The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of Marystown who are celebrating the 50^th anniversary of Incorporation. To commemorate this event, the town is hosting its first ever Burin Peninsula Summer Games from July 15-22, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the Burin Peninsula has a rich history in sport in this Province and this premiere event will create a new history of sport in this area, showcasing 1,500 male and female athletes from the ages of ten to eighteen in eleven different sports.

I am also pleased to be a sponsor of the MHA's Cup for the games, as this trophy will be presented to the Most Sportminded Region at the Games.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all citizens of the Burin Peninsula, along with visitors from around the Province, to be part of this history making event. I congratulate the organizers of this event for their efforts and I look forward to some great competition at these Burin Peninsula Summer Games.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Clarenville Youth Choir and Cadenza who have been chosen to represent Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2001 Choral Music Festival-Unisong in Ottawa on Canada Day.

The Clarenville Youth Choir was first formed in the spring of 1995 and has grown from its thirty-two original members to now fifty-nine, including twenty-three of those members who are part of the choir's senior group-Cadenza. Under the direction of Ann Ludrigan and accompanist Lynn Wicks, the choir will join thirteen other choirs from across Canada to perform at the National Arts Centre this Canada Day.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Clarenville Youth Choir and Cadenza on this accomplishment and the honour of representing Newfoundland and Labrador at the Canada Day Celebrations in Ottawa.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this month I attended Heritage Fair 2001 at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook. At this fair, students from schools within School District 3 exhibited approximately 175 projects covering a broad spectrum of Newfoundland and Labrador's culture, history and heritage.

Students chose, researched and constructed exhibits on various topics ranging from Joseph R. Smallwood, Newfoundland's place in Viking history, the story of the Beothucks, Newfoundland's role in wireless telecommunications, to the history of the pulp and paper mill at Corner Brook.

In addition to the exhibits, high school students created a Web site and conducted interviews with project teams and visitors to the Fair. For those who may be interested, they may air and view these exhibits by surfing to http://projects.sd3.k12.nf.ca.

From this Fair, two Grade 5 students were selected to attend the National Fair to be held in Kamloops, B.C., in July. These were Dustin Anderson of Bonne Bay Academy, Woody Point, for his project titled: Old Carpentry Tools; and Jennifer Parsons of J.J. Curling in Corner Brook, for her project titled: Rug Hooking.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Bill Allen of School District 3 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. MERCER: - event co-chairman for Heritage Fair 2001 for his untiring efforts in organizing this annual event and I ask this hon. House to join with me in congratulating all the students who participated in Heritage Fair 2001, and to wish them well in their future studies.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to inform my colleagues today that government is undertaking a public consultation on solid waste management.

Beginning next month, an advisory committee, chaired by Mr. Derm Flynn, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, will hold roundtable discussions in many communities throughout the Province seeking the views and opinions of key stakeholders, groups and individuals on the development of a comprehensive provincial waste management strategy.

Joining Mr. Flynn on the advisory committee will be Corner Brook city councillor Priscilla Boutcher; Catherine Barrett, President of the Recycling Depot Operators' Association; and Jessie Bird of Cartwright, Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Flynn and Ms Barrett, who are joining us today in the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The Speech from the Throne articulated government's commitment to develop a long-term strategy for waste management in this Province. This public consultation is the first step in fulfilling that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, government is committed to addressing our current waste management situation with long-term solutions, thereby ensuring the protection of our environment for the enjoyment of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for generations to come.

I encourage all interested groups and individuals to take part in roundtable discussions in their area. Individuals and groups may also forward their comments to the advisory committee in care of my department. A discussion paper, Protecting Our Environment for Tomorrow: A public consultation paper for a strategy for waste management, is being prepared and will be available early next week by contacting my department or the government's Web site.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

This is an issue that has been discussed and debated in the House on a number of occasions. It is an issue that the former Minister of Environment knows I have been very active on and have made several recommendations on. I am glad to see one of the recommendations that I made most recently adopted by government, and that is the tire recycling program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have gotten the information from the MMSB on that and it certainly looks as though that program is going to fulfill some of the requirements that I have asked government to participate in. I will eagerly await and watch what happens there. I will ask, with that particular program, I say to the minister, that we concentrate on secondary processing of recycled products in this Province as opposed to having it go outside.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, this is good news today. It is the first step in a process that should have started three or four years ago, but at least it is starting now. It is good news, and it is something that we have been eagerly awaiting on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly this Province is in need of a comprehensive strategy for handling of solid waste. I hope that in addition to hearing from the stakeholders in the community that the government itself will provide some leadership. There is a real opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make fundamental change in the way that we deal with solid waste in this Province. We should examine every avenue of recycling, every avenue of eliminating the number of landfill sites that we have in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Every avenue of improving the environmental standards and trying to use every product that is now being thrown away and ending up on landfills.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time has come.

MR. NOEL: I hope you will have as much enthusiasm about the statement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members that my department will soon be implementing a new e-commerce service enabling vehicle owners to renew their registration over the Internet.

Registrations are currently renewed on an annual basis by mail, through chartered banks, or in person at various departmental offices. Once this new service is in place, owners will be able to renew their vehicle registrations and pay for the service on-line.

Mr. Speaker, change in information technology is revolutionizing the way we do business. The public is demanding more immediate access to services. We intend to provide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: My department has worked with Treasury Board to develop a secure e-commerce system. Vehicle registration will be the first of various service applications to be offered through this technology.

We have gone to great lengths to ensure this system is user-friendly, and transactions will be secure. In the coming weeks, I will provide all hon. members, and citizens, with complete information regarding the new service.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is nice to see the minister stand to his feet. He is taller than I pictured him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister, I notice today, is wearing a blue suit as well; so, if he is looking for something to surf, I ask him to have a look over here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did not tell us how he is going to do this, or whether this is going to be providing enhanced employment opportunities for public servants, or whether this is another job for xwave and their monopoly IT position, or whether he is going to go to public tender on it. I hope this will provide better service and enhanced employment opportunities for public servants who are now delivering this service.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I guess my questions today are for the Deputy Premier of the government, and they deal with the development of our Province's natural resources.

With respect to the Premier's recent announcements in Atlanta, I want to ask this Deputy Premier, the former Premier, that in view of the recent statements by the Premier that he is in favor now, committed to, exporting bulk water, I would like to ask this question: What is the return to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from bulk water exports? Bulk exports, in my view, do not produce very many jobs. I would like to ask the Deputy Premier: Is government counting on royalties? And: What kind of royalties and what level of royalties are they counting on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the House that the Premier - I was not here yesterday, so I am not sure exactly what was said in Chambers. I would advise the House that a committee has been struck, chaired by myself, as Minister of Justice, along with Minister Aylward, the Minister of Finance, and the Environment Minister, Mr. Wiseman. The purpose, of course, is to gather and compile all the information concerning possible export of water, whether it be in bulk or whether it be in bottles. Before any decision is made we would, of course, like it to be an informed decision; hence, all the information is being gathered.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says, "Before any decision is made...." The Premier said, over the weekend, that this is something we should do. I asked him the question specifically on royalties. Let me ask him this: He must be aware that his leader, the Premier of the Province, said that they anticipate or expect to collect $20 million a month in royalties. That being the case - the Premier did say that, I say to hon. members opposite - I would like to ask the minister: On what analysis did the Premier of the Province base his projection that the Province could collect $20 million a month?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He did say it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, these questions get asked by the media and, of course, the Premier quite rightfully responds. That is not to take away from the fact that the purpose of the committee is to investigate all matters and all elements of the possible export of water. No one has made a definitive decision as to whether it will be or will not be. The Premier has indicated what his personal preference is, but I can advise the House that all environmental factors, all financial factors and all legal consequences will be taken into consideration before a decision is made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Deputy Premier shouts out across the floor, what am I afraid of? I am afraid of the damage that you and your government are going to do to this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask this question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask this question to the Minister of Finance. The Premier has openly talked about projections of revenues to the Province from bulk water exports. Can you stand in your place, or can the Minister of Finance stand in her place, and give us the analysis based upon which the Premier made that statement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know questions are short, because the same question was asked yesterday, and I will give the same answer: That we are giving this process due diligence. We have a committee in place to analyze all components. Mr. Speaker, generally, you get the information and you analyze it before you make the decision. Mr. Speaker, I will say it again, because obviously it requires a number of ministers to repeat the same response, to get the message across: There has been no decision made, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to ask any minister who cares to respond to this question: In view of the eventful great public relations trip by the Premier of the Province to Atlanta, has anyone talked to the Premier to see or to wonder or to ask him: While he spent some quality time with the Prime Minister of the country, did he get any assurance or commitment from the Prime Minister of Canada that on the royalty issue, vis-à-vis bulk water exports, that the Prime Minister of Canada gave a commitment to the Premier and this Province that there would be no clawback on any potential royalties from water export? Did any minister talk to the Premier and ask him that very, very fundamental question, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Leader of the Opposition asked the question to any minister, so maybe others would like to respond after I finish.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not finished with the trip to Atlanta yet on the trade mission. The comments he has made and the context of the question certainly imply he should not even be there promoting trade for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to inform all hon. members and all people of the Province, of the outcome of the trade mission when he returns; and further, we will be happy to inform him and the people of the Province, when we have done the appropriate due diligence to the issue of bulk water and other water supplies in the Province, Mr. Speaker, on our decision on what we will do with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I guess the short answer, then, is no, they got no commitment from the Prime Minister of the country on royalties.

Let me ask this question -

MR. SULLIVAN: Were they interested enough to ask it?

MR. E. BYRNE: Nor were they interested enough to ask it. Very good. I will have to wait for the Premier to get in the Legislature and I can ask him that directly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Just because the Premier is on a trade mission does not mean that the business of the people of the Province stops, I say to government members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. members that from time to time the responsibilities of members and ministers, of course, take them away from the Legislature, and that ought not to be a topic for discussion in this Legislature.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I would like to ask the government this question: Vis-à-vis, Voisey's Bay file.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this government, and in particular the Premier, has articulated a position on the export of ore prior to a finished processing of that product that explicitly defies the mandate the government received in 1999, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier: Will government make a commitment that before a deal is signed, final and binding that puts in place a deal that is final, that the people have to live with forever and a day, that you will bring it to this Legislature for debate and that you will bring it before the people of the Province so they can see and comment on what is in that deal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I had not recognized the hon. minister and I don't think his microphone was on at the time.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the Deputy Premier's answer because Hansard will show that the Premier's answer - I will get to the question if you will give me a moment, I say to the Government House Leader - to me on this question is different.

I want to ask this question. It is now government policy, supported by your Premier, that if you negotiate a deal, before you sign it you will bring it before the Legislature for debate and you will bring it before the public so they may have their opportunity to debate it as well. Is that what you are saying, Deputy Premier?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that this government will not hide anything that it signs or does, and that it will be debated fully in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: What's the problem? Are you trying to suggest to us that we should hide something? Are you afraid there is going to be a deal there? What's the problem?

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

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

Government members asked: What are we afraid of? The government members say it will be out in the open. I can only say, are they aware - I will ask this question, you must be aware, or are you aware that the Premier of the Province, in this Legislature, said no to the question that I asked, that he would not make that commitment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am asking again, Mr. Speaker: Before this deal is final and binding upon the people of the Province, that it will be debated fully in this Legislature and that government will provide an opportunity to have it fully debated outside this Legislature in public. Is that the commitment that government is making?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: My answer to that repetitive question is the same as it was before.

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

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

A final supplementary and I will sit down. I want to ask the Deputy Premier: Are you in a position today to tell us when the by-elections in Humber West and in Port de Grave will be called?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: What an amateur hour, Mr. Speaker, this has turned out to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Will the Deputy Premier set the date for a by-election in Humber West? Will I confirm the date, if I knew it? Does the hon. gentleman not realize -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) Voisey's Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Does the hon. gentleman not realize -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: He is wild again today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: He has gone right in a circle. Feed him!

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. gentleman not realize that one person, and one person only, usually knows the date for by-elections? He is called something that the hon. gentleman wanted to be but will never be; he is called the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Environment Canada has recognized Newfoundland and Labrador's incinerators as being one of the major causes of dioxins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that we are in Question Period. If hon. members wish to have a conversation I think they should do so outside the Chamber. We are now in Question Period.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that Environment Canada has recognized Newfoundland and Labrador's incinerators as being one of the major causes of dioxins and furans in all of Canada. What is of particular interest today, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that incinerators located close to drinking water supplies also give off dioxins and furans. Because of the fact that dioxins and furans persist in the environment and bio-accumulate, I would like to ask the minister the following question: Has the minister tested water supplies in areas where incinerators are in close proximity to water supplies, such as Grand Falls where you can see emissions roll across the water supply? Has he tested those water supplies for the presence of dioxins, furans, and other toxins?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the hon. member would know that - I do not think there is anywhere in Canada where they test for dioxins and furans, knowing full-well that these are emissions. If we did, Mr. Speaker, there are no standards under the Canadian standard drinking water guidelines in which to compare them to.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, there are other toxins where there are standards we can test by. Laboratory tests have shown that dioxins and furans can be linked to reproductive problems, skin disorders, weight loss, cancer, tumors and other such problems, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he feels that this gives sufficient reason in this Province to start testing for dioxins and furans? Minister, don't you feel the people in that area have a right to know?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am, as minister, fully aware that the people of this Province have a right to know. All the recent information that I have in my department, we are making it available to the public. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, that I too, care very much about the people of this Province. When we look at the kind of fearmongering that has gone on in this Province for the last week or so -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: - the last week or so, Mr. Speaker, when we take into consideration that these kinds of accusations are going right across this country, and we are diligently trying to build a tourist industry in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we, as a government and as people of this Legislature, should show some responsibility to the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the minister is blind to reports and studies. The Federal Department of Environment, of which he is a member of the Council of Environment Ministers, has determined that dioxins and furans persist in water and in the environment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister again: Will he test for the presence of dioxins and furans and other such toxins in water supplies that are located in close proximity to incinerators?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can say, Mr. Speaker, that I am confident in the measures that government has taken to ensure that the residents of this Province have continued access to clean, safe drinking water. We are all aware that the dioxins and furans are emissions from incinerators, and we are in the process now of looking at all the waste management in the Province, which includes incineration, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, we test every community, microbiological testing, on an average of once a month to ensure that the drinking water that people have access to in this Province, public drinking water, is safe.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when you have to realize that we are doing whatever it is humanly possible to do to ensure that the water is safe. We are doing it, let there be no doubt about it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Health, and they follow up on some questions we asked last week relative to the health care in Canada report.

Home care, Mr. Minister, substitutes for care in hospitals or in long-term care facilities. However, Newfoundland is one of those provinces where prescription drugs that are offered to patients while they are hospitalized are denied to them when they are receiving home care services. This is different than is the case in, let's say, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. Why are home care patients in Newfoundland treated differently than would be the case if they lived in one of our neighboring provinces?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question.

Obviously, when you are comparing the different jurisdictions in the country, policies and programs do vary. The hon. member brings up a very important area of health care in this Province, the provision of drugs. At the present time, with the program that we have in place in this Province, we are expending in the area of some $70 million in terms of providing drugs to people in this Province. It is a fairly costly proposition. This year our total budget for the Province is some $1.4 million.

The hon. member says that in terms of the needs that are there - here in the House we constantly see hon. members on their feet saying we should be putting more money here and we should be putting more money there. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is - and we hear it repeatedly here in the House, and I say it to the people of my district who question me on a regular basis in terms of the things that I try to provide to them - that running government is not much different, really, from running your basic household income. You have a certain amount of money that is available to you, you make hard decisions, and on the basis of those decisions you try to provide the best possible service you can to the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In reality then, Mr. Minister, we have a two-tiered system of home care and we, therefore, have a two-tiered system of health care in this Province. We have those who can pay for their medications from out-of-pocket or drug insurance plans and those who cannot pay and have no such insurance plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister: When will this government put a stop to this discriminatory two-tiered system of home care in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, the only place I have seen in this country where the two-tiered health care system is being advocated is in jurisdictions that are headed up by parties of the political stripe represented by the hon. member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would say, through you and to the people of this Province, that this government is committed to providing the highest possible level of health care to all of the people of this Province. That is a commitment to them and we will deliver on that commitment.

Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Minister, government decisions perplex the people of this Province. This past weekend we saw this government choose to put a full-page Liberal Party ad in the paper at government's expense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: We also saw this Province, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission, take out a $250,000 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - private booth down at Mile One Stadium.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Minister, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to know what strategies you use when you make your priorities and when this government decides to do these things as opposed to putting more money into a drug prescription plan for home care patients.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, I am surprised at the tactic and approach used by the hon. member opposite in terms of trying to downplay the importance of these issues. We are not in any way, as a government, saying that the concerns that are out there are not genuine. We are not saying that there are not needs out there now on which we are working on daily basis with the health care corporations trying to deliver on a number of fronts.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to an ad that ran in the paper, and trying to draw from that possibly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the one message that I will deliver to the hon. members opposite is that if they do not learn to listen, they are doomed forever to remain in the dark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and has do with the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - the new coalition, Mr .Speaker, of business interests and municipalities called the Alliance for Responsible Nickel Development. They have floated the idea that it would make sense to allow Voisey's Bay Nickel or Inco to ship ore out now in return for a promise of smelting and refining later, that promise to be backed by a penalty clause or a fine for non-performance.

Mr. Speaker, is this idea being floated because that is what Inco has proposed to the government and that is what this government is prepared to accept?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, those people are very credible. I happened to see, I think it was a news clip, yesterday or the day before - yesterday, on the same issue. Those people are very credible people, very honest businessmen, as far as I understand, good Newfoundland businessmen, good people from Newfoundland, and I credit them - I do not know if the hon. gentleman does or not, but I credit them - with the ability to think for themselves and put forward their own ideas and their own solutions to this problem. I want to say to him that to suggest otherwise is somewhat of an insult to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Deputy Premier agree that a penalty or a fine or something of that nature, in return for a promise to do something later, would be just as effective with respect to the development of Voisey's Bay Nickel as it has been in Marystown with Friede Goldman Halter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, this government has made the commitment over and over and over that we will do what will get the maximum return on the resources of the Province for the people of the Province. That still stands, and if there are ways and means of doing that, whatever the ways and means are of doing that, then obviously I think people's minds should be somewhat open. I think that is what those people are trying to do, to explore possibilities for developing this mineral, this resource, for the maximum benefit of the people of this Province. If they are wrong, I am sure they will admit they are wrong. If they cannot see a deal that can be worked out, I am sure they will see that.

I do not understand where the hon. gentleman is coming from. Is he trying to say that those people have been bought and sold?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. Many people in Central Newfoundland make a living from selling firewood. Most of the wood comes from Abitibi Timber Limits. Mostly they are hardwoods and fire-damaged wood. For many years, people have obtained cutting permits from the company, but this year, for some reason, the company refuses to give out permits to the same people. They have been told that the government must deal with this issue and control the permits and management of the operations on the company limits.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: Where does he stand with respect to this concern? And: Will the minister see to it that the operators are not left without being able to avail of this important resource?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is one particular case that has been brought to my attention in Central Newfoundland with regard to a domestic cutter. That domestic cutter was cutting on ACI limits for the last number of years. They have been accommodating him and a number of other cutters, by the way. This year, Abitibi Consolidated decided not to accommodate this particular person in question right now. If there are others, they would have to be brought to my attention, because of the liability factor. The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods have been trying for some years to try to get some kind of compliance agreements with both Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and Abitibi Consolidated, to try to put people in on those limits and then we take the responsibility for them

As of today, that is the problem; it is liability. This particular individual, who I know, who has been brought to my attention, can go on those limits provided that he buy liability insurance to cover himself. That is the status as of today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table the report of the Labour Relations Board for the year 2000. This outlines the activities of the Labour Relations Board for 2000 with respect to caseloads, hearings and representation votes.

Thank you.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to be able to table the year 2000 annual report of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present another petition on behalf of some people in my district who are seeking some road improvements, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who is listening. Road improvement is something that is definitely on the agenda in my district, especially after this winter. I am not going to spell out again today the prayer of the petition. It is similar to the one that I presented here yesterday. Basically I will go to WHEREAS:

WHEREAS it is the duty of government, through the enactment and enforcement of the Highway Safety Act, to provide its citizens not only from commuters but also from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the traveling public must be the number one priority of any government;

THEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 90;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pay.

Once again. I bring forward a petition from the people in my district who are very concerned about the safety of the roads in this part of the district and, indeed, in all parts of the district. We believe that government needs to have another look at the priorities that I put forward earlier this year. The roads in my district are deplorable, to say the least, causing some major concerns for the general, traveling public, but also in relation to emergency vehicles such as ambulances, which have to travel over these roads. There are some major, major problems.

The reason for the petition today is so the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will see that there is a major need out there. Hopefully, some funding will be found to address the concerns. We have gone from cracks in the pavement now to major, major potholes. There are a lot of people having damage done to their vehicles. It is just impossible to maintain any semblance of speed. It is certainly a concern a lot of people have.

In this day and age, in the year 2001, we believe, that is it is not necessary to have roads in the condition they are in. The asphalt plants are in the process of getting up and starting for this year and people in the area feel that it is timely to bring this petition forward. Hopefully, the concerns that are raised through this petition, and through others which I will present here in the House, that the minister and his department will take a serious look at the roads, especially on Route 90, which this petition deals with, but indeed, throughout my district. I have concerns with the roads through Route 90, which starts in Ship Harbour and works all the way up to Salmonier Line. Just outside of North Harbour there are some necessary repairs which need to be done.

Route 100, which is between Branch and St. Bride's, especially. The communities of Branch and St. Bride's, and in as far as Patrick's Cove. There are some much needed repairs needed in that community; right next to the cemetery in St. Bride's, right in the middle of the community, it is just a total mess that the road has been left in after the winter.

These are concerns that the people have. Right throughout the Town of Placentia there are some major concerns that have been raised about the roads. Down in the community of Ship Harbour - the first or the last community in my district, whatever way you want to look at it - there are some major concerns there. The people in Ship Harbour are trying to develop a major tourism attraction there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Certainly, one thing we need in order to bring tourism into the area are proper roads.

I hope the minister will listen today to the prayer of this petition and will address some of the concerns that I have raised here in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present yet another petition on the bulk export of water from the Province. It is an issue that is becoming even more newsworthy over the past couple of days.

The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province. Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair share. With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have spoken loudly and clearly, and they are speaking loudly and clearly on this issue again. The reason we are defending the people's voice on this particular issue, the reason we are championing this particular issue in this House of Assembly, is because of the fact there is absolutely no categorization, as of yet, for bulk water exports from the federal government. There is absolutely no royalty put in place, no royalty regime, from this Province on bulk water exports. We have absolutely no idea what monitory benefit would come to the Province as a result of bulk water exports. We have absolutely no idea whether the Province will get anything from bulk water exports or whether all of it will be clawed back in royalty clawbacks under the transfer, and royalty clawbacks from the federal government.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have seen every major resource to date being exported as raw resource, being shipped out, going to other places to create employment in other places, going to other places to benefit people in other places, with little benefit to the people in this particular Province. The people of this Province are demanding that we start reaping full benefits, that we start looking for and demanding full benefits on our resources, and that is what the people of the Province want. That is what this party, on this side of House, are demanding, that this resource give full and maximum and fair benefits to the people of the Province. What the people of this Province want is work. What the people of this Province want is to be employed so that they can stay in this Province; so that they can live where they have grown up and enjoyed life; so that they can stay with family. We have seen, in this Province, too much of having our young people, our youngest and brightest people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - having to move away because they cannot find work. It is time that we start to demand that in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would just ask if we could revert back to Notices of Motion for Private Members' Day tomorrow and introduce that?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we revert to Notices of Motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: We have an agreement.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I will on tomorrow move the following resolution that:

WHEREAS the current Premier ascended to the post of Premier by being elected leader of his Party on February 3, 2001 by 638 delegates to his Party's leadership convention; and

WHEREAS it is reasonable and proper to demand that the new Premier overseeing a new administration, unless merely filling a caretaker role in continuation of the mandate of his predecessor, should move swiftly to seek a new mandate directly from the people, whom the Premier presumes to govern; and

WHEREAS on every other occasion in this Province when there has been a change in leadership of the governing party, a general election has followed within 100 days; and

WHEREAS the current Premier, during the first 100 days of his administration, has stated and demonstrated his desire to take his administration and policy directions that deviate significantly from those of his predecessor and the mandate in which they received it; and

WHEREAS on bulk water export issue in particular, the current Premier has stated publicly he now prefers to pursue a policy that defies not only the policy but indeed the legislation that was drafted, passed unanimously and enacted under the administration of his predecessor, with the current Premier's support at the time, and that is now the law of the Province; and

WHEREAS on the Voisey's Bay development issue in particular, the current Premier has articulated a position on the export of nickel ore prior to finished processing that explicitly defies the position that was published and provided to voters in the Liberal Party's 1999 election ‘red book' on the basis of which the voters of the Province gave the current Premier's predecessor his mandate; and

WHEREAS at least two prominent Members of the Cabinet of the current Premier's predecessor have publicly and repeatedly expressed grave concern and opposition with respect to the approach of the current Premier on the Voisey's Bay development issue; and

WHEREAS the current Premier has stated in the House that he is willing to sign a binding contract on the Voisey's Bay development without first bringing it directly to the people of the Province and their elected representatives in the House of Assembly for scrutiny and approval, thereby shackling the people of the Province to a deal on which they have no input; and

WHEREAS the current Premier has failed to articulate a strategic plan for the Province's fishing industry as a principal means of fostering the economic development that rural Newfoundland and Labrador so desperately needs; and

WHEREAS numerous other significant public policy issues with enormous long-term implications for Newfoundland and Labrador and its people - including energy supply, Churchill Falls development, oil and gas development, forest management, infrastructure management, federal-provincial agreements, and others - are now before the provincial government for decisions, yet the people of the Province have been given no clear articulation and no direct opportunity to approve or disapprove of the direction the current Premier intends to take on these vital issues;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to promptly and immediately ask His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve the General Assembly and to issue a writ of a general election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) regulations that would not allow convoluted (inaudible) like that.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is so convoluted about that? You would see it as convoluted. I understand how you would see it as convoluted. The people up there do not see it has convoluted. You're reading your own polls. You know what they are saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Oder 19.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs." (Bill 9)

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today for second reading of bill 9, An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs.

As you know, on April 11 of this year this House adopted a resolution appointing a Select Committee to receive the opinions of interested groups respecting this bill as part of government's overall strategy to reduce the consumption of tobacco. I was pleased to learn that the committee tabled its report yesterday with the unanimous recommendation that Bill 9 proceed for debate and passage in this sitting of the House of Assembly, without amendment.

The committee conducted public hearings over a period of ten days, during which it heard from individuals and groups who have witnessed firsthand the devasting effects of tobacco use, members of the health community, as well as representatives of the tobacco industry.

Some of those groups and individuals included: the Newfoundland and Labrador Alliance for the Control of Tobacco; the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador; the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union; the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association; the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador; Health and Community Services - Western; the Lung Association of Newfoundland and Labrador; Karen Selick, a lawyer from Ontario who gave evidence; Victims of Tobacco; Pediatric Advocacy Group; the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association; the Teen Tobacco Team; Non Smokers' Rights Association; the Canadian Cancer Society; Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada; Imperial Tobacco Canada Inc.; Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council; and the Department of Justice.

Not surprisingly, with the exception of the tobacco industry, the support for this act was overwhelming. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the illnesses caused due to tobacco smoke are well known and there is no doubt that the health care costs incurred as a result of smoking amounts to millions of dollars each year.

Mr. Speaker, in order to recover these health care costs we must put the proper legislative framework in place in order to initiate a statement of claim. That, of course, is the purpose of Bill 9. In this regard it is modeled after legislation which already exists in the Province of British Columbia. That Province, as you may have heard, has already started its legal action against tobacco companies.

There are several important provisions to this act and I would like to draw your attention to some of those provisions. It provides government with a direct action against tobacco companies. In other words, it permits government to bring action in its own right and is not dependent upon the right to sue, on behalf of, or in the name of, a particular individual. This kind of direct action is not unusual. For example, at present government has this right under the Environment Act to recover the cost of pollution cleanup. Also, the act is drafted to give government the right to call medical evidence in what is known as an aggregate action. Here we are faced with a toxic product which has caused harm to thousands of people. It is not possible, given the magnitude of the harm, to call evidence relating to each and every individual who has been affected by tobacco. For this reason, the act protects the privacy of the individual, but requires government to prove - through statistical and medical evidence - the connection between tobacco use and tobacco related diseases, such as lung cancer and emphysema.

Under this act the government has the onus of establishing that the defendant tobacco company committed what is referred to as a tobacco related wrong. In other words, that they have reached a legal duty owed to the residents of this Province. The Province must also establish that exposure to tobacco causes disease and that the manufacturer sold its product in this Province. If the Province is successful in establishing its case, there are a number of presumptions which are ‘rebuttable' by the tobacco company. All things being equal, there is a presumption that manufacturers should share in the health care costs based on their proportion of the tobacco market. Once causation has been established, the tobacco companies who have committed wrongs must present evidence that their activities and their products do not lead to increased smoking and do not cause harm.

It is important to note that the act has a limitation period of two years. Once the Province proclaims this legislation, a statement of claim must be initiated within that two-year period.

Mr. Speaker, our Treasury incurs millions of dollars of cost each year as a result of illnesses related to tobacco smoke. This legislation is an important part of government's initiative to recover these costs and to reduce the overall consumption of tobacco in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, too, to have some comments on Bill 9. I sat as a member of the Select Committee on that and have some observations and comments regarding Bill 9. I want to say, at the outset, that we gave considerable consideration to information that was submitted. I do believe there were nineteen oral presentations and a host of written presentations, too, and on each of these we listened carefully to those that proposed to proceed with the bill. I think there were fifteen of those oral ones that were in support of proceeding and, I think, there were four that were opposed to proceeding with this particular bill; and there were written and oral ones that were on both sides. The ratio of those against in written was more in line with the fors on the written ones, but the oral presentations were fairly straightforward. We have heard, as the minister indicated, from numerous medical groups; those representing the professional associations - the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, the Medical Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Lung Association. We have heard from Health and Community Services in the western region of the Province and a whole host of others dealing with children: pediatrics, for example, advocacy group.

Overall when we looked at this, and my colleague, the Member for St. John's East also sat on the committee, we weighed carefully the arguments put forth for and the arguments put forth against. We felt, in total, we could support the legislation proceeding on Bill 9. I would like to make some points on both sides of things, I think, that are worth noting overall.

When you look at the bill overall, what it is asking us to do, it is asking us to put legislation that will get the wheels in motion to take legal action against tobacco companies on a products liability case. I do not have any doubt that tobacco smoke causes damage to our system, to our lungs. It causes damage overall, to the whole body functioning. I am anti-tobacco, personally. I feel that we cannot get too strict, really, in regulations that are going to stamp out the use of tobacco.

We heard from a teen tobacco team, for example. One of the points I made there and I got an answer - I guess the first answer I heard from any group that really answered - and said: Why don't we do it? I said it here in the House before also. Now, I am still not convinced that we should not do it, but I said it here in the House before and I asked ministers here when they brought in the legislation. It is illegal to buy alcohol under nineteen. It is illegal to possess it under nineteen. It is illegal to buy cigarettes under nineteen but it is not illegal to smoke cigarettes. I ask the question: Why don't we make it illegal? Do you support making it illegal under nineteen? Because we acknowledge that tobacco is a legal product.

One answered - actually, I think it was a constituent of mine on the committee - and said: Well, what is that going to do? If you make it illegal, they might want to try it more, as teens and young people. It might be more tempting to them because it is illegal. Therefore, they might probably have access. They did agree, though, that limiting access - and the point I look at - limiting access is important. If you limit access to alcohol, I think you will get reduced consumption in young people.

How do we limit access? We legislate strict regulations in the access of it, and we bring down the heavy hand of the law to people who provide it to people under age. That is one way to limit access. You bring down a heavy-handed law. There are certain things that we could do, and I will get to that just a little bit later, as a Province: what responsibilities we have as legislators here; what responsibilities government have; and what responsibilities employers have in this issue.

Down to the last presenter, they were in favor. There was not anything that they presented, really, that left any doubt in my mind as to the harmful effects of smoking. I was convinced of that from day one. What I need to be convinced of in totality is, should we proceed? Because there were counter-arguments there. Most of the presentations, I might add, in favor, were based on the harmful effects of smoking. They really did not hone in on the legislation as such. Some did; some focused on the legislation. One gentleman there, representing the Tobacco Manufacturers Council, said: I am anti-tobacco - the guy presenting on behalf of them - I am not anti-tobacco company. You can be against smoking without being against, I guess, the people who supply it, if it is a legal product.

Now when you weigh the arguments from all the people - non-smokers rights groups, the Cancer Society - there is no question. I do not have a problem with the aggregate in showing that, because some of the people advocating on the opposite side indicated: Look, here you are defying the normal course of common law by saying that you can now convict without proving causation on a specific case. I can support the aggregate of this bill. I can agree on that point, that we know the effects caused by smoking. We know the cost caused by it. We can get within general parameters the cost based upon the smoke effects.

It is safe to draw the conclusion that smoking does cause harm. That is an issue. I think, by going after the aggregate, it would be very difficult to get every medical record. Every individual one would have to go into court, in front of a judge, and put forth their case. It is difficult to have to put it to that test. So we did agree, and my colleague from St. John's East can certainly speak on this stage, or the Committee stage of the bill, to put forth his viewpoints on it. That was one of the particular things. It was unequivocally agreed, I think, that smoking is detrimental to health.

Who should be responsible for the health care costs inflicted? There was some information given by those on the side of proceeding that gave some figures that might have varied in what they were saying. Whether it varied or not, I guess, it did not detract from the overall view that smoking causes harm in their system.

One of the first presenters said: We incur costs, direct and indirect, from smoking of tobacco, of $370 million a year. I did question that figure. How do you arrive at $370 million a year? When our health care budget is only - well, it has been less than $1 billion up to a couple of years ago. Now is up $1.4 billion because we shifted some of the areas that were under social services in there. Child protection, youth corrections, family and rehabilitative services are all under health now. They were all in other departments. That is one of the reason it has gone up so fast, the health care budget, because we shifted other areas into a bigger department, the same as when we took Rural Development and Industry, Trade and we put all that together. You are going to have a bigger budget, obviously, when you roll a greater part of the departments together. That is one of the reasons.

I said: How do you arrive at that figure? When you eliminate those other costs, that would not be very high. That would be probably 40 per cent of the whole health care budget, related to smoking. The point, they indicated - and that is where I guess it comes in legislation what we look for when you are looking at a suit - how much should you look for in it? Do we look at lost time in the workplace? Do you look at the cost to the system by people who are sick because of smoking, and other people having to come in and go to work and lost productivity in the workplace, affecting government employees and other employers all over. Are they indirect health care costs? Should companies be responsible for indirect health care costs? Well, that is the question, I guess, when they put their total claim forth - and this is a claim for compensatory, not punitive, in this case - what they look for.

I did ask the question: How do you break it down? I was told by one group that $60 million of that $370 is direct health care costs. I asked another group, who said - and they put it in their presentation - $70.7 million; $71 million. Another group said: It is $56 million. So we went from $56 million to $71 million by three different presenters here in this group.

I feel, if there are direct costs there, we have to narrow down exactly what you are looking for. You have to know what the damages are. It might be hard to justify that the person who works in a fish plant out somewhere in Northeastern Newfoundland, who missed time due to smoking, that the lost employment, compensation or the cost to an employer or a government employee are regular compensatory costs. It might be hard to show that. The cost incurred by the health care system, that rings up on the cash register of the bills of the Province to look after that individual who is sick, that is a legitimate cost.

Anyway, I found they were coming from a similar source. The $56 million was quoted as being taken from national figures and they did it on a pro rata basis and it came down to this Province being somewhere in the $56 million, I was told. That is where they arrived. One of the questions I asked was: How could you arrive at $71 million and $56 million from the same report, the same study? They indicated: Well, it depends on what you apply.

I know there are going to be certain aspects to apply, and that is into the nitty-gritty, the details of where we are going. I am not going to waste much time talking on that, because we are not here to present a case; we are here to debate aspects of the legislation. They are some points that are proceeding. I think we do it on a basis of certainly a recovery of our costs, and I do not have a problem with that.

We have to look at the total cost in the system. There are arguments that were put forth, too, saying - Look, companies were out saying: Why don't you increase taxes? Various arguments. I took note of a few of the things, and some things have merit and some may not have merit at all. Should we increase taxes?

I went back on my own, through the last several years' budgets and I just went through what we have collected since 1988-1989, the 1999 year ending. Since 1989, including the budget for this year, we have collected $851,875,000 in tobacco tax. We are being told that the direct costs to the system are anywhere from $56 million a year up to $70 million. We take in, for instance, this year, a projected $66.8 million. The costs are in that range: $65 million last year, $65 million the year before, $64 million, $67 million in 1997-1998. I am going from revised figures, now, from following years, not budgeted figures. I am taking revised figures when the final figures come in. I went back to the budgets there and the figures that are provided.

Actually, we are taking in more in taxes than the direct health care costs each year. Are these factors in compensatory costs? They are the types of things, I guess, we will get into in the litigation aspect of it, but they are legitimate things. One of the arguments the companies put forth is: Look, you collect an armful in taxes, why don't you tax us?

I have asked the question. I have probably asked that question several times in the Committee. I said: Look, is there an easier way to do this? Is there an easier way to get our money without going through court? What are we going to accomplish in court? They are some of the questions I need to have answered. For example, B.C., to date, has spent almost $8 million in legal fees, just today, and we are only at the stage where the first bill they put forward was rejected by the courts as being extraterritorial. They went back again, they revamped it, came back with amendments on the bill, and now that is being challenged again.

The tobacco company said: We are going to go right to the limit with it. Obviously, they are not going to say: We are going to concede. Anybody going there is going to put forth their point that we are going to proceed. They have indicated they are going to proceed. We cannot compare it to Florida, we cannot compare it to the U.S.; because in the U.S., I think, if you were going to appeal it, you would have to post a bond in the amount of the claim. That would have bankrupted all the companies and they could not proceed. In this case it does not apply in Canada, so we said we are going to go to the limit.

Some other arguments that have been put forth said - I have asked this one, too: Why do we go to court to get our costs? Why don't we tax it to the limit? Why don't we tax it? Why don't we get back our money that way? Because, what happens if the companies lose? If the companies lose, we get a settlement, what happens to tobacco? The companies are going to recover their costs, basically, as a cost of doing business, as a cost of goods. Anybody in business today, when you sell a product, you sell it at a certain revenue, you have sales, you have your cost of sales, and your expenditures. You are going to add it on to your costs, of course. That is a cost: the litigation, the fees in fighting this, and all the costs, our costs. It is going to drive up the price of a cigarette, and the tax of this government goes on top of that. Therefore, aren't they going to get it back anyway? Who is going to pay? Who is going to pay in the final analysis? The consumer of tobacco is going to pay for it. The consumer is going to pay. Whether you drive up the cost of a cigarette by the tobacco companies recovering their costs, it is still going to go out and we are going to pay it. If we put tax on it, if we tax it, if we put a pack of cigarettes at $10, instead of whatever it is now, the $6 range, I think - I am a non-smoker so I don't know. I haven't bought one in, I would say, forty years. I bought one once, when I was thirteen years of age. We went to a garden party. We had a couple of dollars. It was thirty-seven cents at the time. We bought a pack for thirty-seven cents. I took a couple of draws out of one and we gave the rest away to some people.

An interesting thing on smoking is that they say it is very addictive. I never got the chance to personally find out how addictive it was, and I do not regret having missed that opportunity.

There are points on taxation. Who pays down the road? What happens if this is settled? One thing we have to be prepared for, though - we have to be realistic. In spite of all this, I said, we support it. In totality we support it, when you factor all of this.

There are some of the things that we had to look at in the decision making, looking at the bill. You can bring people in through a committee and march them all day, every day, for weeks. I do not need to be convinced that it is harmful. A lot of presentations did focus on that. Who pays then? Who should pay?

Number one, the people who want to smoke it should pay, a consumer; that is a consumer tax. Whether the cost of producing cigarettes is greater because of the settlement, or whether the cost of a cigarette is greater because of the tax, who cares? Does the public? Well, if the government is getting it through a lawsuit or through taxation, revenue is still revenue; $70 million is $70 million; $120 million is $120 million. Do you think the consumer cares? Does the consumer care. if they pay $10 a pack, whether 20 per cent of that is tax or whether 40 per cent of that is tax? Do you think they care? No, I think the only thing the consumer worries about is how much they have to pay for a pack of cigarettes. That is what they care about. That is too much, they say.

Basically, the consumer pays. Whatever way you cut it, the consumer pays, not the taxpayer. One of the points made was: the taxpayer pays. No, the taxpayers do not pay, the consumer taxpayer pays. The consumer of cigarettes is the taxpayer who pays.

That issue did not hold a big amount of weight. That is one particular one, I think, that needed to do some convincing. I was not convinced on that issue, to be honest with you, because when we have taken almost $1 billion in taxes since the late 1980s, it is significant. Tobacco companies are out telling us that the government gets nine times the tax that they get profit on a cigarette. They get nine times. They are the big ones that are reaping it in. Should they be responsible?

First of all, selling a product that is harmful - and whether they did it is something, I guess, that will go through the legal process - did they sell it knowingly and give you information that they knew, and withheld information that was harmful and did not notify you? Did their scientists and their people tell that? Well, that is an issue that would add merit to that and would give a reason to take particular action when you know something is harmful. That is something, I guess, that would be determined in the legal process.

We were not in a position; the committee was not in the position to know that and have to answer to that. That is something that we felt should not delay the process to proceed because we cannot have all of our questions answered. They are ones that are going to have to be put forward by companies and by our Province to be able to refute that, or the companies have to refute what we put forth on that particular issue. That is another interesting particular aspect of it.

Now, there was another particular point too. Before I get to a couple of points, I just want to mention: Who is liable? One of the representatives, when they came in with their presentation, said they heard on the radio this morning that one successfully sued in Australia for damage inflicted by the employer. They worked in a club, in a bar.

If you work in a bar - I had to come to grips with this one, and I was not convinced that it is only the tobacco companies, to be honest with you- if an employer has people employed in a workplace that is not safe and there is cigarette smoke, is the employer responsible for a certain amount of that liability? This case in Australia said yes. Is the government that should legislate safe workplaces responsible? That is another particular point that has merit. Should the government legislate a safe workplace? I have said it before, that government has a certain responsibility to ensure that people who do not want to come in contact with smoke - I do not want to come in contact with smoke, and many others out there do not want to - should the employer protect the workplace of people who do not want to come in contact?

I asked one of the presenters from Gander, who worked as a radio operator, who was in an enclosed space for over thirty years where several smoked. It was too small and confined, and you had to keep contact out there - a Mr. Lush, who made a presentation from Gander - and I asked him: Who is responsible, tobacco companies or the employer who forced you to work in that confined space? He said, both are responsible. Tobacco companies are responsible - they gave a product that is harmful out there - and his employer, the federal government, did not legislate and did not change the act. He had to retire early, at a reduced pension; and get out early and sacrifice income over a long term because of that.

I feel that we have a responsibility when we know, as a government, that something is harmful, to take the strictest measures possible to ensure the safety of people who are entrusted under us. I think that employers should also. Employers who run night clubs, bars or lounges, or run restaurants, wherever they may be, they, themselves, are not going to take the initiative. I owned a bar one time, for several years. I operated one, way back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did, I say to the member. I did so, but I am not going to tell you how much.

I found that the fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I got out of the business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but I think it influenced by health, though. To be honest with you, it influenced my health. Thank God, I did not have any effects, but the second-hand smoke.... In workplaces today, I can tell you, the second-hand smoke is unbelievable in bars and lounges. It was only in the lounge that I owned at the time - that was a long while back, over twenty years ago it started - and it had an effect. You look at 12:00 midnight and 1:00 a.m., and going on early in the morning in a smoke-filled area, and it is about 5:00 a.m. before you go to sleep, basically. I had to get away from it altogether because it was a health factor.

There was no legislation. What happened if you said: No smoking? Well, there is a lounge down the road or a lounge somewhere else. One owner down on George Street cannot say I am not going to allow smoking because they will go somewhere else. Competition. It is not going to be initiated by the industry; it cannot be initiated by the industry. But, what do you think if nobody was allowed to smoke, if they were on a level playing field competitively? I think it can work.

There are areas where we can take direct action. For instance, as a government, should we do some of these things? Should we make smoking illegal under nineteen? Alcohol is illegal under nineteen. You cannot buy it; you cannot posses it. Cigarettes, you cannot buy but you can possess. Is there a contradiction here? We do not want to make criminals out of young people, but do we want to make access to it so strict that their health would be protected in the long term? If we are telling them they are helpless and not old enough to make their decision, shouldn't we make a decision for them and limit access? That is a thing that should be considered and should be weighed here, and debated.

Should we eliminate it in restaurants? When the bill came in to eliminate it in restaurants last December, they said it would be effective January 1, 2002. I said: Why wait for a year? Why expose people in restaurants to smoke for one more year? Give adequate time - three months notice. There is a notice out there that effective in three months time - time to make adjustments to the adequate notice. That is another area that we should have moved more aggressively on - all public places, basically. Should people in all public places have to suffer from second-hand smoke? My feeling is no, we should not have to do it. If the employer does not do it we have the responsibility to do it, and we should do something about it.

Another area, I think, that can limit access is fines. You fine people. Give heavy fines for people who supply cigarettes to people under age. If they cannot buy it themselves, there is only one other way that they can get it. They can get it from somebody else if they cannot buy it. If you sell it to somebody under age, well that is an offence, and that is covered. But if someone else who is not a seller, who does not have a licence, who is not an establishment, an overage person goes in and buys it, and then sells it. Around schools today they are selling single cigarettes, charging here and there. We have cigarette pushers around selling cigarettes to young people in the school systems today. Those types of things.

Should the money that we get under a suit, if we are successful, go to health care or should it go to put roads and bridges all over the Province? Now, I really do not think we should go so far as to see an amendment to tie it to health care because past costs have gone in there and we build things. You cannot really - it is kind of difficult to say that but in the United States it did not; only a very small percentage. Single digits I was told. In a study done by one of the magazines, USA Today or somebody, they said that only single digits of that money went to health care and the rest of it went into infrastructure of a capital works nature around the United States. So, those types of things, if we are going to direct it to them.

I am a believer that if government is going to allow something that it knows is a harmful substance to have in access, there has to be a certain amount of compromise. Now, tobacco companies that manufacture a product are going to try to sell their product. They are going to try to promote their product. They are going to try to get a good bottom line and they do get a good bottom line, but we have to ensure the safety of people out there.

There are numerous things. We had a presentation (inaudible) department and granted, they indicated that a light cigarette is a safe cigarette, and the thing was promoted. Is there any such thing as a safe cigarette? I mean, is there anything such as one? I agree, if a company promoted a product as being safe, and it was not safe and they knew it was not safe, there is a responsibility on that company - and our committee is not the jury on that one - but the courts, I guess, will be on that one, and the onus.

One of the particular areas that it mentioned - it came up with submissions from three different groups. I think there is no harm in mentioning it. It came from the St. John's Board of Trade, on them representing businesses; the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Commerce, they represent businesses, and one came from an individual business. I will just touch on a few points they mentioned that, I guess, will be determined in due course. They said one particular point worries them about the legislation: it suspends the rules of normal evidence and conveniently relieves the government of its obligation to prove its case. In other words: Can you prove that you are not responsible for those costs? Basically, that is what it does. Yes, there is a reverse onus there and that is a point of law that has certain merit. It was not enough to convince me to vote against it but there is a degree of merit. I am not an expert on law to make a determination. There will be lots of experts on law (inaudible) for points, I guess, over the next year, number of years or however long this may take, but it is a point of contention, a point of concern.

Another point that was mentioned. It said it gives the government the right to decide ex post facto, that the companies broke a law that did not exist when the offence was committed, creating a liability that reached backwards as well as into the future. That is certainly a debatable point and, I guess, there are arguments put forward on the other side of that too, made sense on that particular point.

The third one, most disturbingly submission said: this legislation allows government to draft the rules of a case for which it is the plaintiff. Government is the plaintiff and they are going to draft the rules. I guess we are the legislators, we bring down the laws in the Province and if we are going to take action to it, that is one that you can live with; but, overall, the particular point they said: If tobacco companies can go out and have reverse onus - in other words, are we going to take action? An interesting point which was made, they said this bill does not apply to all companies. This bill is for tobacco companies. Should the bill have applied to all companies, any company that sells the product?

Once again, if anybody sells alcohol and there are health care costs associated with alcohol, whether it is psoriasis of the liver, for example, if it contributes to it. If 4 per cent of all the cases of psoriasis of the liver come from alcohol consumption should those who sell alcohol to the Newfoundland Liquor Commission have to bear those costs there? Are we going to go after any company that sells a product that can be harmful? High cholesterol foods, any particular product that is harmful, is that the case? Or should the individual have the choice to make a decision whether they want to smoke, to be in the position to smoke, to eat a product that is harmful, to consume alcohol, is there an individual choice or a certain freedom of an individual to do that?

There are a whole series of particular arguments to put forward. Dispensing with causation was one that was a concern initially, and we looked at it. In other words, proving by statistics. Statistical information will decide the amounts. Statistical information is probably a reasonable way to determine costs in this case. It is reasonable. I do not think it is being disputed out there today. Medical evidence will show that there is a very strong link, and there are causes of various medical problems that come from tobacco smoke.

If that conclusion can be drawn that 80 per cent of the cost to the system are caused by smoking, that smoking causes 80 per cent of the cost, especially lung, respiratory diseases, coronary, obstructive pulmonary disease and these, are directly linked - asthma, emphysema - a lot of these costs are related to smoking. You can draw that inference then, that deduction, on a percentage statistical basis. That, to me, is acceptable in the legislation. That is something that is reasonable to expect in the legislation.

There was a particular point made: Why bring in a bill to go after companies? Why don't we amend the medical care insurance act? The legislation is there now, they said. From my understanding, the medical care insurance act does not allow for - maybe the minister could let me know if I am correct - aggregate. There is no reference to aggregate there. I think it allows the recovery of costs for other third parties and so on, but there is no aggregate referenced in the medical care insurance act to that effect, that I am aware of. So, brining in this bill on an aggregate basis here, I think, was necessary in order to be able to expedite this. I guess you probably could make certain amendments to it, but I think the act then would have to apply, not just to this particular case, it would have to be more universal in dealing with it.

I guess one point they have indicated: Well, we are taught in our society, you are innocent until proven guilty. Under the reverse, you are guilty now; prove your innocence. That was one that, I guess, where there was a point of law to say: Look, shouldn't we have to prove otherwise?

Tobacco smoke is probably a lot different than the consumption of alcohol, or maybe the consumption of other products. Should the onus be on those companies to prove that? Maybe it should. I am sure that is a point that they would have to make when the litigation arises on that particular issue.

A couple of points raised, the Tobacco Manufacturers Council made those points. There are some crooks of the thing, too. They said, tobacco companies acknowledge the real risk associated. They made that statement: they acknowledge the real risk. They also said: It does not market to children and it does not want children to smoke.

If that is true, and their advertising or anything is related to it - some people seem to think otherwise - that is where the market is. Information shows that is where the market it. There are a lot of people who gave up smoking and, to replace those people who gave it up, we need to bring new people into our market to maintain our same level of sales. Even though they may not say it, it is a targeted group. There was no admission that, certainly, that is the case. That is certainly an issue, too, in what they said, in what they did, and what particular information they may have in their research, internally, that would show that. I think the reference was made in a document that was released that shows that the targeted group fell within a part of the area that was illegal and part of the group was in an area that was legal.

I think it was a submission, but I followed some articles on this when I was in the U.S. I did some reading back at the time that it was happening, and other articles that have popped up along the way, when I was health critic, which I am not now; but when I was, I kept a lot of clippings and followed things. One of the articles here, I think it is a local article, back last year, said: What is the point of suing tobacco companies? It was saying: What are the costs going to be? Are the costs now - the point I had to look at is, if we are getting $70 million a year, and it is costing us $56 million in direct costs, what about we take in $120 million a year and it is still costing us about $60 million in costs? What about we tax it up to about $120 million a year? We are taking in $60 million more than the direct costs. Over the next ten years, we will take in $600 million. On that basis, we would probably end up looking for that amount. That is if we win. What about we lose? All the total costs in fighting this - B.C. is at $7.7 million up to a few months ago and the second one is being contested now. Then we have to go to a lengthy procedure in the courts and it would be, I would assume, in the tens of million of dollars in the final time that this is put to rest. When would that be? Next year, five years' time, ten years' time? It will be certainly a long period of time.

They were some of the things I gave some consideration to, in looking at it. I know the information from all medical groups is fairly strong. I think the public opinion out there is very strong, in saying: Smoking is harmful. You should not smoke. Whatever we can do to stop smoking, get it done. If suing tobacco companies is one of the steps in making them pay for it, then so be it. That is just one of the many avenues.

There are a lot of other proactive groups and presentations that are going to touch on more than suing tobacco companies. There is a teen tobacco team, a tobacco strategy, looking at - I think we need aggressive programs right down into the school system. It is no good in going to them in junior high; you have to get down deeper into the system. There are so many avenues of promotion and prevention that should be the focus in health care spending today, to eliminate this problem and the effects of smoking. We have to nip it in the bud. We have to be able to get to it earlier in the system, and we have to be aggressive in dealing with it. Then the choice: If someone is of legal age, I would say it is their choice. If they want to smoke, let them smoke, if they are of legal age and they are not going to harm somebody else. Let them smoke, that is their choice, but don't harm me or somebody else who doesn't want to be harmed by it.

If the product is legal, why are we suing somebody for selling a product that we said is legal? That has some merit, that argument. Why do we sue somebody for selling a product that we collect $70 million a year on and we say is legal? Now, if they knew something, if their research showed that it was harmful and they didn't tell the public - where was government's research? Is there an obligation on government to research? Is there an obligation on government, the federal Ministry of Health, the provincial Ministry of Health, to research products that are put on the market today that have to pass federal inspection, federal laws and regulations? There has been tremendous lobbying, I understand, at the federal level in many cases, on bills that may have allowed the federal government to be lenient in doing their job.

So, there are many, many particular arguments and scenarios put there. The report shows, anybody who looked at the report - there were, I know, nineteen oral presentations. There was a host of written presentations, some very interesting ones. I think the personal stories that people told, on their families and their health, individuals and their families, were heart-wrenching, and, I think, just showed that there is not a family around that has not been affected by the effects of tobacco smoke; whether it was cancer, whether it was emphysema, whether it was some coronary or obstructive pulmonary disease. There is a whole variety of things. Smoke in your system affects your overall functioning. There are numerous factors. There is a whole host of things that have an effect.

Some of these people came here, made their presentations and told their personal life stories. They were moving experiences from people, and they have a lot of merit. One of the things that probably came through more so than anything else in those hearing was not the legal aspect of the bill, it was not just the harm of smoking. I guess one thing that really stuck in my mind, after listening to people, was how addictive smoking can be, the addictiveness of nicotine and so on. When it gets you and grabs you, it is difficult to break. That seemed to be the thing: Nicotine is addictive. If it is so addictive, so harmful, should we question the legality of it, if it is that bad?

Far more than numerous others, it is addictive. It is similar to - I think the comparison used was heroine and cocaine. It was said, it is as addictive as those two particular drugs. If it is that addictive, should we revisit where we are with tobacco and its use? I think that is another issue of concern.

Overall, I might say, we don't think that many of the unanswered questions - does it infringe on their constitution, on the Charter? Does it infringe on someone's rights? They were not questions really that should necessarily be answered by a select committee. There are ones that I think should be involved, I guess, when arriving at the final decision, but I think in the appropriate process, as it goes through litigation, those things will come to light and decisions will be made on many of those factors that are not at our disposal to be able to arrive at.

I would say, in concluding, that we did very seriously, in committee, consider all the evidence, all the presentations that were given, very valid arguments on both sides, I might add, very significant ones. How significant they are as legal ones, as ones that will require, we will say, a decision as to the merits they would have in court, is one where the legitimate aspect of that, I guess, would be determined in due course.

We feel that we should move forward with this bill. We are certainly not going to, in any way, obstruct or delay it. In fact, I will be the only speaker today on second reading of this bill from our side. We are eager to move it through, but we also feeling a responsibility that there are issues and concerns that have arisen there. I think they have to be aired and there will be an appropriate place where they will get the final hearing on that, as the legislation proceeds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate, at second reading for Bill 9, An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs.

I was a member of the select committee, so I had an opportunity to hear all of the presentations made before that committee. It was an important committee, Mr. Speaker, because we had a chance to hear from a variety of speakers, not all about the bill but all related to the bill because this bill is a part of a strategy that is larger than the bill itself. It is a strategy that seeks to reduce the use of tobacco in our Province and seeks to ensure that all members of our society are aware of the nature and harmful effects of tobacco smoking and other tobacco products; and also, and perhaps most important, to find ways of preventing young people from taking up smoking.

The reason that we want to do that is simply because of the seriously addictive nature of tobacco. The committee hearings were most instructive, Mr. Speaker. We heard and learned much. We heard from a lot of witnesses and we learned an awful lot about the consequences of the use of tobacco. We learned, for example, that most adults who smoke actually became addicted to tobacco before the age of nineteen. Ninety per cent of adults who smoke where addicted to tobacco prior to turning twenty. In fact, some 60 per cent of adult smokers were addicted to tobacco prior to age sixteen. Prior to age sixteen, 60 per cent of adult smokers were already addicted to tobacco.

We had representatives of the pediatric physicians community testify before the committee, Dr. Aziz and Dr. Cooper, who told us that tobacco initiation and addiction is a preventable pediatric disease, that it was an avoidable epidemic. Dr. Austin Cooper and Dr. Khalid Aziz, who are part of the Pediatric Advocacy Group of the Janeway Children's Health Rehabilitation Centre and of Memorial University of Newfoundland, testified before the committee with a number of key messages. They told us that children and youth were the direct victims of the tobacco industry; that they are the direct and indirect victims of the resulting addiction to tobacco; that they were victims of advertising and promotion by the tobacco industry; and that children and youth were inadequately protected from tobacco addiction and exposure because of the actions and inactions of the tobacco industry. They also believed strongly that the industry should be held accountable for the harm that it has inflicted upon our population and said that most disturbingly, this harm has been perpetrated to the involvement of our children and youth.

These were some of the things that these two pediatric doctors told the committee about this being a preventable pediatric disease. Not a lifestyle choice of children, not something that people choose to do, but a disease, an addiction of children, perpetrated by the tobacco industry over the years.

I do not believe that there is much doubt, when all of the evidence is in, that the targeting of advertising towards children will be shown. But that is a matter that, in the fullness of time, the government, if it chooses to take a lawsuit - and I hope it does - under this legislation, will have to prove. They will have to prove that the tobacco companies knew what they were doing when they were addicting young people to tobacco smoke. They will have to show that they were aware of the nature of the substance that they were selling and its consequences for people, particularly for children.

These factors and these facts will be part of a lawsuit that is being facilitated by this legislation. Facilitated in the following way, facilitated by virtue of the type of action that is being contemplated here. If there is any doubt that the companies knew what was going on for some time, I will quote to you a statement from a British American Tobacco Company document of 1984 which describes nicotine's addictive qualities in some scientific detail. The British American Tobacco Company is the parent company of Imperial Tobacco, the CEO of which testified before our committee. In a 1984 document the company says: "Taken together, the evidence suggests that self-administration of nicotine may be the primary motivation for smoking." The primary motivation for smoking, being the addictive nature of the nicotine content of the document.

Brown and Williamson, another international tobacco company, said in a 1978 document: "Very few customers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e, its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison." I will say it again because it is their own words in the tobacco industry. I quote: "Very few customers are aware of the effects of nicotine, i.e, its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison."

These are some of the facts that have come out already in actions taken in the United States against tobacco companies. They have come out because during these actions, as a part of these actions, the companies were required - through, what I call disclosure rules - to produce documents in their possession that relate to the actions before the court. Those are documents that are not available with respect to the research done in this country by the tobacco companies. In fact, Madam Speaker, during the hearings I made a specific request to Mr. Robert Bexon - the Chief Executive Officer of Imperial Tobacco who testified to this Select Committee - whether or not he would make available, or commit his company to make available, research that perhaps could help us understand how addictive nicotine was and particularly as it affects young people, and particularly as it affects the ability and attempt by young people to actually quit smoking.

We have been told, by one of the Teen Tobacco Team, about the large number of young people who, knowing that they were addicted to tobacco smoke, tried to quit or were trying to quit by age seventeen and were having incredible difficulty doing that. Apparently many, if not most, of young teenagers who smoke cigarettes when they are thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, by the time they are sixteen they are trying to quit. They are trying to quit but that they are already addicted.

Mr. Bexon had expressed concern based in response to a question from one of the members of the committee about the number of young people using various substances, whether it be marijuana, cigarettes or other drugs. This is something that is increasing in our society and he had a concern about it. So, I asked him: Mr. Bexon, would you agree today, in the interest of all of us understanding how this works, the nature of why young people smoke and what we can do to help them quit, would you be willing to make available all the research that your company has done, that you have in your possession, and share that with us, with the medical profession and other researchers so that we can help solve that problem and stop young people from getting addicted or help them to get off cigarettes if they are already addicted? He gave a one word answer, Madam Speaker, and that word was no. No, he said. He did not offer any explanation. He did not say why. He said no to the question of whether or not his company would make available the research that it had in its possession about the effects of nicotine and the properties of its addictive nature and how young people might be able to get off their addiction.

There is a way that we can get that information, Madam Speaker, and that way would be through a legal action; through a legal action under this act, that company would be required, as with all the tobacco companies who are defendants in this action, be required to produce documents as part of the discovery process. So, hopefully, we will get that information, that it may be useful as part of the lawsuit. It may also be useful as part of an effort that many people are undertaking, including our eminent pediatricians, Dr. Cooper and Dr. Aziz, who are interested in trying to help find ways of dealing with what they call a preventable pediatric disease and avoidable epidemic among young children. If we start looking at smoking tobacco as a disease and the addiction associated with it, I think we may be on the road to recognizing it as something that we have to redouble our efforts to prevent.

Now let me talk about the bill in its legal aspects because we heard from a number of people, some trade or associations. We heard from the St. John's Board of Trade, as well. We heard from the Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Commerce. We heard from a couple of companies, and we heard from an Ontario lawyer, all of whom said about the same sort of thing which was criticism of the bill from a legal perspective.

The first thing that needs to be said about the bill is - the bill recognizes that an action of this nature is, what was called, an aggregate action, an aggregate cause of action. Most of the criticisms of a legal nature that were attached to the bill, or that the bill attracted, were not related to that at all. They were related to an individual action. They were criticizing it because the rules of evidence would be different. The rules of evidence would be different, the analysis would be different, the traditional rules - they were criticizing them on the basis of that.

I want to quote you, for the record, what the British Columbia Supreme Court said in a challenge to rules very similar to ours, and to very similar legislation. What the judge said was that we were dealing here with a an aggregate action. He said as follows: "The aggregate action is intended to provide for relief where the traditional, individually oriented tort action does not realistically meet the need of a large-scale lost-recovery action, where very substantial numbers of people have been exposed to toxic substances said to have resulted in adverse health effects through non-observable means of causation." Now, what that means in essence is that if you are going to have an attempt to sue for the total cause, the total damages resulting to your population from tobacco use and the use of a toxic substance, you need to have a different form of action. You do not have to provide each individual to come forward and say: I had cancer, or I had emphysema, or I had chronic obstructive lung disease and it resulted from smoking, and bring up the next person and ask them all the questions that need to be asked. It is a global action for the total cost of health care provided by the government to the population.

What the judge recognized is that the Legislature had accepted the fact that if you are going to be able to look at the conduct of tobacco companies, and the related effect of tobacco smoking on health, to approach this on an individual basis is entirely uneconomic, an unreasonable strain on the judicial resources but may be fairly dealt with on an aggregate basis, utilizing evidence based on statistical, epidemiological, and sociological studies. What the judge decided - and this was a criticism that the lawyer from Ontario made - was that you cannot prove things based on statistics, that that is unfair somehow. Well this is what the judge said in British Columbia when the legislation was challenged on that very ground. He said that the use of statistical and epidemiological evidence is an essential aspect of an aggregate action. The question and issue becomes causation in the group rather than of any individual group member. What the judge said was that this approach appears sound, that there is a logical connection between the statistical evidence and causation, and that this was merely a presumption that could be rebutted by the companies if they so choose.

The essential presumption that appears in the legislation is a presumption that is based on facts being established by the plaintiff, in this case the government, and if they can establish that there is a statistical relationship between the tobacco use and the diseases that are associated with tobacco smoke then that establishes a presumption that there is causation that can be rebutted by the companies if they so choose. That is clearly and logically related to the type of action we are talking about, being an aggregate action.

The government will still have to prove that the companies did something wrong. There is no presumption of guilt here at all. The government still has to prove that there was an actionable wrong, a so-called tobacco related wrong but it is an actionable wrong related to the sale or the distribution or the promotion of tobacco products. In that sense, this is no different than any other products liability case. In order to be held responsible, there has to be a breach of some duty owed to the residents of this Province. If the government in an action is able to prove that they did not carry out their duties, knowing the health risks, knowing that nicotine was addictive, and they did not inform the public of these facts, they may be held to be have committed an actionable wrong. That proof still has to be there, Mr. Speaker, and the government is obliged to carry out that under this legislation.

There is one feature of it that is different. It does give the government a direct cause of action for money that it spent on treating people for tobacco related illnesses. That is a new feature of this legislation. It is not unique to this legislation, however. There are other pieces of legislation that have it. Whether it is with respect to environmental cleanups, whether it is with respect to fighting forest fires, government has a right to sue to recover costs expended by it in relation to these matters. This is applying it to the tobacco industry in relation to health care costs.

As a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything offensive about this legislation at all. I do not see anything offensive about it at all. It is designed to respond to a type of tort that needs special rules in order to meet the basic provisions of justice in our courts. Our Legislature acts to change the law, to modify the law, in order to achieve justice.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: If I may give one example, Mr. Speaker, where the Legislatures, not only this Legislature but perhaps certainly every Legislature in Canada and probably in other jurisdictions in the U.K. and the United States, have changed the law of contributory negligence. There was a time when, if you were in a car accident, or an accident of any nature where negligence was alleged by a person, that if you or the individual suing was guilty of some negligence - in other words, that the accident or the injury was not entirely the fault of another person, if you were somehow partially responsible - then you could not recover any damages at all. This was the case in industrial accidents in the United Kingdom. If you wanted to sue your employer for an unsafe work condition, and you lost an arm or you lost a leg or you lost six months work because of an injury in your factory, and you wanted to sue your employer to try and recover your wages, if you were partially responsible by your own carelessness, partially responsible for an accident, you could recover nothing because the law of contributory negligence as determined by the judges was that 100 per cent of your damages were lost even though you may have only been 10 per cent or 20 per cent responsible for your damages.

In another context, let's say seatbelt legislation, Mr. Speaker. If you were in a car accident that was entirely the fault of somebody else, that you had no role in causing the accident but you did not have a seatbelt on, and as a result of not having a seatbelt on your injuries were greater than they would otherwise have been, you would be then held to be contributory negligent with respect to the cause of your injuries. You would lose 100 per cent of your damages. In order to overcome that judge-made law, the so-called common law, legislatures passed the contributory negligence act, which said that if you are partially responsible for your injuries then you are only required to look lose that part for which you are responsible. So, if you had an allocation of responsibility, 75 per cent against the other side and 25 per cent for yourself, you could still collect 75 per cent of your damages.

That is an example of legislatures changing the law to accomplish justice. There are lots of others. The whole of workers' compensation law is another example where the courts, particularly those in the U.K. but all common law jurisdictions, found ways or devised rules or applied rules which denied workers access to compensation when they sued other employers for unsafe work conditions or accidents. There were many rules which denied them justice. Those rules were so onerous that this jurisdiction, other jurisdictions in Canada and in the U.K. adopted comprehensive workers' compensation legislation because justice was needed for injured workers. We can still have debate about whether we have achieved that today, but it was initially started because the judicial system was inadequate to compensate victims of workplace injuries.

This is another example of fashioning a judicial set of rules to deal with a broad-based wrong that we believe was inflicted upon the population of Newfoundland and Labrador, for which the government assumed the cost. I believe that this legislation is fully supported by general legal principles. I believe that it will be challenged by the tobacco companies. We were assured of that by Mr. Bexon, that they will challenge it perhaps at every level of court in this country. I believe firmly that we should proceed with this legislation. I believe that the government, consequent upon the legislation, should proceed with an action before the courts to attempt to recover the costs of health care.

It performs a number of vital functions. It performs a function of justice and accountability. It performs a function of exposing the truth about the tobacco industry, and what tobacco companies have done. It also performs a protective and preventive function in allowing the evidence to be brought forward as to what these companies were doing, and it allows young people in particular, and society in general, to be able to understand and be educated on the consequences of tobacco smoke. It also provides a financial result that if justice is achieved and there is a recovery of health care costs, those monies can be used for many things, including covering some of the costs of health care. They can be used in a far more effective program of tobacco reduction particularly aimed at young people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leave that has been given to me by members to go on beyond my twenty minutes to speak on this. It is a topic that could, in fact, take up many hours of debate and discussion, as we had before the committee. We had a lot of information before the committee. I was particularly moved by the individual stories of Ron St. Croix, who told the committee about his own addiction to tobacco, going back to receiving free gifts of tobacco from Imperial Tobacco, down on Flavin Street, when he was a schoolboy going to a nearby school. Free cigarettes were passed out. That started him on his way to addiction, which has resulted in serious health problems for him, a number of operations and heart attacks, a significant health care cost to the community and to the Province, and early retirement for health reasons to him.

I was struck by Fred Constantine, on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society, who talked about his family members, his aunts and uncles, several of whom have died from lung cancer and other cancers as a result of tobacco smoking.

I was struck by stories of other individuals talking about their families and how they were affected by this tobacco addiction, and how it affected their families and their health and their childhood.

In all, I think this is a measure that has to happen. I believe that we, in this Province, are taking a leadership role in this matter in, I think, following the lead of the Province of British Columbia. I hope, if there is a change of government in British Columbia next week, and there may be, that the Liberal government that takes over will be as forceful in pursuing their lawsuits against the tobacco companies as the previous government was, starting in 1997. I hope they will, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we will be there strongly with them in pursuing the action against the tobacco companies.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members for their indulgence in allowing me to go overtime. I want to say that I fully support the passage of this legislation and the government going ahead with a lawsuit against the tobacco companies to recover our health care costs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I again would like to the thank the Member for Ferryland and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their comments. I would also like to take the opportunity at this time to thank the other committee members who, no doubt, were very attentive during the hearings of the select committee. That would be the Member for Trinity North who chaired the committee, as well as the Member for Bay of Islands and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Claire.

It is quite obvious and quite evident from the comments of the hon. members that not only were they present at the committee but indeed listened attentively, and that is very obvious from their insightful comments they have made this afternoon.

This is indeed a monumental -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the other committee member?

MR. PARSONS: I am sorry, the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains as well, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed a monumental piece of legislation. I appreciate the comments of the hon. members, and I move closing of second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 9)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 20, second reading of An Act Respecting The Appointment Of A Citizens' Representative For The Province Who Shall Have The Powers Traditionally Conferred On An Ombudsman. (Bill 10)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Appointment Of A Citizens' Representative For The Province Who Shall Have The Powers Traditionally Conferred On An Ombudsman." (Bill 10)

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to move second reading of a bill entitled, the Citizens' Representative Act.

This bill represents the appointment of a Citizens' Representative for the Province, who shall have the powers traditionally conferred by an Ombudsman. The Citizens' Representative will be an Officer of the House of Assembly. He or she will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly. The Citizens' Representative will, pursuant to this piece of legislation, be appointed for a term of six years and may be appointed or renewed for an additional term. She or he cannot be removed from office except on the resolution of the House of Assembly. The Citizens' Representative will have broad powers to investigate administrative decisions of government departments and specified public agencies, and will have the power to make recommendations for change and to require reasons from department heads and heads of Crown agencies where recommendations are not followed.

As a rule, complainants who have a remedy or a right of appeal under a specific statute will be required to exhaust that appeal before the Citizens' Representative will investigate a complaint.

The Citizens' Representatives process is intended to be a measure of last resort and is not intended to replace or duplicate other statutory remedies.

All citizens will have access to the Citizens' Representative services free of charge.

As an Officer of the House of Assembly the Citizens' Representative will report annually to the House of Assembly and the Citizens' Representative will also have authority to report the Lieutenant-Governor in Council where his or her recommendations are not followed by government departments or public agencies.

The Citizens' Representative also shall have the authority to make special reports to the House of Assembly where appropriate. The authority of the Citizens' Representative will extend to investigation of administrative decisions of all government departments, Crown corporations and other boards, commissions or bodies listed in a schedule to the act. Some examples of those bodies listed would include: The Workplace, Health and Safety Compensation Commission, health care corporations under the Hospitals Act, health and community services boards under the Hospitals Act, and school boards under the Schools Act.

Agencies or bodies may be removed or added to the schedule by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but removals of a body or agency from the schedule must be recommended by the Commission of the Internal Economy of the House of Assembly.

With this bill, Mr. Speaker, government is honouring its commitment to reinstating the Office of Ombudsman and ensuring an open and accountable government. Citizens may now rest assured that complaints, or concerns, regarding the administration of government programs and services can be addressed by an independent officer of the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to remind all hon. members of the day that the Speech from the Throne was read in the House. The Lieutenant-Governor reading the Speech from the Throne, which set out the provincial government's direction, I guess, for this sitting of the House, talked about the importance of what they called an Ombudsman. What is now, the bill that is before us, a Citizens' Representative and the importance of it. We said at that time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He would not allow me to do that. I am convinced that will not happen, I say to the Deputy Premier. The (inaudible) is not going to fall.

I will read from the Throne Speech, just as a point of reference, it says: "A key focus of My Government in this Session of the House of Assembly will be to create a greater level of trust, openness and accountability."

Creation of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Throne Speech read: "My Government will introduce legislation during this Session to create the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will be established as an Officer of the House of Assembly, and will have a mandate to hear public concerns regarding the administration of programs and services."

Mr. Speaker, from our point of view on this side, during the 1999 election there was a section within our platform that was called: Features of Accountability; that should the people have at that time, or had at that time, put their faith and trust in this party to become the government, that one of features we talked about was accountability within the government. Part of accountability, we felt, was the reinstatement of the Office of the Ombudsman, now called the Citizens' Representative.

But on the day of the Speech from the Throne - because that is details. I don't say that for any other reference other than just to make the fact that we too have a history and a record of accountability, that we sought this position. We have questioned government since 1991 when it was abolished: Why was it abolished; the requirement that necessitated having it abolished. So, this government has made a commitment and, in so doing, I say, Mr. Speaker, this bill to them represents the fulfillment of that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Ombudsman which was established some thirty year ago, was created for one single purpose. It was created so that average citizens, people without recourse, who had concerns with government, who, in their view, had been wronged by government, or had been mistreated by government, or had not been dealt with properly by government, or had not been dealt with on a level playing field by government, would have an independent arm's-length individual to report to, who had the power, outside of this Legislature, free and unencumbered of Cabinet and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, free and unencumbered by the limitations of the Freedom of Information Act, to report once a year to this House about what that person had found. That could have been any circumstances. It could have been an individual who had felt wronged by treatment from the Department of Social Services. It could have been an individual or a private business person in the Province who felt ill done by because of not having been dealt properly with, vis-à-vis the Public Tender Act. It could have been an individual, Mr. Speaker, who, for whatever reason, felt that government did not properly deal with concerns raised through the Freedom of Information Act, that they had a recourse, that people in this Province, citizens of our Province, had an opportunity and a place to go.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second reading of the bill. Now, we will have an opportunity to get into the clause by clause debate when we hit Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we received a copy of the bill and last night some of us who are speaking today, including members of our research staff, have had the opportunity to look at - because the devil is always in the details - always in the details!

MR. MATTHEWS: A good place to keep the devil.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, you are good at keeping him there. Eventually it comes out, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. You can hide from it, you can run from it, but it does eventually come out, whether it is next week, next year or four years from now, but it will come out.

That is what has occurred in this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, the concerns and the details. Well, we all applaud - how could anyone not applaud this statement, that: "Government will introduce legislation during this Session to create the Office of the Ombudsman." And these are government's words, not mine: "The Ombudsman will be established as an Officer of the House of Assembly, and will have a mandate to hear public concerns regarding the administration of programs and services."

Mr. Speaker, we have before us now the legislation that honours that commitment, that honours the commitment made by the Member for Exploits, the now Premier, which he made during a run at the leadership, and was successful at. Now there is a commitment made by his government, in the Throne Speech, and we have an opportunity to look at it.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this, that when we have looked at it - and we will look at it some more this evening and into tomorrow - we will be making some serious amendments to this piece of legislation. In our view - and I can go through just some highlights of it - if you compare, on two levels, the spirit and intent of this legislation as compared to the legislation that was originally enacted thirty years ago, there is no comparison. This piece of legislation holds many restrictions that were not present in the old act.

Let me say this, before I get into some of that: When you look at the details of the bill, one can honestly say any independent analysis of this legislation, as compared to the original piece of legislation - thirty years ago, keep in mind, I say to hon. members, thirty years ago - that there is no comparison, that this is a weaker piece of legislation. I will refer to it now: While the citizens' committee will be appointed by a resolution of this Legislature - like the Auditor General, for example, which is appointed and reports to the Internal Economy Commission, which is the group that governs this House. I can only assume, I say to the Minister of Justice, that the Citizens' Representative and the structure that will be put in place will also report directly to the House, which he has indicated, and thus, to the management committee or the committee that oversees House operations, which is the Internal Economy Commission, made up of representatives both by the Opposition and government members and ministers. Mr. Speaker, the similarities between those two pieces of legislation end right there.

I would just like to take a few moments today to outline three areas of substantial concern. I use the words substantial concern in a premeditative way, and to outline seriously what I mean by that. First of all, Cabinet has a great deal more power over the operations of the Citizens' Representative than the other piece of legislation. Let me get into some detail on this. This is my interpretation, in terms of the bill - all members will have an opportunity to debate this in committee thoroughly - in response to the bill being sponsored by the Minister of Justice. He has outlined government's concerns or government's view of this piece of legislation, what it will do and what it will improve. It is our opportunity to debate and look at the merits and demerits of the legislation. Now there are some good aspects and clauses contained here, but there are other areas that are of substantial concern. I say to the minister, during the committee stage of this bill we will be making substantive amendments, suggestions, changes for this House of Assembly to debate on a clause-by-clause basis.

On the broad strokes of it, let me say this, that Cabinet does have a great deal more power over the Citizens' Representative than they should have. That is one of the concerns. I say that because, for example, according to this piece of legislation Cabinet can suspend the Citizens' Representative, even though it is appointed by this House. Even though the House of Assembly in a resolution appoints the Citizens' Representative, Cabinet has reserved for itself - that means the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - the exclusive right to suspend the Citizens' Representative for disability, neglect of duty or misconduct proved to Cabinet's satisfaction at any time when the House of Assembly is not in session and continue the suspension until the end of the next session of the House. For example, if we close this week or early next and this person was in play in Cabinet because of what they saw - this is the hub of it, that the Legislature by resolution appoints the Citizens' Representative. Now, when the House is not open and for whatever reason that Cabinet may deem - it could be this Cabinet, it could be future Cabinets outside of any sort of - accelerate the level it made outside of parochial partisan interests for a moment, any Cabinet if this legislation is passed as it is here right now. That Cabinet has reserved for itself to deem what they view to be the conduct of the Citizens' Representative as being satisfactory or not, at any time when the House is not in session.

The other side of it, Mr. Speaker, is that there was no right of appeal contained in this legislation. Now, I ask you and I ask members, and I ask the minister: Does the Auditor General work under the same constraints? What are the implication just of that clause, right there? Could you imagine if the Auditor General of the Province operated under the executioner's noose, if I can put it that way, under the threat of the executioner's noose that if she - which is Ms Marshall right now - operated under legislation that at anytime when the House is not open, even though her appointment is an appointment of this Legislature, that if Cabinet - any Cabinet, not just this Cabinet but any Cabinet - felt that in the execution of the powers or duties of her office that she was being too unkind to government, that her recommendations on framework of accountability, her recommendations on the Public Tender Act, her recommendations on the immigration investment fund, her recommendations on the Western Health Care Board, her recommendations on the past on the Children's Janeway Centre, her recommendations on the use of special warrants, her recommendations on a variety of other matters dealing with the finances of the Province that government said, hold on now. Someone at sometime having the exclusive right, the Cabinet in this case, can say to either this Auditor General, if they were operating under the same constraints or any other Auditor General: We do not like the way you are doing business. We fundamentally disagree with how you have represented your office. We have fundamental disagreements on how you have viewed us as your employer. We have fundamental disagreements on the recommendations that you have made to this Legislature based upon what was contained in your report. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, that not one member in this House, not one, would have any confidence in how the operation of the Auditor General's Office should be operating if the legislation that governs the conduct of the Auditor General was being proposed similar to this legislation.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, there is no good reason for Cabinet having this power, none. If we pass a resolution in this House, if the Legislature on the one hand - this is what this legislation says - that the appointment of the Citizens' Representative must be passed by a resolution in this House. Then I say to members opposite and to the minister: then the removal of the Citizens' Representative must also be passed by a resolution in this House. There is no good reason, in my view, for Cabinet to have this power. If we are saying, and we have said and government has said, that the governance and institution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Darn good reason for it, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well then, why don't we come here? It has been said and promoted that that office will be set up and established like that of the Auditor General. So, if there is a problem with the Ombudsperson or the Citizens' Representative -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: This is a serious piece of legislation, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, the last time you hauled us back from holidays was on a piece of legislation called the Kodak Bill. The Kodak Bill, do you recall that? Do you recall that big piece of legislation that you hauled us back from holidays for? A big debate about what Kodak was going to do in the Province. We were all called back in August of 1996. Great things were going to happen. A picture tells a thousand words, I say to the minister. There is still nothing on that piece of legislation.

Let's be serious about debate on this legislation. The point I am trying to make is that if this House passes, by resolution, who the Citizens' Representative should be, then this House should also pass, by resolution, if there is improper conduct or misconduct, or not properly carrying out the duties of the office then it should also be passed by resolution. This goes to the whole notion of what a Citizens' Representative should be. It takes away that perception, that hammer - the executioner's noose, if I can put it that way - that government has if this legislation is passed as it is, that they, at anytime, can remove that person for reasons that they deemed at a Cabinet table, not necessarily for reasons that will be debated publicly.

That is a fundamental flaw, as I see it, because whoever that person ends up being, will be operating under that cloud and saying: Now, I have to be careful here. This may be true, or may be not true, but the perception of it is very true. That person will be operating under the cloud of: If I am not careful here the minute that this House closes, if my report to the Legislature is too damning or if some minister or a group of ministers feel - and they can convince the Premier and the Cabinet that my conduct goes beyond the scope of the legislation, then I can be removed. That is the perception. I see it as a fundamental weakness in the legislation that is being proposed.

In my view, matter relating to competence, Mr. Speaker, about the Citizens' Representative, I say to the minister, can be dealt with by the Legislature as provided in the legislation in clause 6, because you spell it out there anyway: Cabinet reserving the right to dismiss for reasons they deem - that is the important word - appropriate. It sticks out of this legislation like: This does not belong here. This does not belong here. Why is this here? Somebody had a concern at the Cabinet table, and I do not think it was there in the beginning. Somebody at the Cabinet table must had a concern about this, and this clause seems to be introduced. It does not follow the train of thought in government's own documents. It does not follow the public debate that has occurred on this issue. It does not follow the spirit and intent, and it sticks out, need I say, like a political sore thumb in this legislation. It begs the question, it raises the red flag: Why is this clause here? There was nothing, as I have indicated, remotely - you could not even remotely suggest that this is the type of clause in legislation that governs the conduct, operations and mandate of the Auditor General's Office. It is just not there.

For example, some questions were raised, and these are important ones. Would the Auditor General be as thorough in investigating and reporting on government's financial management if Cabinet held that threat over the office of the Auditor General? Perhaps, even more importantly, would the public believe? It goes back to the point of perception. Would the public believe in the independence of the Auditor General if she operated under such coercion or scrutiny? Which begs the question: Is the public going to believe that because Cabinet reserves the right, that the Citizens' Representative is going to be effective? When Cabinet can say: Hold on now. In a very quiet way the minister who is responsible for the maintenance and governance of the act can call the Citizens' Representative in for a cup of tea, some afternoon, in his or her office, and say: Some members in our Cabinet and caucus - we would like to set down. Here is how it is done, based upon my experience, and we have some concerns. It is all code phrasing, reading between the lines. That is the parliamentary language. A well established tradition. Hansard, Beauchesne, Standing Orders, are full of that parliamentary phrasing, that code phrasing. I can see it. I am not saying this Cabinet, I am saying some Cabinet. I want to be clear on that. I do not want anybody to stand up on that side and say that we have condemned the government over this legislation, because we are not. We are fulfilling our role and pointing out, at some point.

So the minister calls in the new Citizens' Representative after that person's first year appointment, first mandate, first report tabled in the House, and says: We have some concerns. Now would you like one lump of sugar or two? This is all happening at one time. We have some concerns. We believe on this recommendation that you stepped outside your boundaries, that you stepped outside your mandate. We just want to inform you of this. I do not want to enter into a discussion with you about it. I just want to relay to you the feelings of Cabinet on these particular recommendations that you recently made. We just want you to understand our feelings, and we should enter into a dialogue from time to time so you understand where we are coming from; because in your report we already understand where you have come from. We want a chance, through me, as the minister governing the legislation, to say: in our way - which is the legitimate way - to respond in their view.

Mr. Speaker, the Citizens' Representative investigative and reporting powers are severely restricted in this act. Of that there can be no doubt. Of that there can be little doubt. Any sound, sober analysis, any independent look at this piece of legislation, will tell you that. Compare this piece of legislation to the one thirty years ago. Now, that will speak for itself. Compare it to legislation governing other offices of Citizens' Representatives or Ombudsperson, or however you want to term it, and your analysis will prove the same. Your conclusions, upon comparison, will prove the same. For example, anything done or not done by Cabinet - this is what the legislation says, and here is how it is restrictive - in the legislation, actually spelled out in the bill. Now, this is very important. We have already seen that Cabinet can say, we can dismiss you at any time even though the House is closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: For disability, of all things.

MR. E. BYRNE: For disability.

AN HON. MEMBER: Break your leg and you are gone.

MR. E. BYRNE: We do not have to appoint you. We do not have to.

Now, they go on to say that these are the restrictive components or aspects of this bill. Anything done or not done by Cabinet, Executive Council, which includes Treasury Board, Intergovernmental Affairs and the Status of Women, or a committee of Executive Council, which is virtually now, when you talk about that, Mr .Speaker, let's look at what that means - those departments set out that are restricted - the Citizens' Representative being restricted from pursuing issues related to those departments. It was not in the last act. I will get to the analysis in a moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I will get to that in a moment. Virtually every significant administrative decision of government, Mr. Speaker, is authorized by Cabinet or one or more of Executive Council's agencies; Treasury Board in particular. Refusal to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act - cannot comment on that. We have said that this is one of the primary fundamental duties of the Ombudsman, to be able to comment on the Freedom of Information Act being lived up to. I mean, that is the checks and balances within government.

Now, just look at some of the comparisons. I will just go point by point for a moment. I can elaborate on them. Bill 10, the one we are debating right now, the appointment of the Citizens' Representative is done by a resolution of the House of Assembly in clause 3. Now in 1979, the act is the same: a six-year term -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, right, a .six-year term. The old act was a ten-year term, I believe, I say to my colleague, a ten-year term. The same for the Auditor General. Cabinet may suspend, remove the Citizens' Representative for disability, neglect of duty, misconduct, on the recommendation of the House of Assembly. Well, we have already dealt with that. On the recommendation of the House of Assembly. That is the way it should be, not the recommendation of Cabinet.

Cabinet may suspend the Citizens' Representative when the Legislature is not in session. There is no similar provision in the Auditor General's Act. The Citizens' Representative may investigate a report on a written complaint on his or her own initiative relating to a matter of administration in or by a department or agency of the government. Mr. Speaker, I have covered some of that ground so I will not cover it again.

Mr Speaker, back to the refusal on the Freedom of Information side of the act; clause 18, I believe, I say to the minister. Let me just go to clause 18 for a moment - this is important - and read it for the record, because this is extremely important as I see it. Restriction on jurisdiction is the heading. "18. Nothing in this Act authorizes the Citizens' Representative to investigate..." - and then they list it - "(a) a decision, recommendation, act , order or omission of the House of Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor, a committee of the House of Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council..." which is Cabinet; "(b) an order, decision or omission of a court, a judge of a court, a master of a court, or a justice of the peace made or given in an action or proceeding in the court, or before the judge, master or justice of the peace."

That section I somewhat agree with, I say to the minister. It is very difficult for anyone to comment on an ongoing legal proceeding before the court, but my reading of it is that you have gone further; you have gone further than just limiting it to that. We will have some debate and clarification on the clause-by-clause section when we get to it.

A Citizens' Representative is restricted from investigating, "18.(c) an award, decision, recommendation or omission of an arbitrator or board of arbitrators in an arbitration to which the Arbitration Act applies; (d) a matter in respect of which there is under an Act a right of appeal or objection or a right to apply for a review on the merits of the case to a court or tribunal constituted by or under an Act, until after the right of appeal, objection or application has been exercised or until after the time limit for the exercise of that right has expired."

No big trouble with that clause, but (e), Mr. Speaker. Let us recall for the record that this under section 18, Restriction on jurisdiction, that the Citizens' Representative "(e) a refusal to provide access to information under the Freedom of Information Act...".

If a particular citizen in the Province is looking for information under the Freedom of Information Act and is denied, like we have been on so many occasions - but we have the ultimate appeal. We have the floor of the House of Assembly, as members. We have access to the public through the media, through the written transcript of the House, but the citizen on the street does not have that access. What happens if that person says, I should not have been denied access to that information? I believe that my request was in keeping with the spirit, intent, rules, regulations in the legislation that was passed. He goes to the Citizens' Representative and says: Here is my complaint. The Citizens' Representative says: I am sorry. Under the legislation, I am not allowed to investigate matters relating to the Freedom of Information.

This is a piece of legislation that is committed to the principle, and here it is again, outlined in the Throne Speech, that "My Government will introduce legislation during this Session to create the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will be established as an Officer of the House of Assembly, and will have a mandate to hear public concerns regarding the administration of programs and services."

Why is it that government restricts, or wants to restrict at this point, the Citizens' Representative from commenting on matters relating to the Freedom of Information Act? It does not make any sense whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, if I can go on just for a few moments, another section of it says, under restrictions, section 19 (1): any matter that the Minister of Justice says "...would be contrary to the public interest..." I say to my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, from a professional point of view, a legal point of view, this is a very restrictive comment or clause, I believe, that gives the Minister of Justice enormous power in dealing with the Citizens' Representative. At any time, in my view, as I read it, the Minister of Justice can say: Well, this is contrary to the public interest.

Let me say this: This is precisely, in my view, how this government, how other governments, neutralize the Freedom of Information Act, because ministers use discretionary power by saying: We have decided it is not in the public interest for us to release this information at this time.

I recall, just dealing with that matter, say, on the Lower Churchill negotiations, that I had to go through nine months of a political extortionist sort of act, or contortionist sort of act, to get information from the federal government. Their Freedom of Information Act provided me with information. Not all of it, because on matters of federal-provincial jurisdictions they had to get the okay of the ministers required, in this case the Minister of Mines and Energy who would not sign off, so they could only release to me their commentary, and not all of it. This government's record is very clear on the Freedom of Information. I could bring down stacks of requests, that high, where personally, in my role as Leader of the Opposition, I have been consistently denied; to the point where one request came, it was said that I could have it, but I had to pay $10,000 to get it. That is a fact, on THM levels. The minister said it would take us weeks to get that information. My response at the time was: Well, if it would take you weeks to get that information, isn't this information you should already have in order to make the decisions that you have made? The answer is: Yes, you would have had to have it to make the decisions that government made or to defend the questions that we had put forward at that time.

The point is this: It is very clear, that is precisely, if they believe or have an insight - because, like the Auditor General, if she has any complaints about a department, she goes to the deputy minister of the department and says: Here are our findings on your department. Here are the recommendations. Here is what we are going to say. The department is not allowed to change it, but they do have a right to make their comment on it. So it has seen the Auditor General's view of it and then the department's response. That is exactly the same, I suppose, as what the Citizens' Representative will do, that if they had a specific complaint or set of complaints about a department within government, then write up the recommendations, write what they investigated - here is what our findings are - and they will go to the department before the document is released and the department will say: Alright, fair enough. Here is our explanation.

In this clause, if a Cabinet colleague goes to the Minister of Justice, that Minister of Justice who is responsible for the administration of this act can say: Hold on now, that comment you made about the Department of Mines and Energy, on Page 218 of your proposed report, I deem that not to be in the public interest, so please remove it. Now what is the point of having a Citizens' Representative if you have that power. You should have the power to comment. Government departments should have the absolute power and right to defend their decisions, but not the absolute power and right, dealing with the Citizens' Representative, to say: This section of the act or this part of your complaint is not in the public interest, take it out of there. This Legislature would never know that it happened. We would never know that it happened. Another fundamental flaw, Mr. Speaker.

I will go on to say, it took responsibility for applying the act from the department heads and centralizing it in the Department of Justice, which is another unique feature. So they have bottlenecked it, if you can picture the hour glass. At one point in the old legislation - and I stand to be corrected on this - department heads would respond, department by department, just like the Auditor Generals. Now it all must be vetted through the Minister of Justice to see if it is okay, if it is in the public interest. At the same time, remember that this is the same Minister of Justice who has the absolute power to say: Now, if you do not agree with this, we can dismiss you; the same clause.

So everything is funneled through the Department of Justice. The Minister of Justice, according to this act, can say: That recommendation is not in the public interest according to me. I am enshrined by the law - if this passes without amendment - to say to the Citizens' Representative: No, you cannot comment on Freedom of Information, take that out. No, that comment is derogatory to public policy in the Province. In my view, it goes against what Cabinet is trying to accomplish, so take it out. Now if the Citizens' Representative says, I am leaving it in, very good. The minister is going to say, when the House closes, because you can be guaranteed it will be done when the House closes, that: We believe that the Citizens' Representative is actually contrary to the legislation. Can you hear it now? I can hear it now. Eight months later or six months later, then we are going to have the opportunity to debate it and, who knows, they may have appointed somebody else by then. It will be a one day news story. Public relations specials tell them, view it up front, stick to the line, here goes. It happened on a Monday, it will be over by Wednesday.

These are very, very restrictive powers, and you know it. Minister, you have to know it. You have been in the practice of law how long? How long? Twenty years?

AN HON. MEMBER: Too long.

MR. E. BYRNE: You have got to know it. You have to understand it. You have to understand what is there. So the question is: Why? Why, on the one hand, are we going to run up the flagpole that we have introduced such a great feature, or reintroduced such a great feature of accountability for the people of the Province in reappointing a Citizens' Representative, and then, at the same time, restricting that person's ability and restricting that person's role, and undermining to such an extent that whatever the Citizens' Representative does or does not do can practically be dictated by the legislation which enshrines all power in the Minister of Justice. Come on! That is not what a Citizens' Representative is supposed to be about.

That is not what this- if you look across all provincial jurisdictions- is about. It certainly was not what the legislation was about thirty years ago. That is all it is. I hope it is not. When we get to the committee stage, we will find out if that is true or not, I say to my colleague from Cape St. Francis. We will find out truly what the intent of this government is when we get to the committee stage and we begin to introduce the amendments to this particular piece of legislation. That is when we will see. Based upon that evidence, and how you vote on those amendments, then we will be able to stand in our place and talk about the intent of members opposite. Today I cannot, because I have no evidence to do so. I can only point out the flaws in this bill, of which there are many, because it goes against, in my view, everything that the Office of the Ombudsman, and now Citizens' Representative, should be about.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at how it has been centralized in the Department of Justice, the vetting process, if we can call it that. One point, all heads of departments respond to complaints. So, the head of the department or deputy minister of, say the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, which is an area I would suspect that many people will have questions about and will go to the Citizens' Representative - it could be on a land permit, a piece of Crown land. It could be on an application. It could be looking for government licenses. It could be on any number of matters, the regulatory agency.

The way it should be is that if complaints are lodged, then that department responds, but that right has been taken away and exclusively put into the Minister of Justice's hands. Now, in taking the responsibility for applying the Act from the department heads and centralizing it in the Department of Justice - we have made that point - but I think you can be certain that because of that, any requests from the Citizens' Representative to a government department or agency by extension will be forwarded, in my view, to the Minister of Justice who can then deem or determine if it is in contravention of the Act, if it is in contravention of the regulations which we do not see. We do not debate these in the House because they are regulations associated with any legislation. So, if a request comes to the Deputy Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs from the Citizens' Representative, what happens? Boom, over to the Minister of Justice, which begs the next question: Is it your intent to put people in place to deal specifically with all the requests coming from the Citizens' Representative?

All in one, jury, judge, executioner, arbiter, the gallery, everything. This legislation makes the minister and the department responsible for everything. As window dressing, if this legislation passes as it is written, if, based upon when we get into committee stage of the bill, government denies or does not vote for the amendments that strengthen and give the type of autonomy, not only required but deserved, to any Citizens' Representative - when you think about the parliamentary system, it goes back to the fundamental question of why we appoint a Citizens' Representative, a ten-year term, five-year term, appointed by the House, operates at arm's-length, very few restrictions. A lot can change in five years in politics. A lot can change in ten years in politics. We are witnessing that today, we witnessed it ten years ago, we witnessed it five years ago.

The Office of the Auditor General, the Office of the Citizens' Representative, and, dare I say, the Office of the Child Advocate, because I can only assume what that legislation will look like - it must be going to look similar in terms of this, because they are both features of accountability. They should operated beyond that. They should have the arm's-length relationship required. That is what the people want. That is what the office is supposed to reflect. Can you imagine - let's, just for the record, state the obvious for a moment, I say, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice, like every other Cabinet Minister, is chosen in this view, in my sense - this is my reading of it - that the Minister of Justice's department is the lead department in this for this reason: It is chosen to give the appearance of a judicial type process, so everything is above board. It is a level playing field, it is even-handed.

There is nothing in the act, as I see it, in reading the act when getting it yesterday, to require the Minister of Justice to apply any legal interpretations or assessments in making his or her decision. The act does not require the minister to apply, in my view, any legal interpretations or assessments in making his or her decision. In fact, if you look at it on balance, the process, Mr. Speaker, any independent analysis, this piece of legislation, anybody can say that this is a process that is entirely political. You have opened yourself up for that accusation.

What it ends up being, after we get through committee stage, will bear out if this is true or not. The Minister of Justice holds, according to the legislation - unbelievable when you think about it - holds the absolute veto over the Citizens' Representative. The Minister of Justice hold the noose saying that, if we disagree, we can dismiss you, without coming before the House. The Minister of Justice, under the legislation, has introduced restrictions that do not allow the Citizens' Representative to talk about Cabinet decisions, freedom of information, status of women. It is so restrictive. Only what they want him to. In effect, this legislation, if it passes unamended, as it is, the Citizens' Representative will only be able to investigate what this government, through the Minister of Justice, wants them to investigate.

That is essentially the hub of this bill. That the Citizens' Representative will only be able to investigate what this government, through the Minister of Justice, sees fit to let that person investigate. You have opened yourself up, in this legislation, for people like myself in this Chamber, and others outside of this Chamber, to make that assertion. Again we will see, as the process of this bill moving through the House unfolds, exactly what the spirit and intent of this minister is and this government.

In contrast - and we have to contrast it because it was your words we talked about. That is what we are talking about here, your words in the Throne Speech, your leader's words about making it accountable to the House, like the Auditor General's Office, your bill, your legislation, your initiative. In contrast, the Auditor General's Act empowers the Auditor General to make those examinations and inquiries that the Auditor General considers necessary to enable him or her to report as required by the act.

There is no vetting process. There are no restrictions. The Auditor General does not report to the minister or to the Speaker of the House, and the Speaker decide what you can or cannot report on. That is not the relationship that the Auditor General has with this House, and through it with the people of the Province. That is why people have a tremendous amount of faith and stock in the office of the Auditor General, because there are no restrictions. It is not political. It is based upon the expenditure of public dollars only, and how we examine or how we expend those dollars based against the policies of government. Do we know, on the one hand, that we have budgeted x number of dollars? Are we actually spending that sum of money where we said we are going to spend it? But this act does not do that in any way. This act requires the Citizens' Representative to be in name only and to report to the Minister of Justice who will eventually and ultimately decide on what that person can or cannot report, or can or cannot investigate.

What is the purpose of it? If that is the case, you can say that every Cabinet minister for the last five years has been a Citizens' Representative; because they have made those same determinations for the last five years, every one of them. Every request under the Freedom of Information that went to a Cabinet minister, that was denied, came back under the following head: It was determined it was not in the public interest to release it.

Why even bother to bring a piece of legislation to the floor that is so restrictive, that it does not allow that person to launch broad investigations, and if they do they have to get the approval of the Minister of Justice, who is appointed by the Premier, who has, at the same time, the absolute right to deem if this person is conducting himself or herself according to the legislation; and if they are not, they can remove them.

What do we have to do with it? What does this House have to do with anything? Why don't you just be up front about it and go and appoint who you want to appoint? Forget about coming to a resolution of the House, because it is a sham in that sense. It does not mean anything.

If we have the absolute right to appoint somebody by a resolution of this House, they should only be able to be removed by a resolution of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that while you are being tongue-in-cheek, if such a situation arose that it required us to be called back to deal with it, if such a situation ever arose, then we should be called back to deal with it.

How can you not interpret - in any reading of this piece of legislation, it is the only way to interpret it. It is beyond me how someone could stand up and sell this piece of legislation as it currently exists.

I want to be clear. Every opportunity will be provided to members to debate this piece of legislation in second reading, and every opportunity will be provided to the minister and to his colleagues in government to vote on amendments that we see fit, that we bring forward, that give the type of autonomy that the Citizens' Representative deserves, to report directly to this House: autonomy in investigation, autonomy in dealing with Freedom of Information, to make it completely autonomous from your absolute veto right, as the Minister of Justice, to decide what that person wishes to report or not.

Again, in contrast, another feature of accountability in this Legislature: the only standing committee of every Legislature in this country, and the only standing committee of every Legislature in the British Commonwealth parliamentary system, the system that we operate under, is the Public Accounts Committee. They operate under no restrictions, none whatsoever. I can speak to that because I was Chair of that committee for eighteen months and the Government House Leader was my Vice-Chair. We operated under no restrictions. We had, by consensus, if we could reach it on any given matter, the absolute right to investigate the expenditure of any public dollar. Didn't we, the Public Accounts Committee?

I recall, on a number of occasions, we asked the Auditor General to have a look at the expenditure on the St. John's Health Care Corporation, if you recall. That was done unanimously, by consent. We sent over a request to the Auditor General. She could not put that on her to-do list for some point in the future at, say, item number fifty or sixty. She has over 200 Crown agencies, departments and entities to deal with. She had to deal with that priority one, because the Public Accounts Committee of this House requested it.

In contrast, Mr. Speaker, the Citizens' Representative does not have that power. He or she should have that power, the power to investigate, to operate with no restrictions, to follow a complaint to its logical conclusion, and then to say either to the person who has filed the complaint: I am sorry. I believe that government made the right decision in keeping with its policies, in keeping with the legislative framework they operate under and the regulations that they operate under. Or, to say to that person: You have a case. Your claim is bonafide. In other words, in good faith: that your claim is legitimate; that government has wronged you; that your government has broken the law; that your government did not apply equally and fairly its policy as it applied to you; that they have created the double standard; and that I guarantee you, Citizen A, that when my report goes to the House of Assembly in April, or whenever it goes, that complaint and other complaints like it will be firmly lodged on the floor of the House in an open, transparent way for everybody to see.

That is the way it should be; but now, if this legislation passes, all the Citizens' Representative can do is to guarantee this: Citizen A, upon investigation, I have come to the conclusion that you have a legitimate, bonafide complaint. Now, under the act, I must take this now to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice will decide if this is in the public interest or not. Now, he may decide or she may decide, whoever is in the Minister of Justice chair at the time, that this contravenes the act. If so, the best that I can say to you is that, while you have a case, I cannot give you a firm commitment that I will be able to report upon it.

Now, what kind of legislation is heralded by government, that talks about transparency, that talks about openness, that talks about accountability, then says: How we are going to accomplish that is by putting in place a Citizens' Representative. How does that piece of legislation, Bill 10, meet that with the type of clauses that you have put into it? How does it meet it? It does not. It does not meet that litmus test. It cannot meet that litmus test; because, again, Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, have narrowly defined and restricted what the Citizens' Representative can do.

Secondly, they provided the Minister of Justice with the absolute right, acting upon instructions from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to dismiss that person as they deem it, even though this Legislature is asked to appoint that person; but, more importantly, that every request by the Citizens' Representative to act upon a complaint by average citizens who have no other recourse, no resources to deal with finding a lawyer, no resources or no other recourse to go, that the Citizens' Representative, according to this act, has to say: I must vet this through the Minister of Justice and Attorney General before I can give you my commitment that my recommendations on this will make it to the light of day, that public scrutiny will be maintained. I cannot make that commitment. I cannot guarantee you that will happen, because this act does not allow it to happen. It provides complete discretion to the political whims of a Cabinet and to a minister. It does not provide for the independent arm's-length type of relationship that is required for this office to do what it should be doing, and that is to be the citizens' protector and the citizens' representative, not the government's representative.

The legislation, as it currently exists, demands of the Citizens' Representative that it be the government's representative, and that if the Citizens' Representative does not act in a way and a manner that this government agrees with, then that person could be gone; and that you have the right, as minister, to say that we do not allow you to go down this path. We will not allow you to investigate that. So, how can you call this piece of legislation the Citizens' Representative? You cannot, as it currently exists. You can call it CR alright, but it is called a Cabinet Representative, because essentially that is what you have done. That is essentially what this piece of legislation is all about. It has nothing to do whatsoever with protecting the interests of the average person outside this Legislature, who has no other recourse but to that office. It has nothing to do with protecting and ensuring that government, its departments, its public servants, its appointees are acting in accordance with legislation, with regulations and with government policy that are applied fairly, that are going to be applied equally to who you are, no matter what your station in life, no matter what your financial background, no matter who you are, where you live, or who your connections are. This representative should be the one person in this Province, no matter who you are, where you can go and know you will get the type of treatment that every person in this Province deserves; but this legislation does not do this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the minister, I appreciate your opening remarks. I appreciate the opening remarks that you made on this particular bill but I also hope that you appreciate the remarks that I made on behalf of this caucus because truly, if we want to proceed with this piece of legislation, if you want to proceed with this piece of legislation as it is, then get your alarm clocks out because the bells in this Legislature started to ring before you were here one time. Unless this legislation is going to be truly reflective of what a Citizens' Representative should be, well sir, we are going to be here a lot longer than next week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words at second reading on Bill 10, which is the Ombudsman Act, which is someone who is an Ombudsman but not called an Ombudsman. First of all, I should say that -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) called a Parliamentary Commissioner.

MR. HARRIS: I should report what the Government House Leader is saying, that the last person who was called an Ombudsman was actually a Parliamentary Commissioner. He was always referred to as the Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman. For some reason he needed to have two titles. I guess we are keeping with that tradition and saying we are going to have a Citizens' Representative or Ombudsman. In fact, the word Ombudsman appears in the title to the bill but nowhere in the body of the bill. It is called: An Act Respecting The Appointment Of A Citizens' Representative For The Province Who Shall Have The Powers Traditionally Conferred On An Ombudsman. That is one of the longest, long titles of a bill that I have seen in the last while. I guess that is why we have a short title called the Citizens' Representative Act.

First of all, let me say that I oppose the repeal of the previous legislation and role for the Ombudsman. At the time, Mr. Speaker, the then Premier Clyde Wells said that we did not need an Ombudsman. We had fifty-two ombudspersons in the House. I think he may have also said that Open Line was an effective Ombudsman for the Province.

These were some of the reasons that were advanced at the time as to why we did not need an Ombudsman. I suspect that there were other reasons that had nothing to do with the role of the Member of the House of Assembly or the role of Open Line but, Mr. Speaker, we were then the only jurisdiction, the only common-law jurisdiction who had a Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman and had in fact gotten rid of such a person. The only parliament that had done so. An obvious retrograde step in terms of providing citizens with some recourse for maladministration or failure to properly deal with the affairs of a citizen by someone in public administration.

There was a need, Mr. Speaker, when we had an Ombudsman before, and there is a need now. I suppose given the nature of the requirement of gender neutral phrases to have an Ombudsman would probably be inappropriate right now. An ombudsperson is like Chairperson, it is a bit weak; Chair is better. A gender neutral term is certainly appropriate. So I do not have any difficulty with calling it a Citizens' Representative. A Parliamentary Commissioner, there is nothing wrong with that either, but perhaps a Citizens' Representative is a little bit more appropriate than the Parliamentary Commissioner. Although, that is appropriate enough. It is supposed to respond to the Parliament. It is supposed to advise the Parliament as to what defects there may be in the administration or the handling of individuals by the administration.

These are things, normally, that a Member of the House of Assembly or Member of Parliament cannot investigate. They do not have the powers that are conferred here upon the Citizens' Representative; a power to investigate, a power to enter into a department, as the act says, and conduct an investigation, to summons documents and to require individuals to produce documents. Those things are something that Members of the House of Assembly certainly cannot do. Those are things that an open line host cannot do, has no power to do, has no right of access to the inner workings of government, to deputy ministers, to assistant deputy ministers, to information contained in files of government departments, no right of access at all. The notion that an open line host is effective as an Ombudsman role is totally false. The notion that members of this House can effectively play the role of a Parliamentary Commissioner, or a Citizens' Representative, is also totally false because we too, have no powers of investigation, have no right of walking into a government department and demanding information, and having to receive it as a right.

I do support the principle of the bill and that is what we discussed at second reading. Should we or should we not pass a bill to create the Office of a Parliamentary Commissioner or Citizens' Representative having the powers traditionally conferred on an Ombudsman? On that point, Mr. Speaker, I have to say I fully endorse the reinstatement of this role. I think it is an important role. It becomes more and more important as time goes on with the complexity of society, the nature of people's complicated lives and interaction with government and government agencies. Whether they be matters concerning an individual's privacy, whether they be matters concerning how an individual is treated by a government board or an agency, or whether it be the operation of laws or statutes that may act in a way that is discriminatory or unfair to citizens, there should be, and there needs to be, an opportunity for an independent person with the power, experience, knowledge and ability to conduct an independent investigation, and to offer an opinion and a recommendation. It is through having such an office, and through the respect that should be, or ought to be, given to that office that the value of a Citizens' Representative, or a Parliamentary Commissioner's role is important. It is a persuasive role. It is a role that does not have a lot of power, but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that people in this role across this country and in the jurisdictions of common-law jurisdictions that have them, that the opinion of an Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner is one that is given great weight. I would expect that a government which fails to carry out the recommendations of a commissioner would be in disrepute by society.

So it is an important role and one which I would assume, and expect, that anyone occupying it would be very careful to ensure that his or her recommendations or actions would be reserved for important breaches of a person's rights, or a person's treatment by government or by the administration, or by any of the agencies or boards or commissions that are subject to the act, subject to the schedule here and subject to governmental actions. After the absence of some ten years of such a role and having the advantage of starting anew, as we do, we can reinvent the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner, of the ombudsperson, of a Citizens' Representative, and there is an opportunity here for us to do a proper job. There is an opportunity here for us to say: We are going to take advantage of all the experience of other legislatures and other jurisdictions, and we are going to create the most modern, the most up-to-date piece of legislation that reflects the modern needs, reflects the technological changes that have taken place in communication and information storage, information transfer, information availability.

We are going to make sure that whatever needs to be done, to make sure this is an effective role, an independent role, a respected role, is going to be done. How are we going to do that, Mr. Speaker? Are we going to do it by getting a piece of legislation tabled in this House yesterday, on a Monday, and passed on a Thursday, with an hour or so of debate today at second reading? Then we come back on Thursday, one day left for government business in the House -

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Maybe (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Maybe we will have to come back next week, I say to the Member for Trinity North.

We got this legislation yesterday and the government hopes to pass it by tomorrow, with a couple of hours of debate at the most. The Official Opposition has indicated that they are going to come in with twenty or thirty amendments. Maybe they are doing that in a big rush too, I would say, Mr. Speaker. What I think should happen with this bill is that we should use our legislative review process that we have. I remember when we passed legislation in this House some years ago on Conflict of Interest, something that affected all members of this House. The Conflict of Interest legislation, the one that created a Commissioner of Members' Interests; the one to whom we send reports in every year of all of our individual holdings, our property holdings; the one which set rules for how we are to operate in terms of when we should stand aside for potential conflict of interest; the one that requires us to disclose, not only on our own interest and our own property, but that of our spouses; what property you own; what bank accounts you have; what money you owe to whom, and how much. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, each individual member of this House discloses to the Commissioner of Members' Interests.

When that legislation was put before the House, what happened to it? It was sent to a legislative committee who sat down and looked at the legislation clause-by-clause; heard from the officials of the Department of Justice who drafted the legislation; considered the arguments that were made; considered from their own experiences as Members of the House or as Cabinet ministers, how the legislation would apply to them, and affect them and affect other circumstances; how the legislation ought to reflect genuine concerns of the public in relation to their duties as Members of this House. All of these concerns were brought forth in committee, discussed and reviewed, not in a political atmosphere such as we have in this House, not in a politically charged atmosphere towards the end of a legislative session, where there are only a few hours left, where everybody is told that the official calendar says that the time shall expire, that the House shall close, where other people have made provisions for travel as a result of that, so we have two or three hours to debate it and maybe you will get an amendment accepted or maybe you will not, in a politically charged atmosphere. Or, we could have the committees that are provided for under this act, under this legislation, under the rules of the House of Assembly, to submit this bill to a committee for further study. There are lots of reasons why, because I think the legislation would be improved and be better for it.

I am not saying that we should delay having a Parliamentary Commissioner that we need to put this off for six months or a year. We have been ten years without a Parliamentary Commissioner; ten years without a Citizens' Representative. There was no rush last year; there was no rush last fall. The new Premier has made a commitment to reintroducing the legislation and that has been done.

In fact, the government's report card - a self-reporting report card - that was published in The Telegram last Saturday ticked off that the government, the new Administration, had either completed or begun work on the following. They ticked off the restoration of the Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman, and that has been done. We have the legislation before the House, and I think it is proper and appropriate that it be studied in detail and improved. I can go into some of the reasons why, and I would be quite happy to do that.

There are some problems with this legislation, serious problems. Some of them are conceptual. Some of them are structural, in terms of how the legislation is worded. Some of them and many of them have been addressed by the Leader of the Opposition in terms of exactly what powers are being given to the commissioner and exactly what powers are being retained by the Cabinet, by the Minister of Justice and by the Internal Economy Commission who was given the power to make rules and guidelines to govern the activities of this person. Where is that coming from, Mr. Speaker? What is that intended to do? Are we going to have the Internal Economy Commission of this House telling the Parliamentary Commissioner what to do, the Minister of Justice telling the Parliamentary Commissioner what to do, conflicts within the act itself about what the role of the Citizens' Representative will be, what powers they will have and what restrictions will be placed on them. There are many, many problems here that have to be addressed in some detail and considered, I would submit, in a non-partisan atmosphere.

Let me say that a Committee of the Whole of this House, sitting on Thursday, the last day in the session, is not a non-partisan area where there is an opportunity to give full consideration to possible amendments, to give full consideration to what the officials of the Department of Justice might say, what the Legislative Counsel might say, who may have played a role in drafting the legislation.

Some things are very minor, such as: Why is it that under clause 8, the only reference to a pension is if there happens to be someone who is already subject to the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991? If such a person is appointed, that person is covered by the Public Service Pensions Act, and I presume others are not. Does the government have somebody in mind? Is that why they have written the legislation like that, or is there some other explanation? A person who was not in a public service before, who might be appointed, is this person not entitled to be considered under the Public Service Pensions Act in relation to their jobs; and if not, why not? Why is that provision there? That is a minor one, but it certainly seems to indicate that perhaps not all of the issues have been fully canvassed.

There is a provision, Mr. Speaker, under section 16 -

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Cape St. Francis made a sigh for no reason. I think he is tired.

Mr. Speaker, clause 16: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may refer to the Citizens' Representative, for investigation and report, a matter in relation to a department or agency of the government.

What is that about, Mr. Speaker? Is this a separate jurisdiction so that the Cabinet can refer a matter to the Citizens' Representative? And, who does he or she report to? Not to the individual but back to the Cabinet. Back to the Cabinet for what? Is this a secret report? Is it something that is made public? Nowhere in the act does it say that report has to be part of the commissioner's report, the Citizens' Representative report. Nowhere does it say that it is to be made public at all. There seems to be some sort of private jurisdiction between the Cabinet and the Citizens' Representative.

That is a much broader jurisdiction that is given to the commissioner in other respects. The Lieutenant-Governor shall investigate the matter subject to a special direction of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and make a report to the Lieutenant-Governor that he or she considers appropriate. Very broad. Under that jurisdiction, he can say what he likes.

We need, Mr. Speaker, to have a committee to look at this clause-by-clause-by-clause; not the Committee of the Whole of this House where we go through a committee hearing, particularly if you are on the last day of the session, where we have, I think, some twenty pieces of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: If I may, just to clue up for one moment, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is not ready for passage by this House, and that this legislation has not been given full consideration. Nor will it have an opportunity to be given full consideration, in the couple of hours that are left in the session of the House for government business, to be considered for third reading and Committee along with some twenty other pieces of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will do it next week.

MR. HARRIS: Next week would be alright, but if we are not going to sit next week, Mr Speaker, I would submit that it should be sent to a legislative committee under, I believe it is Rule 56 of the Standing Orders, or Rule 58, for full consideration by a legislative committee and be brought back to the House then for full consideration, after the legislative committee has had a chance to look at the legislation and perhaps, in a non-political atmosphere, improve the legislation with some appropriate amendments so that we can fully consider it and have a model piece of legislation for this jurisdiction, and for all jurisdictions in which a Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman or Ombudsperson or Citizens' Representative shall take place, and be a model for the rest of the world as a jurisdiction which has gone the way of getting rid of such a person and is now going to come back with a new position, under new rules and regulations that are appropriate and proper, and provide model legislation and a model Citizens' Representative so that the people of this Province can have a proper person in a proper office who would have the respect of the citizens and will be able to do an adequate and proper job to act on behalf of citizens where they feel aggrieved by an action of government or a government agency, board or commission.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their comments. I would make a few comments, however, before we close debate on second reading.

First of all, I do appreciate the comments of the hon. members with regard to what are perceived weaknesses in this piece of legislation. My understanding is, the purpose of having a debate, and we will certainly have that when we go to Committee, is for that very purpose. If there are weaknesses, that is the purpose of debate, to point out what weaknesses might exist.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to three particular weaknesses, as he defined them, in the legislation: number one, referring to section 6 and section 7, as to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council being able to remove the Citizens' Representative at whim. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I guess, you cannot do it at whim. You cannot cherry-pick your words when you are referring to the legislation. There are precautions built into this legislation.

MR. J. BYRNE: Will it make it strong (inaudible)?

MR. PARSONS: To think, Mr. Speaker, that when I was young, jack-in-the-box was my favorite game.

Mr. Speaker, again, if the purpose of this debate is to have an open, full debate on this legislation, and the validity of it, I do not think anyone should prejudge it.

There have been three basic points made by the Leader of the Opposition. That concerns section 6, section 18, regarding the Freedom of Information, and section 19. This piece of legislation was done after a comprehensive review of all jurisdictions in the country which have legislation of this type. I would suggest that, albeit the debate will be open, one should not prejudge what it means. There are reasons, there are rationales, for why these particular sections are in this act. One should not condemn before one hears what those rationales and those logical arguments are.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said there is only one way to interpret it. I am afraid, I have been around for twenty years in practice and there has not been only one way to interpret it. There have been at least two ways, normally, to interpret it.

Contrary to the allegations here, the insinuations, that this is intended to take away from what government committed, the intention here was, is, and continues to be, openness, transparency, and to have a system whereby the people of this Province can get answers to questions that they have, and they can get those answers without interference from government.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the debate we are going to have on this matter will be as open, as transparent, and as comprehensive as the piece of legislation itself.

Thank you.

I move closing of second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Appointment Of A Citizens' Representative For The Province Who Shall Have The Powers Traditionally Conferred On An Ombudsman," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 10)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn.

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