school replaces two older schools in Pouch Cove, namely: St. Agnes and Pouch Cove Elementary. It should also be noted that the Town of Flatrock's school was closed a number of years ago and the students of Flatrock then went to Pouch Cove to go to school.

Many people have been working for many years, to get a new school to serve the students of Pouch Cove, Flatrock and Bauline, and they are very pleased to have a modern, bright facility which, of course, will greatly benefit the young students attending the new school.

There was much discussion over the years of the location of Cape St. Francis Elementary. Credit has to be given to the three town councils, the school councils of both schools, teachers, parents, the Avalon East School Board and the government for their co-operation in the final site selection.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to attend the official school opening for Cape St. Francis Elementary last Sunday, April 28, and to see the pleasure and the satisfaction of all in attendance. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation represented the government there, Mr. Speaker.

The students and teachers make a school what it is, and therefore I am sure that Cape St. Francis Elementary will be second to none in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a sad note. Recently, a member of our community, Mr. Herb Wells, passed away at the age of seventy-nine years.

Mr. Wells, who was born in St. John's, joined the Royal Navy in March of 1940 at the age of eighteen years. He fought in the Second World War until he was discharged because of a combat-related injury.

Upon returning to Newfoundland, he wrote three books entitle: Under the White Ensign, Comrades in Arms 1, and Comrades in Arms 2. These books told the stories and experiences of Newfoundland servicemen during the war.

During his life, Mr. Wells worked with the Confederate Association, former Premier Smallwood, the Sunday Herald and later with the Department of Tourism as a military historian. Wells also wrote a weekly column on veteran's affairs for The Evening Telegram which ran for more than 30 years.

Mr. Wells was a kind and caring man judged by his compassion for others. He helped form a Naval Association of Veterans for those who served in the Royal Navy from 1939 to 1945. He was awarded the Royal Canadian Legion's golden anniversary medal in 1976 and the Queen's Medal in 1978.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in remembering his dedication and his contribution not only to war veterans but to all of those he has helped over the years, and offer condolences to the family and friends of Herb Wells.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to thank and commend the Mount Pearl Lions Club for their forty-six years of devoted and unselfish service to our community.

On Wednesday evening, May 1, the Mount Pearl Lions Club celebrated the 46th anniversary of their Charter which was granted on April 17, 1956.

Mr. Speaker, only one of the original Charter members, Ern Benson, is still active in the Club. We were all so delighted to see him at the celebrations last week.

The Lion's motto, "We Serve" is so characteristic and illustrative of the many contributions Lions have made to Mount Pearl. Since the Charter was granted in 1956, four of the Club's members: Bud Ozark, Jim Soper, Stuart Toope and Phil Field have served as District Governor of Zone 41-S2 and Bud Ozark also filled the role of International Director.

A significant number of Lions, particularly in the early years, were elected and served as members of the Mount Pearl Municipal Council.

Mr. Speaker, in the past year, the Mount Pearl Lions have been involved in more than forty-five different community activities, including: the Journey For Sight, the School Breakfast program at Mary Queen of the World School, Blood Donor Clinics, Wheelchair Sports and Christmas Food Hampers, just to name a few. Where there is a community need, you will find the Mount Pearl Lions ready to step right in and offer a helping hand.

One of the most significant contributions in the past year has been the Club's commitment of $20,000 over the five years to the Mount Pearl Opportunities Fund. This fund has been established by the City of Mount Pearl to assist community groups to offer programs and to encourage youth participation in a wide-spectrum of activities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Just a moment to continue?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Mount Pearl Lions Club is a fundamental part of our community's social structure and while the Club's active membership is not as high as it was some years ago, the Club still plays a very vital role in our community.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all Members of the House join with me in offering the Mount Pearl Lions Club congratulations on their 46th anniversary of their Charter and we wish them continued success in the years ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour on Thursday, April 11, 2002 of attending a reception sponsored by the Town of Bay Roberts to recognize its outstanding athletes for the year 2001.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Yes, Sir, I was.

Twelve-year-old Samantha Mercer excelled in figure skating and volleyball. Her involvement in Tae-Kwon Do - and I say to my hon. colleague, that is my preference as well - earned her nine gold medals and two silver medals, three provincial titles and two national titles to receive Female Athlete of the Year.

Ryan Trenchard was named the Male Athlete of the Year for his excellent performance in ball and ice hockey, and softball both provincially and nationally. He also participated in the St. John's Junior Baseball League playoffs with the Holy Cross team. Ryan also spends time officiating both ice and ball hockey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to extend congratulations to both Samantha and Ryan on their outstanding achievements and the recognition they have received.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, May 3, the Towns of Wabush and Labrador City held their annual Volunteer Appreciation Nights.

As we are all aware, Mr. Speaker, it is the efforts of volunteers in our communities that make them such as great places to live. It would be beyond the capability of any community in our Province to pay - even at minimum wages - the number of hours dedicated each year, unselfishly, by people who have a desire to help others.

Mr. Speaker, the Wabush banquet was attended by 254 people. Volunteers were presented with pins and plaques in recognition of their valuable contribution.

Cathy Auruda was the winner of the Volunteer of the Year Award, named The Lolly McGreagor Award in memory of Lolly McGreagor who, for many years, was a tireless volunteer in the Town of Wabush.

Tom Snow, current fire chief, and the late Mike Shea were inducted into the Wabush Recreation Honor Roll Society.

Irene Woodworth and Debbie Batson received five-year volunteer awards, Dav Pinksen, fifteen- year and Barry Carter twenty-year awards.

The Wabush evening concluded with an inspiring speech by Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, Miss Kristen Parsons.

In Labrador City, Mr. Speaker, 300 people attended the Volunteer recognition evening with a number of awards being presented.

Nathen Bullen and Crystal Burt won the Junior Male and Female Athlete of the Year award.

Mark Nichols and Lisa Murphy, Senior Male and Female Athlete of the Year award.

Gary Pinsent and Markita Gallant, the Master Male and Female of the Year.

Barry McLean, Coach of the Year.

Ten year Volunteer Awards were presented to Vida Connors, Legion Branch 47, and John Angel and Jim Gallant of the Menihek X-Country Ski Club.

Doug House, Robert Martin, Patsy Ralph and Robert Wellon received the Builders Award, while Alvin Parril was recognized for his special involvement with the Youth Center.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the Towns of Wabush and Labrador City in paying tribute to all the winners of those awards and, indeed, all who volunteer their time in making our communities a better place to live.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon my questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. It should be a pleasant exchange this afternoon, a nice sunny day, and we had a great weekend in Gander this weekend. We had a tremendous convention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Our new President, Kathy Dunderdale, is in the gallery, and our former President, Karen Noftall, is in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: So, it is a happy day. I will be pleasant but I will be probing.

Notwithstanding that preamble, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the government continues to mislead the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on the status of the Voisey's Bay negotiations. In fact, there are too many conflicting messages.

While the Premier has said a deal isn't close to being finalized, the Minister of Mines and Energy says that negotiations are in a conclusionary phase. Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is: Could he please tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who is, in fact, misleading the people. Is it the Premier or is it himself, the Minister of Mines and Energy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question and I am glad to hear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a good weekend in Gander. I have to confess, I did not make it that far this weekend but I did have a good weekend at home. I would assume that, on both our accounts, it was beneficial for our own purposes.

Mr. Speaker, to the question that has been put: there is nobody misleading the people of the Province with respect to the current status of the negotiations with respect to the Voisey's Bay project. The Premier has said, and I have said, and others have said, that we are getting close to the conclusion of the negotiations. That does not equal that we are close to concluding, successfully, discussions for the development of the Voisey's Bay project.

In terms of time frames, we have been discussing this project, Mr. Speaker, since last July. We have been negotiating it with Inco. In terms of resolving, as a basket of issues, the numbers of issues that have to be resolved, we have concluded most of them; but I have to say to the hon. member, as I have said to the public, the two or three items that are left outstanding are so fundamental and so substantially important to the people of the Province that, at this point, I cannot predict whether or not they will be successfully concluded and that we will have a project. We will be soon bringing negotiations to a conclusion one way or the other, but that does not mean that we will soon have a project. We hope we will have a project. It was our intent, when we went back to the negotiating table, and it is still our intent, to find a way to develop this enormously positive and beneficial project for the people of the Province. We hope that we can come to that type of end to our discussions, but until we get there we have no project, and until we get there, we don't know what the outcome will be. So it is premature to talk about many other aspects of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - the program or the project until we get to that point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is for that very reason that the people out there are confused. I mean, there isn't only conflict or confusion between the hon. minister's statements and statements by the Premier, there is also confusion with the message being sent out by the Chairman of Inco; I am sorry, the CEO of Inco, Mr. Scott Hand. Mr. Hand, a few weeks ago, said that Inco has made significant progress in negotiations. There are only a few outstanding issues to be resolved, and the Premier and he have agreed to sit down shortly and hammer out the final details. In others words, we are very close, shareholders, we are nearly there, the Premier is just going to finalize it, it is just about all over.

The Premier, on the contrary, as I have said before, says they have not agree to sit down shortly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: - and hammer out details, because a deal isn't close to being finalized.

I ask the minister: Who is misleading the people, the Premier or Scott Hand, the CEO of Inco? One of them has to be wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nobody misleading anybody. If anybody is confused, I understand that could be the case, whether it is the general public or some member of the House - there is no confusion. The comments of the Chairman of Inco can be best responded to by him. He made those comments with respect to how close we were, by virtue of his perception, to having this deal resolved one way or the other. What the Premier has said in response to that is very clear. He said: I hear what Mr. Hand has said. We have concluded on most of the issues. There are two or three fundamental ones that we have not finalized. We have no idea, quite frankly, whether we will successfully or not resolve them, and until we bring ourselves to a position of knowing whether or not we have a resolution, as the Premier has said, I think - he said: I have no meeting scheduled with Scott Hand. I know he has no meeting scheduled with Scott Hand. Today, I have no meeting scheduled with him. I haven't met with his recently. My officials are continuing to talk with his officials, and we are moving towards finalizing, we hope, the negotiations. So we hope it is a successful conclusion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We have no idea firmly, as to whether or not there will be a successful resolution to this project. The issues and the project itself are so important to the people in the Province that if we do not get it right, in our judgement, we will not be bringing forward a project.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We hope we can bring forward a project because we hope we can get it right for all our benefits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hand has said that he and the Premier have agreed to sit down and hammer out the details. He is bound by the regulations of the Public Securities and Exchange Commission. He has an obligation, by law, to be forthright and honest. Based on the answer, I guess he is misleading the people.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said that one of the two outstanding issues in the Voisey's Bay deal is the approval of R and D funding for Inco. Yet, Allan Stubbs, Inco's spokesperson, said in March that federal funding cannot be approved until a deal has been finalized with the Province. Who is misleading the people? Is it the Premier or is it Mr. Stubbs, Inco's spokesperon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not about to stand in this Chamber - because it would be inappropriate for me to even suggest that I have that right or ability - to answer for the comments of Allan Stubbs or Scott Hand or Peter Jones, all of whom have spoken publicly on the project. I am not going to speak to or explain for them anything that they have said. They are the best ones to be asked those questions.

I can say to the hon. member that there are two or three major issues left. From our prospective, we have said R and D is an important component of the development of the economy of this Province. R and D, in the context of the Voisey's negotiations, is obviously something that is an important piece of it because Inco has said, and we have agreed, that we would like to get a substantial R and D program going; first of all, to test up the hydromet and then to be used for other purposes in subsequent years as a might-be opportunity.

With respect to what they are asking of Ottawa, Inco in Ottawa, for assistance under R and D or under any other programs that the federal government have had, these are not our issues. Our issue is to negotiate an arrangement so that Inco can sign off on coming forward in developing the project. We have said that we would encourage, support and ask the federal government to give Inco every due consideration for program-based funding or any other type of funding that is available on the same basis that they would give consideration to any other company wanting to do business on an R and D basis in our Province or anywhere else in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: We think that we should not disadvantage ourselves unilaterally on any basis, political or otherwise, against any project.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: On the contrary, we say Ottawa lend business your support in Newfoundland on any and every basis you can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, then I ask you - we have two conflicting statements there, one from Mr. Stubbs and one from the Premier. Can you tell me whether the federal funding can be approved prior to a deal being finalized or does it have to be approved after a deal is finalized? Just give me your answer as the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the timing of approvals, with respect to the level of approvals, with respect to at what point approvals are formally given for R and D funding out of the federal government, I frankly do not know when it is and at what point in time it is or will be that they will give approvals, if they in fact give approvals for R and D on this project.

We simply say to Ottawa, and I say today publicly to Ottawa, in the context that Inco has said they are up there in the capital city looking for some levels of assistance and support for the program, I am saying to Ottawa: we would like to see some clarity brought to what extent Ottawa can participate in the project. Advise Inco - because we are not participants in the discussion that they are having with the federal government - of what the conclusion can be probably to their requests so that we will have greater clarity as to when we can move forward to conclude negotiations. Inco has clearly said that one of the two or three things that they want to bring conclusion to is their discussion with the Aboriginals, the discussions in Ottawa, and then of course discussions with us to see whether or not we can clear up - aye or nay - the two or three big issues that are left and see whether or not we have a project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, even though the Premier has indicated that they are not close to finalizing a deal on Voisey's Bay we have reason to believe, and we have information and we have indication, that negotiations are being carried on between Inco and/or the representatives and/or related companies with regard to contracts for construction and other matters at Voisey's Bay. Does the minister have any knowledge whatsoever that Inco is negotiating any contracts with respect to development of Voisey's Bay with SNC Lavalin or any other related companies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility as a government in the first instance to try and bring about a resolution of the issues that would lead, hopefully, to the successful development of the Voisey's Bay project.

What level of activities Inco are carrying on or may be carrying on with respect to discussions with other agreements that they have to reach with respect to the federal government, with respect to preparatory work that they may be doing to be ready to go forward with a project in the event that there is a successful conclusion, are questions that can only be answered by them and should appropriately be put to them.

I am not, in the first instance, aware of all of the activities that they are involved in. I hear a lot of things on the street, quite frankly, as I am sure the hon. member does, as to who is doing what with respect to preparatory work to get ready for the project. We take all that as being positive in the sense that obviously there is a mindset within the corporation, Inco, to hopefully try and get this deal done. But, Mr. Speaker, until the deal is right for the people of this Province, there will be no development of a project for Voisey's Bay. Until we get it to a point where we believe we have a deal that is supportable, sustainable, defensible and above all, right in terms of the economic outcome to the people of this Province for the next thirty-plus years, until we get that, there is no project. Everything else, quite frankly, is academic in terms of what has or has not been discussed, arranged, negotiated or concluded outside of our discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: If, in fact, Inco are treating this as a done deal, and if, in fact, they are out negotiating contracts or talking to people about possible construction and development during this summer period in Voisey's Bay, isn't that information that the minister should know and wouldn't that be important information in finalizing the negotiation? Because if they think a deal is already done, then you should know where their head is at if you are going to finalize the best deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, I ask you again: Are you saying you don't know, or if you do know, tell us what you do know with regard to those negotiations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: As limited as it is, Mr. Speaker, in terms of knowledge, I cannot tell the hon. member today, in a short time frame, all that I do know. Now I do not know a lot, but I do know some things. I know a fair bit, Mr. Speaker - with fairness to the question and the hon. member - with respect to what is happening around this particular file. If, after leading the negotiations for twelve months, it puts me in a position of not knowing very much, then there needs to be a replacement.

I know a fair bit of what is happening around the file. I know where we are, Mr. Speaker, which is my primary concentration and concern with respect to our negotiations. Whether or not any party, including Inco as the other party to a commercial arrangement, if we do one, accepts the current circumstance as being de facto, a done deal, is something that I cannot speak to. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and tell the people of the Province, through the question that the hon. member asked, that there is no deal done today with respect to the development of Voisey's Bay. There are substantial - if few, still substantial - issues that are unresolved and I cannot predict today with any certainty whatsoever as to whether or not we will eventually come to an arrangement that is right for the people of the Province to get this project moving. We are hopeful we can get it done. We believe the people of the Province are expectant of us to get it done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: As much as the people of the Province want to see it done, they want to see it done right; and nobody in this Province, including members on that side or this side, would want anything other than the best possible outcome from the discussions on this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing in a world of conflicting messages and mixed messages out there. Someone is misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is about a question of trust.

If, in fact, the Premier is not being honest about the negotiations and is misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would ask the minister how he could expect us to trust them that they will return ore to this Province in thirty-five years' time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: It simply will not happen.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to speak, as I said earlier, to any comments or any statements that have been made by anybody else other than this government on behalf of this project. I think that is fair and I think that is what the hon. member would expect.

With great respect, I would challenge the hon. member to point out one area in this discussion that has taken place in this House where the Premier's comments, and my comments, have been inconsistent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: As far as I know, and as far as I can determine, as far as I have heard, and unless somebody else can tell me different, there have been no inconsistencies with respect to what the Premier has said and with respect to what I have said. We may have used different words to say the same thing, but essentially we have both said the same thing. There are no meetings lined up between the Premier and Mr. Hand on this. There have been meetings between Mr. Hand and myself on this file. There are no current plans to have any meetings imminently. But, having said that, we do all believe that it is time to get this discussion, this negotiation, to a conclusion one way or the other.

What the Premier has said, as I have heard him, and what I have said, is that over the next several weeks, one way or the other, we should bring resolution and clarity as to whether or not there will be a deal that we will be - if it is concluded properly - proud to bring to the people of the Province, and have a good debate in the Province, a good discussion, and a good, clear, free and open dialogue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - with all of the people of the Province with respect to the values of a deal if we get it done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Does he remember 2:00 p.m. on December 4, 2001, when he stood in this House, and the Premier stood in this House, and said that none of the Voisey's Bay ore in Labrador would leave this Province, and within half an hour he went outside that House and said just the opposite, that he meant equivalent ore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: There is an example. What do you have to say to that, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, there is any confusion, or no substantial confusion or misunderstanding, in the minds of the people of this Province as to what it is we are proposing in terms of trying to get this deal negotiated successfully. We have said clearly, the Premier has said clearly, that over the last number of months - I cannot remember December 4 specifically, only on this account: I know it is the eve of my wife's birthday and I know that day I would have been shopping for a birthday gift. Other than that, I have no clear recollection of what I would have been doing on December 4 because I wanted to make my wife happy on December 5, her birthday. December 4, I was probably shopping.

Now who said what, exactly, with respect to any other issue, I have less clarity on, but let me say this: Nobody misunderstands, I do believe, fundamentally that we are discussing or are prepared to discuss the possible movement, we have said - the possible movement - of concentrate, providing we get the right guarantees that it will come back over the life of the project so that we can get a project going that is right for the people of the Province. We will not do it if, in our judgement, the deal is wrong, and we will be happy to present it to the people of the Province if, indeed, we think we get it right and get it done successfully.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported this weekend that the Minister of Education is planning to cancel public examinations in Math 3205. Now, I say to the minister, Math 3205 is not a new course. It has been around for three years in a pilot project and that sort of thing. It is surprising that it would have to be cancelled, so I ask the minister: Is it true that you may cancel the exam? Why would you cancel the exam? And, is it possible that you may cancel other public exams in other subject areas? Minister, please.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have been advised by the lead math teachers of each of our school boards, as well as with some board reps, that there is some difficulty being experienced with the Advanced Math program, 3205. Part of the issue for us, I guess, is, when you look at the problem we had where we have strikes in several of our school boards, the students lost a considerable amount of time; and, in fact, the issues around September 11 as well, and the fact that text books were not available at the beginning of the school year. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, what we are finding and what we are hearing from teachers is that there is a considerable amount of material to be covered in the Advanced Math 3205 and they are suggesting that maybe they need a little more time. They have asked us to really give some serious thought as to whether or not we offer a public exam in that particular subject area only, and I have agreed to do that. Whether or not we go ahead with it will depend, again, on the recommendations I get from those who are closest to the students, and those are the teachers and those in the school board areas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that the teachers have been speaking since early in the school year, in September and October, and they haven't been listened to; but, Mr. Speaker, to get to the problem. The problem in math is not the exam but the math curriculum, not just 3205, but across all grades. The math results in last year's public exams were a disaster, Minister. Math professors in MUN have warned -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: - that students are coming to the university without adequate skills in math, and student performance, Mr. Speaker, on the SAIP in 2001 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: - declined since the last time in 1997.

So, I ask the minister: What, Minister, are you doing with the curriculum? What are you going to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for pointing out the terrible results we had last year in our exam results, because clearly that points to the need for new enhanced, improved curriculum. That is exactly the question he asked me a couple of weeks ago, about the poor results, and I told him the testing was, in fact, based on the old curriculum, not the new math curriculum.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have to find a way to ensure that our students do better on math. That is exactly where we are coming from, as a department and the eleven school boards throughout the Province. We are working with a new math curriculum, and there will be issues that we will have to deal with. There will be problems we will have to iron out as we go along, and that is not uncommon when you introduce a new curriculum. It is because, historically, we have had difficulty with math in this Province, with our students excelling in math, because we have had problems, that we really are putting an extra effort into trying to see what we can do to see some improvement in our math scores in this Province.

On the SAIP results, Mr. Speaker, in fact if you look at the results for the four Atlantic Provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador led.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: But that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. We want our students to excel. We want them to be better than the rest of the country. So we are doing a number of things, including introducing a new curriculum, which, as I said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer, quickly.

MS FOOTE: - with all other curriculums, when they are new, there are bound to be problems, but we will work with our teachers and we will iron out those problems, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the minister, this math program, 3205, goes back over three to four years with piloting. You have had your chance. I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the effect on the 800 students who are registered today, when they go to post-secondary, is the big concern that we have today.

I ask the minister: If the public exams are cancelled in math 3205, how will the post-secondary institutions compare the math skills of those 800 students with the skills of other students who write other public math exams? Madam Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, first let me just correct a number that the member opposite gave. It is not over 800 students. In fact, it is a little over 500 students, but 145 of them have applied to post-secondary institutions. So those are the numbers in terms that are taking this particular advanced math course, 3205.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with Memorial. I do understand they would prefer to see the public exam go ahead in advanced math 3205. However, Mr. Speaker, even if it had gone ahead, they tell us that they would still offer their mathematics placement program. So, whether or not we offer the public exam or a commonly written exam administered by teachers themselves, who taught the material, Memorial will still go ahead and offer their mathematics placement exam.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Labour.

There have been eighty cases of cancers diagnosed around former workers in the Baie Verte asbestos mines, twenty-four of those, I say to the minister, since the year 2000. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg because many workers have moved out of the Province since the mine closed down in the early 1990s. Unfortunately, workers in the asbestos mines in Baie Verte who develop certain types of cancers are put through a difficult and lengthy process fighting for compensation. It is a relentless fight to get compensation for these workers and their families on a case by case basis but it appears that Workers' Compensation is not seeing the big picture that the high levels of cancers among these workers is related to having worked in the asbestos mines.

Given the high number of cancers diagnosed in former workers in the Baie Verte mines -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: - and the new cases coming forward, I ask the minister, will she direct Workers' Compensation to implement a policy that has the balance of probabilities in favour of the workers so that they and their families can get the compensation they deserve without being put through the hardship and the stress of fighting for illnesses that are obviously linked to their workplace?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for his question.

All members in this House would know that safety in the workplace is priority number one of my department. I have to say that a couple of years ago we did receive an inquiry from Baie Verte regarding asbestos, contamination and so on, and we sent in an asbestos consultant who looked at the abandoned mine and came back and stated to the Department of Labour that there were no ill-effects or no concerns to the workers because I understand that there has been a business set up in that abandoned mine since it was abandoned.

The idea or the concern you are raising regarding Workers' Compensation and miners who feel that they have been contaminated by the workplace at Baie Verte, well any worker who feels that they have been exposed to a contaminant in the workplace has to prove their case. There is a legislation in place and also a policy at Workers' Compensation. The issue (inaudible) today is confirming and making sure that the actual illness did take place in the workplace, and that is where it rests today. Unless it can be proven that the illness or occupational contaminants occurred at the workplace, it would not be approved by Workers' Compensation Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

 

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I really cannot believe what the minister has just stated. Given the known effects that asbestos causes in the workplace, I say to the minister, you are not even allowed to take it out of your own home. Knowing the carcinogens and knowing the causes that asbestos has with cancer and given the fact that these people have worked in an industry where there is a latency period before the cancer is developed in their systems, I say to the minister, will she not just send an inspector to the mine, will she commit to a full medical audit of the people who worked in Baie Verte? The balance of probabilities, I say to the minister, in Workers' Compensation matters should go to the worker. They should not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I say to the minister, will she commit to such a study?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question that is being raised today by the Member for Labrador West is similar to a question that was raised by Marystown Shipyard, and there is a study ongoing right now by Marystown Shipyard. However, I have not had any representation today or any other day from anyone in the area of Baie Verte requesting such a study.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I must say to the member opposite, I cannot inform Workers' Compensation Commission to write a blank cheque to any worker out there who is affected by what they feel is an occupational disease. I have not had any representation today from any worker, from any union representative, or otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: So, Mr. Speaker, as it sits today I will not undergo a study until I have had proper representation from the parties affected.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will introduce the following Private Member's Motion:

WHEREAS the availability of affordable air transportation is an important factor in the growth of the economy of this Province; and

WHEREAS the current air service to the Province is expensive and less than adequate; and

WHEREAS the growing tourism industry in this Province is heavily reliant on the airline industry;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the federal government to eliminate the costly air travel fees on passengers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the federal government to put in place policies which result in affordable and comprehensive air service to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Labrador West. It is addressed to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new drugs for multiple sclerosis; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizen's Drug Subsidy Program and people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 and $3,600 a month; and

WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with the high cost of these drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs, not limited to social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis.

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for Betaseron, Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif so that people who do not qualify for assistance under the existing programs can get financial assistance with these high cost drugs, as is the case in every other Canadian province, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have raised this question on a number of occasions in this House to the minister stating that this Province should have these drugs covered the same as every other province in this country provides, from P.E.I, Nova Scotia and right on through to British Columbia. Every single province, other than ours, provide coverage for these drugs.

Mr. Speaker, the cost that I reflected there, between $1,800 and $3,600 a month, is high. I think we can all agree that there is no way humanly possible that a single person, a person working for a living in this Province, can afford that type of money. The government's answer is: well, we cannot either. We have a limited amount of money that we have to spend on medicare and we have to do our best and try to target the areas that we can. The problem with that argument, I say to the government, is not that the government will not provide coverage for that drug, because they will. The problem is what government expects working people in this Province to do to themselves before they will provide that coverage. For example, if a person is working in a place of work and making $50,000 a year income, then government requires them to cash in any RRSPs they may have saved for their retirement; to cash in any education funds they may have for their children; to spend any savings; to offload practically everything they own and live like a pauper. Then, after they have done that to themselves, after they have ruined their families financially, then government will pay.

It is not a question of whether government will or will not pay, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of what they expect the working men and women of this Province to do to themselves and their families before they will pay.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, every other province has it and I am sure that the conditions in other provinces -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, every other province in the country has it and I think it is appropriate and about time that the people of this Province do. We are not asking for carte blanche. We are asking that a system be put in place, and a co-payment system, based on other provinces, that will go a long way towards alleviating the financial burden of people in this Province and, even more importantly, allowing people the opportunity to use these drugs which certainly can enhance their lifestyle.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on the roads in the District of St. Barbe. I will read the prayer now.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS roads in the District of St. Barbe have deteriorated to the point where they are becoming impassable; and

WHEREAS many roads in St. Barbe have degenerated so far that they are a safety risk; and

WHEREAS the roads in the District of St. Barbe support large volumes of traffic, especially in the summer tourist season;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to commence immediately with improvements to the roads in the District of St. Barbe.

And as in duly bound your petitioners will ever prayer.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about having bad roads in the District of St. Barbe is an added expense that the people have to incur there. The roads are so bad that the mechanical parts are failing, with the damage that is being done to their vehicles, and this is an expense on top of all the taxes that we have. As you know, the gas prices and whatnot in other parts of this Province are higher than we have here in St. John's, so it is very much a lot of added expense.

One of the things we have done on the Northern Peninsula is, we have looked at tourism as a means to substitute for jobs that have gone because of the cod moratorium and actually the lack of development such as in the shrimp industry. So, I would like to point out that those roads are very important to the Northern Peninsula and to the District of St. Barbe, but yet we have let them deteriorate considerably.

I believe one of the reasons why those roads have gone so, is that they are old. Those roads are twenty-five years and older on the Northern Peninsula, so they have come to the end of their life; but one of the reasons that they have also deteriorated and are in such bad condition is that there have been heavy loads on those roads. There have been no scales there, so the trucks have exceeded their load limits in many cases and that has added to the problem.

As well as that, the shrimp industry happens in the spring, and one of the things in the spring, with the spring runoff, is that you have the roads in a very weakened condition. What happens is, this also makes the roads deteriorate faster because the support is not there as it was. All of this has compounded to make the roads become worse than what they should have been if they had been used under normal conditions.

All of the road, all of 430, I guess, is in a very poor condition, but there are certain places that need attention, I suppose, that kind of come to the top. Down in Gros Morne, as I said, tourism has been a means by which we were trying to generate employment on the Peninsula, down in this park which attracts a lot of people. They come there, and when they see the condition of the road as they leave the park, it certainly gives them an opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. YOUNG: By leave, just a second?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. YOUNG: I think it is important, as the park is investing money down there this year, that, if the Province were to continue on and give a better presentation to the possible tourists who would be coming to the Peninsula, it would certainly be one place.

As well, I would like to point out, as I have in the past many times, Anchor Point has been a community that has been out there that has been very fortunate, in one sense, of having a shrimp plant, but in the other sense of never being able to open up (inaudible) in the summertime.

The Town of Port au Choix, I suppose, wasn't as fortunate. They have invested in the community and they have upgraded their community roads, and the provincial road is the one road that is by far the worst in the community.

I think we need to look at what is happening in the District of St. Barbe and maybe invest some monies back into the roads there.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition as well.

The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly in Newfoundland, in legislative session convened.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland.

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately four kilometers of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition from the residents of Birchy Cove, Amherst Cove, Upper-Middle-Lower Amherst Cove, Newmans Cove, Kings Cove, Plate Cove, Bonavista, and the people who normally travel that route from other communities leading into the Town of Bonavista.

I have had the minister down over this section of roadway twice, this present minister. I have had the former minister down over that section of Route 235. It is an area that the Town of Bonavista, the largest community, the largest town in my district - I know I have written the minister complaining about this section of roadway, how it needs to be upgraded and paved. There have been some feeble attempts made to deal with this four kilometers over the last number of years. The section that is left to be upgraded and paved has already been ditched, pipes have been installed, and the need now is to have the pavement replaced by the existing pavement that was put there in excess of twenty-five years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the residents in that particular area have held demonstrations over the years. They went out and they have handed out pamphlets. They have handed out letters and asked for support. I know there have been many letters that have come to the minister and to the minister's department asking that this section of roadway be upgraded and paved, and included in this construction season.

Mr. Speaker, it has been awhile now since there has been any amount of money spent in the District of Bonavista South. In fact, I think it was probably three years ago we did realize ten kilometres of pavement on this particular road, Route 235. Since that, we have gotten half a kilometre here, 400 metres somewhere else, a kilometre in another area. It is a situation where the roads have deteriorated now to the extent where it needs a major amount of money, major, major funding put into the roads in the District of Bonavista South.

I bring forward petitions from the people in Birchy Cove on Route 235, from the people in Winter Brook, from the people living in Open Hall, Red Cliff and Tickle Cove, not to mention the terrible road going out to places like Sweet Bay and Charleston.

I know we do not have enough money brought forward in order to attend to all the problems in all the districts, but if we never start, we never finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: So I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will include this section of roadway in this year's capital funding to at least give the people in the Bonavista-Birchy Cove area a decent road to travel over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I believe, has a petition to present.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise today and present a petition on behalf of 196 residents of the community of Charlottetown in my district. It is regarding infrastructure for water and sewer projects.

Mr. Speaker, this a very important petition from the people in that area because, as of today, the community itself has only 40 per cent of the water and sewer infrastructure in its community complete. We all know that most communities in the Province today have some water and sewer infrastructure; if not, at least half the communities have been completed.

In my district, Mr. Speaker, there are seventeen communities. Four or five of them have no water and sewer services whatsoever. This is a very important concern for us. Over the years we have had special agreements with the federal government under the Labrador infrastructure agreement, primarily, where we have seen investments of dollars into our communities in northern parts of the country - in this case in Labrador, which is the northern part of our Province - to help bring the communities in this region on par with other communities throughout the Province and across the country in infrastructure. That agreement which ran out back about six or seven years ago has not been renewed and it is unfortunate because the federal government refuses, today, to negotiate sectoral agreements with provinces to address areas in specific locations.

So, while in Labrador we do have a northern agreement or an Aboriginal people's agreement which deals with infrastructure needs in the Aboriginal communities, primarily in the Torngat Mountains area and in the Innu Nation communities, that funding does not apply to communities in Southern Labrador, which is very unfortunate; because the community I am referring to today, Charlottetown, where people have submitted this petition to the House of Assembly looking for money for water and sewer. They are Aboriginal communities, as is most of the communities in my district, and they are Métis communities. Unfortunately, they do not have an infrastructure development agreement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: If the member for Placentia has a question, you can stand up. I am just trying to present a petition. Could you give me a moment?

Mr. Speaker, these communities are Aboriginal communities but because there is not a separate pot of money for Métis communities to deal with infrastructure and capital improvements, unfortunately these communities get left out. Although the provincial government has a $300 million agreement with the feds over the next three years to deal with infrastructure in our communities, that money is cost-shared money and sometimes it is very difficult for smaller communities with smaller populations - as is the case in Charlottetown and all of the communities in my district - to be able to participate in those agreements in any major way. We are not talking about a project that will only -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up my comments?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it becomes very difficult for these communities to be able to participate in those cost-shared agreements. They just do not have the dollars to be able to do so. So, Mr. Speaker, what they are asking is that we give them some priority consideration under the funding agreements that we have in place. Ideally, what works for northern communities in our country is a northern agreement, a sectorial agreement with the federal government that deals primarily with water and sewer and infrastructure needs in northern communities. It is important to note that it costs three times more to put water and sewer in most of these communities as it does in other areas of the Province and at substantially higher costs, which really does not allow these communities to participate.

I ask hon. members to support the community, and myself as the member, to help them work through this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker, to move that the House resolve into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco, Bill 5.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act with a resolution to be submitted to the Committee of the Whole House in relation to a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I rise today to have -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I did not see the Minister of Mines and Energy standing in his place.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, no problem.

CHAIR: If you would.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will gladly sit down and let him be recognized. I will have a little more fuel to comment on then when he does.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope he does not have any more fueling to spur among - because I do not intend to light up over this. I simply intend to introduce this on behalf of the minister who is not here today.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to say much to this bill by way of introduction other than to say that it is the bill that will give effect to the tobacco tax increases that have already been announced in the Budget. They have a two-fold effect, quite frankly, from the Province's perspective. In the first instance, they are a health initiative to try and help reduce the use of tobacco products. Secondly, they do provide extra money for the Treasury. The extra money for the Treasury, of course, is required because this year, as in most years in the past, we have put extraordinary increases into the health care budget to, amongst other things, develop strategies that would seek to reduce the level of participation by usage of tobacco products. Particularly amongst the youth in the Province, the young people of the Province who, when they get hooked on this tobacco habit, find a harder time, obviously, to get off it than if they had never been hooked at all.

The bill really is a bill to give effect to the tax increases. We hope that they will be effective also in terms of reducing the usage of the product. It does provide money, as I have said earlier, for the effective implementation of new strategies with respect to tax reduction usages. We hope that, not only will the bill have its desired effect of reducing the usage of tobacco products, but that it will in fact also - we know it will have the effect, maybe, depending on how the usage goes in the future, of raising additional revenues to the Province. We are not sure about that because - we would be happy campers, Mr. Chair, quite frankly, if we found out that there were no new taxes coming into the Treasury by virtue of the decreased utilization of tobacco products. That would be the almost perfect outcome in the context of this bill.

If usage continues to be high, we will need the extra money to fight the use of it and develop strategies to try and work against the use of and discourage the use of tobacco products. If we ended up with no new money in the Treasury, we believe we will all be the net beneficiaries of more money in the health care system and Budget to be used for other purposes rather than fighting tobacco illnesses and diseases. At best, Mr. Chair, we hope that is the outcome. At worst, it will generate some new revenues to enable us to continue to fight the use of the product and to fund the health care system generally.

Mr. Chair, I do not think I need to say any more than that. The bill is very self-explanatory and I am sure the hon. member on the other side, from Ferryland, who will speak next in the debate, will be anxious to support this bill because it is a bill put forward for all of the right and good reasons that the bill states, and that I have already mentioned, and I am sure that he will want to give it quick and speedy passage so that we can move on to other matters of importance to the people of the Province in terms of other legislation that needs to be debated.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any hopes of having quick passage just when out the door with two statements made by this minister on this bill. The minister said that he is not sure if they are going to realize the amount of revenue under this item that they said. In other words, he is telling us the Budget might not even realize the level of expenditure that we want. Maybe that is why they want Bill 7.

They are proposing under this Budget that $15 million of new revenue would be collected because of this bill. That is what the Budget that the Minister of Finance brought down is saying. The minister is now telling us that he is not sure if they are going to get that revenue. What does that mean?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what the minister just said, and here is the second point he made. He said, the purpose of this bill is twofold. One is to increase taxes for $15 million and, secondly, to reduce smoking.

This bill, I advocate, was not brought in to reduce smoking. This bill was brought in as a tax measure, and there is not any reference in this bill whatsoever - I do not see it anywhere - where this bill talks about one of the purposes or anything with reference to reducing smoking. It is not one of the purposes. If you want to reduce smoking, this government could have brought in legislation that bans smoking in all public buildings. In all public buildings, period! That then would be a bill that is geared toward the reduction of smoking. In fact, they could make a bill, and change the law, that would made it illegal for anybody under twenty-one to buy cigarettes. Those measures are ones that will show the purpose.

There is one purpose of this bill and one purpose only. The purpose of this bill is for government to reach out and get extra revenues to meet their mushrooming deficit. That is what is happening. That is the purpose of this bill. It has no other purpose; it has no other intent. I never heard government saying before that the intent of this bill is to do that. It was not mentioned in the Budget Speech. It mentioned that it would realize $14.5 million in new taxes. Fifteen million, actually, is shown here, not $14.5 million. They are showing $15 million from the revised amount last year to the new amount this year in taxes. So that is the purpose of this.

It does make reference, I might add, "Clause 2 of the Bill amends the Act to allow the regulations made by the minister with respect to the rebate of tax in Labrador border zones to be made with retroactive effect".

Back about four or five years ago, the people in Labrador were paying tax in this Province the same as the rest of the Island. I went down to Labrador and spoke to the Chamber of Commerce. I articulated our policy, what it should be, on taxation. What was happening, the people in Labrador were paying the same tax as here when they could drive to Fermont. They were driving to Fermont and buying cigarettes, coming back with carloads of groceries and other items they were buying in Quebec, and businesses in Labrador City and Wabush were suffering as a result of that. I advocated that we had to look at border zones that level the playing field, and to allow businesses in our Province to be able to cushion themselves against the effects of losing business from border towns that have preferential tax rates and lower tax rates in various areas. That was one of the things. After going there, speaking to the chamber, getting fairly, I must say, extensive coverage on that, government then were forced to come in with legislation to bring that into effect, and I support that part. I support the clause that makes it effective, because we do not want to see towns in our Province, in Labrador City and Wabush, in Labrador West, suffer because our government is going to penalize them and not allow them to compete with towns across the border. So, that part I do not have any major problem with.

But, to tell us that the purpose of this bill is to be able to reduce smoking; it is not the purpose. I hope it does something to reduce smoking. In fact, I really think that young people buying cigarettes - and it is very price sensitive to young people. The higher the price, there is less access and it is less likely that these young people would buy cigarettes if they are expensive. We do not want to see young people getting access to cigarettes that could affect them for the rest of their lives. We would like people to be at a mature age, as an adult, to make decisions on their own if they want to affect their health, but we cannot have young people being put in the position whereby they will make decisions that could hurt them for the rest of their lives. We have to be very strong on this on young people. I have said before that we weren't strong enough. We are not strong enough on this, and I took the minister to task. We apply a different standard for underage people with cigarettes than we do with alcohol. We apply a different standard. Government has two different standards. They are not consistent on this aspect in their legislation and we said it is a problem to an extent. Now, we do not want to make young people criminals because they smoke, but we have to be very proactive. At least, on the other side of the coin, we have to be very proactive with young programs. I know there is a program now where there are teens against smoking, and hopefully that will get us a desired result. If we can do it through positive measure, it is much better than doing it through negative measures to get the result we want. So, that it important.

The purpose of this bill - don't let government kid you into thinking their motive behind bringing in this bill is one of concern for the health care system. It has nothing to do, basically, with its direct intent. It was never stated by the minister in the Budget Speech. It was brought in for the sole purpose as a revenue one, and that is why we are debating in this House now as one that is put forward by the Minister of Finance, and not one brought in by the Minister of Health and Community Service. Because, if that was the intent of it, on the monetary side, that is where the bill would occur and we would see improvements and we would see changes to reduce smoking by young people in our Province. So, it is a grab.

If you would just take a look at what this Province is taking in, in areas like cigarettes, in taxes on tobacco. For example, the tobacco tax we are proposed to take in this year is $80.5 million. Last year, it was $65.5 million. That is a different of $15 million. Now, it said in the Budget Speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: From $65.5 million to $80.5 million, I say to my colleague, is $15 million. The budget said $14.5 million. That is what they advocated but actually they budgeted $15 million more. They said one thing and budgeted for something different than they said on the revised figures.

When the minister was reading the Budget, on Budget Day - she had a book put out that had a $500,000 difference than what she read the same day in the document she produced. She was only $500,000 - and that is a fine lot of money, but it is nice to be accurate when you already have it in print.

I want to point out, it is not just the tobacco tax, just look at the other taxes. For instance, taxes that we are taking in in liquor, the liquor corporation. We are getting $103 million from the liquor corporation on liquor taxes. We get $80.5 million on the tobacco tax. Lottery revenues, and that is another huge one, $106 million. Almost $300 million that we are taking in, in our Province, on tobacco, liquor and gambling; $300 million. A significant percent of our provincial revenues today are coming in from those taxes. When you look at the total provincial revenue of $2.2 billion - $300 million coming in - about one-seventh are coming in, or 14 per cent are coming in under cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling. That is a lot of money.

One of the points I made is that there should be programs utilizing these taxes to be able to help reduce the addiction of people from participating in practices that are detrimental to their health. This government puts in - out of $106 million it takes in from lotteries they put in $150,000 a year to deal with addiction from gambling; $150,000 on $106 million. That is matched by the beverage industry to the tune of $150,000.

One of the points I have been raising and saying is that we should allocate a certain percent, up to 5 per cent, it does not have to be five right off the bat the very first year, but if you took 5 per cent of your revenues - the profits you are making on gambling, as an example - and put that to assist people who have addictions to gambling, that is over $5 million. I am not saying that we should put five in this year. We should start increasing it up to - and arrive in a reasonable period of time as we get programs in place and personnel in place to be able to offer professional services. It is not too much to ask to use 5 per cent of the revenue you are taking in on those taxes, about $106 million, to use to help people afflicted with them, because people have lost their homes due to gambling addictions, families destroyed, their own personal health has been almost decimated because of certain addictions. Here, in tobacco, we are looking at taking in $15 million and we only use a pittance of that to develop programs that are going to reduce it.

Then the minister stands up today and has the audacity to tell us that there is a twofold purpose to a money bill here; one is to eliminate smoking among young people. That is a stretch, I would say. That is a stretch I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would imagine. The minister said the sale of tobacco has gone down. I would imagine that the 70,000 people who left this Province in the last decade had something to do with the reduction of smoking here in our Province. I would assume it had something to do with - people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who cannot get enough food to put on the table, had something to do with the reduction of cigarette smoking in our Province. And if the increased price has something to do with it, that is fine too, but do not tell us that this has the effect of reducing that dramatically. I do hope that the price sensitivity in young people is going to be positive that people should not have to make decisions and should not be in situations where they have easy access. If they are an adult and they want to make that decision, if they are going to harm their own health, they want to make that decision, that is a choice that they will have to make. They should not as young people, as teenagers - and even people prior to their teenage years have smoked.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the intent of this legislation was monetary, strictly monetary. It had nothing to do with reducing smoking. In fact, I do not think it is mentioned in the Budget Speech at all, anywhere in this Budget Speech - I stand to be corrected, if anybody can find it.

On page nine, the minister said: "One way we could have brought the deficit down is by increasing taxes. But we are not willing now to risk the gains we have made to achieve a better economic climate. Tobacco taxes do not have a direct impact on our economic drivers. They do have a direct impact on tobacco consumption, particularly on teens who are sensitive to price increases." She did make reference to that, I will admit that. "Tobacco taxes have not been increased by the province since 1992." It is changing. It is now increased and will contribute $14.5 million to deficit reduction, and hopefully to a much healthier population. It is driven by money on the deficit. That is basically why it was there. It was put there, because this government had an opportunity to deal with the health side of it. They had an opportunity to deal with the health side in legislation before, but they only went part way - if they were sincere about that.

This is basically a tax grab to try to bail the government out from falling far short of the money they need to make revenues and expenditures balance in our budget. We are seeing a $93 million deficit proposed. When the minister stood and read the Budget in this House that minister knew that Budget was not right. If we just take one example, Harbour Deep, it has been estimated it is going to be $5 million. They knew when this Budget was read in March that the possibility of spending money in Harbour Deep was a real likelihood. In fact, the deal was pretty well done. They never built that into this Budget. They never built the $5 million into the Budget and now they do not have approval to relocate. There is nothing in the Budget to relocate Harbour Deep. This Budget is not even approved.

I hope that the minister is going to stand and move an amendment to this figure here to allow for that expenditure. I am not questioning the judgement of the decision at all. It is not relevant. I am saying it is incumbent on the Minister of Finance to put before this House amounts of money for debate and consideration by this House on money that they know they are going to spend. To not put that in this Budget when they knew it was going to happen is not being honest. It is not being truthful to the people of this Province and it is misleading the people of the Province into thinking we have a better deficit figure than we really have. I say that sincerely because I knew - and I am sure Cabinet knew and the people knew - when the Budget was read back in March, Harbour Deep, if it was not a done deal, it was just about a done deal. That is why it should have been factored in, but it was not. They left that out, and they are telling us the $93million is now almost $100 million, without that. That is not being fair and that is not being honest. We should be debating here in this House - we should have seen it in the Estimates here, those amounts allowed, but it is not included. It is not the only one that is not included. Let me tell you, it is not the only one. There are tens of millions of dollars that are not included. We will see.

On last year's Budget, they have expenditures that they are looking at - they are looking for one (inaudible) that is not included, an expenditure. They are looking for money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it will be higher. Wait until the Public Accounts are tabled in November. Last year you said the deficit was going to be over $30 million and amounts published by -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished. I said last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We will get to it.

What the amount was - what was it, $349 million? - $350 million, that is what it was. So what? It said it is close to $400 million. It is going to be between $300 million and $400 million; close to $400 million. It was $350 million on what was $30 million proposed. That is what it was.

I will make another statement now, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I will make another statement, that the money we showed in this Budget, the $63 million, will not be $63 million. When we see Public Accounts this fall it will be an awful lot closer to $500 million. I can assure the minister that. Wait and see in November when the Comptroller General, employed by this government, publishes a public account report and confirmed by the Auditor General of our Province, that that will be the figure. We will have added almost $1.5 billion debt to this Province in five years; almost $1.5 billion.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is wondering how long I am going to go on. The Chair tells me that my time is up but I know under these rules we can go ten minutes back and forth; and I will an opportunity.

I will just sit down and let someone else have a few comments but I will be back on this important issue again, a $15 million figure here in our Budget that this government is looking for under this particular bill here.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Ferryland has said, the intent of this bill is not that we would make it, as the minister tried to indicate, as a health care initiative. If that were the case, then we, certainly on this side, would be very, very happy to support it.

As the Finance critic has said, this bill is intended to reach out to try to get more money. In fact, last year $65.5 million was paid by way of taxes on cigarettes. This year the government has budgeted $80.5 million. This is a tax grab. If this were a health care initiative, we would have much content in our minds in going and supporting it. Mr. Chairman, we know that in this particular case we should be doing all we can to support health care initiatives that lead to helping people stop smoking.

Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the budgeted expenditures, I did not see any additional monies being spent on health care prevention measures. So, we have an extra $15 million expected to come in by way of extra taxes, but we do not see the same kind of expenditures in the health care budget in terms of what you are going to spend extra money on, in terms of trying to get people to stop smoking.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to share with hon. members some facts about tobacco and the use of tobacco in Newfoundland and Labrador: Smoking kills more people in Newfoundland and Labrador than traffic accidents, AIDS, suicide and murder combined. Smoking kills more people than all of these other things combined. When we say here we are committed to health care, we want to say to this government that we expected there to be more money allocated from that $15 million extra towards prevention. We do not see it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a money grab.

MR. H. HODDER: It is a money grab. Really, it is a tax on people who are addicted to tobacco.

Smoking is the most important cause of preventable illnesses, disability and premature deaths in Newfoundland and also in Canada. Mr. Chairman, smoking is the leading cause of preventable illnesses; yet, we do not see any of that $15 million extra being allocated to prevention programs. We, on this side of the House, would be very happy if we were trying to do more to encourage our young people to stop smoking, to encourage people of all ages to stop smoking.

Mr. Chair, there are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes. I will repeat that: There are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes. We find that there are chemicals, for example, like acetone which you also find in nail polish remover. We find that there is formaldehyde, which is an embalming fluid. We find there is arsenic, which is a poison. We find that there is turpentine, which is paint stripper. We find that there is nicotine, which is a pesticide. That is just to name a few that are listed on the sheet of information which I had forwarded to me today from the Department of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Chair, we know that cigarettes are very dangerous to health. That has been a conclusionary statement that is well known, and we would have wanted this government to put more money into prevention. What they have done instead is simply take the money in but they haven't put that equal amount of resources into helping our young people kick the habit and get off the cigarette smoking practices that they have been into for some time; sometimes as young as ten and eleven years of age.

The best way to prevent smoking deaths is to keep people, especially kids, from starting. We know that. We commend governments all over the country for the initiatives that they have taken. However, Mr. Chair, we know that we need to do a lot more. We need to do more to encourage young people. We should be doing more to encourage them not to start at all. For those who have started, we should be encouraging them with more support for them to stop their smoking habits.

Every year in Newfoundland and Labrador, smoking kills 1,000 people and over 45,000 Canadians, and smoking kills about 3.5 million people worldwide. I will repeat that: Every single year, 1,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador die from the effects of cigarette smoking. In Canada, 45,000 Canadians die every year because of the problems associated with smoking. Worldwide, 3.5 million people die every year. Yet, we see this government taking in an extra $15 million this year and not putting one extra cent towards prevention.

Smoking, Mr. Chair, has been linked to heart disease, to mouth, throat and lung cancer, emphysema and bronchitis. These are the diseases that are so often associated with cigarette smoking or with any use of tobacco. This is a drug. Nicotine is a drug, and that drug is certainly the most common drug in tobacco. Research shows that nicotine is just as addictive for some people as cocaine or even heroine. It is certainly very, very addictive, and by the time many teenagers reach the age of seventeen, eighteen and nineteen years of age, they are already addicted. Adults do not start smoking, for the most part; children and teenagers do. So when we say smoking is a problem, we know that it is a teenage problem.

As a former principal of a junior high school and as a teacher in senior high school, I know and I have experienced the fact that many teenagers want to stop smoking. They would like to stop. In fact, by the time they are seventeen years old, they know it is wrong. But many of them, by that time, are indeed addicted to it. They want help from their schools, from their communities, and from their government. They want help in stopping this particular harmful habit.

Smokers, on average, lose fifteen years of their life. Research, which I did before I came here today, varies. The lowest number that I could find for years lost was fourteen years of life lost because people smoked. Some research puts that as high as seventeen years. So, somewhere between fourteen years and seventeen years of life is lost because people smoke. If you look at that over a normal lifespan of seventy-six years for males and eighty-one years for females, we can get some kind of an idea of the impact it has on people's lives, on the lives of their families and on communities.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we know it is illegal to sell cigarettes to people under nineteen years of age. There have been some improvements in the way in which the enforcement has been going and the practices that have been put in place to try to prevent young people from getting cigarettes; however, we know that they still do. Very often the cigarettes are bought by the people who are older and often sold to young people in the parking lots of our schools. In fact, when I was the principal of a school, I know it used to happen just around the corner from the school. People who were legally able to go out and buy cigarettes would go out and buy them - they weren't prevented from buying them - and they would come into the school area -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: Just to finish up this thought, if I could.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: They would then come into the school area where there were large numbers of teenagers - in the part of Mount Pearl where I was the Administrator there were approximately 2,000 teenagers, in that part of the community. They would be there in the tunnels or in the areas around the school and just off the school areas, selling these cigarettes to these young people. Certainly, there were efforts made to try and stop that, but all we did was just move the problem from one area to another area.

Mr. Chair, I will have more to say on this throughout the afternoon. We, on this side, are saying that the extra $15 million should find itself in two parts, extra revenue - we are not disagreeing with that, but we also saying there should be more money spent on prevention programs. This is a health issue. The minister said it was a twofold problem, a revenue generator and also, he said, the emphasis you want to put on it with health: prevention. When I look into the expenditures of health, I don't find the balance there whatsoever.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to thank the members on the opposite side for their support here today, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say a few words on bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, Mr. Chairman. This, of course, is going to increase the cost of buying tobacco in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, in the bill itself, if you look at the amount in paragraph 1, it is going to increase from eleven cents to thirteen-and-a-half cents. That is only two-and-a-half cents, I think, per gram they are talking about. If you listen to the Minister of Mines and Energy, who introduced this bill today, they are talking about some $15 million that is being projected in revenue for the Budget this year.

Now, I have been listening attentively to the Member for Waterford Valley and the Member for Ferryland, Mr. Chairman, who made some very good points with respect to this piece of legislation and the Budget itself. The Member for Waterford Valley talked about the number of people who actually die from tobacco usage in the Province, in the country, and worldwide, which is very interesting to listen to. He said - and I certainly believe he knows what he is talking about when it comes to this because he does a good job in his research all the time, the Member for Waterford Valley, that is - that 1,000 Newfoundlanders per year die from tobacco usage, 45,000 Canadians, and 3.5 million worldwide.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines and Energy was on his feet and he said, basically, there were two purposes for bringing in this piece of legislation. One, was to discourage the use of tobacco in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the other one would be, it would be a sideline; the worst that you could expect would be that they would collect new revenue. Now, Mr. Chairman, if they were to collect $15 million that is projected for the Budget, fine and good, but he says himself they might not realize all that money. Then again, that is going to impact the bottom line of the Budget this year, for 2002-2003. So, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter remains now, again, that the Budget that was brought down this year has another major question.

We have had questions in the House of Assembly by the Finance critic. He has been speaking on the Budget for some time now, pointing out a lot of concerns that we have with the Budget on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, and rightly so; because we know, according to the Auditor General and statements over the past few years, when they said they had a deficit a few years ago of $22 million, it worked out to be a $250 million deficit. Last year they said they had a $35 million deficit; the Auditor General and their own auditors within the government themselves, the Department of Finance, has said it was $350 million. This year they are saying it is a $93 million deficit. In actual fact, we now know that before this House, I think, is Bill 7, with respect to the $200 million that they are looking for; $200 million that is not included in the Budget.

How can we trust this Administration, looking for another $200 million over and above the Budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Fisheries is over there now trying to interject. We have had three speakers in a row, three speakers in a row on this side of the House, on this piece of legislation, and not one on that side of the House. So, how much support do they have on that side of the House? If the Minister of Fisheries is so concerned about this legislation, what we are saying, let him get on his feet and address this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, when I was growing up, as a young kid, I grew up in a family of twelve children and our parents, fourteen in the family. Members on the opposite side might do well to listen to this. Fourteen people in our family, and all of them, Mr. Chairman, everyone in the family, smoked. As they got older, they took up smoking. The only one who did not, Mr. Chairman, was myself. I do not smoke today, and I have never smoked, so when it comes to speaking on this piece of legislation, I maybe a bit bias with respect to non-smokers, I suppose Mr. Chairman, but oftentimes when you talk to people who have smoked in the past and gave it up, these are the people who are more abusive, I suppose, or harder on smokers today than the non-smokers have been.

When I was a child growing up, and the people in my family smoked, I do not know why I never did take up smoking, Mr. Chairman, but I remember this: when I was a very young child, being in a doctor's office and I saw the picture of two lungs. Two lungs, Mr. Chairman, a smoker's lung and the lung of a person who did not smoke. The picture of the smoker's lung was black, dirty looking, dried up, Mr. Chairman, and maybe that had an impact on me.

What I am getting at, I suppose, as the Member for Waterford Valley had said, we take in a lot of money in taxes for cigarettes in the Province of Newfoundland - tobacco - and we do not put enough into prevention. That is certainly what it appears like. If young people could see the impact, maybe, at a very young age, the impact of smoking on their lungs and their health care -

MR. SWEENEY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is over there trying to interject, and he is not making a very good point. He is trying to relate something to this past weekend, whatever that was, something that is obviously bothering the members on the other side of the House a lot, because I have heard a lot about it even since I stood in this House today. I think they are talking about our convention in Gander this past weekend, where we had something like 600 people out to a dinner on a Saturday night. It seems to bother this group on the other side of the House a lot, especially the Member for Gander and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. They are very concerned about it, and rightly so, Mr. Chairman, because the tide has changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the dinner the Premier had out in Gander.

This bill is a very serious bill. As I said, I have talked about prevention and how we should be putting more money into prevention, and the benefits that the Treasury would recoup from that unbelievable, I would think, Mr. Chairman.

There is a lot to be said about this piece of legislation and I will probably get time during this afternoon to speak to it more often. I noticed, and I do not know if other people have noticed this, that young female teenagers, I suppose, around thirteen, fourteen and fifteen years old, seem to be smoking more now than even the young male teenagers. That is just a personal observation that I have made over the past few years. A lot of that, I suppose, why they take up smoking, is peer pressure and what have you.

I remember this picture again - getting back to the picture I saw in the doctor's office - and if more young people could see the effect that smoking has on them maybe fewer teenagers would take up smoking.

I do not know if the minister is right, that, by increasing the cost of tobacco, fewer people will smoke. Because I remember, as a kid, again, going to the store to purchase a package of cigarettes for my father, my mother, or whatever the case may be, thirty-eight cents a pack. Cigarettes today are probably $5 or $6 a pack. I really do not know. More than that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, say $6 a pack. Mr. Chairman, that is fairly expensive to have a drag on a cigarette, a smoke, or whatever you want to call it. There are still just as many people smoking. I do not know if that is correct, though. It seems to me that there are more people trying to give it up. It is an addiction. It is a very strong addiction, I say. I know a lot of people who have tried to give it up in the past, have maybe tried five, ten, fifteen or twenty times. I do not know, but all of a sudden they realize, they make up their minds, that they do not want to smoke and they cannot give it up. We have the patch they call it - I see it advertised on television - for people who try to give up smoking. Maybe it works or maybe it does not. I don't know; I have never had the experience.

Some years ago, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the previous premiers, Clyde Wells, when he was in power, brought in - in a hospital where you see so many people in the Province dying from smoking, or the use of tobacco - these rooms they had built in certain lobbies or on different floors of the hospital and they had ventilation systems put in where smokers could actually go into these rooms and smoke. They spent, I do not know, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to put these in the various hospitals. What happened shortly after that? They banned smoking altogether from the hospitals, completely, no smoking within the hospitals. Some people will argue for it, some will argue against. Some people, I suppose, would say that, if a person has been smoking for forty or fifty years and they are on their last days, why not let them have a cigarette? By stopping them isn't going to do anything for them at that point in time.

Go into any of the hospitals, walk into the Confederation Building here, and you see smokers on the steps. I don't mind it personally when someone is outside having a smoke - I do not - but, when you walk into a hospital, and the Health Sciences Centre is one, Mr. Chairman, and you see people outside, they have intravenous in their arms, pushing around the poles with their intravenous bags in them, outside having a smoke. It is pretty hard to look at when you see someone out there trying to have a cigarette, when maybe they are on their last few days or their last few weeks, whatever the case may be. That is something that should be looked at. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on these rooms and they are not allowed to use them any more.

Some people, Mr. Chairman, will make the argument - and I have heard this from smokers - that they pay taxes on cigarettes all their lives. They might be paying them for ten years, twenty years, thirty years, forty years, fifty years maybe -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman, just to say a few more words?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave to clue up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave, to clue up.

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

They have been smoking for forty or fifty years and they say - and this is the argument that has been made to me, oftentimes - that they have paid tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes and they have paid for their health care if they have to end up in a hospital.

I do not know if that is a reverse sense of logic - I do not know, Mr. Chairman - but they say so. In actual fact, even though they smoke and it is a burden on the health care system in the Province, 1,000 die per year in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. One thousand. Can you imagine, if there are 1,000 dying, the impact that is having on the individuals who smoke, who haven't passed away in a given year, to keep them alive, or whatever the case may be. They make a case that they have paid for their health care indirectly, anyway, Mr. Chairman. That is just a point that I wanted to make here.

I think what I will do - I do not want to abuse the time - I will probably get up again later on this afternoon with respect to prevention and the different programs now that the RNC have going with respect to advertising in the stores, and you see the signs and what have you.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) provincial campaign.

MR. J. BYRNE: The provincial campaign, I was going to get into that. Yes, I will, I say to the member.

See, Mr. Chairman, there we go again. We, on this side of the House, are up speaking on the legislation, as per usual, and the Minister of Fisheries - he made a good point that time, by the way, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the provincial campaign. The anti-tobacco campaign, basically, is what he is talking about. It was a good point, so maybe he would want to get up and speak to that. If we don't, I am sure someone on this side of the House will address it. I think the Member for Waterford Valley was on to that when he talked about prevention earlier, Mr. Chairman.

With those few comments, I will sit down. I am sure someone on this side will certainly speak to this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS KELLY: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise this afternoon in response to Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. I have several reasons to strongly support this bill, especially as the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. I think all of us are very concerned about the numbers of youth who are smoking. We all know that if you do not start smoking, that it is a very good thing. It is something that is very, very hard to give up. It is very addictive, very costly to our health care system, and it is something that many people already, just knowing that we have introduced this bill, and as it was announced in the Budget, many smokers have, in fact, thanked us. They have said: Look, because you have raised the price of cigarettes, this will make it more difficult for us and give us yet another reason to stop smoking.

I know - all of us know - in spite of the arguments that we have heard across the floor this afternoon, that there is a direct correlation between raising the price of tobacco and the incidents of people giving up smoking. We know that the higher the price, the less people who will smoke.

As a nurse, I strongly support this legislation. I remember very well, in my days, especially as a student nurse, a middle-aged gentleman who was dying of cancer, and because cigarettes were so addictive, this man lay in his hospital room hooked up to an oxygen tank unable to smoke. Yet, I remember his firm request: You know, I am dying, there is nothing I can do now, can you unhook and take out this oxygen so I can smoke? I remember him saying to his children on his deathbed: Don't ever, ever do this to yourself. He actually volunteered to have people come through his hospital room so he could talk to them about the importance of never taking up smoking.

It is really, really important for all of us to do everything that we can to discourage smoking. We have some very good programs that government finances through the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco but one of the most successful initiatives that this government has instituted is our Teen Tobacco program. We have been doing research that is directly showing that it is having an impact. We have to support their initiatives. We have to be able to say we will do everything possible to help you stop smoking.

I can tell the member opposite, who just spoke, that the taxes that are collected from any one person who smokes does not begin to cover the cost of their health care. Just one surgery that would be required for lung cancer would take many, many levels of taxation. What they pay over a lifetime doesn't begin to cover one week of the cost to the health care system in a hospital. It astounds me that anyone could ever stand here and make the case that anyone who is paying taxes -

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Now, it should be understood here, and clearly understood, the member over there, the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, the Member for Gander, is twisting words that were said here today. When I was at my place here today, Mr. Chairman, I clearly said that the (inaudible) been put to me and it was a reverse sense of logic that the people who are smoking - and these are my exact words: that people who smoke pay enough taxes to cover their health costs. I say it is a reverse sense of logic. So please, minister, withdraw those remarks. If you are going to make a comment to what was said on this side of the House, please try to be accurate.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

MS KELLY: At all times I try to be accurate and if that, in fact, was your intent, I accept the statement and I certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS KELLY: Well, thank you very much for making that clarification because it is an argument that is used by many but it does not hold any water. The research has very clearly been done over the years to show that if you smoke for fifty years, the taxes that you have paid, even if you smoked two packages a day, would never cover the cost of what you will cost the health care system over the years.

So, it is very easy to see why it is important that - it is not very often actually that you see Health Ministers from across the country and Finance Ministers from across the country agreeing that we ought to be bringing forth bills like this to help, especially our young people, to deter them from smoking. As I have said, as a nurse I strongly support this and as the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, I feel that it is very important for all of us to recognize that this is not being done to raise money for government coffers. This is being done to deter smoking. This is being done with the very strong support of many anti-smoking groups in our Province and with the strong support of school boards and anyone who supports, especially, our youth-serving agencies. We know that anyone who works in our health care system well knows the devastation that is caused in families from the scourge of illness caused by smoking.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand today to say that we have, as a government, addressed this matter and it is our hope that this will just be one piece that will help others to stop smoking. Just by raising these taxes this small amount is not going to have a huge dent on smoking, but it will, I think, in the long run when combined with other programs, help others to stop smoking, who are spending too much money on it at great health care costs.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to speak on Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

Again, the previous speakers on both sides have certainly indicated that there is a need in this Province to address the health effects of smoking. Not only the health effects of smoking of a particular group, not only the smokers, but I guess the non-smoker, because we have to talk about secondhand smoke here as well, and the effects of secondhand smoke on non-smokers. I suppose we have to look at the ill-effects of tobacco use right through the entire population, because it is very, very difficult to go through this life without coming into contact with an environment where there is smoke.

Now in looking at the tax increase - again, some previous speakers have indicated that perhaps by increasing taxes, it will decrease usage. From where I stand, that is not necessarily true. Just to depend on an increase in taxes to deal with this serious health issue is not where you should go.

I would like to talk a little bit about the effects of tobacco and look at the ways in which you can perhaps make a difference in trying to decrease usage in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Increasing taxes is not going to address the problem as we see it.

My colleague from Waterford Valley has already indicated that something, I believe, to the tune of an extra $15 million will be received through this tax increase. If it is the rational to use that money specifically for stop-smoking initiatives or prevention programs or promoting healthy lifestyles, there would no difficulty from this member in encouraging that kind of dedication of funds to those specific initiatives.

Also, as an educator, I certainly have seen over the last twenty or thirty years some patterns developing with regard to smoking. I particularly allude to - and I will start with the young people. We will look at the reasons why young people may decide to pick up smoking. Certainly, I say to you to, Mr. Chair, it has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the cost of the cigarette nor a package of cigarettes, or whatever. With regard to young people the reasons why they may decide to pick up this God awful habit rests with the socialization which they often are involved in; especially, Mr. Chair, at the junior high level. I think statistics will bear this out when we talk about first-time smokers. Many of them, if they can get beyond the junior high level - and that would be, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, approximately twelve, thirteen, fourteen years of age. If they can get beyond that point and into Level I, which is the high school - I think again statistics will bear me out - that there is a less likelihood that they will ever, ever smoke. So, there is a crucial time factor in intervening with the various strategies and it is not something that you can leave to chance. It is not something that you can initially say: we will put it in the curriculum, teachers will talk about it and it will work.

There has to be an intensive intervention strategy put in place, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, coming out of elementary school in grade four or five and during those years from grades four, five, possibly even six, right up until high school, it has to be really driven home. Of course, it is not enough just to put a program into place. It has to be a program that in some way or another hits to the very core of why young people would ever want to pick up smoking. Again, I am not sure if any of my colleagues who spoke before went into it, but there are any number of reasons why young people may decide to pick up smoking; may smoke for the first time. One of the reasons simply is the curiosity of it all. What does it taste like? What does it feel like? Does it make me any different as a person? Will it draw attention to me? Curiosity. It is very difficult, Mr. Chair, to stop a child's curiosity. As a matter of fact, when we look at the curriculum in our schools today we understand that we have changed our tact and we encourage the curiosity of young people. So, on the one hand it is very difficult to eliminate curiosity while at the same time encouraging curiosity.

A second reason, Mr. Chair, deals with the socialization, especially during those crucial teenage years or early adolescent years of around twelve, thirteen or fourteen. Let me tell you, as a parent - and I am sure the many parents and grandparents who are in this House have come to realize that there comes a period of time in their child's life, whether rightfully or wrongfully, when they are more inclined, Mr. Chair, to listen to the advice of their own peers. Very often, very, very often, they will not even attend to - the worst thing you can do is tell them to do something. Oftentimes they will do the complete opposite, because it is the norm of their peers. They are more easily convinced to do something or not to do something by their peers than, I would suggest, by their parents. So, there is a period of time. This peer pressure has to be looked at, Mr. Chair, and has to be addressed if we are going to make a difference with regard to encouraging young students not to smoke.

A third reason, Mr. Chair, as I go down through, with regard to someone picking up smoking for the first time would have to be an aspect of seeking acceptance, oftentimes into a particular group. I guess this is like peer pressure. Oftentimes you will see a situation where someone is kind of on the outside of a group wanting to be on the inside and using a cigarette or smoking as a way of gaining acceptance into what they see as that particular group. So, this seeking acceptance, Mr. Chair, is yet another one.

Fourthly - let's be real about this, and thank heavens the advertising with regard to cigarette smoking is all but eliminated on our televisions, in our newspapers, in our magazines, and basically in the media in general; as well, even in our sitcoms and our Hollywood movies and that. Whereas ten or twenty years ago it was not uncommon to see smoking a big part of any production, today you don't see that. So, that bombardment is not there. The packaging that has come out is also, hopefully, having some type of an effect, with the messages contained on it, about it being a cancer causing agent and so forth.

Still, I say to you, Mr. Chair, what the child sees in their environment will often influence what they do in the larger society. There are still, obviously, many parents who are smoking out there, there are many adults who are smoking, and many young people. They see -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave? I will just finish those thoughts.

CHAIR: By leave to clue up?

MS JONES: No leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: No leave?

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

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is my understanding that the Member of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair denied leave. You have to be in your seat in this House to deny leave to a member. You cannot do it from any other member's seat. If that is the case, which I believe it to be the case, Mr. Chair, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, unless anyone else is going to deny him leave, still has the floor.

CHAIR: The Opposition House Leader is correct. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is not in her seat.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: That is a correct interpretation of the rules, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to say that just about every person, every member who spoke today, has asked for leave. That was about from petitions right on, from member statements, everybody on both sides has asked for leave. I just ask hon. members - we do have time and I believe that we can stay within the confines. If you just note the number of members who have been extended, we probably add ten or fifteen minutes to the time every time, and time is precious.

I just ask hon. members - I have no objection to giving an hon. member ten or fifteen seconds. I have said before, that, when we extend the member time, the hon. member ought to know that he is speaking with leave of the House and should not be long.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) no objection, give the hon. member time.

MS JONES: (Inaudible) last week. You didn't give me leave.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: I thank the Government House Leader for granting me leave. I just wanted a minute, I say to the Government House Leader. I was on a thought and I just wanted to finish up the thought, knowing full well that I can get up a little later on and continue on with what I am doing. Again, I thank the Government House Leader for extending leave to me.

I just want to say, Mr. Chair, that I was looking at the reasons why the youth of today certainly will take up smoking for the first time. I have talked about peer pressure, seeking acceptance, modeling adult behaviour, and curiosity. I just want to finish up in saying that oftentimes the youth of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will use smoking as an act of rebellion, much like many young people in many generations have done. It is these reasons that we really have to target if we are going to prevent our young people from taking that first puff, which is so crucial to establishing that habit which we need to eliminate.

Again, Mr. Chair, I will leave it at that point and give notice that in the course of the day I will continue on with my debate of Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

I rise to just make a couple of comments because I am interested in the level of debate that this particular bill is being given today in the House of Assembly, and to remind hon. members, all of us, that there are any number of opportunities in debate in this House to make points with respect to the Budget generally, with respect to making points about government policy generally. There are any number of opportunities provided, and I am interested to see the extent to which this bill is being taken advantage of, to have a debate about issues that are non-related to the prayer of the bill. This bill is certainly a bill that has health care implications.

I just wanted to respond in very short measure to some of the comments that have been made that sort of indicate that this bill is singularly a tax grab or an initiative on behalf of government to raise extra taxes for the Budget. There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that this bill will do that.

As a matter of fact, last year I think we projected revenues of about $65 million from tobacco and cigarette products. This year, we are projecting a revenue of about $80 million from that source. That should not translate in anybody's mind into this government taking any great delight in that particular outcome. The fact of the matter is that these are consumable products that are purchased, like a lot of other products that bear taxes, and there is obviously a tax implication if there are taxes applied to those types of products.

We would be very happy, I think, on both sides of the House, if the outcome of increased taxes on tobacco products was not increased revenue but an increased awareness of the dangers of using the product and a decrease in the usage of the product such that we would have - if it were ever possible to achieve - no, or zero, utilization of tobacco in the Province.

While, Mr. Chairman, it may impact upon our budget in any one given year, or for the next two or three years, I think the outcome from a health perspective would be so significant that it would be a net benefit to all of us because we could reduce, I believe, over time, our health care costs significantly if we did not have to deal with illness and those sorts of things that are as a result of the use of tobacco products.

In terms of suggesting that this is tax grab, I think we should remind ourselves that in terms of what we do with the tax revenues of the Province, we put, almost disproportionately to other services, a large amount of money into the health care sector.

I remember in 1994-1995, when I was Health Minister at the time, we were struggling to keep the health budget around $930 million a year. Since that time we have gone to about $1.4 billion in terms of health care expenditures -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no that is comparing apples to apples. I say to the hon. member, that is discounting out the part of the department that was formerly in the department of the former social services.

We have increased the health care budget by about 46 per cent in this Province over that period of time. Clearly, that is a scale of magnitude that cannot be sustained as we see budgets in the foreseeable future, because we would simply not have the ability to do that without running big deficits, or to do it at the expense of other public services that we have to provide.

Notwithstanding any comments that may be made with respect to the intent of this bill, the intent of this bill is very pure and it is very altruistic: clearly, if consumption continues to rise, to get a larger portion of taxes from that particular product sales; but, more importantly than all of that, we are only doing, in this Budget, in this bill, what seven out of the ten other provinces in the country are doing this year. Seven provinces out of ten provinces this year are substantially, in some cases, and significant in pretty well all cases, increasing the taxes on tobacco and tobacco products.

While the comments that are being made are wide ranging on this bill, I would remind all members that there will be ample opportunity under a number of other finance bills and throughout the Budget debate to make other points with respect to government policy, government fiscal policy, in a more general sense.

I would suggest that, if we can, we focus our comments on the bill, the intent of the bill, the purpose of the bill, so that we can move to other bills and that would be helpful to all of us. That is not to suggest that we shouldn't take all the time we want to debate every bill that comes before the House, but clearly this is an important measure. It is a budgetary measure, but it is also a health implication measure. Madam Chair, I would suggest that while much that has been said is outside the context of the bill completely, I would ask that we would be fair and objective in our thoughts and our comments on this bill.

No one likes to see increased taxes. I do not think any of us want to see increased taxes on any product, really. It is not popular for governments to be increasing taxes. It is not helpful in terms of stretching our consumer dollars to see increases in taxes, but I would say, having said that, Madam Chair, if there is any one area where people are willingly and acceptably agreeable to see higher taxes for good purposes, it is in the area of tobacco taxes, as an example. We could have, and probably appropriately, increased taxes in other areas of consumables. Some people would say we should tax the death out of liquor, we should tax the death out of lotteries, that sort of thing. There is case to be made, probably, for doing that as well, but the fact of the matter is, history has shown that you just cannot eliminate the use of any product simply by taxing it to death and trying to make people do things that they would otherwise choose not to do.

There is a balance to be struck with respect to social policy. There is a balance to be struck with respect to the level of taxation that generally comes under the scope of what we call syntaxes. In this one, we have not maxed out what probably we could have done but, admittedly, we are probably on the higher end of the scale in terms of taxes on tobacco products generally across the country.

Madam Chair, I hope that we can get passage of this bill so that the value and the benefits of the bill, in terms of what it is intended to do on two accounts, ensure revenue sources for the Province if that is the eventual outcome, but more importantly, ensure more money for the health care system, can be moved forward with, and that we can be allowed, as a government, to move forward with our fiscal agenda and our Budget Debate in the interests of doing business on behalf of the people of the Province.

MADAM CHAIR (Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I am delighted to speak on this bill today. It is an important bill in that it has caused a raise in taxes on the cost or the sale of cigarettes. There are some interesting issues around this particular bill, however, and that is the fact that we are going to raise some $15 million in extra revenue by taxing cigarettes. I wonder how much of that revenue or how much of that extra $15 million is going to go into purchasing MRI machines for the Province? We have one MRI machine right now in the Province and that is located in St. John's. That creates considerable concern for people living in central and western Newfoundland and people living in Labrador. I wonder how much of that $15 million will go into purchasing additional medical equipment, such as MRI machines, to help in the fight of heart disease, lung disease, cancer and that type of thing?

It is interesting that government are making $15 million on the sale of cigarettes in this Province, additional this year. Some $80 million is the tax revenue that government will make on taxes on cigarettes in this Province this year. I wonder if the cigarette companies are actually making that much in profit on the sale of cigarettes in this Province. It would be an interesting comparison to look at: Is the Province making more money on their tax on cigarettes or are the cigarette companies making more money than the Province is? That would be a interesting comparison. I would like to see the figures on that. The good news is, that by raising taxes on cigarettes, undoubtedly, people's habit of smoking will drop.

I noticed today in reading the Cheers section of The Telegram they had a Cheers in there, "To news that cigarette sales fell 5.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2002, compared with last year. It's the biggest single-year drop in a decade, and government officials cite increased taxes and warning labels as the reasons." They go on to say that whatever the cause, it is good news, and they give it a Cheers because of the fact that in the long run we are going to see a decrease in smoking, less health problems as a result of smoking, and less health concerns.

We all remember the days when you could not get on a airplane without smoke. For non-smokers to get on an airplane, especially a flight that was four or five hours, and to have to deal with cigarette smoke, was something that was very difficult. People with asthma, breathing problems and allergies had to endure that. While we hear the other side of the argument, that smokers have rights as well, those days are gone; the days when we could not get on an airplane, you could not go into a movie theater, you could not go into a restaurant. Young children, people with breathing problems and so on, were subject to cigarette smoke wherever they went. Those days are gone and it is good.

There has been a change in people's mindset. It is no longer fashionable to smoke. Maybe that is part of the reason for the drop; that it is no longer fashionable to smoke. We all remember the days when the country's highest politicians - the President of the United States would have a portrait taken with a cigarette in his hand. It was fashionable for movie stars to be seen with a cigarette, and some were even quoted to say that they did not smoke, but it was fashionable to hold a cigarette in their hand. So the mindset of people has changed and, whether it is increased taxes that are responsible for the full 5.2 per cent decrease in smoking, or whether it is the fact that it is no longer fashionable to be seen smoking, or whether it is a combination of both, it is good news that there is a drop in the consumption of cigarettes or the sale of cigarettes throughout the country.

I do have to recognize government's ad campaigns that are on television, and I do believe that they are effective because we see campaigns geared towards young people and we all know that it is young people who get addicted. Once you start smoking and get the addiction, it is hard to give it up. We see the ad campaigns on television mostly geared towards young people and the fact that it is not fashionable to smoke. So we do have to recognize that.

We recognize the fact that - I forget the name of the promotion in the school zones where you see the signs in convenience stores and so on and they are IDing children now. They are IDing anybody who looks to be of the age where it would not be legal for them to purchase cigarettes. I believe that is probably part of the reason, because of the ad campaign, because of the campaign to ID people to ensure that they are old enough to purchase cigarettes.

I will raise the issue again, that in this Province we are collecting a revenue of some $80 million as a result of the sale of cigarettes; an additional $15 million revenue this year as a result of the sale of cigarettes. What I would like to see is part of that additional $15 million allocated for medical equipment such as MRI machines, so that people who are living in Deer Lake or Stephenville or Grand Falls or on the Northern Peninsula do not have to make a trip in to St. John's for the sole reason of obtaining an MRI. We would like to see some of that additional $15 million revenue, that government anticipate as a result of the sale of cigarettes, the tax on cigarettes, the extra $15 million because of this increase this year, go towards some of that medical equipment. I think that would be a good usage.

If government's intent is to decrease smoking as a result of implementing this tax to recoup some of their costs for the cost of surgeries and so on, it would be a sign of good faith to at least supply that equipment for people in other areas of the Province; equipment that is much needed. It would also be a good sign of faith to put additional monies into the ad programs that I have talked about, the programs that I believe are being effective, the programs that I believe are partially responsible for the reduction in the consumption of cigarette usage. It would be good to see part of that $15 million additional revenue that is to be collected this year go into some of those ad programs, to go into medical equipment; even if there were medical equipment supplied in Grand Falls-Windsor, or somewhere in that area, so that people would not have to drive from Western Newfoundland all the way to St. John's to avail of an MRI, so that people on the Northern Peninsula would not have to come all the way to St. John's to avail of an MRI. Maybe we should look at putting some of that additional revenue into the purchase of at least one MRI machine on the Island and maybe as well for Labrador.

We see government making additional revenue. Government, the year before last, were talking about a law suit against the cigarette companies to recover part of the costs of cigarette smokers, the disease, the health care costs, as a result of cigarette smoking. Government themselves are making huge profits on cigarettes in the form of taxes and, while I do not disagree with that, because of the fact people's consumption of cigarettes is causing a huge problem within our health care system, at great expense to the taxpayer. The people who smoke should be partially, if not all, responsible for the additional cost of health care as a result of cigarette consumption.

While I do not disagree with the fact that we are increasing the tax, what I have to wonder is if government are just as guilty as the cigarette companies because of the revenue, the huge revenue, that government are also making on the sale of cigarettes. I agree that we need extra money for health care. I agree that we need to try to discourage smoking. I agree that we need money for the ad campaigns, but can we say that the full $80 million that is going to be collected in tax revenue this year is going into ad campaigns and health care? Can we say that we are taking all of that $80 million - and while it can never be proven whether it is or whether it is not. While the cost of health care for those who are smoking, as a result of their cigarette smoking, is probably far greater than $80 million per year, while there could be arguments made on both sides of that issue, I wonder if the full $80 million tax revenue that is collected on

 

We should look at increasing the promotion against smoking; the ad campaigns. We should look at increasing the availability of medical equipment in other areas of the Province. I think that would be a wise use of the additional tax revenue that is collected this year.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I stand to say a few words on Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

I say many of the things that were acceptable a few years ago are certainly not acceptable today. One time it was totally acceptable. In fact, I suggest to people here that there were probably very few homes that you went into where somebody did not smoke; very few places that you could go and attend, whether it was at a social function or a dinner, where people did not smoke. It was totally acceptable but times have changed, and rightly so, I say to you, Madam Chairperson. Times have changed. When you look at the knowledge, I guess, that we have gained today on what smoking has done to us - the severe side effects and health effects that smoking has on, not only smokers, but other people who live, or stay, or reside within the company of smokers - then it is only right that some of those changes should have taken place.

Some of the fears that have been expressed on this side of the House - people taking part in this debate today are wondering if the $80 million that has been projected to be obtained from retail tobacco sales tax is going to be spent in the right direction. If we are going to raise taxes on a particular item or commodity that we feel is dangerous to somebody's health, then, Madam Chairperson, I think the onus is on government to make sure that some of that funding, some of that revenue, is returned to put forward a campaign to show people very clearly what the negative effects and side effects of taking that particular drug would do.

Madam Chairperson, it is not uncommon - and this is the reason why we echo concerns over here - to see monies taken to change things taken from a certain department and expected to go back in that department to make things work better and make things function as they should, not go in that particular direction. We see it going into general revenue to be used for other things.

I guess if there is one plea that I would put forward as a member of this Legislature, Madam Chairperson, it would be to have some of that $80 million - in fact, the $15 million increase over retail sales tax on tobacco commodities this year over last year. If there is one plea that I would make, it would be to have that $15 million go into an awareness campaign, to make people aware of the dangers of smoking. I know there has been a fear campaign carried out already. I am aware of the pictures on the tobacco packages. I am aware of some of the ads that are carried on and posters that are up in most, if not all, medical clinics. I am aware that we do not see tobacco advertising on television commercials much anymore. I am aware of that, Madam Chairperson, but I say to you that I am not so sure that we are, as yet, reaching the right people. I am not so sure that we are reaching the adolescents of this world who start - and for the most part, that is where smoking begins and that is where it continues.

It is hard to give up smoking, I say to people here. Probably most of us here have been smokers, and it is hard to give up the habit. I do not know of anything more relaxing after a cup of coffee or a good meal than to sit back and have a cigarette. I have to admit that. I have indulged in it many times myself. But, I say to people opposite, and I say to the people here, that when the time came, when I had to go and apologize to somebody for lighting a cigarette, or when I had to go and step outside in order to have a smoke, or when I had to go and put on my coat and walk from an office and go out and smoke on the bridge, I said: What am I doing? Is this the right and proper way to enjoy something? If you have to do those kinds of things, and if you have to go and hide, if you have to apologize to somebody for doing something, then is it right? No, it is not right. It is not right to smoke.

There are certainly many costs incurred within our health care system through smoking. People now are made more cognizant of what the cost to our health care system is. People are aware of the dangers of smoking. People are aware that once you start smoking the habit is hard to kick. Madam Chairperson, the only way I see that we can carry on with making sure that smoking does not continue to be a major problem in the future, as it has been in the past, and as it is at present, is to carry out a campaign in our school system to make sure that we are vigilant, to make sure that it is a message that everybody is aware of, to make sure, Madam Chairperson, that everybody, as they enter - and I talk about the school system because that is where you have access to the young people and that is where, I think, most people begin their first experience with a lot of things, including cigarettes.

I guess the one plea that I put forward is that is where we should spend the majority of - at least the $15 million that we are going to take in, in new money this year, over and above what the projection was last year. Last year, I think, it was something like $65 million and this year the projection is something like $80.5 million. Madam Chair, that is a lot of money and there is no reason, whatsoever, why we cannot fund a fair amount of at least that increase into a massive awareness campaign to make people even more aware of the repercussions and the health problems related to smoking.

Madam Chairperson, we talk about a tax grab. There are all kinds of places to spend money, and, no, we, over here on this side, are not against government having revenue coming in, in order to pave roads or provide the health care that is needed or to provide a good educational system, but we are concerned many times when we reach out and make money on items such as retail sales tax on the sale of tobacco items, on sales tax on the distribution and the sale of alcoholic beverages, on the money that we generate from the Atlantic Lotto slot machines, the selling of Atlantic Lotto tickets or gambling tickets, Nevada tickets, call them what you want. We do have a problem if we continue to go and just pay lip service to the problems that those items create and if we don't be sincere with putting some of this money back in order to counteract the problems. While some of us can very easily go and drop a dollar or $2.50 into a slot machine and walk away, there are many others of us who put a dollar and $2 in who really cannot afford it. Sometimes it creates greater problems, family problems, marital breakups and all other problems, Madam Chairperson, just filtering right down to those who are most vulnerable and that is the young people, the children that we should all speak out and speak up and reach forward in order to protect from those problems.

So, that is the problem that we have on this side of the House, Madam Chairperson, when government brings in a piece of legislation and when it is done under the guise of saying we need to raise taxes because we need to protect people from smoking and we need to show you, Mr. Smoker, that if you are going to continue to smoke then you have to contribute much more in order to buy that pack of cigarettes because of the cost of health care. Then, Madam Chairperson, I am not so sure that is the right and correct way to do it. I would be much more comfortable, and I think we, on this side here, would be much more comfortable if the minister, when he stood in his place to introduce this bill today, talked about what monies of that $15 million, what monies of that $80.5 million, would be put into another awareness campaign, or continuing awareness campaign, or stepping up the present awareness campaign, in order to tell smokers of the world and smokers in this Province of the repercussions, the dangers, and the cost that our health care system is enduring because of people smoking.

Right now we have rules and regulations in place where, I think you have to be - I don't think, I know - nineteen years of age in order to buy a package of cigarettes, or a carton of tobacco, or whatever it is that you decide to use. While there is a recognition of that by people who sell tobacco, while there is a recognition of that, I say to people here that it is no big chore for somebody who wants a pack of cigarettes to get it. While you have to be nineteen in order to purchase, there are certainly a lot of people out there today who are smoking, who are much less than nineteen years of age.

What are we going to do? Are we going to go out and tell the RCMP or the city police that you have to go and arrest a young person because they were seen smoking? Search somebody for a pack of cigarettes, or see if there is cigarette smoke on their breath? Madam Chairperson, those kinds of things you cannot do. Those kinds of things are not acceptable. It is a law that we have put in there, but the only way that we can control that is to deal with the people who are selling the product, and that is not always the right way to do it; because, if somebody needs something, they will find a way in order to get that particular item that they need, whether it is cigarettes or whether it is beer, or whatever it is they want. They will find a way. It is impossible to control people. It is impossible to bring in rules and regulations to deal with people who are less than nineteen years of age and are smoking.

There is not much you can do, I say to members opposite. You are not going to go and lock them up. You are not going to go and search them. You are not going to go and write out tickets or fines, but what you can do is carry out a massive campaign to let people know that it is not acceptable any more, and it is not hip any more to go around with a cigarette tucked in your fingers or hanging off your bottom lip. Madam Chairperson, that is not the kind of thing that is acceptable any more. People should be made aware of what the costs are, and what the repercussions are, if they go and take up this very addictive act of smoking.

I am a great believer that we do not put out enough information. I am a great believer when we talk about our health care system, for instance. I am a great believer that, while I will support and I will forever maintain a universal health system in this Province, I believe that some time during the year, or at the end of every year, the people should be noted, people should be informed, as to what they have cost the health care system.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I believe, Madam Chairperson, that the end of every year that people should know what it has cost them to: number one, see a doctor; number two, to go to a hospital; and, number three, what the cost of providing those services are.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chairperson, I will clue up. I understand that has been an issue of contention here, people asking for leave. I will clue up. There is lots of other time to debate this, and we will continue on as the evening goes by.

With that, I will relent to another speaker.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I stand in the House today to give my comments on Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act.

The tobacco industry, Madam Chair, is one in which governments have a huge financial interest, and they do because of the amount of taxes they collect from cigarettes and from smoking tobacco. In the collection of these taxes, how much money is going to go back into the health care system this year? The health care budget this year is almost $1.5 billion, and I understand that the government is not going to increase its expenditure in health care this year, and that is fine. We are collecting taxes from people who are going to be more often consumers of the health industry because all of the studies show now that smoking tobacco is directly related to heart disease, lung disease and many other diseases people contract. So, the people who are smoking are going to be greater consumers of the health care dollars. None of the $15 million that is going to be collected by the imposition of this tobacco tax act is going to be spent on the people who are going to be contributing to the $15 million.

Worse than that, Madam Chair, there are very many, many people out there who are affected by second-hand smoke. These people don't make a contribution to this $15 million directly, but because of the $15 million that is gotten by the government by the smokers they are directly affected, and no more money is going into the health care to benefit them. People who are affected by second-hand smoke are children. Many studies have demonstrated that there is a higher incidence in breast cancer by people who are exposed to second-hand smoke, and no part of this $15 million is going back to help the people who are directly affected by the people who smoke, and those are the people who inhale second-hand smoke.

Many times it is not because they have a choice. There are people out there working in our hospitality industry who are exposed to second-hand smoke regularly. Of course, I suppose you could say that they do have a choice when they accept the position, but then again we are not known to have an overabundance of jobs in this Province, where they could go elsewhere and get another job. So, by virtue of the fact of their employment, they are exposed to second-hand smoke and the second-hand smoke is, as I said, as a result of the smokers, and as a result of people smoking the government is collecting another $15 million.

Has any more money gone, this year, into the provision of diagnostic machines? Over at the Health Sciences Centre we have an MRI that is, I think, possibly twelve years old. That MRI is a .5-tesla. The standard MRI is 1.5-tesla. So we are operating with a machine that is well under standard. As a matter of fact, I understand that a person who had graduated with his MD here in the Province and wanted to go into the discipline of radiology went to the mainland and he was being interviewed by the various institutions where he was applying. When he told them that the only machine he had worked on was one that was .5-tesla, they laughed at him. They could not believe that there was a machine of that low a standard operating in Canada today, when the standard is 1.5-tesla. Normally, MRI machines are supposed to be serviced every four or five years. The machine that is over in the Health Sciences Center has not been serviced in ten or eleven years, since it got there. It is a below standard machine to start with, and it has not been serviced or upgraded in all of the time that it has been there. Why can't some of the money that is coming in from this $15 million be put into diagnostic equipment like that? There are people who are suffering from chronic pulmonary diseases and these people have probably gotten these diseases by view of the fact that they were exposed to second-hand smoke. Once again, I refer to people in the hospitality industry, people who are around smoking by no choice of their own.

The lineups for diagnostic tests are sometimes six to eight months, and in many cases longer than that. Are we really being fair to the people in our Province who are exposed to the cigarette smoking when we are not putting one cent of that $15 million back?

The minister said, when she announced the tax, that this tax was to help to discourage smoking. If we really wanted to discourage smoking, wouldn't we be putting more money into our addiction counselling? I do not know if there is any money going into addiction counselling for people who have addictions such as smoking. I know that the government is collecting much more revenue from the video lottery machines and not putting any money back into the addiction counselling for the people who are addicted to that, and I suspect they are not putting any money back into addiction counselling for people who are smoking; but there they are, ready to take their money.

Basically what I am saying, Madam Chair, is that this bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, and with the amount of taxes that the government is going to be receiving, this $15 million is a tax grab. If it were not a tax grab, and if it were to prevent smoking, then the government would put its money where its mouth is and put some of that portion of money into counselling and into machines for people who are exposed to second-hand smoke.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I just want to say a few words about this bill, a very important bill. Since I have been a member of this House, I have witnessed a lot of bills go through this House, exactly the same as this one, in the last twelve, fifteen years, and longer, increasing the cost of cigarettes, and invariably they also carried with them the caveat that it was to discourage smoking and thereby protecting people from the scourge of the disease associated with smoking.

I challenge hon. members to go back and look at the legislation for the past twenty-five years, brought in by governments on both sides of the House and both of them making the same claims when they increased taxes, when they increased the cost of cigarettes, that invariably it was going to have the effect of causing people to quit smoking and, hence, improve their health. Madam Chair, this bill is no different.

Hon. members seem concerned that the government has not said that we are going to spend this amount of money, that amount of money, on programs to encourage people to quit smoking; on educational programs. Madam Chair, that goes without saying. Quite obviously, whatever the budget cost of health is, if that is a third, then one can say automatically, a third of this money is going to go into health programs; it must. As the hon. member who spoke earlier said: It is difficult to prove. We could say it all going there. What would it prove when monies go into the general revenue? Out of that $15 million, quite certainly a good portion of it is going to be spent on health. It is going to be spent on programs related to discouraging smoking. So, Madam Chair, it goes without saying that that money is going to be spent on discouraging people from smoking, on the health care system in the Province. That goes without saying.

The point of the matter is: Do we agree in principle with what the bill is doing? This is an initiative right throughout the nation. This was an initiative this year taken by health ministers, that governments throughout the nation saw as one more measure to help with all of the other things they were doing, their ad programs, their education programs; to put in increase in the cost of cigarettes. I think, if hon. members take the time to look, they will find that most governments throughout Canada are doing that, most provincial governments, because that was an agreement, that was an understanding by health ministers right throughout the country and others, that we would do all we could to discourage smoking and, hence, reduce the cause of diseases or reduce the incidents of diseases caused by smoking. That was a national effort. It is not done alone, it is not in isolation, it is done in combination with many other programs that discourage people from continuing, or from taking up, that terrible habit of smoking, that terrible scourge of diseases throughout the world today.

So, I just want to say, Madam Chair, that I wholeheartedly support and endorse this piece of legislation today, trusting that hon. members will support it and pass it so that we can do what the bill requires to be done and that we can get on with making the environment of Newfoundland and Labrador safer by the fact that people will quit smoking.

I believe there is a high correlation between increase in cost of cigarettes and the number of people who quit smoking. It happens all the time. Every time there is an increase, so many people quit. Now, I know others do not. I am reminded of the - hon. members know the story of the guy who went into the bar and he was talking about a twenty-six ouncer. The government had just increased it and it was up to $35 or something a bottle. He said, talking to his friend: If rum goes up to $35, I am quitting. His friend said: It has already gone up to $35. No, he said, I mean the mickey.

Madam Chair, it is the same thing with smoking. We know that there are people so addicted that they are still going to smoke, but it does serve a purpose. There is a correlation, that every time we have an increase you can be sure that a number of people drop off, become non-smokers, and that in itself is what the purpose of this legislation is; to try and get people at that level who will quit because of the cost. That, combined with all of the other programs that we have in place, should - should! - help reduce smoking by larger numbers.

Madam Chair, I think that this is a good piece of legislation. I support it and trust that we can get on with passing the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I certainly want to rise today to make a few comments on this particular bill. I can tell you, it is something that I have had many discussions about, as many members in this House over the years have had about smoking. Of course, my colleague mentioned earlier about his family, a large family, and all of them smoked, I thought he said. I, too, have a large family, Madam Chair, and many of them smoke; not all of them but most of them did. We all have our own testimonies, I guess, to make here today as we talk about smoking. I did smoke as a teenager but luckily for me, Madam Chair, before I left my teenage years I quit smoking.

Throughout the years, you have many discussions with your friends, with your family and so on about smoking and how it has affecting their lives. Of course, we all have our own stories too, of people in hospitals that we know who are suffering from lung diseases and so on. I guess we can all give our testimony to that, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to spend a few minutes today making a few comments with respect to education and in school, because I guess we can break this down into two categories; the people who already smoke, and those are the ones we continuously talk to on constant basis, my own brothers and sisters, Madam Chair, or friends we know. We are always probing and asking questions as to why they continue to smoke, because that is what we have to get at. What I wanted to spend a few minutes on today, and what I am most interested in, is the young children or the young people who have not started smoking. Because I believe that if the concentration on education is for the people who have not yet began to smoke, then I think over time we can get some real results on the dreaded diseases and health problems that are associated with smoking.

I believe that if the emphasis and the concentration and the resources we have can go towards education before people smoke, then that is the key. That is what I believe the key to this whole problem is, to nip it in the bud so to speak before the problem starts, before teenagers start thinking about smoking. For all kinds of reasons - some of my colleagues have mentioned here today about the peer pressure, throughout our Province, on a young teenager as they start to experiment with different things and so on, Madam Chair. We have all been through that at fourteen and fifteen years old. The key, I have always believed, is that before people begin smoking, that is where we should see a concentration of our resources and funding and so.

As a former phys ed teacher and as a former coach - not a former coach, still coaching, Madam Chair. I am still coaching, I am still involved with young people, especially at the younger level these days, a much younger level. I coached basketball for Grades 4, 5 and 6. I still continue to do that, and other sports as well. As I see those children and coach them, being a former coach on high school teams and so on, I can say, with a lot of confidence, that I have convinced enough young people not to smoke. Over time, through education, through continuous, continuous repetition, talking to students and talking to athletes who aspire to be on the basketball team or the hockey team, I have convinced - I feel confident enough to say that. I know members here who have been involved with coaching hockey teams, minor hockey, minor soccer and so on. I feel good to know - Madam Chair, as a matter of fact, I have students say to me, that with their interest in sports and school, and physical education, they were turned away from smoking. I am no different than many other coaches who, on a daily basis, talk about examples of people smoking.

As they come to the basketball practice or the hockey practice or the soccer practice, somewhere, throughout that hour or hour-and-a-half, it is guaranteed to come up somewhere. Guaranteed! I have never gone as far, Madam Chair, as to exclude somebody from a team because they smoked but I made them think I would. I have done that. Before the year is over, Madam Chair, I can tell you that if they there were smoking, they had quit. So, I know there are athletes, throughout my time of coaching at school, at the senior level, who have actually quit smoking while they were on a team I coached. I am not the only coach, I have talked to many coaches in many different sports who have done the same thing.

So, the point I would like to drive home today, as a former phys ed teacher: When you start physical education at kindergarten and bring it right through primary into elementary school, if you continuously and repetitiously repeat every day something about smoking, some examples - my colleague talked about pictures of lungs in the hospital and so on. Those are the things, at an early age, if they are repeated enough, Madam Chair, I believe work. I really believe it works. That is why today I thought I would talk a few minutes on physical education in school.

That is where I would like to see most of the resources, any funding. I believe the educational part of it, physical education, and here is why I believe that: Because most students, the majority - I do not have any numbers on this - enjoy physical education. If you ask students in school what is one of their favourite subjects, a lot of the time they would say physical education. Being a former phys ed teacher, Madam Chair, physical education is not just going into a gym and throwing out a soccer ball or a basketball or floor hockey sticks and telling them to have some fun. That is part of it, no doubt about it, especially in primary and elementary school. That is a part of physical education, go have some fun and recreation, but also, Madam Chair, especially phys ed teachers - and they will talk about this, that if there was more physical education in school, more on a daily basis, called quality daily physical education, I believe we would see the numbers drop in smoking. I have believed that for a long time. I believe it more and more today. If we had quality daily physical education in school, you would see less smokers, you would see less obesity, you would see less problems associated with health. That is why I have always believed for a long time - and people involved with physical education, Madam Chair, at Memorial University, Dr. Higgs, can give you statistics upon statistics of examples of good quality physical education in schools where the results are: less smokers, less obesity, and better academics. Study after study has shown that. It is very interesting.

In some provinces they have kept up on quality daily physical education, but not here in this Province, and it is a real shame. As I talk to my colleagues who are still in the profession today, they tell of examples of children who really do not know enough about health and physical education. And, as they mold the child through, especially the primary grades and the elementary grades, as you go from kindergarten to Grade 6, if they had good quality physical education, which includes the education of knowing about your body and the health of your body, obesity, smoking, anything of that nature, then children mold an attitude through kindergarten to Grade 6 so that when they get to Grade 7 and Grade 8 - anybody who has children knows this - when they start to hit twelve, thirteen, fourteen years old, there are a lot of things going through their minds. I have a twelve-year-old now, going on fifteen, and I can tell you there are a lot of questions coming at that age. A lot of questions come at that age.

Madam Chair, when you get to those ages, that is when there are decisions like: Are you going to try smoking? That is when it comes along. I believe, if that child has good quality daily physical education in school, an improved physical education system in this Province, then you will really see a decrease in smoking. I believe that. I believe that, if a child through kindergarten through Grade 6 is told continuously and educated about what a healthy body means, about how smoking can damage your lungs, about the good eating practices so that you are healthy, then I believe that as they go through those years, as a child is twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen years old, all those mood changes and everything happening, that is when all the questions start coming around, then I think if they have the background of good quality physical education they are going to make some good sound decisions.

Because you, as a phys. ed. teacher - and this is another advantage that a physical education teacher has, Madam Chair. He has the advantage that, the students that - not every subject; let's face it. In school, not every child goes in and loves math, or loves biology. Some do. There are different ones, but a lot of them, a majority, certainly love the day when they have phys. ed. They know something exciting is happening. They like even more, when they get interested, sports teams. I know students, Madam Chair, who have stayed in school because of it. As a matter of fact, I am one of them. I loved it. I loved physical education. I loved the sporting events. They gave you a chance not to just be physical- not just the physical activity, Madam Chair - but it gave you a chance to socialize as far as travelling school trips. I mean, what member in this House doesn't remember a good school trip, sports teams and so on? If you think about your school memories, what do you think about? You think about the trips you did with your school teams. You think about the big tournament when you make it to a championship game. These are all things, Madam Chair, that point to interest. The point being, if you are interested, if you are interested in physical education, and if you are interested in sports, then that all lends to you doing what you have to do so that you can excel. That is what happens.

That is why, when we hear of a bill like this today coming to the House, that we are going to increase tax again on tobacco, it is a sort of a strange manouevre because we know that nobody can really go against it. The people who already smoke are saying: I am still not quitting. Statistics have shown that, that it really has not brought down the numbers. So, yes, we can increase the tax. Nobody can really argue it. Politically you cannot argue. It is a tax grab, whichever way you look at it, but we know it is all going towards stopping that bad thing called smoking.

If we really want to get to the root of the problem, Madam Chair, if we really want to get down to it, I believe if the funding and the resources that we have in this Province, or any province for that matter, if we can zone in on education and prevention and the start-up of smoking, before it starts, then I think that is where we can zone in on it. I think that is where the difference will be made.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: My time is up, Madam Chair. I will use a few more minutes again later to finish some comments on this, or I can have a couple of minutes to clue up now, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Leave granted.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to my colleagues opposite.

I know this is a serious issue. We have all talked about this in this House. Nobody has a monopoly on how we all feel about smoking, whether you smoke or not. Even people who smoke - and that is a bit of respect that is offered too, Madam Chair. Over the years, especially back years ago when my hon. colleagues here may have, or myself, picked up smoking, there was not as much education as there is today on it, I can tell you. It was more acceptable. You could go into a bar or restaurant and people smoked. That is the way it was. But today, certainly, certainly education has been, if there is any decline at all, it has been through education.

What I wanted to zone in on today is that, if we can prevent them from starting to smoke, education before the fact, that is where I think we can win on this battle. It is a battle, and we can all attest to and give testimony to our own examples and our own families and friends and so on who have had such a problem with this. So, quality daily physical education is where I think it is at.

As a matter of fact, before this session is over, I am going to use quite a bit of time in another debate to talk about quality daily physical education and how important an investment it is. That is the way I look at it. Nothing bothers me more than when we hear about cuts in education and the first thing we talk about is phys. ed. and art, like it is something thrown in for an extra. It is like it is thrown in as complementary to the other subjects. Madam Chair, on a more biased opinion, I believe that physical education in schools should be a top priority. I might raise a lot of debate on that, but I am telling you from experience, not just from the physical activity. That is where we have to start educating ourselves on physical education. The fact is, phys. ed. is not throwing a ball and a few hockey sticks onto the floor and telling every kid to go and run and do what they can. Physical education is a lot more than that, Madam Chair. It gives you an opportunity to develop the child physically, socially, morally. You develop the child in so many ways. They may not be good in biology and math, but they can be successful in something else, and they learn at the same time about the health of their body and about how they can grow up to be young men and women who are physically active, who understand about heart rate and understand about body fat and those types of things, understanding about their lungs and how they work, so that you know what the problems are when you are talking about smoking.

Those are the things that I think we should zone in on. Yes, increase taxes. Hopefully that will deter even one person. That would be great, but I think if the investment and the concentration were on preventing children from smoking in the first place, that is where I think our concentration should be.

On another day, I will take some time in this House to talk about physical education, quality daily physical education, and how we can improve on that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to spend a few moments speaking to the bill; but, before I do, I was extremely interested in listening to the Government House Leader's rationale on why he supported this particular piece of legislation. I was extremely interested in listening to him wax eloquent about his experience in the House and how he has seen these pieces or types of legislation come before the House before, and this is a regular occurrence. I just happen to have a former debate in this House on a bill just like this one, where taxes on tobacco were raised in 1985 and 1986. What is interesting today, it was made by the Government House Leader who was then in Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I am about to get to it.

Now, what is interesting today is what his view is today compared to what it was then. Now, let me read for you, Madam Chair, let me paraphrase for you what he said in 1985-1986. This was to Bill 50, which was the increase in tobacco tax introduced by the Peckford Administration. The finance minister of the day was the Member for St. John's South, Mr. John Collins. Here is what he said - and lets see if people in the Province can see the hypocritical nature, how on one day at one time in this Legislature you can say this and then ten or twelve years later here is what you say.

Now, we all know what he said a few moments ago but let's have a look at what he said fifteen years ago: In giving my reasons for not supporting Bill 50, I want to say from the outset the reason why I am against this bill is to demonstrate my lack of confidence in a government that seems to have no creativity and that seems to have no initiative in terms of raising revenues for this Province. No creativity or any initiative for raising revenue in this Province. Whenever they want to get extra revenues it is through taxation. This is a government with no creativity, with no initiative, with no new ideas, demonstrating they are just a tired group of politicians who are worn out, worn to a frazzle. Whenever they want to get extra revenues they go to booze, to alcohol or to tobacco. That was this member's statement. Absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: One quarter of that amount then. Whenever they want to get extra revenue, his reasoning in that part was that the government of the day in raising tobacco taxes to try to get extra revenue had no creativity. They lacked initiative. They had no new ideas. They had absolutely no foresight or forethought that the only way they could do it was to go to consumption tax: alcohol, booze, or tobacco.

Now today, I want to know is this the same member? Because if I can use his words today then what he is saying about himself and his government is that his own government, in trying to raise extra revenue, have no initiative, have no creativity, have no foresight and whenever they want to get extra revenue, what do they do?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: If I want to use his logic I can say this, which he has said about himself, that this is a worn out, tired group of politicians. Worn out to a frazzle, if I want to use his logic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, it gets even more interesting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: It gets even more interesting in terms of the Government House Leader's absolute direct attack on Bill 50, which is exactly like Bill 5 that we have before us today, when he said this - Madam Chair, this is what he said then. This is unbelievable for a minister of the Crown today to stand in his place and say this is regular; one-third goes into this part of the budget, one-third into something else. The fact of the matter is that this is a tax bill. This is a money bill. This is a way to raise revenue. This is a way to increase the revenues of the Province. It has nothing to do with a deterrent to stop people from smoking.

If we want to use the logic of members opposite, when the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education got up and talked about the price of a pack of cigarettes stopping people from smoking, if we want to take that logic to its extreme then it should be $25 or $30 a pack because the higher they go the less people will smoke. But, the fact of the matter, why aren't we doing it? If that is the case, why aren't we doing it?

Here is what else the Government House Leader said at the time: Mr. Chairman, it might sound a little ludicrous, it might sound a little paradoxical, but I would venture to say that there will be hungry children in this Province as a result of this tobacco tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely! That is what he said on a same bill: that there will be hungry children in this Province as a result of this tobacco tax. Mr. Chairman, we can say it is a luxury tax - listen to this, these are his words: We can say it is a luxury tax. We can say that but I expect there are hon. members opposite who realize the difficulty of kicking this habit of smoking. I expect there are people in the Province who know that. There are ordinary Newfoundlanders, poor Newfoundlanders hooked by this tremendous addiction to tobacco. Mr. Chairman, they are smoking their two or three packages a day, finding it very difficult to give up, and this government is going to punish them. That is what he said fifteen years ago: and this government is going to punish them. This government is going to punish their children. This government, he said then, is going to punish their children by piling on tobacco tax for a habit they have, an addiction that they are trying to get rid of, and we are going to impose a hardship on their children and on their families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, I guess if one is in this Legislature long enough, well I suppose anything is possible to see, but if you want to talk about one member's view going full circle in a period from either being on the Opposition side of the House of Assembly or on the government side - I could read, for example, the Minister of Finance's statements to this and they would sound exactly like the current Government House Leader's statements.

The fact of the matter is this, that you can dress it up whichever way you want. You can slice it up whichever way you want, but this is a financial bill. This an area of taxation. This is an area by which government is using the mechanism of taxation on consumption taxes in terms of tobacco, in this instance, to raise revenues. What is clear, Madam Chair, is that if we want to extend the Government House Leader's logic when he talks about - it is very clear when he says that this government, the government of the day, in increasing revenues, by increasing taxes on tobacco, he was clear on his views of the day. That it is a government that has lacked creativity, a government that lacks foresight and the imposition of such taxes - his words, not mine - would go on to point to hardship and cause children in the Province to be hungry.

Now, Madam Chair, I use this former debate to illustrate this point, that when we want to talk about Bill 5 in terms of tobacco tax, there is no question that consumption taxes right now in this

Province are extremely high; tobacco and alcohol alone. One needs to ask this question - we look at the Budget Estimates for this year and we see, and ask the question: How much money is government going to raise in terms of consumption taxes for this year? A significant amount; $80 million on cigarettes alone is my understanding. Let's not include all the other consumption taxes, and let's ask this question: Where in the Budget does this government show what we will be collecting on resource royalties? Is it $80 million? No. Is it $60 million? Is it $140 million? Is it $40 million? No, it is approximately $30 million to $35 million. On resource rentals this year, in this Budget, this government is going to collect approximately $35 million. Yet, on consumption taxes, on tobacco, they are going to collect $80 million. What group of people in the Province today are the ones who lack creativity? What group of people in the Province today are the ones who lack any sense of initiative to try to raise the revenues of the Province in a variety of mechanisms? Where are the worn-out, tired-out, chewed-out, frazzled-out group of people when it talked - to use the Government House Leader's words in 1985-1986, in speaking in opposition to the raising of tobacco tax -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - where are that group?

Madam Chair, they are right here and the people of the Province know exactly where they are.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the Government House Leader: Do you want to stand? I thought the Government House Leader was going to stand.

I have an opportunity today to make a few comments on Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, Madam Chair. I certainly heard the comments of my colleagues on this side of the House as they put forward the many, many concerns that they have with this act and the fact that we have a tremendous amount of money that is collected on taxes each and every year here under the consumption taxes; and, as the Member for Kilbride just noted, somewhere in excess of $80 million on cigarettes and tobacco products alone.

Madam Chair, I would like to take a little different slant to it, if I could. I would just like to know how much this government puts into the prevention of smoking, the prevention of taking up smoking, especially by our young people.

I drive along and see many times, schools, especially in my district and other parts of the district, driving along here in St. John's, Madam Chair, you pass by a school and you have a tremendous amount of young people out by the side of the school, not only by schools but indeed many public places. You go out by the mall, you go to any public outlet that there is and you will see young people standing by the side, outside smoking. We have certainly made some strides in that regard.

From a perspective of how much is taken in, in tobacco tax, and how much is spent on the prevention of this certainly leaves something to be desired, I would think, in this Province. That is why I think we have to - it is like talking about VLT machines, different types of gambling that people have. We have always asked here in the House that some of this revenue that is taken in be spent on the preventive side of things.

I know that we have a teen group here in the Province that is doing their part, Madam Chair, but I just wonder how much effort is really put into the fact of preventing young people, preventing anybody for that matter but definitely our young people, into preventing them from taking up smoking, Madam Chair. This government has a responsibility here to the young people of the Province.

Just to give you a couple of facts on tobacco, and what it does, Madam Chair, I think it would be interesting to note that smoking kills more people than traffic accidents, AIDS, suicides and murder combined, Madam Chair. That is a very straightforward account on just how much tobacco does kill. Smoking is the most important cause of preventable illness, disability and premature death in Canada. That is a chilling fact, Madam Chair.

The way that we have to look at it, I guess, the best way to prevent smoking deaths is to keep, especially kids, from starting. If I have any message here today on the Tobacco Tax Act, I would like to say that we certainly should be looking at - just give you an idea, Madam Chair, of how serious smoking has become in this Province and indeed in Canada as a whole, every year smoking kills nearly 1,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador and over 45,000 Canadians and about 3.5 million worldwide. These are some very frightening statistics, if I say so myself. One thousand people in Newfoundland and Labrador die from smoking every year. Therefore, I think that we should be taking a fair bit of the revenue that is taken in under the Tobacco Tax Act, the consumption tax that is collected there, and put it into preventive ways and some unique ways, and some new ways of sending the message out to our young people.

If we see the ads on TV that are ongoing now and in the papers, there are certainly some great signs and positive signs being put forward to encourage our young people not to smoke; to encourage our young people not to take up the habit. We have programs like, Kick the Nic as an example, Madam Chair. We have different programs that are here in the Province, but I believe that we have to be able to promote physical activity in our young people. We have to be able to promote the proper food guide to our young people. We definitely have to be able to promote non-smoking ,and not even a chance of even taking that up.

I have been lucky myself, Madam Chair, that I never had that problem, but I understand it is an addiction. I understand that it is not easy for people. I have had several people in my own family and extended family who have smoked, Madam Chair, and it is not easy to give up. It is not easy to lay down a cigarette after twenty-five or thirty years and stop smoking. That is why I believe it is important, if we can get at the root of it and get at the young people with our message, that message should be loud and clear, that smoking is a disease; it does not pay.

If we can, through some method, take some of this $80 million that is going to be collected under the Tobacco Tax Act this year and put a fair amount of that not into - I realize that we have to collect taxes for our roads, we have to collect taxes for our water and sewer, we have to collect taxes for our health care and education and social services and so on and so forth, but I think it will be, in the long run, more beneficial if we took more of this money - a certain percentage of the tobacco taxes collected - and put it into preventive ways of keeping our young people from smoking. In the long run, the savings to our health care system in this Province and in Canada would be enormous. I think that is where we all have to look at it from.

As my colleague from Kilbride talked about resource development and what we take in, I had a situation the other day where a gentleman told me, Madam Chair - he is a captain on one of the trans-shipment boats that bring oil from Hibernia and other places back and forth to Whiffen Head. He said to me: You know, I make more by going out on a trip and taking that ship in through Placentia Bay, taking her down to Whiffen Head and taking her out through Placentia Bay again, I make more on that than what we make here in the Province on that tanker of oil. Certainly, that is a concern that people have and I think that we need to do that. Madam Chair, I think we also have to say that it is certainly something that we need.

Madam Chair, another fact is, tobacco companies need 450 new smokers every day to replace those who quit or die. Thus, they spend millions of dollars annually on advertising. I know it is not easy for the provincial government to compete with the tobacco companies. They have a major vested interest in it. They raise immense amount of dollars, Madam Chair, an enormous amount of revenue from the sale of tobacco and it is not easy for the government, it is not easy for any level of government to compete with the tobacco companies, especially on an advertising campaign. But at the same time, I do not think we take enough of the revenue that is collected to put into advertising on preventive ways of dealing with our young people not to start smoking at all.

We all know the health concerns that are brought forward by smoking. I mean, smoking has been linked in the past, Madam Chair, to heart disease, mouth, throat and lung cancer, emphysema and bronchitis; just to name a few. Almost everybody here in the House have had members of their families who have been affected in some way, shape or form by the fact of cancer and different other diseases that are brought on by smoking. Certainly, it is something that needs to be looked at because of the cost to our health care system in the long run. If we were spending more dollars on preventing young people, especially our young people from smoking, well, eventually they would not end up into our health care system as a negative. Therefore it would not be costing our health care system what I would estimate to be millions and millions of dollars per year.

It is an interesting statistic when you look at the fact that smokers, on an average, lost fifteen years of their lives. We all understand, Madam Chair, that it is not easy - I will repeat something that I said a few moments ago, it is not easy to give up smoking. It is not easy to break an addiction. It is not easy to break an addiction to anything. I know several people who have addiction problems with different things, and it is not easy. It takes a lot of determination. It takes a lot of commitment to give up something, especially something that you are addicted to. It is not easy but, at the same time, we have to try to help those people. I think the best way we can help those people is if we can stop it at an early age; if we can stop it before it even starts. It is a cruel thing to do - especially with our young people sometimes. It is a cruel thing to do, to be smoking. It is a cruel thing to do. My buddy across the way says: Light me up a cigarette. So, I light up one, too.

All the advertising I have seen in the past number of years, Madam Chair, has been geared towards the young people. It has been geared towards getting the young people to smoke because usually what happens is that as people get older - if you have gone maybe thirty, thirty-five, forty years of your life and have never smoked, you do not really take it up. That is not to say that people do not take it up at a later age, but most people do not. There are always

exceptions to those rules, that people begin smoking -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. MANNING: Just a moment to finish up, Madam Chair, if I could?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: I think that it is not easy to give up smoking and therefore I think the actions have to be taken to prevent it at an early age to try to get our young people - and especially I plead here today with the government to take some of this revenue that is coming in under the Tobacco Tax Act this year, to take it and put it into prevention, to put it into advertising, to put it into whatever it takes to get the message across to the young people of this Province that smoking is unhealthy, smoking is something that is very addictive and smoking is something that is very costly, not only to the individual in regards to health, but indeed to every taxpayer in the Province because of the fact of the incredible amount of dollars that are spent on our health care system to cure the diseases that are brought on by smoking.

With that, Madam Chair, they are my comments on Bill 5. I hope that the government opposite will take some of my comments into consideration as they prepare to spend some of the immense amount of money that is raised on taxes from the Tobacco Tax Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill 5)

Resolution

 

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report the passage of a certain resolution and have recommended implementation of Bill 5, and ask leave to sit again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill 5)

On motion, bill read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I would like to make some announcements re the Estimates Committee. The meeting of the Resource Committee to review the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development scheduled for 5:30 this evening has been rescheduled to Monday, May 13, so we have some time for that meeting.

The Resource Committee will meet tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. in the House to continue their review of the Estimates of the Department of Mines and Energy, and the Government Services Committee will meet tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. to review the Estimates of the Department of Government Services and Lands.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.