May 29, 1995               HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLII  No. 33


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the public galleries several groups. The first is a group of visitors from the Caribbean, a delegation from the Barbados Community College, Mr. Vincent Sisnett, Senior Tutor in the Division of Health Sciences, Bentley Vaughan, Engineer Lecturer in Allied Health Sciences, and from the College of Arts, Science and Technology in Kingston, Jamaica Mr. Errol Senior, Chemical Engineer who is Coordinator of the Basic Water Technology Program, and Audrey Hussey who is Senior Lecturer and the Head of Biological Sciences.

As well, I would like to welcome two groups of students, one a group of forty Grade 7 students from Catalina Elementary School, accompanied by their teachers Marvin Ryder and Lorrie Smith. Secondly, a group of forty-eight Grade 5 students from St. Peter's School in Upper Island Cove accompanied by their teachers Mrs Judy Adams, Winston Lynch and David White.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There have been a number of comments in recent weeks in this House and through the media with respect to the Province's wood supply situation. These comments have created a level of confusion and uncertainty that I wish to address to assure the people of this Province that the forest resources are being managed in a manner which will assure the sustainability of the resource while at the same time sustaining the economic activities of the Province now depending on that resource.

The 20-Year Plan for the forest resources of the Province was released in 1992. This report was based on calculations for an annual allowable cut, an AAC, in the Province that were completed based on the information available up to the year 1990. The new Forestry Act was introduced by this government in 1990 and requires a recalculation of the annual allowable cut on a 5-year basis and a report to this House of the results. The five year update of the annual allowable cut calculations is now ongoing and will be released in detail to this House when completed. When that is done and the new version of the 20-Year Plan is produced, a first five years drop off so that we always have a 20-Year Plan.

In the meantime attention in recent weeks has been directed to a statement in a consultant's report completed for governments under a cost-shared arrangement identifying a deficit in the wood supply in the order of 20 per cent.

The information on wood supply included in that consultant's report comes directly from the 1992 publication of the 20-Year Plan that was produced, based on information up-to-date as of 1990, except for minor modifications, so the information should not be new to the Opposition or the interested environmental groups in the Province. The 20-Year Plan showed an approximate 20 per cent wood supply deficit up to approximately the year 2010 at which time the current age class imbalance would be corrected.

Since the annual allowable cut calculation was done in 1990, the supply/demand situation in the Province has been altered by ongoing events and improved by ongoing events. On the demand side there have been changes due to the following: A reduction in demand at the Grand Falls mill with the close down of one paper machine; conversion of the remaining sulphite units at the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper mill to TMP units, resulting in a reduction in the wood requirement to produce each ton of paper; thirdly, both Abitibi-Price Inc. and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd. are investigating the establishment of recycling equipment resulting in a further reduction in demand to some extent; and, domestic cutting requirements for firewood have been redirected to stands that are not designated for commercial use and in some instances a reduction in the wood harvest on each cutting permit has been done as we did recently for the Avalon Peninsula region.

All of these changes have served to stabilize a wood demand situation such that the current demand is less than was originally projected to be the case some five years ago. At the same time, on the wood supply side, regulations and policies have been introduced to improve the utilization of the wood which is harvested. These include: encouraging sawmills to install chippers so that the slabs from sawmills which had previously been wasted are now being converted into chips and delivered to the pulp and paper mills; providing a reduced stumpage fee for the harvest of dead and dying timber and the harvesting of timber from less favourable terrain, such as steep slopes and, investment in silviculture and other intensive forest management activity such as planting and thinning. This government has made a decision to continue this program through $10 million in the current budget replacing federal cost-shared funding.

The end result of all of the above changes over time, is that, based on similar assumptions employed in the 1990 annual allowable cut calculation, there is a marginal increase in the annual allowable cut now. At the same time, however, over that period there have developed increasing demands for the management of the forest resource on an ecosystem basis taking into account all uses. This will result in the removal of some lands from the wood supply. The results of this approach are to be incorporated into the assessment of the wood supply that is now ongoing.

 

I would also emphasize to the House and the people of this Province that the department views with great concern the hemlock looper infestation projected for this summer. A significant factor in the current wood supply deficit was caused by insect infestation in the late 1970s and early 1980s. We are hopeful that through an effective spray program with the insecticide B.t. we will be able to contain the current outbreak, but no one should underestimate the problems that may result if there are large-scale losses in the years ahead because of this insect infestation.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, contrary to statements from the Opposition in recent days, the wood supply situation in the Province has improved over the past five to seven years. Through effective management and continued diligence, I am confident that the wood supply requirements at the existing level of industry in the Province can be met in the years ahead with a combination of effective utilization plus supplies from Labrador and elsewhere, where needed, in the short term. In the longer term when the current imbalance in the age structure of our forests is corrected through intensive management and continued expenditures on silviculture, we will be able to sustain and indeed expand our forest industry and, at the same time, meet the many other demands of our citizens on our forest resources. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the Minister of Natural Resources, I would like to say that a great number of Newfoundlanders are very concerned about the state of the Island's forests. They are concerned because of what they see when they look around when they are out in the woods. They are concerned because they know Abitibi-Price has been getting wood from the Avalon Peninsula and importing wood from Prince Edward Island. They are more worried than ever when they hear the minister responsible for forests - the provincial minister, realizing this is totally within Provincial Government control - deny that there is a wood supply demand imbalance on the Island of Newfoundland. When we all listen to the minister say that we can move on to Labrador, we are very upset. We haven't done a proper job of looking after the forests of the Island and we have no right to move into Labrador and repeat the mistakes that were made on the Island, in the mainland portion of the Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the minister responsible is not even willing to acknowledge that there is a problem, how can we expect to see a solution? If the minister responsible is not even willing to say that the loss of federal government cost-sharing and the withdrawal from the Province of the federal forestry service with the scientific expertise on the hemlock looper problem and other aspects of the forest is not a loss, then we have a worse problem than some of us thought a year or so ago.

Mr. Speaker, the PC caucus has a committee on forestry. We will be having public meetings around the Province starting in St. John's tomorrow night. Through these public meetings we will listen to what Newfoundlanders have to say about the forest. I would suggest that the minister open his ears and heed what Newfoundlanders can tell him about the state of the Island's forests and take corrective action. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: For hon. members, I wish to point out that I prematurely welcomed the delegation from Barbados and Jamaica. I had thought that they were in the House and they were not. They subsequently arrived during the minister's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about the Newfoundland Dockyard. Last Thursday when I asked the Premier about his lack of action to ensure a future for the Dockyard,he said he would be getting information and then he would think about whether to go to the Federal Government and make an intellectual case for the Dockyard. Would the Premier tell us today what information he got from Marine Atlantic President, Rod Morrison?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has again misstated. I said nothing about thinking about whether I would go to the Federal Government. What I did say is I would get information first. My normal practice is to treat things on an intelligent and intellectual basis and deal with it in that way.

With respect to the meeting I had this morning with Mr. Morrison, while I'm not prepared at this moment to discuss totally all of the comments that were made by Mr. Morrison and by myself and others at the meeting, I can say that Mr. Morrison has assured me that most of the horrendous statements coming out of the Opposition in the last week were totally unfounded. He told me that Marine Atlantic was continuing to bid work and continuing to accept work and intended to continue to do so unless and until they advise me to the contrary. I also told him, went through it in great detail, what the Province was doing with respect to Marystown Shipyard, and said to him that we would endorse their taking a similar approach with respect to the St. John's Dockyard. I said to him: I have no problem with your announcing that the St. John's Dockyard will close - if you put in place a board of directors, a system that will ensure good sound management, elimination of the ineffective and poor quality operating procedures that are there now, corrections of the collective agreement, corrections of the massive management problems. If you do that, then, if after a reasonable period of time, twelve or eighteen months, during which time you should support it as we are supporting Marystown, if you do that, and make that honest effort, and it can't succeed without subsidy, then I, for one, will not be able to quarrel with your closing it; but if you simply throw it overboard in the harbour with a massive chain around its neck and say, `Sink or swim', that is unconscionable and I ask you not to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Premier think it is unconscionable for the Federal Government, through Marine Atlantic, to lay off all the managers of the Newfoundland Dockyard and shut down the bidding department? Does the Premier think it was unconscionable for the Federal Government to order the Dockyard to turn away contracts they bid on and won to do work on the Beaumont Hamel and the Teleost?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, either Mr. Morrison was deliberately lying to me, sitting across the table lying deliberately, or what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just said is totally and completely wrong. Now, she may honestly believe it, but if she does then she is clearly misinformed.

Mr. Morrison sat across the table from me a little more than an hour ago and told me no, they were accepting these contracts, not rejecting them; they were proceeding with the work. Now, unless he was deliberately lying to me, three, four other ministers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The minister wasn't there. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was there, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was there, and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was there. Now, the four of us heard exactly the same thing. So unless Mr. Morrison was deliberately lying then the Leader of the Opposition is doing as she usually does, making totally unfounded allegations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So is the Premier saying that the Newfoundland Dockyard will proceed with the contracts it bid on and won to do work on the DFO vessel Teleost, and the provincial ferry Beaumont Hamel? And will the Premier, when he gets to his feet, tell us whether the Federal Government, through Marine Atlantic, will now allow the Newfoundland Dockyard to compete for work due on the Leonard Cowley, and will the Premier indicate whether in fact the bidding people at the Dockyard will be rehired and allowed to do bids on future opportunities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the House that when I spoke with Mr. Morrison he told me directly in direct answer, because I put it to him very clearly, that they were proceeding to do the work that was contracted or for which they bid and won the contracts on the federal government vessel and on the provincial government vessel.

As to the Leonard Cowley I wasn't personally aware that contracts were called. I didn't have the detailed inside information that apparently some member has with respect to Marine Atlantic so I didn't have that information to ask him about it. If it is important to the House I will certainly contact Mr. Morrison this afternoon and ask him if he is going to bid on the Leonard Cowley as well.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would think it is obvious to most people that the future of the Dockyard is extremely important and the opportunity of the Dockyard to compete for the work on the Cowley is important. Jobs are at stake. I would ask the Premier to get that information and report to the House. Will the Premier also indicate what information he has about staff at the Dockyard, and specifically staff in the bidding department that will enable the Dockyard to compete for other work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when I met with Mr. Morrison - I guess the meeting probably took about an hour and a quarter or so, so it was a fairly substantial meeting. I advised Mr. Morrison of our strong opinions on the matter. If I were to characterize the meeting I would say that we told Mr. Morrison in no uncertain terms what the Province thought about an approach that would simply see the Dockyard allowed to deteriorate and not be given a fair chance to compete and to succeed. Unless he is misleading me or deliberately deceiving me, he clearly told me: I share your views on the matter. We are impressed with the approach you are taking in Marystown. We will certainly consider that as an approach for the Dockyard. He took notes on the detail that we gave him. Whether or not he will do it I can't say. I can't vouch absolutely, I can't guarantee the man's performance, but I can say to the House exactly what he told me.

He led me to believe very clearly that they were proceeding with work as usual to do whatever work that they can get. In the meantime he is going to propose that they take an approach, the same as the Province took with respect to Marystown. We offered him whatever services and advice Marystown could make available to them to help out with the Dockyard. We assured them we would go to the board at Marystown and ask them to do whatever they could to help out, short of giving them proprietary or competitive information. They can't expect that. But in terms of the process that the Marystown Shipyard used, in terms of the advisors that they consulted, and in terms of the guidance they got. By the way, I should say the preliminary indications that I have is Marystown Shipyard is doing a good job of starting to put its house in order. The indications that I have is that the union too is working cooperatively with the new board of directors to put the Marystown house in order.

If Mr. Morrison follows a similar approach and gives it the kind of support that we are giving Marystown for a reasonable period of time - and by the way, he asked me how long that time was and what limit we put on the amount of financial assistance we were prepared to provide in the meantime, and I told him there wasn't an absolute. We just said: You have a reasonable amount of time to turn that around and produce a black bottom line because we aren't going to finance red bottom lines any more. We didn't set an absolute time limit but we expect that something in the nature of twelve months or so would be a reasonable time. Because after that I can't come to this House and ask it for more money to continue to operate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier, it is a bit late to be getting Marystown in order after Hibernia. But now, back to the St. John's Dockyard. Why does the Premier insist on comparing St. John's to Marystown? Why is he not comparing the Newfoundland Dockyard with Halifax, Quebec City, Vancouver and the other federally-owned and operated dockyards in the country?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Because, Mr. Speaker, St. John's Dockyard is in Newfoundland, not Quebec not Vancouver or somewhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: The fact that the Newfoundland Dockyard is in Newfoundland is a point, I say to the Premier. He is supposed to be representing the interest of the Newfoundland Dockyard in his dealings with the federal government, not looking after the interests of Halifax, Quebec City or Vancouver, which he is so fond of referring to when he's saying the federal government cannot give preferential treatment in Newfoundland. Doesn't the Premier see that the Newfoundland Dockyard has a huge location advantage over competitors on the mainland because of its strategic location in the Atlantic shipping lanes and isn't the Premier doing anything to capitalize on that natural advantage? When is the Premier finally going to go to a higher level then a bureaucrat and go above Rod Morrison and talk to the political masters, meet with and lobby with Doug Young, Brian Tobin and Prime Minister Chrétien?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I also brought in, for the meeting, a person who is very knowledgeable in marine matters, marine shipping, repair and so on, to have him available to provide information to Marine Atlantic and to make sure that the Province was fully informed so that we could deal very effectively with the Marine Atlantic. He made a significant contribution, provided us with a good deal of advice and did some preliminary assessment as to where opportunities were for Marine Atlantic in terms of the St. John's dockyard. He gave the officials of Marine Atlantic that kind of advice, told them an area of business on which they could focus for which there was little competition in Eastern Canada, where some of the work is going now to be done in Europe and it could be done here at a lower cost if Marine Atlantic put the St. John's dockyard in order as we are putting Marystown Shipyard in order. If they did that they could attract to this dockyard here at St. John's, work that at the moment is going across to Europe to be done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we covered a lot of territory. We tried to give St. John's dockyard a reasonable chance of success in the future and we expect Marine Atlantic, acting on behalf of the federal government, to act in good faith, not to go around and almost - in a quiet subversive manner let the thing deteriorate and fall to the point where it is inefficient and ineffective and then say we have no alternative but to close it. Give it a reasonable chance to function properly and I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the St. John's dockyard could be very competitive and will.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows full well Marine Atlantic is only a Crown corporation that reports to Doug Young, a minister who represents the maritimes. Now when is the Premier going to do his job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and go lobby with the federal politicians? When is the Premier going to be meeting with Brian Tobin, Doug Young or Prime Minister Chrétien to argue for a future for the Newfoundland Dockyard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do it on a constant basis. I am meeting with Mr. Young later this week with the latest schedule that I have on the meeting, whether that has been changed or not in the last few days, I don't know. I will be meeting with Mr. Tobin on Saturday of this week to discuss this amongst other things, a host of other things. So it is silly for the Leader of the Opposition to ask: when will I go and meet? I am doing this on a constant basis. It is done constantly, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Has the Premier asked anyone in the federal government if they will recapitalize the dockyard? In other words, invest in modernizing the dockyard so that it is guaranteed to remain competitive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have said the same thing to Mr. Tobin. I am just trying to recollect now, Mr. Young. I know the minister has said it to Mr. Young. This is not a one person government, there are thirteen other ministers in the government. They are in touch on a constant basis. I know the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has done it and I have spoken to Mr. Tobin about it. So yes this goes on all of the time and for the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions as though this did not happen or is not likely to happen only because she asked a question about it in the House is utter nonsense.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Is the minister satisfied that employment opportunities at the Hibernia site are being maximized to there fullest for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are skilled and ready to go out there?

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, there is no reason for me to think that anything less exists. I have had no official complaint, either from workers specifically to me, and/or the representative of workers, namely, the Building Trades Council. So there is no reason for me to think, nor have staff informed me anything to the contrary. I say to the member that I think 94 per cent of the workforce right now is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister this, then: Obviously, he is not aware that welders from British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia, in the last two weeks, upwards to thirty or maybe forty, have been brought into the Province, while there are welders with the same qualifications, the same technical background, who are sitting home waiting to go out to the Hibernia site. If the minister is not aware - he has just indicated that no representations have been made to him - will he check into this matter and report back to the House before it closes?

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

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

As a matter of fact, tomorrow morning, the Minister of Natural Resources and myself will be meeting with Mr. Cain and Mr. Parsons from the Building Trades Council, and it is an ideal opportunity to raise that particular issue. We meet periodically. I meet periodically with the Building Trades; the minister meets with the management group. We are constantly trying to monitor and make sure that opportunities for Newfoundlanders are filled by Newfoundlanders.

The only thing I might say to the member, and I don't know - I will certainly check it out - but I think there may be a special technique for certain type welders that exists, whether they are TIG or special type welders on different types of metals or what have you, that may not be available locally. That might be the reason for it, but what the member is saying today is not unusual. The member says these kinds of things constantly, and makes much to-do about them, and in the end they are not correct.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

As the minister and all of us know, this is the time of year when we see an increase in activity in silviculture in the Province, but with respect to the silviculture, tree nurseries play a very important role, as the minister knows. Can the minister comment on the role of the tree nurseries, and does he forecast the same level of activity in these tree nurseries for this summer?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right, that we are into that period of the year when we are getting on with our various silviculture projects, whether they are thinning projects or planting projects, or anything related thereto. Just before I came to the House today I signed two contracts in the forestry department related to silviculture. On Friday, I approved two more news releases relative to silviculture projects in some parts of the Province, and over the next little while there are going to be many millions of dollars worth of silviculture projects approved and announced.

I am not sure of the exact number of trees that we are going to plant this year, but over the last six years we have been planting in the order of 8 million to 10 million, and I expect this year we will be up in the 8 million range again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said to the minister, we are well into that season now and I would like to ask the minister, since we have just a couple of days left with the House open, if tomorrow he could table in the House a breakdown of the funding for silviculture for this year, and be specific to any provincially initiated programs that may be oncoming for this year? Would he do that tomorrow?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have a list prepared of every project. The officials in the forestry department, last Fall, had a package that was about $23 million long of silviculture projects that they had on their priority list, projects that they want to do, and we did about $1 million worth through the Fall. We have started identifying priority projects again right now out of that $20-odd million package. As I said, on Friday I approved press releases for two of them. I signed contracts today on two other aspects of forest management, and over the next few weeks the management people will come forward to me with other silviculture projects, but I do not have a list right now that I can put on the table tomorrow and say, `Here are the projects we are going to do'. But there will be a lot of projects, and altogether certainly pushing the $8 million range.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You would think at this time, at this stage now, the minister could table that in the House tomorrow and tell us how that money is going to be spent.

Mr. Speaker, he always boasts about silviculture in the Province. Well, I have a question for the minister. I just had calls again today from people in tree nurseries, specifically in the Wooddale Tree Nursery in Grand Falls, who have been working there for the past fourteen summers with tree planting; we know how important that is to silviculture. As of today they have not been recalled for this summer. Those people have always been recalled by at least this date in the year.

Can the minister tell me if there is just a delay in the recall or if in fact they will not be hired back at all?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, what I want to be sure of is that we have enough trees for our planting projects, for our silviculture projects this year, and I am sure we will get enough. Wooddale is our major source. That is the major source of all of our trees this year. We get a few from Brookfield Road, and we get a few from Labrador, from Goose Bay. I don't know the details of exactly how many people are going to be called back, and when they are going to be called back. Obviously, people get called back as needed to make sure that we have the trees available that are required as our silviculture projects are carried out.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

As the minister knows, the Burin Peninsula South Coast region has what is probably the largest unemployment rate in the Province, yet the Federal Government have plans to reduce the staff at the Human Resources Office in Marystown by one-half, from forty to twenty employees. This will no doubt mean a 50 per cent reduction in programs and assistance to the people who depend on this service.

Is the minister concerned about the downgrading of services by the Federal Government to these unemployed residents?

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

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

I appreciate the question from the member. As a matter of fact, this Friday I will be meeting with Minister Axworthy in Charlottetown - the Minister of Education, Social Services and myself - and I will certainly raise the concerns of the member. we all should be concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, while twenty jobs will be lost in Marystown there will be many more jobs lost in Human Resources offices throughout the Province, I say to the minister. While the underlying concern is about the loss of services to these people it cannot go without being noted that if twenty jobs were being created in this Province the Premier would be on announcing an EDGE program, giving away land or whatever it may be, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister tell this House if he has done anything so far to prevent the Federal Government from robbing the service from these people of our Province, a service they have been used to for decades?

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

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

Let me say to the hon. member that we have had some ongoing meetings with Minister Axworthy. I am sure the minister knows, as all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know, that it is a very tough time fiscally for both the Federal and Provincial Government. I think in our negotiations, our cost-sharing, the $20 million to create some employment in the Province for graduate programs, student programs, we are constantly, as a government, dealing with the Federal Government and Minister Axworthy. As I told him, I will raise the issue concerning the twenty jobs on the South Coast, and I will have an answer for the member. If the House is not open then the member can be assured that I will respond to what Mr. Axworthy replies.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I say to the minister, I am delighted he is going to do it but it is probably kind of late because this government has stood silently by and watched the Chrétien government slash millions of dollars and cut programs throughout this Province. What I want to know is, would the minister and this government, in a meaningful way, not to have a discussion with Mr. Axworthy, will he,in a real meaningful way, stand up to the Federal Government and defend the rights of Newfoundlanders, or are you going to continue to sell out the Province?

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

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

I would have loved for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have an opportunity this morning to see the Premier of this Province respond in a very meaningful way to Mr. Morrison. I say that without contradiction, and let me say to the member that there is no other plan that this government has, only to negotiate sincerely with the Federal Government to protect the jobs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why don't they go and meet with the produce manager at Sobeys, or something?

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. There are reports circulating throughout the country that the Federal Government, in its ongoing discussions with the European union on the turbot fishery and the implementation of the supposed agreement, is willing to give more turbot to the Europeans in exchange for a guarantee on the Observer's Program. Is the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, aware of that, and if so, could he inform the House of what reports he is getting from his federal counterpart?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no question that the conservation of the remaining stocks in our waters is paramount in our approach to the fishery of the future. The question that the hon. gentleman has asked, I can't give you an answer today, to that question. There are ongoing negotiations and discussions with the European Union and those discussions will become clearer as time goes on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Let me ask the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, would the Provincial Government support the Federal Government's giving away more turbot to the Europeans in order to ensure the Observer Program is kept in place?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is most concerned with protecting the remaining stocks out in the ocean and that will involve various approaches, but whatever the case may be, the paramount issue is the protection of the remaining stocks.

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

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

In light of the minister not answering the question now for two months, would he undertake to contact the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Tobin, and ask him if, indeed, Canada is considering giving up more of its turbot quota to the European Union to guarantee that the Europeans abide by the Observers Program? Would the minister undertake to do that for us, would he undertake to do it today and report back to the House tomorrow because we may not be here on Wednesday?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be talking, actually, to Mr. Tobin later on today. I am sure various issues will come up in these discussions and I will decide on what will be appropriate to report to the House tomorrow.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question concerning wheelchair accessibility to the Newfoundland Museum, and the minister replied at the time, that the fact was, they were planning to build a new Caboto Centre or John Cabot Building, whatever you want to call it, and that they were not planning to spend dollars at the time, more or less throwing good dollars after bad.

I would like to ask the minister: In light of the fact that the Caboto Building may not be built until the next century, I am wondering if he would be planning to spend any money on wheelchair accessibility to the Newfoundland Museum?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question, because it was one of the issues that was raised, and may have been raised with other hon. members as well, when we met at the Legislative breakfast last week for National Access Awareness Week. I think again, they were very pleased with the participation of a large number of members of the House from all parties.

One of their outstanding concerns, of course, is accessibility issues both the physical accessibility issues with respect to structures, and the other accessibility issues with respect to the non-visible disabilities and so on; and I indicated again to the group at that table and with officials from the consumers group and so on, who have made representation largely now, to our minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations that, in all of those issues and with respect to the museum directly, since we are still in the process of some consideration and discussion with respect to a new facility for the museum, for the archives and the possibility of incorporating a Provincial Art Gallery for the first time, that we still don't have any immediate plans, as disappointing as that is to the group, to spend money at this time making the Newfoundland Museum on Duckworth Street more readily physically accessible at this point; but that we understand the issue, we know there is a need and once the decision-making goes a further with respect to the long-term future of the museum, the archives and the gallery versus the need to improve the current buildings, Mr. Speaker. We will be readdressing the issue at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the annual report of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities with respect to their operations under The Automobile Insurance Act for the year that ran from April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995. There are twelve copies here. If more are needed we would be delighted to provide them.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the Annual Report on the Administration of the Pension Benefits Act, 1985, for the year ending March 31 1995.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I ask you to call the first order which will be Order No. 9, Bill No. 11, the smoke-free act amendment, let me say that we will ask the House to deal with the following orders in this order, but we can change it if that is the wish of members.

First, Order No. 9, the smoke-free environment act amendment. Secondly, Order No. 14, which is the amendment to the City of St. John's act. Thirdly, Order No. 16, the judicature act amendment. Finally, Order No. 18, which is an amendment to a number of acts standing in the name of my friend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. That is the one to implement the free trade agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I would say to my friend for Burin - Placentia West, not only is the minister one big act, he is a very good act indeed, and a very hard act to follow.

Your Honour, would you be good enough -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, we want to do the pension benefit bill as well. I had forgotten. Order No. 13. We will carry that after Order No. 9 if that is in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. Let's start with the smoke-free environment one. We do want to do the pension benefit one. My friend for Grand Bank seems to be very interested in pension benefits these days. We will do our best to oblige him. Would you be good enough to call Order No. 9 please, Mr. Speaker?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act". (Bill No. 11)

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year the government introduced into legislation a bill known as the Smoke-free Environment Act. After having that piece of legislation function for a year I guess I'm happy to tell the House and the Province something that is no secret to them: That it is probably one of the most important, one of the most successful, and one of the most widely-received pieces of legislation that has been introduced for some time in the House. By last count of people being polled and that sort of thing, there was about a 92 per cent I believe popular support for the thrust of this legislation and for the bill itself and what it seeks to accomplish.

In any new piece of legislation of course there are always some anomalies noted as it comes to be operational. In that respect there are three or four necessities to clear up or make clarifications to certain clauses in this particular bill. So that is what the thrust and the spirit of the bill are all about, the amendments that are before the House.

There are amendments to clause 1 that really seek to clarify the definition of a food establishment. It refers also to a restaurant, a snack bar or any regular or similar food establishment. Clause 2, there is an amendment that seeks to clarify that the seating area of a bar should also include of course the standing area for calculation of total seating spaces that the establishment has.

Clarification to clause 3 by way of amendment really is to ensure that the act applies both to workplaces as well as public places, and unless there is a question about definition, this amendment seeks to make that clarification.

Clause 4 of the act, there is necessity to ensure that it is understood that the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act also applies to this particular act. Probably the most significant amendment though of the five that are proposed to the act is amendments to Clause 5. This particular amendment is to allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of course to make regulations exempting buildings or parts of buildings from the application of the act where it is deemed appropriate.

Let me just point out to the House briefly two anomalies or two situations that we have identified in this particular act that need to be addressed and need to be cleared up by way of giving approval to make certain designations in that sense. One of them applies to the area of long term care institutions that are apart of acute care facilities. We do have, as people in the Province and the House know, situations where we have residents of long term care facilities also residing in the same physical building that is an acute care facility or commonly know as a hospital.

As we have found ourselves with excess space in hospitals we have redeveloped some of that space into long term nursing home type beds and that of course is most appropriate to do. The difficulty with the act, as it applies, is that by way of definition of course smoking is not prohibited in a hospital or an acute care institution.

In the case of parts of that institution however, where people are going to be living the rest of their lives because they are nursing home residents, obviously for their purposes that setting is in fact their home, that setting is in fact where they will reside the rest of their lives probably and so we think that they should have the same provision made for them. They should have the same ability, if they want or the operator should have the same ability on their behalf if they want, to make some provision for them so that they can have a smoke if they like just the same as if they were living home in their own house. So amendments to Clause 5 will make that happen.

The other thing that I would just point out before I sit down is in the area of recreational facilities. Recreational facilities by definition and by nature have been declared totally smoke-free. We think that is appropriate and that will not change under any circumstances, however, there are periods of time in the year, for instance, when recreational centres have been traditionally used by commissions and committees who run them, to be rented out for other functions, particularly during the summertime. They have done this so as to be able to raise money, to be able to run the recreational programs during the recreational winter season, in terms of stadiums and that type of thing.

We don't think it is particularly inappropriate to allow the rental of these places for purposes other than recreation. When that happens we don't think it is inappropriate that the same rules should apply to them in terms of the ability of patrons to smoke any different than it would apply to say, any other type of centre, be it a Legion hall, a Kinsmen or a Lions Club hall or something like that. So this amendment will do something that the recreational organization, the provincial recreational people have asked us to consider. We think it is appropriate that where stadiums and rec centres are rented out during the summer that they would have applied to them, while they are being rented out for that specific purpose, the same smoking or non-smoking rules if you like, as it would apply to any other facility that they could rent to have that type of thing. It may be a wedding, it may be some other type of event but under no circumstances will these amendments cause, permit or allow any change to the smoking requirements of a recreational centre when the facility is in fact being used as a recreational facility.

I think that is a sufficient explanation as to why these amendments are being brought forward and if necessary I would be happy to answer any questions in that respect if they are raised. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I say to the minister, there are a few things I think that will need some further clarification to make sure I am interpreting those properly. I guess with reference to Clause 1, I know we are in second reading, but still I will make these points and when we get into committee later, I am sure the minister can respond to these. For example, in the first one, it is my understanding they have now deleted a grocery store from the definition of a food establishment, which means a grocery store now would be treated under this act as coming under public places, and if you look at the act under section b of h, subsection 1.(b), a retail store or other commercial establishment, a grocery store would now come under that section. It is no longer defined under `food establishment', which means - and I want the minister to clarify this - it does not have to allocate up to 50 per cent of that space any more for smoke-free, because food establishments may designate up to 50 per cent, but by removing grocery store from that list, it means now a grocery store is removed from that and is now treated as a public place.

When the former minister, on May 30, 1994, circulated a list to employers and owners of public places, he indicated that the following workplaces and public places must be smoke-free and are not permitted to designate a smoking area or room. In that list there were six different types of buildings identified: daycare centres or nursery schools, primary, elementary or secondary schools, acute care health facilities, retail stores; now, that is the point of interest at the moment. In other words, the following workplaces and public places must be smoke-free and are not permitted to designate a smoking area or room, which means now, I guess, a grocery store would now come under retail store, basically, in which there would be no permission allowed to smoke in such an area even if a person so chooses to designate a certain space.

Basically, what I am saying is, certain public places may designate up to 20 per cent - food establishments can designate up to 50 per cent - but certain public places may not have smoking at all, not in the public place, except if they go to a separate area and have a separate isolated smoking room - not a smoking area, a smoking room - in which a person could leave and go into a separate room and smoke, that is not open to anybody else within that particular establishment. I would assume, in fact, that if you do, if provision is there for that, it must meet the ventilation and air circulation standards and so on that are set down in the regulations there, that were circulated also under the smoke-free environmental regulations 1994, under the Smoke-Free Environment Act; now, it specifies the appropriate ventilation system.

When the minister has an opportunity to respond again, I would certainly like him to clarify: Is that the intent, to remove `grocery store' from a `food establishment' because a grocery store now doesn't have to designate up to 50 per cent; of course, it is now under `public place' and is exempted from that. That is one point where I noticed a difference in the previous bill that was passed, the previous Bill 18, that is now the act.

The second point, Clause 2 of the bill that the minister referred to, the only area there basically, I think, is that 50 per cent of the total seating area there, they have added in, `or other area normally occupied by the public...' in other words that is, I guess, something positive in a sense because we could not just confine - I would assume the minister, too, and maybe he can respond to this, or at least nod his head for an indication... For instance before if you had a building that was let's say, 1,000 square feet, you could designate up to 50 per cent, or 500 square feet, as a smoking area. Now, you might have other areas, hallways and washrooms that were probably another 200 square feet, so now you may designate up to 50 per cent of the total, including all the space and not just the seating area; it is 50 per cent of the total area availed of. Does the minister follow what I am saying, or will I use a specific example?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) because in restaurants you don't normally have standing space, whereas in bars you do, so that is the reason for it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, that clarifies it. So basically, I think the intent of the bill, initially, was to allocate up to 50 per cent of the total space in that establishment that is opened to the public, not just the seating area space, so it got into a technical word of seating I guess, and they wanted to encompass the whole seating and standing space now to be treated as one.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: In cases where standing space is normally considered to be the same as seating space which is only in bars.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, but what about the seating space in an open establishment if there were 1,000 sq. ft; 500 for smoking, 500 for non-smoking, but the corridors and washrooms and so on were another 200, that would bring it up to 1,200. Would you allow up to 600 square feet then or 50 per cent?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: This change only ensures that bars designate standing room as if they were seating spaces, that's all. Nothing else changes.

MR. SULLIVAN: It doesn't affect a little annex to a place, and corridors or washrooms are not affected by the change in this?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, the third point here, the third clause, makes reference to two things, one of which the minister did not make reference to; there is one change I detected there I think. He did mention - that's in 9 (1) of the act: `Where an inspector finds that an employer or owner of a' - you have added in workplace or public place - I know workplace was already there, farther down in the section, so I guess it is probably just an oversight initially I would think by not putting workplace there, because it says workplace or public place, farther down in line four there. That is just probably an omission, I would assume. But one other point he didn't mention is that, it says, if it is not complying with section 4 or 6 - that's what the act said previously - now, it is changed to 4, 6 or 7.

I think 7 has been added also because 7, indicates it was the responsibility of an inspector before, and says: `Where an inspector finds that an employer or owner of a workplace or public place is not complying with sections 4 or 6'; now, it is 4, 6 and 7. Would that be correct? You have added in 7 because keeping signs posted and appropriate, the inspector technically according to the act before and now, as it stands now, could not prosecute or take action against that but now, I guess that loophole or oversight or whatever it was in the beginning is now being corrected.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The responsibility to ensure that signage is also appropriately (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Under the powers of the inspector, basically, to be enforced.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Exactly.

MR. SULLIVAN: The next point is the fourth reference there in Clause 4 of the bill, is just bringing in line, I guess, with the appropriate sections of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which is now: 49, 50, 51 and 52 as opposed to just 49 and 50 before, so I would assume that 51 and 52 are also applicable and weren't included initially and now this act must follow and be in line with sections 51 and 52 also. I guess there is no other intent behind that?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) appropriately complimentary to the other.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Now the last point here, is an interesting one I guess, and it leaves open to government, the Cabinet basically, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the powers to be able to make regulations now governing a whole range of things. It is one that gives a fair amount of power to the Cabinet to make these regulations and the concern there, I guess, is, defining. Let's say in a rec. centre or in an arena, let's say you play skating and hockey all day long and you go into an arena in the nighttime and you want to have a big fund raiser and you roll out the mat on the ice and you have a bingo, and you have your smoking or whatever, then people come back in that facility in the morning again and they can go out and participate again, that will give the minister power now to allow that to happen, whereas it doesn't happen now under the act or, to a rec. centre, the Reid Centre, wherever it is or some high school gymnasium now, technically, even in a high school gymnasium where there is no smoking, that is one of the six that is outlawed now basically under the government regulations, we can't have any smoking in primary, elementary or secondary schools now, so basically this would empower the Cabinet to make regulations that would permit the school to have a bingo in the gymnasium and have smoking there that night.

You could have Wednesday night bingo, there could be smoking, kids would come to school the next morning in that gymnasium again, and carry on with regular activities. So that is what the Cabinet is being empowered to do. Wouldn't that be correct, I ask the minister?

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

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

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The intent is to deal with recreation centres pure and simple, freestanding and used only on a normal basis for recreational purposes.

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

I am saying to the minister that it is not what the intent is, the act will now, after this change, allow - I would like to know, yes or no, if this part goes through, this fifth clause change, a school then could have a bingo game or whatever activity it wanted, run a bar or whatever it is, with the appropriate license, in a school gymnasium, have smoking, if this act goes through. It doesn't specify `restricted to recreation centres'.

It empowers the Cabinet, as I see it here in the bill, `defining a term that is not otherwise defined in the Act;' or, `exempting buildings or parts of buildings' no matter what they are, schools, recreation centres, or anything, to permit that to go ahead. I know there are concerns raised from recreation buildings who want to do fund raising to support recreation programs, and I can certainly see that point, but it will also allow schools and so on to do that, too. Would that not be correct, I say to the minister? You can now have in a school gymnasium, bingo and fund raising, with smoking going ahead there now if this changes. Would that be correct? All I am saying is that the power is there to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not asking him to answer. He does not have to answer. I said at the beginning, I say to the minister, we are not in Committee so I don't mean for him to get up and, in fact, I didn't sit down, if you noticed. I stayed standing and I don't intend for him to answer now. He can come back, as I suggested, when we get in committee and respond to these, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you for you compliment, but it is still not going to lessen my resolve to deal with this bill.

I say to the minister that I have also addressed the five points that are the causes, and I will get back to him. I tell the Minister of Education and Training that I will get back to him again in Committee, looking for answers to these and putting forth those points, because they are concerns. They are concerns when all schools in the Province now are going to be subject to having smoking there, and this, according to the act, gives the Cabinet power to do that.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who is not even in his seat and speaking, that it is better to be ever-ready than never-ready. In the last few months he is after sitting in every chair in this House doing his politicking, the back row, the second row, and all over. I say to the minister, if you want me to continue just keep on talking.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is going over there.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no point in coming over here. There is nobody over here who has any more faith in him than in any of the rest of you. You have no worries about that. I cannot help him if he is not successful in little wagers he carries out. I did my best to enrich his assets and to enhance his value, and to improve on his statements to the commissioner in member's interests. I did my best.

Now, we will get back to some pertinent points here. Actually, the overall act that came in was not positive with regards to enhancing the lifestyle of people and trying to eliminate and take action against people who smoke in public places endangering the health of other people who do not chose to smoke. In fact, roughly 70 per cent of smoke is passed out into the environment which effects other people who are not smokers, and that is very important.

I was going through a few health magazines that I subscribe to and read some interesting statistics, and here is a real interesting statistic on advertising. It said: Researchers found that magazines with cigarette ads are far less likely to publish articles on the risk of smoking compared to magazines that refuse money from cigarette makers. A very interesting statistic. They found that magazines restricted their coverage of the dangers of smoking out of fear of economic reprisals by cigarette manufacturers. That is a very interesting point. They do not bite the hand that feeds them, in other words.

It said: In the New England Journal of Medicine scientists noted that cigarette makers spend - there is an interesting one - $3.27 billion on advertising and promotion alone in the United States in 1988. That is $100 a second, it indicated, for every second of the year that they are spending on cigarette advertising. For every 1 per cent increase in cigarette revenue a magazine was three times less likely to cover the risks of smoking. For every 1 per cent more they got in revenue, they were three times less likely to carry something against smoking. So you can see, once again, they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them in advertising that is paying for the publication of their magazine.

Now, smoking is the leading preventible cause of death, as we are all aware. A few other little points. Circulation magazine says environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS, as it is called, is a major preventible cause of cardiovascular disease and death. It is the major cause. It noticed that the risk of death due to heart disease is increased by 30 per cent among those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at home, and it could be much higher in those exposed at the workplace where higher levels of ETS are present - so, much higher.

That is one of the reasons, I guess, behind governments bringing in legislation to govern the control of smoking in public places that is endangering the lives of other people who do not wish to have their lives endangered. It says: The increased risk translates into an estimated, in the U.S. alone, 35,000 to 40,000 cardiovascular-related deaths, and in Canada between 3,000 and 4,000 people die from cardiovascular disease related to smoking. Most people think lung cancer is the main, I guess, problem associated with smoking, disease, but it is not. Heart and circulatory diseases are by far one of the largest of those affected.

Another article indicated: Cigarette smoke contains 4,000 chemicals including such poisons as DDT, arsenic, formaldehyde. These are just some of the things found in cigarette smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The lungs retain - I'm not sure if the Member for Eagle River's lungs retain that much because they are usually fairly active and there is a high circulation rate - but lungs retain 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the compounds that are inhaled. I say to the Member for Eagle River, it is probably not in his lungs as long as a normal person but it still gets in there.

One of the biggest concerns with smoking is with younger people. I didn't see the most recent statistics but overall there is a decline in smoking I think among all age groups except probably young females, teenage females. Statistics show that people who smoke don't start smoking after the age of eighteen. Almost everybody who smokes starts before the age of eighteen years. That is where magazine advertizing is focusing on young people. That is the area that we have to control. The sale of cigarettes to minors - smoking is addictive, it is not a habit that people can easily break. Young people get addicted to smoking at a very early age and they just can't break the cycle.

Numerous methods have been tried. We are all familiar with some of the methods that have been used to try to break away from the smoking habit. In particular, we would say the nicotine patch has been a common one. People have gone through hypnosis and numerous different methods of trying to break away from the addiction of smoking.

There is a question-and-answer I saw written in a magazine, I just kept the article. It said: My husband smokes a pipe. Is this less hazardous than smoking cigarettes? Well, I suppose there is no such thing as safe smoking. Most pipe-smokers do not inhale the smoke, they absorb the nicotine through their mouth. But the people out there in the room and all around us are just as much affected by smoking from pipe-smoking as cigarette smoking. It doesn't make any difference. The smoke comes out from a pipe as well as it does from a cigarette and it affects everybody in the surroundings. Over 70 per cent of that is exhaled out into the atmosphere and that is causing a significant problem. Pipe smoking itself causes cancer. The lip and tongue are being commonly associated with pipe smoking and it goes on to say that early detection, effective treatment can lead to a five year survival in 90 per cent or more of the cases which is not very encouraging to say that your survival is not that great. Now second-hand smoke from a pipe is equally as dangerous as that from a cigarette.

Now I do have some concern with one particular aspect, as I said to the minister, but overall the intent - and the regulations that came in last year dealing with smoking in a public place I think have to be positive. They are certainly going a long way to make people aware of the hazards associated with smoking. A very good letter went out from the former minister back on May 30, 1994 to all employers and owners of public places that highlighted some of the key things and rationale behind bringing in this legislation.

An interesting point too, I noticed with smokers, is that smoking contributes to a higher absentee rate among employees. I don't know if we find that here, Members of the House of Assembly, I won't comment on that - you missed that one, you will have to read that one in Hansard - and I am sure it will surprise the people on the other side of the House. It cost more, higher insurance rates, everybody pays the price for smoking, not only my colleagues who smoke and who pay high insurance rates or higher life insurance - I am not sure if car insurance rates, if you are more of a hazard when you are tying to light a cigarette when you are driving along, a higher risk factor. Maybe we should take those things into consideration.

MR. OLDFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I say to the Member for Trinity North, I don't see the little yellow stripe on that one. Actually joking, it is on it.

So that is a big concern. Not only in schools, as I said to the minister earlier, not only in high school gymnasiums, not only in recreation buildings, arenas and so on, we are going to be able to have smoking in a car now. If the minister decides, if Cabinet decides now - and I am sure the intent of this Clause 5 - Clause 5 would not be brought in if we did not intend to change the regulations. So right now we do not know what the minister intends in Clause 5. What he intends to bring in regulations and for Cabinet approval of those regulations that are going to enable smoking in a car and in numerous buildings around the Province that are not allowed to have it now.

He did make reference to - the minister can designate or I shouldn't say the minister but the Cabinet, Lieutenant-Governor in Council or the Cabinet can also designate smoking in - he mentioned long term care institutions, within their own private room or within a specific room that is designated for that purpose with proper ventilation. My interpretation of what he said is that if I am residing in a long-term care institution or chronic care unit and I have my own private room, I can smoke in that room provided - and I am sure the Cabinet is planning on doing it, otherwise they would not bring in Clause 5.

They are going to make changes because people have brought those concerns to the minister, I am sure. So maybe when the minister gets up in committee stage, he can indicate to us what their plan is because he has not told us. He did not state it when he explained it, whether in hospitals they are going to permit smoking, whether they are going to permit smoking in recreation buildings, in schools, churches as far as that goes or any other facility around the Province because right now, under this act, you cannot smoke in daycare centres or nursery schools.

I say to the minister, you cannot smoke there now, you cannot smoke in any primary, right up to high school, you cannot smoke in hospitals, you cannot smoke in retail stores, recreation facilities, buses or taxis and the minister should tell us in this House - he did not do it when he introduced the bill - he should tell us where he intends to make changes and bring it to Cabinet. Which of these six types of facilities are now going to be permitted smoking under certain conditions? I think we deserve an explanation of that before we vote on this particular bill, in favour or against, and I will be very concerned and be looking for an explanation on which of these areas the minister intends to change.

I know he mentioned already that he intends to make changes, probably, and he figured it would not be inappropriate, I think is the word he used, to allow smoking to occur in those places - the words he used - so hopefully he will tell us if it is intended to just change it in recreation facilities. Do you intend to change it in acute health care facilities? You said long-term care facilities. Now long-term care facilities, or chronic care units, were not ones that were exempted before. You were allowed to have smoking in certain designated areas of these before, so I guess that still can be done without coming here, provided you have the per cent. Was the minister's intent that in acute care facilities we may now allow smoking under certain conditions, I gather? Not his intent? Recreation facilities? Which one of those six is the purpose of bringing in Clause 5, I would like to know when you get a chance to speak on it - you don't have to do it now - and if you are planning on having schools there, I would like to know that, too; I think that is important.

Those are the points I would like the minister to comment on when he gets into Committee of the Whole, and I conclude my comments on this specific bill at this time.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to say a few words about Bill 11, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act".

There are some changes being made in this act that, of course, are basically housekeeping and I agree with. Before I get into my comments, though, I would like to qualify them somewhat and say that we are simply speaking about the smoking in public places and workplace. I, personally, have never smoked in my life. I don't smoke now and have never smoked in my life. My wife doesn't smoke, and she has never smoked in her life, and my son who is fourteen years old does not smoke, thank God, yet. I believe it is a dirty habit and anything we do to correct smoking, of course, or to end smoking altogether, has to be a positive move.

The legislation itself that was brought in last year, in 1994, I had some concerns at that point in time with respect to the enforceability of the legislation because when you talk about restaurants and bars, and that type of thing, you have to allow a certain percentage of the space available for smokers or non-smokers, whatever the case may be. Smoke carries in a given room, and to say that you have to have a certain area laid out, you are almost talking invisible walls and I don't believe smoke would adhere to an invisible wall.

The other thing with respect to the enforcement of this legislation itself is, who is enforcing the legislation? Do the RNC enforce the legislation? Do the representatives from the Department of Health enforce the legislation? Do the people who work with the Department of the Environment enforce the legislation?

I would like, when the minister gets up to respond to speakers on this amendment, could he tell us how many breaches of the act were brought up last year before the courts, and how many convictions, and how many fines were put forward last year? I am just curious to know if this legislation is really enforceable, and has it been enforced over the past year?

Clause 1 of the bill defines basically now, or refers to a restaurant and a snack bar, that type of establishment where food is being prepared and/or served. Now I believe that this clause itself will basically require grocery stores to set aside a smoking room on the premises for smokers who may wish to smoke, so would the minister refer to that? That section now is changed not to include a grocery store. Again, is that going to be more inconsistencies in the legislation with respect to the regulations themselves being enforced?

Clause 2 of the bill talked about a smoking area not being limited to a seating area any more, but also to an area where it is generally accessible to the public, so that would change the amount of floor space that would be required to be set aside for smokers or non-smokers. Could the minister refer to that and say a few words on it along those lines?

With respect to this again, areas in establishments such as bars and restaurants, how are these areas marked out? I have been in a number of restaurants since this legislation was brought in, and basically you just see signs up that say `smoking section' or `non-smoking section', but they are not really clearly defined. Are we going to get down to actually marking lines out on the floor, and you are not permitted to cross these lines with a cigarette in your hand?

I remember a show that used to be on, WKRP in Cincinnati, and there was an individual on that who had a line marked out on his floor and you had to knock on air, an imaginary wall, before you entered his office. Are we getting into that type of thing? I think this legislation is very difficult to enforce.

Clause 3 of the bill clarifies the application both to the workplace and to the public space itself. Really, does the public understand that there is a difference between a public space and a workplace? I think most individuals who would go into a workplace and would consider that to be a workplace; if they go into a workplace they would consider it a public space. If they came into Confederation Building they could consider this a public space or a workplace. I know that it is probably there just for legal and technical terms for enforcement purposes, as I said before, when and if it is enforced, if this legislation is enforced. I have yet to hear tell of or see anybody being charged anywhere that I've been with respect to this legislation.

Clause 5. That is the one that I was most interested in, the changes of the bill - or clause 5. It says that they "...would amend section 12 of the Act to permit the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations defining terms that are not already defined in the Act and to make regulations exempting buildings or parts of buildings from the application of the Act."

When we are talking about buildings or parts of buildings the thing that came to my mind of course was hospitals. I've had occasion to visit a number of people in the hospital over the past year since this legislation was brought in and a lot of those people have been smokers. I feel for these people. Although I don't smoke myself I know how stressful being in hospital is for some people, for various reasons. I've been in hospital myself so I know how they feel.

A lot of equipment was installed in some of the hospitals from my understanding, I say to the minister, particularly in the Health Sciences. I believe on each floor there was - I know for sure one floor over there, I think it was the fourth floor, there was a room set aside with big glass walls, four inches thick, with the ventilation system put in and a vacuum system to suck out the smoke. The patients are not permitted to smoke in this room where the government spent a lot of money on the ventilation system and then told them it couldn't be used.

There are non-profit organizations such as the Lions Clubs and the Knights of Columbus and the Kinsmen which have clubs. They are non-profit organizations. They depend on fund-raising to run the facilities and they donate thousands of dollars each year to help out the people in the Province. They are required now to put in ventilation systems costing thousands of dollars which may or may not work. I've heard that some of these systems that were required to be put in are not properly functional or do not do the job that they were supposed to do. Maybe that is something that should be looked at, the equipment itself that is being required to be installed, if it makes sense to instal it or not.

With respect to this equipment, I have the Lions Club in Shoe Cove which has to instal this equipment which is supposed to suck out the smoke and have a proper ventilation system in for the 50 per cent of the floor space that is required to have for non-smokers and 50 per cent for smokers, I believe the figures are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) blowing smoke.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is something I've never done in my life, blow smoke. I don't smoke and I'm not intending to smoke. Who will inspect the equipment that is put in, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say. I see the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs out on the back step every now and then having a drag, I do believe. Am I correct there? The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs smokes?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you can't do without your nicotine. There is a lot of people like that, Mr. Speaker. Believe it or not, that is who I'm speaking for, on behalf of these people today, those people who can't do without nicotine. As I said, I don't smoke but I understand a lot of people do and I know they do.

I grew up in a family that had eight brothers who smoked, three sisters who smoked and both parents smoked so I know the addiction or the affliction it can have on an individual. It is hard for these people to give it up cold turkey, especially when they end up in hospital where they are under enough stress and all of a sudden, they are not permitted to smoke. With respect to the equipment that is required to be installed, Mr. Speaker, that is a cost to the government itself, the inspections themselves and is passed on to the taxpayer, and for what benefit, I really don't know if the equipment that is installed or is required to be installed, does the job that it is supposed to do or is required to do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hospitals themselves and as I mentioned earlier, there was a number of equipment installed in certain hospitals, the Health Sciences Complex being one, there is a smoking room set aside for the patients, and the patients now are not permitted to use these smoking rooms and I would have to ask: why not? I mean, if they are not going to adversely affect some other individual, why would they not be permitted to use it when the government spent money on it in the first place?

I know of a patient who was at the Health Sciences Complex last February, a lady, who was in and I believe she had cancer and was outside the doors where you see the `Emergency Entrance', with other patients of course, people in wheelchairs, people with intravenous in their arms, out in the cold, February weather trying to get a smoke. Now, this lady had an unfortunate accident while she was there at the hospital. She actually fell, while she was out trying to have a smoke, and broke her arm. She broke her arm while being a patient at the hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will talk about addictions now.

MR. J. BYRNE: Talk about addictions.

MR. ROBERTS: I have seen people out by the (inaudible) wheelchair, with an IV in the arm having a cigarette.

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly, I say to the Government House Leader. I have been there on a number of occasions, I have had reason to go there in the past year for check-ups and what have you and every time I go in there I see the same situation and it is really pitiful so I really don't know where we are coming from with respect to not permitting patients to smoke. Now I have spoken with a lot of people who work in the hospitals and these people smoke themselves and they say to me, you know, they really don't want smoking areas for themselves but they really feel for the patients.

As I said, this person fell, broke her arm and had to spend more time in the hospital than she had been scheduled to in the first place, so I really believe that patients should be permitted to smoke in hospitals, especially in areas that are available to them at this point in time. As I said, the Health Sciences Complex - as an example - I will tell you of another one which is down at the Janeway Hospital. The government spent a fair chunk of money to build an outside deck and enclose it for patients I suppose and the employees at the Janeway itself, but I really don't understand why you would put that kind of money in an outside facility and not in a smoking room where patients can go, especially the patients, could go and smoke.

I believe that government has to have more compassion for these individuals. If you have a person who smoked say, twenty years or thirty years or fifty years maybe; it is cruel basically to not permit these people to smoke in the health facilities. Now that may be a bit of a contradiction when you have a person going into hospital to be cured of a certain disease or broken arm or heart problem or what have you, but if a person has been smoking for twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years, and they are in a stressful situation now, being in hospital, of course when they are not permitted to smoke it is inflicting more pressure or stress upon these individuals and they may end up being in hospital longer because they will take longer to heal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, I say to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

Here is one too that I think the government has had a bit more compassion in. At the Janeway Hospital itself, we have children there with, often times terminal diseases or they may be in because of a car accident, children up to the age of sixteen I believe or seventeen, or they may fall off a bike and hit their head and have a head injury, if the parents bring in these people, and under a lot of stress again, waiting around, probably before they have a response from the doctor, or the child may be in surgery or what have you, and they are not permitted to smoke, I believe that these people are under enough stress without having to put up with that, and it would not really cost the government a lot of money to put in these smoking areas even if they had one in the hospital; some hospitals I believe had some put on each floor.

Not only is it stressful I suppose for these people but I think really, if you sit back and think about it, the government is really being hypocritical to a certain extent when it is talking about bringing in anti-smoking regulations or legislation. We have government collecting all kinds of revenues - probably one of its biggest revenues within the Province, when it is taxing people who smoke and the cigarettes. I don't know what the actual cost of a package of cigarettes is, Mr. Speaker, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Six dollars and twenty-five cents.

MR. J. BYRNE: Six dollars and twenty-five cents? But probably $4 of that is probably taxes for the provincial government. I really didn't investigate that but I know taxes are quite heavy on cigarettes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I was just informed here that it depends upon if it is a twenty-cigarette pack or a twenty-five cigarette pack.

Mr. Speaker, there are those who would argue that smokers pay in excessive taxes anyway. I've had smokers telling me, and I suppose it depends on your perspective, from where you are coming from, that they pay over their lifetime, say ten, twenty, thirty or forty years or whatever they are smoking, a lot of money in revenues in the form of taxes to the provincial government. They pay of course this amount of money that the non-smoker does not pay. Of course a lot of non-smokers end up in hospital anyway. So they are of the opinion, some of these people, that if they do get sick after smoking for twenty years or thirty years that they've covered the cost of their hospital stay anyway.

That is something that can be argued I suppose either way, but it is a logical argument I suppose from one perspective. So I would say that again smokers, I suppose, have rights to a certain extent. As long as they are not inflicting their smoke or second-hand smoke upon the non-smokers. But it was never a problem with me, I must say. I've attended lots of functions where people smoked. Never smoked in my life. It doesn't bother me and has never bothered me. But it does bother some and I suppose these people have their rights also.

As I said, I believe that patients, especially those patients who may be in hospital long-term, should definitely be permitted to smoke, and the government should supply or make available to these people areas where they can smoke, especially where they are not inflicting second-hand smoke on other individuals.

The Minister of Health when he was up speaking made a comment with respect to the legislation that it was widely-received. I don't know the percentage of the population who smoke, but he referred to a figure of 92 per cent of popular support for this legislation and what it seeks to accomplish. I wouldn't argue with the fact that 92 per cent of the population would support anti-smoking legislation, but I find it hard to believe that if there is 50 per cent of the population which smoke that it would support this legislation. I would have to question that figure of 92 per cent popular support.

He spoke of clause 2 which was there to clarify the seating areas in bars and in restaurants, which is no problem there. That is already addressed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Education and Training, is it?: Be prepared for a while yet. Not by me but by other people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) have an hour.

MR. J. BYRNE: Only have an hour. I won't take an hour. I'm only going to take another couple of minutes myself, but there are lots of other people who wish to speak on this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the Minister of Health, he referred to clause 5 also with respect to two situations: The long-term care facilities and the recreational facilities. I believe I said enough with respect to the hospitals, but the long-term care facilities I suppose are old-age homes and what have you. I believe that is what he was addressing when he talked of long-term care facilities. I believe that these people do have a right to live out the rest of their lives in the way that they choose to spend the rest of their lives as long as they are not adversely affecting someone else.

With respect to recreation facilities; I think this is a reasonable approach to allow facilities, such as the stadium or public areas which are rented out, that the people renting them would be permitted to allow smoking in certain areas within those facilities. Again, I really want to stress the point that I feel for those patients in hospitals who are not permitted to smoke, who have smoked all their lives and I believe that it really is heaping upon these people an undue stress that is not necessary, especially when there are areas available for these people to be permitted to have their smoke and release some of the stress.

Again, with respect to the parents of young children at the Janeway who are under very stressful situations, Mr. Speaker, I would also say that the government should really take a hard look at setting aside an area for parents to go and have a cigarette. I know it may be somewhat of a bad influence I suppose to a certain extent but if a person is going to smoke, he is going to smoke. He is going to have his/her cigarette somewhere along the way. As I said, I grew up in a family of eleven smokers, thirteen really and it did not affect me, I didn't smoke.

So basically, I think we should be putting more money into education and to basically try and educate the young people. Statistics show now that young teenage girls are smoking more than young teenage boys, Mr. Speaker. I remember when I was a young fellow myself and the peer pressure was on to smoke and I always resisted it because of one thing - and I want to refer to it - the education. I remember seeing a picture of a good lung of a person who did not smoke and a lung of a person who did smoke. One was black and the other was basically a good healthy looking lung and that made an impression on me. So I think maybe that we should be spending and putting a lot more money into educating our young people and trying to deter them from taking up smoking in the first place. I think that is where we should be putting our money and I think that will have its best effect on young individuals.

With that I will sit down and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and say a few words on Bill 11. The Minister of Health has brought it forward in the House and I want to make a few comments on what I believe is the flip-flop legislation that the minister brings forward as part of this Bill 11, for the simple reason, I see in some parts of the legislation a double standard. I would like to make a few comments on this and hopefully the minister in his wisdom, when he gets the opportunity later, will make some comments and answer some questions that I may raise over the next few minutes as I bring forward some of the concerns that I have. Not only this but it definitely has to do with the smoke-free environment that the government is trying to create in the Province.

Part of the legislation that we have in front of us today, as the Member for St. John's East in his turn touched on in his few comments, had to do with a grocery store and would have to designate a smoking room. Just last week I was in my district and a lady who has been in business for over forty years told me that she had received a letter from the Department of Health stating that she has to put a washroom in her store and her store is not built onto the house. It is a store unto itself, a building unto itself on her premises and she told me that due to the legislation that has been brought forward by the Department of Health to install a washroom facility in her store, she is going to be forced, after spending almost fifty years in business, to more or less have to close up the store. She is operating the store on her own now, her family has all moved on. Due to the fact that she has been there for almost fifty years, now she has to go and put a bathroom in, she is going to have to close up.

Now we see in today's legislation, in Bill No. 11, we see that if a grocery store wants to have anybody smoking in the store they are going to have to put in a smoking room. We are going to have grocery stores that are going to have full fledged washrooms and full fledged smoking rooms, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a bit too much that we are asking. I certainly have never, that I can remember anyway - I suppose I had a few years that I did not remember what I was at - I do not remember smoking myself but I respect the right of those who want to smoke. I believe that they should have an opportunity to do so.

I want to touch on a few places, our workplaces, and our hospitals, that other members have touched on also.

I just want to go back to the grocery store and the fact that if a small grocery store out in rural Newfoundland now, or in urban parts of the Province, wherever the case may be, want to continue to operate, they are going to have to put in washroom facilities and they are also now, under this legislation here today, going to have to put in a smoking room if they want to have a smoke. I think it is a bit too much, I think it is a bit too heavy-handed of the government, to bring down this sort of legislation and expect people who have been in business for decades now to turn their facilities or their operations upside down to accommodate these rules.

I would like to make a comment, if I could, on restaurants and bars. I had the opportunity, before I came to work here in the House of Assembly, to operate a night club for almost ten years and I found in my discussions and talks with people in my district over the past couple of months in relation to the smoke-free act that the Province is bringing forward, that it is creating some major problems for people in the bar business and it is creating some major problems for legion clubs, Lion's clubs, and fire departments that operate facilities that have weekend dances.

These establishments out there, in many cases for the betterment of their communities, and for the betterment of the people in their communities, trying to raise some necessary funds to operate a fire department or to operate the local Legion club, or whatever, are not being socked - I say to the Minister of Health, they are being socked with regulations that are making them put in smoke eaters or something that will take away the smoke, or certainly cut down on the amount of smoke in buildings.

That is the first point I would like to make in relation to the expense that is being incurred, or that the Province is hoping will be incurred by these establishments. I say that at the same time government comes down with a law which says that the Legion club or the Lion's club, or the fire department out in a small rural community is going to have to spent tens of thousands of dollars putting in equipment that will take away the smoke, at the same time the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation refuses to put a wheelchair ramp in the museum.

It is a double standard of this government, and it is a double standard of the ministers. I say that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation goes along with bringing in acts, rules and regulations that will force fire departments or force Legion clubs to install thousands of dollars worth of equipment to take away smoke, and at the same time that same minister refuses to put in ramps or proper facilities to accommodate people who are confined to wheelchairs to allow them to visit the Newfoundland Museum. What is that, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a double standard we have here with this government? It certainly doesn't surprise me that that double standard is coming forward in this legislation again today.

At the same time that we have to deal with this particular issue in relation to the equipment, and the cost of the equipment to these volunteer organizations, and to private enterprise, we cannot forget the very important aspect of our society that has to deal with private enterprise, and at the same time private individuals or private companies are going to have to invest thousands of dollars.

Right now it is a very tough economy we are dealing with and a lot of these businesses are struggling to survive, then the government comes down with these almighty rules from on high and says, you have to do a, b, or c, or if not we are going to close you down within thirty days, sixty days, or whatever the case may be. I think this is grossly unfair to the people of the Province and especially to people who are operating these facilities, that government can operate under this heavy-handed law and bring down these rule.

I also want to comment on bars, restaurants, and the fact that we have designated areas, whether it is 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent, whatever the case may be. The government, for some reason or other is bringing down a law that there is a certain percentage of that facility that has to be smoke-free and the remainder, people can sit in smoke. I have to ask the Minister of Health if he really thinks for a minute, or does any minister on the opposite side think for a minute that if you are sitting at this table in a nightclub or in a restaurant and you are not allowed to smoke and at the next table the people are allowed to smoke that the smoke does not rise and move around the room? Does the minister think that the smoke is going to stay at that designated table for smoking and that people in that restaurant sitting at other tables can't smell the smoke or inhale the smoke from the next table even though one is designated for smoking and one is designated not? I say to the minister, it is a flip-flop. Either have the guts, I say to him, to stand up and wipe out smoking altogether in public places, or leave it at the status quo. I don't think we are improving on anything here. All we are doing is causing hardship to the operators of the businesses. We are causing hardship to the people in the restaurants or the bars and trying to enjoy their supper or a night out on the town, and so on. I think the minister is definitely - I say that the minister is not playing with a full deck when he says that we have to have smoking at this table and non-smoking at this table, and expect that the smoke is going to stay at the designated table.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, he sits at a table that supports this and at the same time, as I said earlier, this minister does not go along with providing the proper facilities for people who are confined to wheelchairs to enjoy the Newfoundland Museum.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to make a comment, if I could, on non-smoking in the workplace. I see that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation put a couple of signs out on the front of the Confederation Building here and barred any smoking on the front steps, and he went along with putting it on the back steps, but from what I see happening on the back steps of the Confederation Building over the past couple of years that I have been here, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wouldn't get much support from his colleagues on barring smoking on the back steps of the Confederation Building. He got support for barring it on the front steps because none of the ministers, or none of the members of his caucus, went out and smoked on the front steps, but the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would have a job to be allowed to put a sign up `no smoking' or `smoking prohibited' on the back steps, because he would need the support of his caucus, and I doubt if you would get much support from what I have seen the past few years.

I have to say that there are several members on our side of the House who enjoy the back steps also, and they have the right to have a draw, or have a smoke. I certainly do not condemn them for that, but I will just say that it seems as if we have a double standard here. It is all according to what steps you are on if you are allowed to smoke. The same thing is happening in the restaurants and in the bars; it is all according to what table you are at. I believe the government should have the guts to really determine whether they are going to cut it out altogether or if they are going to play fiddle with it, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to comment, if I could: Before I came into the House of Assembly I had the opportunity to be employed as an ambulance driver for a couple of years. During my tenure as an ambulance driver I made many trips to all of the hospitals in St. John's, and indeed out in my own area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, Mr. Speaker, we were not fortunate enough to have him in the back of her either, I say. I would have made sure that he was well taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, during my tenure working with the ambulance operator for a couple of years, I had occasion to visit all of the hospitals in the St. John's area, and indeed out in my own area, and to talk to people who were up in their seventies and eighties who, due to ill health, were in hospital in the middle of December. I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, this is factual. I saw many times people up in their seventies and eighties and older, out on the steps of the hospitals with their IV poles, trying to get a smoke. I think it is a shame for this government that they force people to be out on the steps in the middle of the winter trying to get a smoke.

I think there should be a designated smoking room. People should have the right to have a smoke in the hospital if they want to have it, especially people who have enjoyed smoking for fifty or sixty years. I think to expect those people to be out on the steps of the hospitals - not only does it say something for the gentleman or the lady who has to be forced to go outside, but I think it says something for the people who are going there on a continuous basis to visit the sick, or drop into the hospital, and have to pass by those people on the steps, with cigarette butts all around the ground. I think it definitely should be dealt with, and there should be designated rooms in hospitals for people to smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I don't huff and puff, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I haven't smoked in the past thirty-one years.

I believe that if we are going to bring down a rule or a regulation or a law that is going to wipe out smoking, we should wipe it out altogether or we should help those people who really have an addiction to smoking, and one of the ways we can help them is to designate, in hospitals or wherever, smoking rooms, or designated smoking floors. I think it is something we should look at, Mr. Speaker.

Also, I think we should be spending some dollars on education in relation to smoking in the Province. Nothing hurts me as much, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, as to drive along by a high school and to watch teenagers out by the side of the building smoking. Nothing bothers me as much, I say, it really bothers me. I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation that if you sit in your seat where I could ask you a few questions you may get more scrums. I only got to ask one today and he got a scrum. If I had had the time to ask two or three questions he would have gotten on national t.v., I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. And you owe me $20 for asking you that question.

If I could get back to what I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the `three musketeers' there, if I could get back to discussing what I think would be - that the government should come forward with spending some money on educating our young people to the hazards of smoking, on educating the parents on how to touch base and talk to their children about smoking. Because as we drive by those schools or we drive by on a Friday night in our local communities out in our districts, you see the groups of teenagers standing around, a number of them smoking. I think that we should be able to spend some dollars on that and educate those young people on the hazards of smoking.

I remember back years ago when I saw a picture of two lungs. Really, what turned me off from smoking is that I saw a picture of two lungs, one a healthy lung and the other was the lung of a heavy smoker. I guess after seeing that and experiencing that concern, that is what really turned me off from smoking. I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs who likes to have a smoke that I watch him daily as he sneaks out to the back step to have a quick draw. I have no problem with that, I say to the minister. You have a right to have your smoke, but I think there should be a room designated here in the building where you could go in and have your smoke. You shouldn't have to be out on the back steps. The minister shouldn't be out there, nor should anyone else have to be out there to have a smoke.

I say there should be a designated room here in the building to have your smoke. Along with that, the look of it alone, having twelve or fifteen people out on the back step. I think the minister should bring it up to his Cabinet colleagues to designate a room here in the Confederation Building for anybody who likes to go have a draw. In the same way, it should be done in the hospitals and in any public institutions. Those people should be allowed the opportunity to go and have their smoke in a designated smoking area.

If I could get back. One thing for sure is that in relation to a double standard that I talked about, we are going to have recreation facilities in this Province now that are going to have `NO SMOKING' plastered all around the walls of their building during ten months of the year, or possibly even eleven months of the year. Whenever they decide that they can designate it a smoking area - according to the bill that we have before us today, that can be done by an Order in Council. If I could touch on it for a moment, I think it was in - "...Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations defining terms that are not already defined in the Act and to make regulations exempting buildings or parts of buildings from the application of the Act."

Here we are, we are going to have the Lieutenant-Governor in Council say that the lunch room of a certain recreation building can be designated a smoking area, but on the other end of the building we are not allowed to smoke. Here we have another example of what I would term as a double standard by this government, a flip-flop legislation that this government brings before the House today, in trying to tell us that we are going to have parts of buildings that are going to be non-smoking. And whenever the Lieutenant-Governor in Council decides that we can have parts of the building designated for smoking, that is okay. So we are going to have a recreation complex in the district that for eleven-and-a-half months of the year, or whatever, is going to be designated as non-smoking, and whenever the Lieutenant-Governor in Council decides that it is okay, they can go and have it designated for smoking.

I really ask, is there any need to be pushing this type of legislation down our throats? I think it is a double standard by the Minister of Health as he stands today and tries to bring forward this piece of legislation. I think he should stand up today and decide - the Cabinet should decide if it is going to bring in a piece of legislation that will outlaw smoking altogether or not allow people to smoke at their will.

You go out to a nightclub and you have six tables here that are designated non-smoking, and right next door you have six tables that are designated smoking. I say to the minister, smoke moves around the room. It rises and moves around the room, and for some reason or other the ministers on that side of the room don't think that smoke moves from one table to the next. I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, smoke moves around the room, so it is just as well to designate the whole works of the building as non-smoking, or designate it all smoking.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, he stands up and supports bringing in legislation that sees private businesses in this Province, that sees legion clubs and fire departments, having to go out and spend thousands of dollars to put machines in their buildings that will take care of smoking problems. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation supports that all in the name of good health, when you come in and say: I support bringing in legislation that will force clubs - lions clubs, legion clubs, etc. - to bring in thousands of dollars to put smoke-free machinery in their buildings to take care of the smoke.

At the same time he refuses to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars on providing wheelchair accessibility to the museum down here. A flip-flop minister is what he is. Whatever suits him, that is the best kind with him, but he will never... He is going around over there now for the past couple of weeks on a steady campaign. I will say, like I said the other day, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will be a long way behind you when you stand and become the new leader over there. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will be only playing catch-up to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. He is every day trying to get me to ask him questions so he can get out and get a little scrum and get his face... but that is not going to work. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is far ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) scrum.

MR. MANNING: Oh, I only asked him one question and he got a scrum. I said to him earlier, if I had to ask him three he would be on national TV, but he owes me big now for asking him that question, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I say that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is far ahead in the race. I do some talking to the people around, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is far ahead in the race, and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation knows that full well. That is why he is heavy on the campaign trail over there.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I say, will be ahead of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and that is saying something, I say to the ministers opposite. That is really being generous on this side of the House.

If I could get back to this very -

AN HON. MEMBER: Generous to who?

MR. MANNING: Generous to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I hope he will be generous to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a good man, though.

MR. MANNING: He is a good man, I say to the minister. He is not running around the back benches over there trying to get support.

If I could get back to this very important piece of legislation, before I was so rudely interrupted, I say to the Minister of Health, to finish up my comments I will go back to the first few I made in relation to a small grocery store having to designate a smoking room on their premises.

I talked to a lady the other day who is over forty years in business, who got a letter from the Department of Health saying that she is going to have to put a washroom in her business. Now she is going to have to put a smoking room in it. The next thing you know she is going to have to put an apartment in it. We will soon need a permit to go to the washroom, I say to the Speaker, the way things are going in this House now. I think it is unfair, unconstitutional, to be up here and to be bringing in laws that really affect almost everybody -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, I am just making that great word that the - I cannot hear him, Mr. Speaker. What did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said: What is your basis for that?

MR. MANNING: I don't mind him. I say to the Member for Eagle River, you are too busy - no, I won't say that. That might be unparliamentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: That is right, as long as I am protected in here - I think I am, anyway - but I will keep my tongue in my mouth with the Member for Eagle River. You have a busy job trying to make sure that you are on the right side when the leadership race comes up over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to him, don't worry about protecting me from Nick. I would rather have Nick by my side any day at all than have the Member for Eagle River in front of me, behind me, or on my side, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

The Member for Eagle River had a couple of visits to my district in the fall of 1993, and all that the Member for Eagle River did for my district was brought us Payne, I say to the minister, he brought us Payne and it is P-a-y-n-e, that's what he brought us, a whole load of Payne that we can't get rid of until the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, I would say to the minister, don't you go talking because you don't know what side of the House you are happy on. Sure, a couple of weeks before the election you were up in Ottawa flapping around with your big, fancy, party card, I say to the member so don't you go talking about things now because we all have a little bit that we don't like to talk about.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh yes. I leave that to the Member for Placentia but the Member for Eagle River, yes, he is very worthwhile in his efforts trying to bring Payne on to the people of St. John's West and to the people of St. Mary's - The Capes, and I have to say he was successful in the part he played but I am sure his conscience bothers him as much as it bothers him in what he did to Harry, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: What he did to Harry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, you don't know about Harry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh my God, you don't know about Harry? We would like to do the same thing to our Payne as he did to Harry, but the problem is we can't get to do it until the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is Harry?

MR. MANNING: The Member for Eagle River was on a little visit or a little party, gallivanting, I say, Mr. Speaker, gallivanting down at the Premier's house when he ran into the Premier's poor, little dog out in the porch -

AN HON. MEMBER: Really, what (inaudible)?

MR. MANNING: I am not sure what type of dog it was, but he was very small, I know that but then the Member for Eagle River likes to pick on people who are smaller than him or pick on anything that is smaller than him, but you see the way he bends over when the Premier shouts out to him so it is all a bow-wow pretty quick I say to the Member for Eagle River, but he tried to do the job on Harry and that is what kept him out of Cabinet because the Premier found out about it, but hopefully, he will make up with Harry over the next couple of months -

AN HON. MEMBER: Kiss and make up.

MR. MANNING: He may kiss and make up with Harry over the next couple of months and the Premier may go along with the point and that is if the Premier is still around himself.

Oh, look at the Member for Harbour Grace, really where he wants to be but he just can't stay over here, that's all. He wants to come over -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, look, there you go.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I say to the Government House Leader, with friends like John who needs enemies, and I say I would rather have John than have you too, I say to the Government House Leader any time at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would rather have John as an enemy than he as a friend.

MR. MANNING: Yes, I would rather have John as an enemy than you as a friend, I say to the Government House Leader; but in cluing up, the few words I have to say on this legislation, I say once again that the Minister of Health brings in what I consider to be a bit of a flip-flop legislation in relation to the fact that he has rules that really are very difficult to enforce, very difficult, and I think that it is unfair that we are coming down on the likes of small grocery stores that have to continue on and bring in changes to their premises to allow for smoking rooms. I think it is definitely unfair to those people who now are having a job and are struggling to survive in the Province.

I would like to finish up as once again we talk about the education of our young people. It is very important that the government try to find some dollars to spend on educating our young people to the hazards of smoking, and hopefully statistics will prove in the long run that this money will be well-spent and hopefully, in the years ahead, we will see more, younger people, turning away from smoking and indeed the hazards that come with it because in the long-term it costs us all, I say to the minister, and hopefully we will see some legislation that will come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to have a couple of comments on Bill 11. My concerns are basically in a couple of areas and one is, that I want to get further clarification from the minister on the grocery store example. I want to find out clearly whether or not grocery stores would now be totally smoke-free and whether or not it would apply to the snack bar or to the deli section of a grocery store - that is in Clause 1. To find out from the minister whether or not the removal of the - or the clarification here would mean that all grocery stores would be totally smoke-free and where this applies to major grocery stores -like Dominion or Sobeys where they have inside the store a snack bar - whether or not you would be allowed to have a designated portion of that deli or snack bar as a smoking area. My understanding is that the entire facility would be smoke-free however, the minister may want to clarify that.

Mr. Speaker, with Clause No. 2, which basically, as the minister has said, simply clarifies the standing room part of a bar and to consider that to be part of the total area. I don't have much difficulty with that and it does mean a great deal to some of the bar owners but the clarification here I think is pretty straightforward.

On the issue of Clause 5; Clause 5 does cause me a couple of concerns. One is that it permits the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, to make regulations that would define the terms. I have some difficulty with that. When we get into definitions of terms then the Cabinet will issue new regulations or new directives then in essence we are going to take that power away from the Legislature and turn it over to the Cabinet. This would mean of course that further definitions would not have to come back to the Legislature but it would be simply carried forward by an order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

On the issue of recreational facilities; I think we have made some great progress in this Province in the last couple of years in terms of smoking and recreation facilities. The illustration used by my colleague from Ferryland about schools causes me great concern. We sent a message out to all teenagers and to everybody that all of the recreation facilities, all the schools are totally smoke-free. Now what we are saying is that if a group, community organization should rent out a school gymnasium for a wedding or rent it out for a fund raiser, be it bingo or whatever it is, then on that particular night we are going to say to that group that now we can have smoking in this gymnasium. The minister knows that that is going to lead to cigarette smoke still being evident in the building on the next day. So a school principal is going to find himself going out around the school saying you cannot smoke in this facility today whereas last night your parents were able to smoke in this facility and that causes me great concern. It sends a double message.

The same thing applies to recreation facilities. I would read the minister's comments earlier to mean that - let's use for example, the Memorial Stadium - we are going to have a hockey game down there which is a recreational event, then there is no smoking. I don't think that the no smoking rule at Memorial Stadium has done anything to decrease attendance. In fact, it has made the game much more acceptable to an awful lot of people. In fact, their attendance has probably gone up.

However the next day, if there is a trade show involving arts and crafts or some trade show involving business events or whatever, then I read the minister's comments to mean that the next day you can not have smoking because it is not now being used as a recreational facility. The minister should know, most recreational facilities have a gymnasium-type room, and attached to that you will find some youth centre. So we are saying that on a, say, Friday night, where there is going to be a fund-raising event in the gymnasium part of a facility - for example it might be, let's say, the Reid Centre in Mount Pearl - you are going to have smoking allowed in the gymnasium part where the adults are. Right across the corridor, where there is a group of teenagers engaged in a recreational facility there, a teen group using the facility on any given night, they are not allowed to smoke. You are going to say to them that that is fair?

What I'm saying is, why send double messages? We were encouraged last year with the former minister's approach. He raised the age limit for buying cigarettes to age nineteen. A very positive thing to do. He made it a little more difficult for teenagers to be able to get cigarettes. However, the law doesn't say that they can't smoke them. All it says is that you can't buy them. Therefore the laws of smoking haven't changed. The laws of purchase have changed.

What we are saying here in this particular piece of legislation is that we are sending a message to teenagers that your parents are allowed to smoke in one end of the building but you are not. That to me is going backwards. I feel we have sent a strong message to the youth of this Province on cigarettes and smoking and the dangers of it. This piece of legislation, by letting recreational facilities say that you can vary the smoking rules, what we are really saying to the teenagers who will be in the same facilities at the same time, but just in different parts of the facility, we are sending a double message to them.

My comment to the minister is that after we've told municipalities that they should have a non-smoking policy, we got signs put up in all of our recreation facilities saying: This is a non-smoking facility, now we are going to say it is a non-smoking facility with the exception of, and we list them all out. That to me is inconsistent. My personal viewpoint is that it opens a loophole that puts us back to exactly where we were before, and it is going to be a regressive step. We've identified where we should be targeting teenage groups. We've identified female teenagers as the most growing number in the numbers of smokers. Now we are saying to them that we are going to go and make a facility that you use for your recreational events non-smoking when you are there, but we are going to have it smoking when your parents come there.

I have great concerns about school gymnasiums, great concerns about recreational facilities, and great concerns about the ability of municipalities to be able to enforce the regulations if we are going to send double messages to them. Mr. Speaker, with these comments I ask the minister to consider them and ask him if he could address those issues when he gives his comments.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to rise and just make a few brief comments on Bill No. 11, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act. Having been absent here for an hour and a half doing other business this afternoon I'm not so sure what has been said and what has not been said. In fear of repeating the obvious I will just touch on a couple of points.

One is clause 1, section (e), which goes on to state: "but does not include a grocery store." I don't know what the difference is when you go into a take-out or a restaurant or a snack bar. Sometimes the grocery stores today have advanced to a stage where there is as much food prepared in grocery stores as there is certainly in some snack bars. It is not uncommon today to go into just about every grocery store and you see chicken prepared and you see hot dogs being prepared. You can almost line up in some form of a fast-food outlet, pick up your meal and enjoy it right there, so I do not know why it would not include a grocery store. I would like to ask the minister if he could make some comments on that when he rises at the end of debate to speak once again on the bill?

Mr. Speaker, enforcement again is the problem. Many, many times in this legislature, I suppose like other jurisdictions in Canada, we rise and put forward bills and pieces of legislation, but I am not so sure how we can enforce these pieces of legislation, and this is probably a prime example here today. In many establishments, especially drinking establishments, today we go in and see one side a smoking area and the other side non-smoking, and I would like to invite anybody from either this side or the other side to go up to some of those establishments about 1:30 in the morning and try to move somebody over to a smoking area when they are in an area where they are not suppose to be smoking, and they have the cigarette going.

I for one fully support some efforts to curb smoking. I am not a smoker myself although I have been and it bothers me now when people smoke around me. If I have to breathe in that secondhand smoke it certainly bothers me. I think I have rights, but I think smokers should have rights as well. It bothers me also when I go up to the Health Sciences Complex and other hospitals here. I say the Health Sciences Complex because that is where it is more evident than any other place that I have been, to see people out in their pyjamas or with bandages on their head having just come through major surgery sitting outside the door smoking a cigarette.

It certainly bothers me and I firmly believe that people today go into many of our health care institutions feeling a lot better than when they leave them. Only a couple of days ago I went into the Health Sciences Complex and visited a person who was terminally ill with cancer, from my own district. When I went in the gentleman who is now deceased was going to sign himself out. I asked him why he was going to sign himself out, what was the problem. You are here and being cared for, being looked after. He said, I have to have a cigarette, I want a smoke. I asked myself, having seen how the man had regressed, what a couple of more cigarettes were going to do him, and why should we take away some pleasure from that individual who probably had another week, or a couple of weeks, to live? It happened that he lived a couple of weeks after that.

I went out to the nurse and said: why isn't - calling this gentleman by name - allowed to have a cigarette? She said, there are two reasons, probably the first one being, we are afraid he will smoke somewhere in the hospital, and the other one is we do not want him out by the door because we are afraid he will catch a cold because his resistance, his immunity is down. I asked: how about if I decide to dress him and take him down by the door to enjoy his cigarette? Are there any objections to that? She said, none whatsoever, so I went and dressed him. I put on his coat, put on his socks and boots and took the medications that were on the pole and carried it with me out by the door. While out there he had four or five cigarettes. I brought him back up to his room and he was the happiest man in the hospital.

I do not see why we should deprive those people of something they enjoy, especially their last days on earth. Why should we kind of make a showcase out of them and parade them out by the door? Up in the Health Sciences Centre it is an area where the ambulance is parked so not only are they there breathing in their own smoke and their own secondhand smoke, but the carbon monoxide fumes from the ambulance there sometimes I feel is much, much worse than the smoke people are breathing in and which is probably doing more damage.

That bothers me, and I think if we are going to be sincere and serious about curbing smoking, or doing away with secondhand smoke then maybe we should make an area in those hospitals, especially the hospitals and seniors home, maybe we can designate a room, put a fan there, and let people go there and enjoy a pleasure for their last few days on earth, or in those cases with the seniors, a situation where they do not have to go outdoors and be subjected to the cold, the wind, and the snow, that is the least we can do.

Also, I am wondering about the cost involved. I think the minister stood here one day when the cost of $15,000 or $20,000 was put forward and said: No, that is nowhere near the cost. I have been talking to people and the cost of installation of those fans is much, much lower than that.

Well, I can assure you that there are many concerns out there being brought forward today on the cost of installing and the time frame that they must adhere to in order to maintain those establishments. Those are some of the things that I am concerned about, and I think going along with this bill maybe we should direct some money towards education as well. It certainly bothers me today to see, and I think most people that I see smoking today are the younger people, the young girls. When I say young girls, girls sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years old, it seems that those people are smoking much more today than I have ever seen them before, and it seems like they are smoking much more than the adults of today. Many of the adults have seen good reasons why they should not smoke. They have seen the problems with their health, they have seen the problems their parents have inherited from smoking, but still they smoke and they want to smoke. You can put the price of cigarettes and tobacco as high as you want to and I don't think it will ever be a deterrent to some of those people, so we are going to have to start and spend more money on education.

Mr. Speaker, the spirit of this bill is certainly good, and I don't see any reason why people should have to stay in their house today and not go and enjoy bingo, or not go out and enjoy some fellowship with their friends because the fellow sitting next to them decides that he might like to light up and have a cigarette. I don't think those are good reasons. I think there should be areas where people should be allowed to go and smoke, and they should be able to do that in comfort, but I think it can be done within the realms of this bill, and it can be done within the spirit of the bill, but some of those concerns I hope the minister will address when he stands to close debate here today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and allow my colleague from Placentia to carry on. Thank you.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

I am delighted to have a quick opportunity to speak on Bill 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

MR. CAREEN: I am getting heavier; it is going to be harder to carry me.

AN HON. MEMBER: I could make a comment on that (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Does it have to do with enemas or some such?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You could bury me in a shoe box; is that what you are trying to say?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the smoke-free environment, last year this House adopted legislation that the government had put through, being political and correct, and I suppose in some cases being the safeguard of the realm, but what we see now today, I have questions on why a grocery store would be exempt. Why a grocery store when, as the former member said, a grocery store with microwave ovens now, and they prepare food, why should they be more exempt than any other place, unless some of the members opposite own grocery stores.

Clause 5, talking about some amendments to the act that would allow Cabinet to make exemptions on places that last year were not permitted to be designate a smoking area, exemptions that could be made to recreational facilities, that last year it was so important to have them smoke free. Now there are question marks.

The Member for Bonavista South said earlier, and we have all seen it, visiting hospitals where people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

- hold it now; you have never seen it? Probably because you have never had to visit a hospital.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Okay. You were talking to someone else when I mentioned about the grocery stores. Why is the exemption being made for them? Unless probably you own a grocery store.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No. This building here, with hundreds of thousands of square feet, should have a designated area for people to smoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No? I can do my share to keep my end of her clean. But because you are into something now - obviously you are not as concerned with health care as you were last year. You are talking about exemptions and that is what some of this bill is about, an amendment. The cost to Legions and other non-profit organizations to put in your rules and regulations that are coming in for June of this year is going to make those organizations worse than they are, financially. These organizations are having trouble now meeting their obligations, and this government is still pussyfooting.

They have a law about non-smoking. You can leave and drive past many communities in this Province where the municipal dumps are burning Javex bottles and anything else that you have to breathe through, and all of a sudden they just tend to get after the smokers. Because it is easy to get after the smokers, it is popular to get after the smokers.

I do agree that smoking and young people - the more young people - they say in a piece here that 10,000 Canadian adolescents begin smoking every month. That is very high. I am a smoker but I do not like to see young people taking up a dirty habit that I have had over years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I have to talk about you washing your mouth out with soap after, but that is another story.

Smokers do have rights. If I lit up a smoke and I thought someone had asthma I would walk to the other side of the road away from him. Being politically correct last year and being so concerned about health, and this year bringing in exceptions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Typical, typical.

MR. CAREEN: Typical, yes. Can't stand their ground. Probably hurt some of their own. With that, that is enough.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few words to say about this bill amending the smoke-free environment act.

I supported the principle of the legislation when we debated and passed it in the House. Last year, I believe it was. Actually, I was on the Social Services Legislation Review Committee which examined the draft bill and held public hearings on it before the final bill was brought to the full House for debate. I found the Committee's work on the bill to be interesting for me personally and valuable in terms of the final product. While I supported the principle of the bill, which is designed to safeguard public health by curtailing the existence of second-hand smoke, and discourage smokers from keeping up the habit, I did express concerns about the practicality of certain provisions of the bill, and I would like to reiterate them now.

The provisions of the bill that attempt to allow smoking in parts only of restaurants and bars are practically not workable in very many situations. In bars in particular I think it is senseless to attempt to restrict smoking to 50 per cent or a fraction of the space when patrons are obviously milling around and moving around. Most bars are large open spaces and obviously smoke moves from one section to another. So my own recommendation in the debate on the full bill was to basically take an all or nothing approach to restaurants and bars. In the case of bars, basically leave them alone in response to the market, recognizing that the market is self selected. In the case of restaurants to look at the possibility of banning smoking entirely.

Mr. Speaker, one of the provisions of the bill I did support and continue to support is the outright banning of smoking in retail stores. I assume the definition of retail store clearly includes grocery stores and supermarkets but some of our supermarkets have eating areas similar to restaurants, cafes or snack bars. There is one at the Avalon Mall which some of us may be familiar with where there is, within the boundaries of a large supermarket, a sit down eating area that is open to displays of uncovered food. It may be unclear how the legislation or how this bill amending the legislation would affect that Avalon Mall supermarket and I use the Avalon Mall store as an example.

I will in Committee of the Whole stage propose an amendment to this bill which would make it clear that smoking is banned outright in grocery stores which are retail stores. In particular, smoking is banned outright in a food establishment that is contained within a grocery store or supermarket. Mr. Speaker, I have had complaints about the situation at supermarkets in the St. John's area where smoking is being allowed in at least a section of an eating area within a grocery store where that eating area is open to displays of unwrapped fruit and vegetables or unwrapped meat.

Mr. Speaker, the same as the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, and there may have been other Opposition members who made this point, I wish to express concern about the final provision of the bill which would leave it up to Cabinet in the future to make regulations exempting buildings or parts of buildings from the legislation. I did not hear the minister give an explanation for the presence in the bill of that clause. When the minister rises to close the debate I will call on him to address the two points that I am raising. Number one, his intention with regard to restricting or banning smoking in grocery stores or supermarkets and related to that his intention with regard to either banning or restricting smoking in eating sections or restaurant sections of supermarkets which are open to displays of food.

Number two, I would call on the minister to explain his intention in placing in the bill that final clause that would enable the Cabinet, through making regulations, to exempt buildings from the act. It seems to me, that undermines the function of the House of Assembly and it may take away from the intention of MHAs enacting legislation. Our intention clearly is to ban smoking outright in the facilities listed in Section 5 of the act which are daycare centres or nursery schools; primary, elementary and secondary schools, acute health care facilities, retail stores, recreational facilities and passenger vehicles. Now, with the amendment set out in the final clause of this bill, it will be possible for the minister basically, to counteract most of section 5 by having the Cabinet from time to time, decide that smoking is okay in a day care centre or in a school or in an acute care hospital or recreation facility. For the clause to be in the bill, I assume the minister has specific buildings or parts of specific buildings in mind, and I think it is only right that the minister explain that to the House so we have a better idea of what he is contemplating doing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I started to take notes of some of the points being raised. I would have to say that my critic on the other side, the hon. the Member for Ferryland said everything needed to be said, the rest was repetitious at best and frivolous and inappropriate to the discussion of the bill, at worst. I made notes of the questions and I will be glad to address the points raised by the critic, the hon. the Member for Ferryland, in Committee. Having said that and having indicated that I will respond to those points in Committee, I now move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 11).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might be able to deal with Order 14, which is a fairly straightforward amendment to the City of St. John's Act.

My friend, the minister has promised me thirty-five seconds will be a full explanation. We will see what happens then.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". (Bill No. 19).

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I don't have to get into a long dissertation on this. I think most of us in the House realize that the City of St. John's has been trying to clean up its regulations as it relates to rooming-houses and rental units, especially in the core area of the city. This will only follow along with a number of other recommendations that city council are proposing right now to bring in changes to their own by-laws and basically, it raises the fine from $100 to $5,000.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have had some conversation on this particular piece of legislation earlier on a resolution, I think, that was put by the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre; a number of people in the House spoke for about fifteen to twenty minutes each on this particular subject. There is not much I can add to that, Mr. Speaker, except that, instead of the $5,000-fine, if I had my way, it should be a lot higher. That's the only thing I say to the minister; he has been fairly kind, I think, in going from $100 to $5,000, and with all the things that I have said in response to the resolution put forward by the Member for St. John's Centre a couple of weeks ago, I think it should be a lot higher and those people should remain -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: I referred to them that time, Mr. Speaker, as the fat cat landlords, but some of the appropriate people weren't around and some of them might look like that but in any case, I think the minister has been kind. He has been very kind to bring forward this bill and put up the fine from $100 to $5,000 because if those rooming-homes and rental units are not cleaned up, there is going to be a lot of other people who will suffer in this city. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing else to say about this piece of legislation, as far as I am concerned, except to add that some time in the future, maybe the minister will be still in his capacity within the next year or so, to see fit to increase the fine to probably $50,000.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this piece of legislation as well. This legislation was brought here as a result of a debate that took place in the City Chambers, the City of St. John's, where there was some concern by a number of councillors - I believe it was Councillor White.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And you watch out for Jeff Brace.

Mr. Speaker, my old friend, the Member for St. John's South always manages to get himself in trouble with the city councillors. The first was a showdown with Councillor Hanrahan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Andy Wells first.

MR. TOBIN: The first he had was a row with Andy and I am not sure who won that one.

MR. SULLIVAN: Andy won that.

MR. TOBIN: No, Andy didn't win it. As a matter of fact, he intimidated Andy to the extent that Andy decided to join the Liberals. The second one was with Councillor Hanrahan. I don't know who won that one. He has a knack of picking on the Liberal councillors for whatever the reason. The latest I heard is that Councillor Brace is going to seek the nomination against the Member for St. John's South. All I say to that is I hope the Member for St. John's South wins, because if he has the courage to take on the councillors down there, his own political cousins, like Hanrahan, who I understand is going to be running for the Liberals in the next election in one of the St. John's ridings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I always thought that Hanrahan was a Tory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Who was his wife?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Marshall's daughter. I say to the Member for Eagle River that he will have to spend a lot of time in the House to bring to it what Bill Marshall brought to it. He was a man of great stature, Mr. Speaker, a great Progressive Conservative, a great Newfoundlander who did much for it, and that has nothing to do with his son-in-law or his daughter, I say to the member. The member should be careful because Edsel Bonnell, that's Uncle Edsel, I say to the member, who writes out his cheque, up on the eight floor. She is the niece of Edsel Bonnell. So the Member for Eagle River should be very careful because Uncle Edsel might not appreciate the Member for Eagle River saying he thinks that is not nice about his brother-in-law or his niece or his niece's husband. So the Member for Eagle River should stay rather quiet and let the Member for St. John's South handle the city councils because he has done a good job. He turned off Andy Wells over a street light, he turned off Sean Hanrahan over supporting Art Puddister and now he has Jeff Brace turned off because Eric Gullage has more hearings then Jeff Brace. So we will leave it all to the Member for St. John's South. We should let him loose in the Province.

Anyway, I was about to comment on the city council and I believe it was Councillor White, who the minister hasn't yet turned off, Mr. Speaker, I think it was her concern that brought this forth.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the Member for St. John's Centre did it.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the Member for St. John's Centre - give him credit. Give the Member for St. John's Centre a lot of credit for this too, he is very sincere, Mr. Speaker. I have to say this, the Member for St. John's Centre was very sincere and genuine on this issue when he raised it in the House. He went after Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to do more for the people who need these houses rather than have them subjected to the slum landlords that exist in this city.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who? Who are they?

MR. TOBIN: Who are they? I might name them, Mr. Speaker, I might name them, don't temp me.

Mr. Speaker, but that is what you have to do. They have to be protected and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has a bigger role to play - this minister has a bigger role to play than bringing in a fine of $5,000. It is not enough, I say to the minister, it is a start!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: What we have to have - yes, probably I might move an amendment, Mr. Speaker, because people have to be protected from those who rent homes without fire extinguishers, without adequate protection from the elements. The minister knows full well what I am talking about and I hope the people who are perpetrating these crimes upon individuals are listening as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Name them, name a few of them. Name one, give us the initials of one.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, as the Member for St. John's East has said, has a role to play. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has to provide good social housing for the people rather than have them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, poor old Marshall is getting an awful going over here this evening, and it is too bad he is not here to defend himself because he is one person that I respected. I respected Bill Marshall immensely. I thought he was a great debater. I thought he was a great member of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I thought he was getting pretty snug with you fellows lately. Then, when he wasn't asked to be another judge to look after the electoral boundaries, I figured he was out of favour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't have one bit of respect for him, I say to my colleague, the Member for Ferryland, not one bit of respect for the name he put on that. Because he's one of them.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has a responsibility, a role to play.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And a former President of the NTA - my friend, the former President of the NTA, from Exploits, the Minister of -

MR. SULLIVAN: Tourism, Recreation and Culture.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I am not suggesting he is involved in rental houses, I say to the Member for Eagle River; I am not suggesting it at all. I tell you one thing, if he was, I can assure you it would be up to standard, but I don't think he is involved in that business. But I tell you one thing he is involved in that he is not doing very well in, and that is providing wheelchair - where is it?

MR. SULLIVAN: The museum.

MR. TOBIN: Accessibility at the Newfoundland Museum, he is not very good at that - telling me to sit down, when I stand up with my other colleagues and try to get something done for protection from slum landlords in this city.

I tell you, it is a good thing this House is accessible since they brought in that Bill 20. If the minister was in a wheelchair and he needed one in this House he would find a way to get around by the way he is courting all the members over there trying to get the leadership of the party.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is slumming over there.

MR. TOBIN: No, I am not saying anything like that about the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Me? No, Mr. Speaker.

I am something like the Minister of Justice. Consulting service is something like being a lawyer. When you are no longer useful out there you come back here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I got up and I only have ten minutes and I planned on speaking for ten minutes. Does the hon. member know what Churchill said?

MR. ROBERTS: I only gave you the story last weekend.

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that this is the start. Hopefully, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing will play a more significant roll in providing adequate social housing to the people of this Province who need it and at the same time -

MS. VERGE: What did Churchill say? We are all waiting with bated breath.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is a joke between the Government House Leader and myself.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: That is right. As a matter of fact I told it to a couple of people this week and they thought it was - I attended what they called, `the friends of the forest', a banquet in Marystown on Saturday night, the RCMP, and there were a couple there who that applied to so I thought I should tell it. They took it as a joke as well.

In conclusion I say that I think the minister is on the right track and hopefully Newfoundland and Labrador Housing will play a more significant role in providing social housing in this Province, and maybe it will be necessary to increase that in time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the minister now speaks he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues on the other side for making comments.

The reason why it was $5,000 is that is the amount the City of St. John's and Mrs. White herself suggested, so if Mrs. White and the City of St. John's want to come back and say: Let's increase it to twenty-five, I am certainly sure we will.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 19).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we go home there are two or three organizational points. Tomorrow, I understand, we are to deal with three bits of legislation. I want to acknowledge the co-operation of all members and thank them for it.

Assuming we get through second reading tomorrow of those three bills, and the committee stage and the third reading on the two we have dealt with today and the ones we will deal with tomorrow, then we will come back on Wednesday and my friend from Bonavista South, I understand - I am not trying to presume - the Opposition will designate that as the motion to be debated. I would tell them the only other Private Members' motion on the Order Paper is the one standing in the name of the gentleman from St. John's East that they may not want to debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is government business.

MR. ROBERTS: No, it isn't government business. The bill stands on the Order Paper in the name of my friend from Bonavista South who will have the right to move it. I assume, by the way, but let's be sure we understand, we will be debating it under the regular rules for Private Member's Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman wants to deal with it as with a bill. Then they have an hour, we have an hour; it may be a long day on Wednesday.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I understand I may get leave to give notice of a motion that I would bring forward tomorrow which is this: I give notice that I shall, on tomorrow, move that the Members for Bonavista North, Humber Valley and Trinity North are hereby appointed as a Select Committee to inquire into and to report upon the practicability, the utility and the desirability of introducing a system of no fault insurance to compensate persons who suffer damages as a result of the operation of motor vehicles in Newfoundland and Labrador, such inquiry and report to address the following issues among others: The relative merits in respect of Newfoundland and Labrador of a pure no fault model, a threshold no fault model, and a choice system, the estimated cost of each plan, and in particular whether it will cause any rise in insurance premiums beyond that anticipated under the present tort system.

In the case of a threshold no fault model, the appropriate threshold, the financial implications for government including the recovery of hospital and medical care costs, the potential of a no fault plan to reduce the burden on the courts and generally, the effect of the adoption of a new regime on those who own and operate motor vehicles, the insurance industry and the legal system. That the committee be authorized to send for persons and papers to sit in session and out, and to sit from place to place throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and that the committee be directed to report to the House by 30, June 1996.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I was wondering if the hon. the Government House Leader was giving notice or giving notice that he was going to give notice tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand I had leave to give notice and it will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Government House Leader have leave of the House to give notice?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, so noted.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could put the adjournment motion. We will begin tomorrow, I understand with the Pensions Benefit Act, I think my friend from Gander and my friend from Grand Bank have dealt with that, then we will deal with the Judicature Act and the Residency Act, the one that is Order No. 18 on the Order paper.

I move the adjournment, Sir.

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