November

16, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 64

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, before we embark on the

routine Orders of the Day I want to take this opportunity, I am sure, to join

with all members of the House in wishing the Member for St. John's East success

in his new position as Leader of the NDP party; but he will understand, I am

sure, if we wish him a much greater level of success in the administrative side

of that task than we would wish him in the political side of the task. I am sure

he understands that it is not ill will that causes that. It is just that

conflict of interest prevents us from wishing him too much success on the

political side.

It is all very well to josh and joke about the thing, but I

understand from news reports that the hon. member has decided to terminate his

law practice and phase it out, and give full time to public life. I know what a

commitment that is. I know the financial burden of it, and I can only say that I

commend the hon. member for his dedication to public life, and I wish him all

the success in the world on the administrative side of his position as Leader of

the NDP, and I am sure the House does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would concur with some of the comments that the Premier

made. Certainly I can tell you, without equivocation, that I hope that the

Member for St. John's East has some luck and good fortune in raising the

fortunes of the NDP, and I say that from a purely partisan political point of

view.

In a serious vein I would say to him that it is very, very

difficulty to be the leader of a political party anywhere these days, whether it

is on the government side - I can assure him that being Opposition Leader is no

easy chore, no easy task, but it must be very, very difficult to become the

leader of a party in which you are the only occupant, or the only person in the

Legislature, and I am sure he intends to try to change that.

We have worked with him from time to time as an opposition

member on this side of the House, and I can understand his great obsession that

he has espoused publicly over the past few days about wanting to become the

Leader of the Opposition in the next opposition party, because he knows that he

would much prefer to face me on that side of the House rather than face me here

on this side of the House; but we congratulate him too, Mr. Speaker, and wish

him well administratively, as the Premier says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank both

the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition for their warm words of

congratulations. Of course it is not easy to lead any political party whether it

be in government, in opposition or in my case as a person who has been tagged as

the 'lone ranger' but one who is determined to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - well someone said the lonely ranger. I

think the first comment was the lonely ranger. That was last Thursday. By Sunday

I was a lone ranger. At least I'm a good guy and not Black Bart or something

like that. I have announced my intention of not for very long being the lone

ranger, so while we are very friendly in debate here, it is from both of your

parties, of course, that we hope to increase our numbers, that is the nature of

politics. But I thank you for the warm words and look forward to continuing to

engage in all of our legitimate and honourable concerns for the best interest of

the people of this Province here on the floor of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a good news

day, obviously, and the news just keeps getting better. Today, Mr. Newman

Bartlett, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Association,

announced the induction of four soccer contributors over the years into the

Newfoundland Sports Hall of Fame.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, the reason I rise is that one of

the hon. members of this House, the hon. Member for Grand Bank, the Opposition

House Leader, Mr. Bill Matthews -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: - will be inducted on Friday into the

Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame. I wouldn't dare try to read all

his attributes and his qualities. He was a player, a coach, and an executive

member for years. He had an outstanding career in soccer along with a young chap

by the name of Bob Breen, who belongs to that great Breen family where five

young men played with Newfoundland in 1980 and won the Canadian Challenge Cup.

Young Bob has passed away tragically and he belongs to that great family. I

might add that they are residents of St. John's South. I would also like to

announce that Mr. Ern Foote, who is a world class soccer referee will be

inducted, and Mr. Bruce Power, who has been the backbone of soccer in

Stephenville for a number of years.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We wish to be

associated with the remarks of the Member for St. John's South in expressing

congratulations to all four inductees, nominees. Undoubtedly, he would be more

familiar, perhaps, with some of their expertise, except for one person. I can

assure him I am fairly knowledgeable about the expertise of the Opposition House

Leader, not only his ability to play soccer. He was a great soccer player.

MR. MATTHEWS: Former (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Former soccer player. But he has been able to

carry on playing, using the political football from time to time over the last

ten or twelve years since he became elected Member for Grand Bank.

We are very proud of the fact that the hon. member has been

nominated and we wish to join with his friends, his family, his colleagues on

this side and, I am sure, everybody in the House, in congratulating him and

wishing him well. We look forward to his acceptance speech, whenever that time

comes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to be

associated with those remarks. Whenever people are inducted into the Hall of

Fame, it is obviously in recognition of their great skill in sports, but also

their leadership qualities in inspiring others by their sportsmanship and by

their talent. I, of course, include in that the talents of the hon. the Member

for Grand Bank who, as the Opposition House Leader, has brought to the House of

Assembly his skills in football and other sports, which we enjoy here from time

to time.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, some questions for my friend, the

Minister of Finance, related to his statement last Thursday, I believe it was,

in the House, with respect to the drastic change in the Province's deficit

position.

In the minister's statement on Thursday, he blamed most of

the dramatic change, I think it is fair to say, in the deficit position, on a

shortfall in revenues from the federal government. In fact, I quote from his

statement when he said: "For the current fiscal year, the federal re-estimates

mean a decline of $80.4 million. Coupled with a decline in provincial own-source

revenues of $16.1 million, this results in a total revenue shortfall of about

$96.5 million." That is from his statement.

Now, if you look at the tables, though, that were attached to

the minister's statement, they tell a completely different story. In an attempt

to be certain that the minister didn't mislead this House, I want to give him a

chance to clarify something and I want to ask him this question: Is it not fair

to say, and would he not agree, that the personal income tax, which is down by

$47.6 million, is, in fact, a provincial own-source revenue, not a federal

source revenue as he implied in his statement on Thursday, and publicly

afterwards?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member

knows, at the end of the six months there are new figures available from Ottawa

concerning the equalization payments, concerning the established program

financing and concerning the personal income tax revenues. The Province of

Newfoundland has a personal income tax regime which returns to the Province a

percentage, in this case I believe it is 64-66 - 64 per cent of the federal tax

revenues. The estimates that we use to determine revenues at the beginning of

each year are based, to a large extent, on the estimates of federal revenues,

because we do not have our own tax scheme but we tax as a percentage of federal

revenues. The federal government has determined that the federal revenues are

down, therefore our percentage is down, but also that the equalization component

has been cut by some $49 million.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure if the

minister clarified it or not. He does agree, then, that the drop in the

provincial personal income tax of $47 million is, in fact, a provincial source

revenue, not a federal revenue source, as he implied last week. Now, the reason

I am asking that is because I think it is important to get the proper news story

out there, because when you now add that $47.6 million, which is a drop in

provincial revenue, to the $16.1 million that he already identified in his

statement as other provincial revenue drops, it is true now, then, that the

provincial revenues are, in fact, down by $63.7 million, not $16.1 million, as

the minister had us believe last Thursday. That is the reality and that is the

truth.

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. I can't answer for the

clarity because the clarity is in the mind of the receiver. I can only answer

for the fact that I am telling the truth.

The provincial-own source revenues, as they always have,

refer to taxes that are - the regime is controlled and put in by this government

and we alone have the responsibility of assessing the effect on our economy. If

we put in a payroll tax, then we alone estimate the effects that will have in

terms of money revenue to government. If we put a tax on cigarettes or a tax on

tobacco or anything else, then we alone estimate the effect that will have on

our revenues. So, in terms of what we alone are responsible for estimating, the

provincial-own source revenues that come directly from the provincial sources to

us, we are out about $16 million. We have since been told, very recently, that

the personal income tax levels - which again come from this Province, no doubt

about it - that the federal government estimates, in collecting that particular

tax, have now had to be adjusted downwards. Therefore, if we operate as a

percentage of the federal revenues, then we have to be adjusted downwards by

some $46 million.

As well, in the midyear recalculation of equalization

payments based upon the economic performance of the five-province average as

compared to the performance of Newfoundland, we all lose another $49 million.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the exact truth of what happened and, as to whether it is

clear to the hon. member, I have no control of that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to get the

proper and correct message out to the people of the Province because they are,

at this point in time, believing that the federal revenue shortfall from federal

sources - and that was the news story - was $80.4 million. That is not accurate,

and that is the point I am trying to get the minister to clarify.

Even in their own budget documents, personal income tax is

identified as a provincial source of revenue. So what I am asking the minister

to clarify, in fact, is, whether the reality is that there is a shortfall in

provincial revenue of $63.7 million, not $16.1 million as the story said over

the weekend? The reality is, therefore - let me ask him if he can confirm this,

then - that the shortfall in federal revenues really, if you look at the

minister's table, shows that equalization payments, as he said, are down by $49

million and the EPF program financing is up by $16.2 million. Therefore, to be

perfectly true and accurate and honest, the revenue shortfall from federal

sources, is $32.8 million and not $80.4 million as the news media, at least,

carried over the weekend. I don't know if that is what the minister tried to

imply or not.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that in

the tone of the questioning the Opposition Leader is trying to imply that

somehow we have not been telling the truth about the situation, and trying to

imply that somehow now he is getting something on me, when the figures he is

quoting come from my statement, the figures that were released with my

statement.

Mr. Speaker, there is no hiding anything. Our equalization

payments are down $49 million. Because of that, the EPF payments are up a

certain amount, $17 or $18 million, whatever it happens to be, and the income

tax revenue is down. As well, the Province's own source revenues are down and,

as well, there is an over expenditure in terms of the expenditure side. So all

of these things were laid out by the government a few days ago. Whatever spin

the Opposition Leader wants to put on it, he can put on it with the press people

and with the press people he has working for him. All I can tell this hon. House

is the truth.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the only spin I want to put on it

is the truth, and I am trying to get the message out to the people of the

Province.

The reason I am asking the question is this: According to the

minister, the government, in fact, will overspend its own budget by $28.3

million, added to the revenue shortfall of $96.5 million means that his budget

deficit position has worsened by $124 million, in addition to the twenty-nine he

had already predicted.

Would the minister now then tell the people of the Province

the truth, after the earlier questions I have asked? Is it not a fact that $92

million of that amount - 75 per cent - is due, in fact, to a dramatic drop in

the Province's own source revenues, and the government's own expenditures, and

is therefore a reflection on the policies this government have had on the people

of the Province? That is the point we are trying to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker I have, in my statement, told the

truth. In the explanation today I have told the truth, and I resent, frankly,

the implication that he is calling on me, as Minister of Finance to, now for the

first time, tell the truth. I resent that implication. It is a little trick that

the Leader of the Opposition uses to try to cast aspersions on people. He

assumes it is a cute little trick, and that is his way of operating; but the

fact remains that - and I will go over it again - the revenues that we have

direct control over, of estimating the value of, like the tobacco tax, like the

cigarette tax, like the payroll tax, like the other taxes that we ourselves are

responsible for estimating, we are down about $16 million.

On the other side, we accept estimates at the beginning of

the year from the federal government with regard to equalization payments, EPF,

PIT revenues and so on. We accept, by and large, the numbers they give us to do

our budget, and that is what we have done. All I am informing the hon. House of,

and the people of the Province at this time, is that there is going to be a

shortfall, an overall shortfall, in these numbers that ultimately were the

responsibility of the federal government to provide the estimates for.

Number one, the personal income tax will be down by some $46

million. This is personal income tax from people in the Province. Number two,

the equalization payments will be down by $49 million, and that is what is

creating the very serious problem at this time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It may be the federal responsibility to estimate, but it is

the minister's responsibility that the results are less than he had been

predicting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with a similar sort

of question. The minister has told us that our deficit is going to some $155

million this year. One of the immediate actions that he has not proposed, but

that he has announced, is an immediate cutback of 1 per cent on public service

payroll for this fiscal year.

We all know that there are less than four months left in this

fiscal year. Therefore, to save 1 per cent we are talking a 3 per cent reduction

in the payroll for the balance of this year. Does the minister think that is

realistic, and how does he propose to achieve that?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the comment that was made first - the Province

of Ontario is also getting less personal income tax than they had expected -

many hundreds of millions of dollars. The Province of Alberta is finding itself

in difficulty - much greater difficulty than the Province of Newfoundland.

All of the provinces base their PIT estimates by and large on

the federal figures. They all find themselves in the same situation, and it is

something that has been going on for years and years and years. So the hon.

members need not be amazed at what has happened.

The 1 per cent reduction in the payroll that we are calling

for now over all departments, the hon. member is quite right. What we are saying

is that we would like to reduce the payroll by 1 per cent for the whole year,

and in fact there are four months left. Therefore, that, I suppose, during that

four months would be equivalent to the 3 per cent.

We believe that by taking certain actions, by being very

careful of salary expenditure, by being very careful in terms of replacing

people at this point in time, and delaying replacing people and so on, by doing

that we believe that we can achieve upwards of a 1 per cent reduction in the

salary budget for this year. There's always a certain amount of flexibility

built into any such number. What we're asking the public service to do is to

achieve a 1 per cent reduction by being extra careful this year.

Now of course the 1 per cent does not apply to the teachers'

salaries, or the salaries of the front line social workers. Number one, the

front line social workers because of a tremendous need, and the teachers because

of the 2 per cent rule that's still in affect.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yes, to get to the minister's

first remark, let me say that I'll give him this much credit. The policies of

this government are not as bad as the socialist governments in Ontario and

British Columbia, or we'd be in much worse shape than even we are now. But that

does not excuse the minister, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You woke him up.

MR. WINDSOR: I woke him up. Mr. Speaker, I woke the new

member of the NDP up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leader!

MR. WINDSOR: The new leader, I should say, Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) the minister's comments. We all know there is a vacancy rate in the

public service at any one time. The former minister announced in his last

Budget, I believe, that the vacancy rates would be increased from what they

normally were and would be enforced. What we're talking about now, I suspect, if

the minister's talking about an increased vacancy rate, the minister will

confirm that 1 per cent of the public service payroll is approximately $20

million. In order to achieve $20 million in savings over the next third of a

year, or quarter of a year - third of a year - the minister is talking about

some 2,000 less jobs. That's what it will take to achieve $20 million in saving

over the balance of this fiscal year. Does the minister honestly ask us to

believe that he can find 2,000 more vacancies than are normally held in the

public service?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the numbers that the hon. member

is using in terms of the salary budget are in the first place exaggerated and

rounded off, and in the second place would include the social workers, teachers

and so on, which is quite a substantial portion. So the first amount comes down.

Secondly, we feel that we can achieve in the remaining of the

fiscal year savings in the vicinity of $7 million to $8 million, $9 million, in

that range. We haven't had the feedback yet. What we are saying is that this

saving should not directly result in sort of a lot of layoffs in the public

service. That it shouldn't result in deputies going out and laying off a certain

number of people to try to meet their quota. That's not the way this operates.

Specific direction has been given in that regard. So it should not result in the

layoff of people.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, does the minister honestly

expect us to believe that he can achieve those types of savings simply by larger

vacancies? Is he not really looking at a second or third round of layoffs, and

his second round (Inaudible) of wage rollbacks? If not now, certainly in his

mini-Budget.

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As to the details in the

hon. member's question, what we did was what we feel was the direction we felt

we could give immediately. We now have a period of time - and I believe I

indicated in my statement that by the end of the month I would like to make

another financial statement to the House. If indeed there are to be measures

taken that affect the staffing levels or affect salaries or whatever else they

may affect in the public service, these are the kinds of measures that will be

announced in that statement. The four things that we wanted to get started on

immediately do not involve layoffs of people.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: One final, very brief, supplementary to the

minister. He's telling us that in his own estimates he's looking at $8 million

or $9 million, by that particular measure. That will take the deficit from $155

million to $145 million, $146 million. How does the minister propose to decrease

it more, and more specifically, what is the target? The minister I'm sure

doesn't expect to get the deficit back to the $28 million, $29 million he

projected, what is the target for the end of the year, is it

$100 million, is it $50 million?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the measures that we announced

immediately, hopefully will cause a saving of somewhere between $15 million and

$20 million; the four measures that were announced immediately, between $15

million and $20 million. We have to, in the next week or so, come up with

measures that protect our financial integrity certainly, and we have a lot of

very difficult decisions to make in the next week or so. I cannot, at this point

in time, give the hon. member a target. All I can say is that we projected a $29

million deficit this year; if measures are not taken it will be over $150

million, we have to take measures to solve that problem, we cannot go and borrow

the whole $150 million. There are three sources of revenue; one is extra

borrowing; the other is reduction in expenditures and the other is in increase

in revenues, Mr. Speaker, and we are looking at these three methods of coming to

a satisfactory conclusion in the statement about a week and a half down the

road. So all three are being looked at, that is all I can say to the hon.

gentleman at this time.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question too is to the Minister of Finance,

and I am sure he is familiar with the second quarter economic review and it

says: that consumer spending in the Province contributes about $6 billion to the

economy each year here.

Mr. Speaker, the review also says that the value of that

total retail trade is about 1.5 per cent. Will the minister confirm that this is

the fourth consecutive year in a row, that retail sales are down by 3 per cent?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. Right off the top I cannot,

but I will certainly have a look at that and see if in fact it is correct. I

assumed the hon. member is reading from a document and if that document is

correct then the figures are correct.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is his document that I

am quoting from. Would he also care to comment on the fact that this is

attributed to be about $200 million a year?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: This loss.

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

MR. BAKER: If the hon. gentleman is asking, does that

contribute that much of a loss to government or - I do not understand the nature

of his question.

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

MR. A. SNOW: The decline in retail sales, represents

about a $200 million figure annually; a decline.

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

MR. BAKER: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the numbers the hon.

gentleman is using are correct, then I cannot dispute that a certain percentage

of another number is another number, I cannot dispute that. If the numbers he is

using - he is asking me: are the numbers I am using correct, in essence that is

what he is saying to me. Mr. Speaker, I do not know right now if the numbers he

is using are correct and I will find out.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, again, the Minister of Finance

is telling this House that he is not exactly sure of what is occurring in his

department. He does not know what information his department puts out under his

signature or above his signature, Mr. Speaker. But I will quote from this report

that this minister sent to people in this Province, and it says: Declines in

employment in the trade industry during the first six months of this year were

consistent with the decline of 1.7 per cent in the value of retail sales during

that period. Can the minister now tell me then, how many jobs have been lost in

the trade industry so far this year, and how many jobs have been lost in that

industry since 1988?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman expects me

to remember every single number that has been put out by: Number 1, the

Department of Finance; number 2, the Statistics Division of Executive Council;

number 3, Treasury Board and so on, if he expects me at any given moment to

remember every single number, then, Mr. Speaker, I am flattered; I really am

flattered. I did not think there was a single person in this Province who

expected me to be such a superman, so I thank the hon. gentleman for his

confidence and his trust.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: He said that he could not remember what he

had written and what he had stated. What I am asking is: if, when he drew up his

policies if he really understood how many people he was putting out of

employment? I asked him a very simple question. How many people did he feel lost

their jobs? How many people were unemployed? That is a very simply stated

question. I would expect an answer, if he developed the policies.

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

MR. BAKER: Another superman question, Mr. Speaker!

Mr. Speaker, I can't speculate on that. I don't know if

people lost their jobs because of that and, if there were jobs lost, how many. I

don't know if anybody knows exactly how many. I guess a statistician or somebody

at the Economics Department at MUN could take a stab at it, but nobody knows the

number that the hon. gentleman is talking about. It is as simple as that.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, if the minister doesn't know

how many -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has to recognize the hon. the member.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Minister of Finance doesn't know how many people have

lost their jobs and he doesn't seem to care about it - he thinks that is just a

problem that Memorial University should worry about and he doesn't have any

concern for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, does the minister, then, see

any relationship between the tax burden that this government has placed on

individuals and companies and the employment and unemployment figures in this

Province, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the member can take all the cheap

shots he wants and he can make all kinds of comments about whether I care about

something or not. Again, that is his prerogative.

I would like to tell the hon. member that during the last

couple of years in this Province and in this country we have been through some

rather difficult times and there are difficult times ahead as well. I would

suggest to the hon. gentleman that every time a tax is put on a business that

indirectly that has some effect on jobs. I mean, that is accepted. I also say to

the hon. gentleman, any time a tax is put on goods or a tax is put on

individuals in the Province, that that has an effect on the activity in the

Province. I would say that unequivocally, without any problem.

I agree to those things, Mr. Speaker, but I will also tell

the hon. gentleman that if we are to have a medical care system in this

Province, if we are to have schools in this Province, if we are to have money to

help the less fortunate in our society, if we are to provide the social net that

we have in this Province, then we are going to have to collect some taxes. We

have to have money. We receive taxes from people and businesses in this Province

and then distribute them for the good of the people and for the good of the

businesses in this Province. Without that, we would have to close down the

hospitals, close down the schools, and let people starve.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Lands.

I was a little bit surprised to hear a news story on CBC Radio recently that CBC

had been denied information on the emission readings at the Holyrood generating

station. They were apparently told that they will have to go through the Freedom

of Information Act in order to get that information.

Now, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that information of that

nature should be freely available to the people of the Province, especially

people who have a direct interest in their own health and safety. Can the

minister tell me if what CBC said about that issue is true? Did they have to go

through Freedom of Information to get that information?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I am not here, Mr. Speaker, to justify CBC's

actions. Whether what they say is true or not true is certainly not my

responsibility. I will leave that with CBC.

That is a policy of our department, to refer to the Freedom

of Information Act when we receive questions such as that. I, myself, have

wondered if we have been over-zealous in that department and am looking into the

matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main, on a

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister why her

department has that policy. Surely, if the people of Holyrood and Seal Cove area

feel that their health and safety might be in jeopardy that the news media have

a duty and an obligation to report that.

Well, since they couldn't get that information, maybe the

minister can tell us now what the emissions are and what the rates are so that

the people around Holyrood and Seal Cove can be assured that their health and

safety is not in jeopardy. Also, while she is up, maybe she can tell us the

number of days that emissions at the plant have exceeded acceptable

environmental and health and safety levels.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can take those questions under advisement and

see whether it is right and proper for me to bring that information to the

House. But let me tell this gentleman over here that we do not in my department

do anything to deliberately hide what would bring any harm to a citizen of this

Province or to the environment.

I am not satisfied myself, again as I said with his question

on always going forward to the Public Information Act. I am not pleased with

what is going on at Holyrood, and have initiated a number of instructions to the

department and to the - I guess he doesn't really want to know what is happening

because it is positive. But, Mr. Speaker, directions have gone out to the

Holyrood station as to some corrections they must make. I might add that it has

only been since our government came into power that there has been personnel

released to deal with that particular plant.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main on a

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister, it

is very serious indeed if the news media can't have access to that type of basic

information that affects the health and safety of people in the Province. That

is a very, very serious issue, and her department has an obligation to make that

available.

The minister is aware that houses and cars and properties in

the Holyrood and Seal Cove area have been damaged by the residue from the

emissions that fall around the plant in neighbouring communities. Now if cars

and houses sustained damage, then it is reasonable to assume that lungs are no

less vulnerable to it all. Now can the minister give any information on what the

effect on the health and safety of the people is? Has her officials briefed her

on that, and could she tell the House about it.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I didn't

answer the gentleman's first question in the last round of questions which is

why the department has the policy on not giving forward information. It is a

policy we keep in case there is legal action needed down the road, so we always

have it double checked to see if, indeed, there is something that might

jeopardize some sort of legal action in the future. We usually find there isn't,

and are only too happy to release it to the public.

I do not believe that I have the duty to inform the media

when I have not thoughtfully and carefully looked at the situation. If I did, it

would probably give rise to undue panic, which might be unjustified, and often

is unjustified, I might add. As far as your other question, I would have to say

that is a health matter, and is not one that can be directed to the Minister of

Environment.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before proceeding to other routine matters, the Chair would

like, on behalf of hon. members, to welcome to the public galleries today ten

students from Adult Basic Education Level I at the Cabot Institute campus here

in St. John's, accompanied by their instructor, Patricia Ralph.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, notice of two bills, if I

might.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act."

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I ask

leave to introduce a motion I would like to ask the unanimous leave of the House

to take a resolution off the Order Paper and to proceed with this one that I

have, because it is very similar but more relevant now than it was when the

original was put. Mr. Speaker, have I the unanimous consent of the House?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I no doubt

would have been happy to give unanimous consent. I understand that the

Opposition House Leader was consulted. If I knew what the member was doing I'd

be quite happy to give unanimous consent.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from St.

John's East is quite correct. I inadvertently - and the responsibility is mine -

neglected to ask him for his consent. So I hope he may, at the very least, allow

the hon. gentleman from Eagle River to read the amended motion, or the new

motion. I think it will become clear. If the hon. gentleman is not prepared to

consent to it, then he will withhold his consent, as he has every right to do.

But the responsibility is mine. I can only tell him I regret -

MR. SIMMS: Resign, resign.

MR. ROBERTS: It is a dull day when the Leader of the

Opposition, dull fellow that he is, doesn't ask me to resign, Mr. Speaker. So I

suggest to my friend from St. John's East -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - maybe if he could let the gentleman from

Eagle River read the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, he has to give notice now, that is the

problem, or we miss the point in the Orders of the Day.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I thank my hon. friend from Burin -

Placentia West, who has never in his whole life made a mistake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I gather the hon. the Member for Eagle River is asking two

things: firstly, to withdraw a motion that is presently on the Order Paper, and

secondly, to proceed with a new one. Does the hon. member have leave?

The hon. member has leave.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS a national highway policy is currently in the process

of development; and

WHEREAS the national system as presently defined does not

include the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS any funding under the policy must be incremental to

the Roads for Rails agreement; and

WHEREAS the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway is

essential for the economic development of Labrador and greatly beneficial to all

the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call

upon the federal government to support the inclusion of the Trans-Labrador

Highway into the national highway system; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the federal government provide

sufficient funds in the national highway policy to complete the Trans-Labrador

Highway.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to grant leave

to the hon. member to replace the previous motion with this one.

MR. SPEAKER: I was assuming the leave was granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS:

A) I thank my hon. friend, and

B) may I

inform the House that is the motion we shall be calling on Wednesday for debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. and learned friend. There are no

gallant members in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Member for Fogo asked a couple of

questions related to the Fogo - Change Island ferry services. The first question

was: How long will two-vessel service be in effect, and what are the

government's plans with respect to two-vessel service?

Two-vessel service will be extended on that particular run to

the end of November, and then the situation will be reassessed.

The second question was: When can we expect the Beaumont

Hamel to return to service from refit?

That should be sometime around mid-December.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, before I present the petition, I

would like to point out that the petition is signed by the residents of Lourdes,

and it was presented to me to present it to the House of Assembly. I checked

with the Clerk, but it doesn't formally say: To the House of Assembly, so I ask

leave of members opposite to present the petition in this format.

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

The hon. member may proceed.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the petition is from the

community of Lourdes, concerning a bridge that runs through that community,

which is on a main road that runs through other communities in the district. The

petition is signed by 616 residents, and the prayer of the petition is:

WHEREAS, The Mill Bridge in the community of Lourdes is in a

state of disrepair, we feel the Department of Transportation should take steps

to remedy the situation, as this bridge is used constantly by traffic to and

from outlying communities.

THEREFORE, The undersigned petition government to take steps

to this end.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of the community have engaged a

private firm from the area, Campbell Engineering, to have a look at the bridge,

and the firm felt that the bridge was, indeed, unsafe.

As well, the mayor of the community, or the then mayor of the

community, had written the Minister of Transportation about the bridge, and in

his reply of May 21, last spring, in the letter he said: 'My Deer Lake officials

inform me that there is no immediate danger from the bridge. My officials have

identified the need to have the bridge replaced, but unfortunately, funds were

not allocated in this year's Capital Works Program.'

Mr. Speaker, this letter clearly shows that the department,

itself has problems with the bridge. They have slated it for repair, although

they feel there is no immediate danger. Now, that was in May. That particular

bridge now has deteriorated somewhat more. There are now some wrinkles, bumps,

in the bridge. As well, this particular bridge, whether it were a dangerous

bridge or not, is very narrow. It is at the bottom of a hill, and it is very,

very dangerous in wintertime.

I saw it myself, this summer. I looked at it and it does look

like it is very bad. It is a big issue with the people there. They have had an

independent firm look at it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he would reconsider. The

bridge is slated for replacement. I would suggest to him that the bridge not

only needs to be replaced, but it needs to be widened. The traffic that goes

through that particular area as well goes to communities of Winter House and

Black Duck Brook, and to the communities of Three Rock Cove and Mainland. So

there is a tremendous amount of traffic covering that bridge. It is very

dangerous. It is very narrow. We have school children passing over it, and it is

structurally unsound, both from the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation's view, as well as from an independent assessment of this.

Mr. Speaker, I implore the minister, and tell him that the

residents of the area are concerned, and I ask him to do everything in his power

to see that the bridge is replaced in this coming season.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member has indicated, an assessment was done on

the bridge, and the department does recognize that there is a need with respect

to that particular bridge.

Every year the Provincial Roads Program is broken down into

three components, and one of the components is the construction of new bridges

and the rehabilitation of existing bridges.

Mr. Speaker I will, if the departmental officials have not

already done so, instruct the departmental officials to go out and reassess the

bridge. I can assure the hon. member that the bridge will be given consideration

in the upcoming Capital Works Program for the department. However, at this time,

no commitment can be given with respect to that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 1, please, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Remove Anomalies and Errors In The Statute Law," carried. (Bill No.

54).

On motion, Bill No. 54 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 20, Bill No. 48, a continuation of

an adjourned debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I am not rising to seek leave to speak on

it. Before we go let me note that my colleague, the minister, is absent from the

House today. He is in Ottawa for meetings with another minister in Ottawa, Mr.

Crosbie. So I shall be doing my best to keep track of points opposite. We shall

respond to them in due course whenever our turn comes in this debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment on Friday I

was speaking on this bill. During the course of my remarks the Government House

Leader, the Minister of Justice, had cause to interrupt to read out certain

sections of the Conflict of Interest Act. I didn't have it in front of me at the

time, so I wasn't able to properly respond other than to agree with him on one

thing, that certain members of a law firm where I was once a partner and had

been employed, and am now employed or in a relationship with, did do some work

for the Workers' Compensation Commission. The minister suggested that this was a

conflict of interest within the meaning of the act and required a declaration.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have since had time to look at the

Conflict of Interest Act, and I have to say that the minister is mistaken,

although I thank him for bringing to my attention the provisions of

section 4 of

the Act.

Section 4.1 of the Act refers to a conflicting member of the House of

Assembly or an agency with a conflicting interest. Then, it goes on, and often,

even well-experienced lawyers don't read all of a section. But

Section 4,

subsection 2, talks about a conflicting interest and says there shall not be

considered to be a conflicting interest for the purposes of the

section in

relation to matters of wide, general, public application including matters of

general taxation. So while there may be an interest - and yes, I have an

interest of employment in a law firm of which some other members do some

advising for the Workers' Compensation Commission from time to time, and I am

told only sporadically. Nevertheless, that may be an interest of some sort, but

certainly not a conflicting interest, and not in any conflict with any opinions

or interests that I might have.

It is no more a conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker, than the

Member for Port de Grave might have if he were speaking on a matter involving

the fisheries because he happens to be the Chairperson of the United

Fisherpersons of Newfoundland. Does that mean that every time the Member for

Port de Grave gets up and speaks and has something to say on the fisheries that

he has to declare at the beginning: I, Mr. Speaker, am the Chairperson of the

United Fisherpersons of Newfoundland and Labrador? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not

the case at all. So there is a difference between having an interest and having

a conflicting interest, and the Act takes care of that.

Now the Minister of Justice and I may have some academic

discussion about that afterwards.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) in court. (Inaudible) any lawyer I

ever saw.

MR. HARRIS: The Leader of the Opposition is referring to

the legal practice of the Member for Port de Grave. I wouldn't want to have his

practice. He proved himself to be a failure as a lawyer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I am not surprised his brother didn't pay him

for representing him in court. I wouldn't have paid him either.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to talk about conflict of

interest but it is another thing to actually have one. And I think hon. members

in this House do each other and do the public interest a disservice when they

talk about conflict of interest because it is only encouraging the kind of

cynicism that the public is being encouraged to have about politicians by

blasting about conflict of interest every time they think they can score a

political point. That should be saved for when there is a real conflicting

interest, when there is a real difference between a member's personal private

interest and his public position on a matter or a position in government. I

think we should be fair about that.

It is not something that we should easily bandy around, so,

all joking aside, I ask the hon. the Member for Port de Grave, to curb his

tongue at times, to not be so quick to jump up and accuse another politician, to

try to throw some mud, because the person who throws mud often gets splashed

with it, you know, and that is something that we should all keep in mind when we

are trying to do our jobs as hon. members. So I will leave that, Mr. Speaker,

and say that, yes, I have a very great interest in this bill.

It is a matter of wide, general public application because it

affects all workers in this Province and all employers, too, and Members of this

House and members of the public who are affected by this because the employers

have to pay the cost and that is only right, but the workers and their families

have to suffer from the eventuality of workplace accidents and the consequences

of that on their families, on their incomes, on their futures and their health

primarily, Mr. Speaker, first of all and most importantly upon their health and

that is why I have a great concern when the government while faced with the

report, which criticizes it for not taking sufficient action to spend even the

budget that it had on Occupational and Health Safety in workplace accident

prevention, it did not do that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I give them credit, they made some changes in that in

the last while. They appointed people in these jobs that were gone undone; they

have beefed it up, they are continuing the inspections. They are taking a

different sort of attitude than they had before, and I think, unfortunately it

may have taken some very sad accidents to let the government recognize and pay

attention to the responsibilities in the field of Occupational Health and Safety

and reporting of accidents and to straighten up their procedures on that. It is

unfortunate that it was the most serious accidents that occurred that caused the

government to stand up on its hind legs and take some action that people had

called upon the government to do before but had not been done.

So, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to see the government, when

faced with this kind of a criticism, the criticism about the delays in attending

to Workers' Compensation, claimants' needs for medical attention, for

rehabilitation, for a decision and a quick decision from the Compensation

Commission about their cases and for some attention to be paid, it saddens me to

see that when that is identified as the cause for the expenses and the increases

in assessments that the government's response is to say: Well, this is

inefficient; this is a terrible situation, we will have to fix it up by reducing

the benefits to workers. Now that is not fair, Mr. Speaker. That doesn't come

under the heading of the statement that the Premier of this Province tries to

continue to regard as the watchword of his administration, fairness and balance.

If that is fairness, then the word fairness has no meaning to the Premier of

this Province, because we have the unfortunate circumstances of the government

taking it out on the beneficiaries of the system, not cleaning up the system,

itself.

MR. FUREY: How do you clean up the system?

MR. HARRIS: So we have unfunded liabilities - and the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or Mr. It, now has responded by

asking: 'How do you clean up the system? Well, Mr. Speaker, the problems were

identified in terms of the cost and the cost to the system. What the minister, I

think, is referring to is the unfunded liability, not necessarily a real problem

today but maybe a problem in five or ten years time. The efficiencies to be

gained, Mr. Speaker, by taking proper and appropriate action now to clean up the

system would be able to postpone those realities and find ways of doing that

without having to make the workers pay an unfair burden, Mr. Speaker. If the

system has failed the workers, then fix the system. Don't make the injured

workers and their families pay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of provisions in this

Bill. Where this is second reading, this is a question, on principle, of whether

we support or not support this legislation. I can't support this legislation, in

principle, Mr. Speaker, because it takes such a swipe at injured workers in this

Province. There are one or two provisions of it that are, no doubt, beneficial

and I have no real difficulty with some of them.

There is one I want to point to, Mr. Speaker, that I see no

reason for. The Government House Leader said that he would be making note of

what people have to say. He is no longer in the House. I don't know if the

Deputy Government House Leader is going to be taking notes from here on in and

letting the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations know the problems. I

don't understand why, Mr. Speaker, significant changes are being made to

Section

45. Now, they are complicated, they are not easy to understand. Even a lawyer

might have difficulty trying to figure out what the government is trying to do

in reading this legislation. It is complex.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) a lawyer would have trouble with

it?

MR. HARRIS: Many lawyers would have trouble with it. Lots

of lawyers are not as smart as the hon. Member for Carbonear even. Being a

lawyer does not mean you are smart.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you got that right!

MR. HARRIS: Just because you attempt to practice law

doesn't mean you have a clue either.

Mr. Speaker, it is a complex section. What it is all about,

Mr. Speaker, is whether or not there is an opportunity for an injured worker to

pursue both a legal action against a third party and, at the same time, obtain

the benefits of workers' compensation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What section?

MR. HARRIS: Clause 9 of the bill,

Section 45 of the old

act. Now, the workers' compensation scheme, Mr. Speaker, is designed to provide

benefits to workers injured on the job, without having to get involved in all of

the ins and outs of litigation, the cost, the expensive lawyers' bills, the

problems of having lawyers who don't necessarily know what they are doing from

time to time, people making mistakes, having to pay those costs, and going to

court getting judges decisions which may or may not always be correct and may

have to be appealed.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, prior to workers' compensation

coming in, having judge-made rules, particularly in the common law jurisdictions

of England and Canada, which really prevented an individual from being

successful in suing his employer. There are all sorts of legal doctrines. One is

called the voluntary assumption of risk. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the judge

saying: Well, you came to work in this dangerous factory, you knew you were

taking the risk, so if you get injured, well then that is not the employer's

fault, you voluntarily assumed the risk. Or they said: Well, this was your

fellow employee, it was his negligence that caused your accident, not the

employer. So you can't sue your fellow employee either because they developed

this thing called the Doctrine of Common Employment. So you were taken to assume

that you go to work with an employer, you know that you are going to be working

with people who might be careless or might be drunk or might be unable to do the

job that has been given to them with dangerous equipment, so there is a

voluntary assumption of risk.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where that was

wiped out. None of these judge-made rules were going to apply to prevent people

from suing, so we will give you compensation. But that didn't affect third

parties. There is a manufacturer - and I think the example was used by the

Opposition House Leader the other day,the example was given of an airplane

crash. Workers returning from Labrador after fishing. There's been a couple of

them. An airplane travelling from Greenland bringing back fishermen from

Labrador crashed, and a number of employees were killed.

The employees' dependents can collect compensation and, until

now, they could sue the owner, the operator of the aircraft. Perhaps the

manufacturer of the aircraft, who may well have been at fault, and perhaps

collect more than the workers' compensation benefits would allow.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the legislation is going to say to the

family of that worker, who may be desperate for the next month's rent payment or

grocery bill, to say: you have to elect. If you're going to sue you can't

collect compensation. Why are they saying that? I don't think any real

explanation was given by the Minister of Employment when he introduced this

Bill. I read through his remarks. There's nothing there that provides a decent

explanation as to why they're doing this.

It doesn't benefit any of the employers which are covered by

this Act. In fact, it may be detrimental to them. Who are they trying to protect

here by saying: you have to exercise your right to either sue or collect

compensation. Not only that, that the moment you make your application for

compensation, you lose your right to sue. Why? You lose it. The moment that this

family of a deceased worker applies for compensation to put bread on their table

or to pay their rent, they lose the right to sue. Somebody who's not even

covered by workers' compensation anyway. Irrespective of the outcome. There's no

rationale for that.

The minister did say the other day that he's prepared to

listen to what people have to say and look for solutions. Maybe the solution,

since such drastic changes are being made, is to send this Bill out on

committee. We know we've had the Workers' Compensation Review. We know that

certain people are going to be objecting to it. But this is not an unimportant

issue. This issue was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada from this Province

in the last five years, because there was an individual who wanted to bring an

action against an employer as well as collect compensation. It ended up being in

the Supreme Court of Canada. The workers' compensation system was, by the

Supreme Court of Canada, recognised as being a comprehensive scheme that

protected workers, and that therefore this individual could not sue the

employer. Nothing about third parties.

Yet, this administration, this government, seems to want to

prevent employers from having their options, to take away what was known as the

Ocean Ranger amendment, which gave employees and their families the right to

both sue and claim for compensation in the meantime, and if successful, pay back

the government what they had obtained from the lawsuit, or in other cases, where

Workers' Compensation Commission itself goes ahead and sues to pay the balance

to the individual.

Now there are some administrative problems in figuring out

when an election could be made or should be made, because there is a need for

the Workers' Compensation Commission to know whether an employee is going to sue

or not, because the Workers' Compensation Commission itself may wish to sue, to

recoup the amount of compensation that they're paying out, and that's something

that the Commission would want to do, but not at the expense of preventing an

individual from suing, because once they do that they of course take on a

responsibility to do their very best to win that case. They may have, in fact,

some fiduciary or legal obligation to the claimants in those kinds of

situations.

So I think we have a situation where for some reason, and it

seems to be purely administrative, the government is taking away substantive

rights from workers and their dependents in the case of third party liability

and third party accidents.

Now I know I've gone over the time that was allotted, Mr.

Speaker, and I understand that I was given indulgence by the members opposite

because of the matter raised by the Government House Leader on Friday, and I

thank them for it.

I will conclude now by saying that I think this is a piece of

legislation which is one more example of this government, while saying it has no

choice, really exercising its choice to do something that they really do not

have to do, and that is make the workers pay.

I just had something given to me today which seems to be an

excuse that this government has quite often, and it is a play on words. We have

all heard the phrase 'The devil made me do it.' This government's major excuse

for everything now, and the worse kinds of oppression of people is, 'The deficit

made me do it.' That is what this government says: 'The deficit made me do it.'

Well that is not good enough as an excuse.

They do have choices. They should not be doing the things

they are doing to workers. There are other ways to resolve these problems, and I

want to see this resolution debated further, and I hope that some other hon.

member on this side of the House gives the six month hoist motion so that we can

debate it more fully. I think it deserves further debate, and I think it

deserves being sent out to a committee to have hearings around this Province

before such drastic changes are made in the workers' compensation, and hear what

injured workers and this families have to say about how this will affect their

lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Before recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, although I

have recognized him, on behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

galleries twenty Level II students from Little Heart's Ease School, in the

district of Bellevue, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Cyril Rogers and Mr.

David Peach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wish to speak to this bill for a short period of time,

to make some points. Fortunately, when you are fourth or fifth or sixth in the

speaking order, most of the points have already been made, and most of the

defences to the arguments put up by the opposition are addressed by somebody on

the government side at this stage, normally; but I do want to have my say on it.

I listened, or at least I tried to listen, with some interest

to the Member for St. John's East putting forth some of the arguments he was

trying to put forth in this debate. I have listened to earlier parts of the

debate from my office upstairs where I have been carrying on matters of public

urgency, and have heard some of the debate.

Basically the essence of it, of the argument, is the same.

First of all, the minister began the debate last - I forget when it was now -

Tuesday or Thursday last week. When he introduced the legislation he pointed out

at the beginning that the legislation contained some very tough measures. Indeed

it does. The measures that are contained in this legislation will affect nearly

every worker and their dependents, and will also affect nearly every employer,

businessperson, in this Province.

I think it is also fair to say that there has - and I say

this honestly - there has been little effort, or little interest on the part of

the government to give the people who are most affected by this legislation the

opportunity to make their views known publicly, and to have a voice in the

reform of workers' compensation legislation.

I do not think in principle too many people would disagree

that there needs to be some reform. There is debate and argument as to which

type of reform is best, and I guess from the government's perspective their

argument is: Which type of reform is necessary to cut down on the costs? And

that is basically the only thing the government seems to be looking at.

I say again that the thing that really bothers me about this

is that if there is a piece of legislation at all ever dealt with in this

Province that should have input by the people, then it is surely this kind of

legislation that should go to a public hearing.

I think that the government actions have really made a farce

of our committee system because the Bill itself, as I understand it, was only

sent to the Government Services Committee on the day that it was distributed in

the Legislature - just a few days ago - and the government a few years ago

brought in this new process of having committees of the House representing all

parties; hold public hearings; travel around the Province. Surely, Mr. Speaker,

surely, if our Legislature and our House can send the committee around the

Province to listen to what people have to say and to get the input of people on

an issue such as changing the name of the Province from Newfoundland to

Newfoundland and Labrador, as important as that issue may be, then surely this

Legislature has an obligation and indeed a responsibility to the people of this

Province to allow them to have a say on this extremely important legislation

here, because this is legislation that will affect people and their dependents,

people's lives and will affect just about every business, entrepreneur and

business person in this Province.

And of course last week I asked the question of the Premier:

would he consider deferring debate on this legislation for a while, it would not

matter all that much if we did not deal with this until next February or March

when the House opens in two or three months time, and take the time during the

interim to give this legislation to a committee, bring it around the Province

and let the people who are going to be affected by this do two things. One, have

some input into the reform they would like to see at Workers' Compensation

because I am sure, people, all of us as MHAs deal with, every single day, I know

I get calls all the time. People who are involved with Workers' Compensation

through no fault of their own have lots of problems with it, I am absolutely

certain that the public out there have some good ideas as to how Workers'

Compensation process, the process at least can be improved. I have no doubt in

my mind that the ordinary person out there who has been affected in one way or

another over the years, through no fault of his own, can offer some input, so I

would like to see that opportunity afforded to the people of the Province, who

are going to be mostly affected by this legislation so that they can have a

chance to have some input.

The other thing it would do by having some kind of a public

process, public hearing process, and as I said, we do it for bills like changing

the name of the Province, then surely this legislation is one that requires

input from the people and something to give the people a chance to think about,

but more importantly, it will give the people an opportunity to understand what

it is the Legislators, we, the elected representatives of the people, the

Legislators are attempting to do, because we all know, no matter if you are on

the opposition side or on the government side, it is very difficult to get your

message out there. To be able to get the message out to the public as to what it

is exactly that you are saying, what you are advocating in the case of the

government, what you are opposing or criticising in the case of the opposition,

very, very difficult, so my suspicion is, that an awful lot of people in this

Province really do not know precisely what is being proposed in this

Legislature.

Sure, they have heard some media coverage about it and heard

this being said, that being said but for the most part people really do not have

a full understanding of it. So with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and earlier on in

my comments, I prefer to do it now that later on, because of our belief that our

people should have some input and should have a chance to understand exactly

what is happening, I am going to move an amendment, which, if passed, would give

the government the opportunity to take some of the advice that has been offered

thus far in this debate, and so, I would like to move, seconded by the Member

for Kilbride, that all the words after that be deleted and the following

substituted:

Bill 48, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act", be

not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time six months, hence.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment -

MR. SIMMS: No, no, Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for Your

Honour, to rule the amendment in order.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the amendment is in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not put the question

in. Mr. Speaker, I will debate the amendment -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: The motion is dilatory. It is not debatable,

it is to be put to the question.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, is the resolution in order?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the amendment.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will continue on

with my comments -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a look at the amendment.

MR. SIMMS: That is the ordinary six-month hoist

amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I mean I was only going to speak for ten

minutes, but I will speak for two hours if you insist. It does not matter -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), get.

MR. SIMMS: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hours.

MR. SIMMS: No, you are incorrect again, as usual. You

have been out of the House for so long you forget, 'Ed', you forget; any debate,

the Leader and the Premier - any debate, during an amendment or during the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair rules the amendment in order.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the reason for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The six-month hoist is a debatable motion and the hon. member

is debating.

MR. SIMMS: Absolutely.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Wrong again.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My friend, the

Government House Leader -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Send Winst back.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he will have to get some advice from the

Minister of Finance, who is experienced in these matters in recent years. Maybe

things have changed.

Mr. Speaker, again I say, the reason for the six-month hoist

is to try to get the government, particularly the leader of the government, the

Premier, who, a few days ago was adamant that he would not allow public hearings

on this legislation, to give them an opportunity, should they agree to pass the

amendment, of course, to reconsider the possibility of giving the people of the

Province a chance to have some input into the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, when he made his few remarks last

week introducing the legislation, admitted that most of the financial

difficulties of the Commission have occurred in the past two years, according to

the minister's commentary. He said two things have happened over the last couple

of years: "...in particular, the annual monies collected by the Commission,

through their assessment process, have not paid for..." all of the expenses,

obviously. The annual expenses, including expenses for injury claims and

expenses for administration. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that is a direct quote from

the minister, from Hansard, page 2271, when he spoke last week. So, over the

last couple of years, in particular, the monies coming in, collected by the

Commission through the assessment process that they use, has not been enough to

look after injury claims and administration of the Workers' Compensation

Commission.

That is not really startling news. That is one of the things

he said. He also made the point that the Commission has had to dip into the

reserves that they have, that have been put aside to pay for future costs. That

is, future liabilities. So he made that point in the speech he made a few days

ago in the Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if that approach continues, as we all know,

that would be a recipe for disaster. The problem is, and the point that I would

make, is that this has occurred over the last couple of years, in particular,

according to the minister, himself, despite the fact that employers in this

Province pay the second highest rate in the country. Despite that fact, this has

still continued to occur.

Now, what has happened? Why has this happened? I guess there

probably will be as many guesses or suggestions put forward as there are members

in the Legislature, depending on their own point of view. I can only make

observations based on what the minister tells us from time to time, which he has

done in this House. But there is no doubt about it, one of the major reasons why

this has happened is because of the dramatic decrease in payrolls in this

Province over the last two years, in particular - a dramatic decrease in

payrolls.

We all know how the process works. Workers' Compensation

charges so much per every $100 of payroll that businesses have in the Province.

That is how the process works. We all, personally, know businesses, small

business entrepreneurs, who have fallen by the wayside, who have gone under,

over the last couple of years, because of economic situations, and because of

particular circumstances.

I think, as an Opposition member, a lot of it is as a result

of this government's economic and fiscal policies. I think that is one of the

real problems. They have been falling like flies, Mr. Speaker, and there are

examples here in the Legislature, I guess, as well as outside. But those that

have survived have done so thus far by cutting their payroll, i.e., by cutting

employment, by cutting jobs. For the most part, many of those that have survived

these last couple of years are those that, among other things, had to take

drastic action like cutting out employees, laying off people - there's no doubt

about that - and that means, therefore, obviously, the payroll has been cut. So

they have less of a payroll for which - the Workers' Compensation would normally

get more money if they had a larger payroll.

So it makes genuine sense, and it is simple from that

perspective, that that is one of the most dramatic reasons for the problems and

the decline in revenues at the Worker's Compensation office over the last couple

of years, in particular, taking the minister at his own word when he said

himself last Thursday that the problems that exist there now have really been

exacerbated over the last couple of years. So I think that is one of the main

reasons why revenues are down. Payrolls are down. There are less payrolls

because businesses have had a lot of difficulty, a lot of businesses have gone

under. All you have to do is look at the personal income tax revenues that the

Minister of Finance tabled a couple of days ago. They are down dramatically.

On the other side of it, Mr. Speaker, another reason for some

of the problems on the cost side, the duration period through the Workers'

Compensation process, and therefore, the cost of claims, are up. That is very

well known, I think, today. One of the reasons for that is that there are no

alternative employment opportunities for many of these injured workers who are

unable to return to their former jobs, and the government hasn't done enough to

try to find these alternative employment opportunities for these injured

workers.

Mr. Speaker, I know of which I speak. I know of which I

speak, because I deal with Workers' Compensation problems of people all over the

Province, not just in my own constituency. I hear stories after stories, time

and time again from people who are suffering because of the way the process

works and the system works. That is why I said at the outset, nobody is opposed

to legitimate reform of the Workers' Compensation system - certainly, it needs

reform, but I am not sure that the process that is being suggested by the

government is going to be the best one that serves the people of this Province.

Another reason for the decline in revenues and so on, and the

problems down there is because of the long delay in getting medical assessments.

Surely, all members in this House have had that kind of situation brought to

their attention by constituents. I certainly have on many occasions. If the

medical assessments are being delayed, then, obviously, the cost increases. The

cost to the process and the system increases and the duration of the claim

increases, and that makes the problem even more difficult. I think that this

situation has been worsened by the actions and policies of this government in

cutting back on health care, acute services in health care, in particular. So I

think that is another reason, and that is why the government is narrow-minded

and not looking at all these other reasons or not prepared to accept any

criticism in this regard, or not prepared to even consider that maybe some of

the suggestions being made are correct. Because cuts that have been undertaken

by this government over the last couple of years have put so much pressure on

our health care system that I think it can't respond efficiently and effectively

anymore, and that really adds to the cost once again. So there are lots of

reasons why all of this has happened.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the committee that had been set up by

the government to look into this issue, chaired, in my view, by a very capable

individual, the former deputy minister, I don't know if he is still deputy

minister or not, is he? - Mr. Randell -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: - the deputy minister. The committee, chaired

by him - as capable as he is and for all the respect I have for him, I do think

that the perception would be out there that it was a bit of a whitewash for the

government to have this committee, even though the other two members on the

committee represented employers or employees, the committee was chaired by the

minister's own deputy minister. I think there is something wrong with that.

Perception-wise there is a lot wrong with it. Members over there can shake their

heads and say, don't be silly, that is not true, but I am telling members

opposite that it is true. That is a reasonable criticism. It is a fair

criticism, and it is better for members to accept that kind of a criticism

rather than just slough everything off and shake their heads, because it is

true. It looks like a bit of a whitewash. There are people who have said that

'it came in and it is being recommended because Mr. Randell chaired the

committee. What did you expect?'

DR. KITCHEN: Did he whitewash it or didn't he?

MR. SIMMS: I am not making any accusations.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, you are.

MR. SIMMS: No, I am not.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, you are.

MR. SIMMS: No, I say to the minister.

DR. KITCHEN: He certainly is.

MR. SIMMS: No. I say to the minister.

MR. DECKER: What a slimy way, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: Now, now, I say to the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) hide behind (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, best, I think, left unsaid to

respond to the Minister of Health. He describes what the perception might be of

me. I can tell him - well I won't say it. I think I will avoid getting into any

kind of a match with the Minister of Health.

Anyway, the points I am trying to make are legitimate points,

and criticisms that are made by people around the Province. And if people like

the Minister of Health do not want to listen to those criticisms, then that is

fine. I have no problem with it. But I am certainly entitled to express views

that have been expressed to me by people whom not only I represent, but people

who are represented by members on the other side, people who have some really

legitimate, serious concerns about what is happening with the Workers'

Compensation system and what is being proposed here. People have reason to be

concerned, I believe, because this will affect not only everybody in the

Province who are workers and might have access to this system, but every

employer in the Province, because of the changes being proposed by the

government.

There are other reasons for the problems that have existed

here - increases in injuries because of cutbacks, which now creates situations

where one worker is performing tasks that maybe in the past would have been done

by two workers, particularly in the public service. Members know that is

accurate. Nurses is a good example, as a matter of fact.

The workplace now, I venture to say, is perhaps more

dangerous than it ever has been in the past, in terms of health and safety. I

have heard members opposite say that, by the way, that the workplace these days

is perhaps more dangerous in terms of health and safety than it ever has been in

the past. It puts people in a place of being more prone to injury, probably,

than they ever have been before, because they are working longer hours, there

are less people in the public service, in particular in hospitals and so on, so

there is more work being put on the backs of individuals who perhaps were not

doing that much work before, in that sense.

There is an argument also that the Workers' Compensation

Commission has failed to implement any kind of effective health and safety

program that might help reduce injuries in the workplace in the long term. That

is a criticism, and a fair criticism. These are criticisms made by workers, as

well as by employers, as well as by medical people. I have heard it many times.

There is not really a good, effective, and adequate health and safety program in

place that might reduce injuries, or help reduce injuries in the workplace.

There is a criticism that the training programs in place now

for injured workers, to help them find alternative employment, are inadequate;

and there are many charges that the rehabilitation programs that could help

speed up an injured worker's recovery and reduce the duration of their claim,

are inadequate.

So there are all kinds of areas that need to be addressed and

considered and looked at; but I guess the question, simply put, is: Will the

remedies proposed in this Bill 48 solve the problem? I doubt it. I truly doubt

it, because many of the problems which exist, and which are at the root of the

difficulties experienced by the Workers' Compensation Commission are not really

addressed in the bill, such as those that I pointed out. Instead, the government

has decided to do what it always does when it finds it has some kind of a

problem. It cuts and it taxes.

Now, in this instance, they are going to cut the compensation

for workers from 90 per cent of net income down to 75 per cent of net income for

the first thirty-nine weeks, which is a cut in income of nearly 20 per cent for

the vast majority of Workers' Compensation claimants. Then, after thirty-nine

weeks, an injured worker will get 80 per cent instead of the 90 per cent that

they are now entitled to - a further erosion of their income.

The first thing the government does is cut - cut. Their

favourite policy is 'cut and tax'. They are going to cut the workers' benefits

considerably, and I can tell you there are an awful lot of people out there on

Workers' Compensation who are absolutely scared to death by what they are

hearing here, and what they hear. That is another reason why I think public

hearings would be valuable. Because it would give the proponents of the

legislation, the government members in particular, but the legislators, an

opportunity to try to explain to people why this has to be done. Because just

saying it in the Legislature, the message is not getting through. The message

isn't getting out there.

On the other side of it, the tax part of the government's

policy - which is what they love to do, cut and tax - on the tax side of it

they're going to increase the rates for employers who already pay the second

highest rates in the country for workers' compensation. Way above the rates

paid, by the way, in the other Atlantic provinces. So what will be the impact of

that?

In addition to all of the other effects that the government's

policies have had on employers in this Province over the last couple of years,

businesspeople and so on, now with a further increase in workers' compensation

this is going to lead to more layoffs. It will eventually lead to more layoffs.

Because people will attempt to make their payrolls smaller, because workers'

compensation is assessed on the amount of the payroll, for every $100 of

payroll. So you'll have more layoffs, you'll have smaller payrolls, you'll have

less income therefore to the Workers' Compensation Commission. So it seems to me

like there's a really vicious circle here. Smaller workforces will then

contribute to more injuries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SIMMS: Because you'll have less people doing the work

that - if you only have five people doing the work that ten should be doing, it

could possibly create more injuries. Even the member, who's an expert in health

and safety, or at least safety, should recognise and acknowledge that. I'm sure

he does. He's not going to do it here, but I'm sure he would privately. He may

do it here. God knows. We may be surprised. I'd be interested to hear what he

has to say in this debate a little later on. I might not be here in the House to

listen to him but I assure him I'll be listening whenever he speaks.

All I'm saying is that with the increase in employers - first

of all, the taxation method the government employs is to decrease the benefits

paid to people who legitimately need some income. Then on the other side of it

is the taxation end of it. That's the cutting side of it. On the taxation end of

it they intend to increase the rates for employers and that's going to lead to

further layoffs, because people are going to try to bring their payroll down to

smaller amounts. It means there is going to be less income to the Workers'

Compensation Commission. It means there is potential for more injuries because

there will be less people in the workforce to do the jobs that more people

probably should be doing. Nurses is the example I used earlier, in the hospital

system. So there could be fewer opportunities for alternative employment because

of it, for injured workers. Therefore, that means higher costs again for

workers' compensation.

I think that the government's policies - cutbacks, taxes -

which has been the government's policy direction over the last three and a half

years - have worsened an already weak economy. I think the remedies for the

Workers' Compensation Commission will make the problems worse there, also. I

think what we need to look at is - the problems, I think, associated with

workers' compensation are really related to the problems in the economy, in my

view,. The problems in workers' compensation are really, when you look at it in

its larger context, related to the overall problems in the economy. Because when

the economy improves, when the economy recovers, then you have more jobs, then

you have larger payrolls, and you have greater revenues to the Workers'

Compensation Commission.

I think what the government should be doing is first of all

giving the people a say. I want to see the government give the people a say. I

want to hear what people have to tell us. Because whether we believe it as

politicians, I can tell you there's a lot of wisdom out among the people. They

have some good ideas. They can give you suggestions and ideas for reform to a

process and system that needs reform, no doubt about that. I'm afraid that we

haven't really heard from the grass roots. I know this committee that was set up

had some meetings with union and employer representatives, and so on, but I'm

talking about the people. Giving the people a chance to have their say.

I think what they should be doing, and what we should be

doing, is trying to spend a bit more of our energy and time in trying to figure

out ways - and I'm sure the Minister of Finance would love this - to stimulate

the economy. Ways to create some jobs and maybe increase the payrolls, increase

the workforces, thereby eliminating potential for more difficulties and problems

with injuries, rather than sitting around all day long and wasting our time and

energy in trying to find ways to take money from injured workers and from the

employers as well. There has to be some other answer.

I know there is no other quick answer, and I am not

suggesting there is, but I do believe that by waiting for a few months, under

the six month hoist, if we were to wait, it would give the government a chance

to have, through whatever process they want to use, the legislation put out to

the people, to give the people a chance to hear what is going on, what is being

proposed, and more importantly, to listen to what they have to suggest, and

listen to their wisdom, because they do have some good ideas. There are more

people out there experienced with workers' compensation problems than there are

here in this Legislature - let me tell you that. So I think it would be wise of

us to do that.

I know I had a call from a person just a few days ago who was

worried about this, and I asked for some suggestions. I said: What would you do?

What kind of things would you suggest? Their argument was that there was not

much of an educational program in existence. There was not a big enough

incentive for employers to try to bring in significant health and safety

educational programs.

They were saying: Maybe if you offered employers or

businesspeople a rebate, or some kind of an incentive to encourage them. That

was from the people. That was from a grass roots person who was trying to offer

some creative ideas and some creative thinking, who did not know what is in

existence there now, and not everybody does. Very few do, unless you are

associated with it from a professional point of view, like the Member for St.

John's South or somebody else, you would know just about every detail. The

minister should know, I guess, a fair bit of the detail, but the average person

out there on the street does not know what is involved in it.

This person who called me, who was really concerned because

they are going to lose benefits - really bothered about it, because there is no

opportunity for a job for them for at least another few years because of the

nature of their injury - and they said: Well how about some incentives? How

about getting the employers to promote health and safety in the workplace and

offer them some kind of a rebate on their payment if their safety record

improves - something along that line. This was the idea that was tossed out, and

is often tossed out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, there is room for it. I agree, and that

is what this person was saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, okay, but there needs to be more

specifics is all we are saying here. What I am saying is that these kinds of

ideas merit and demerit is pretty broad; but I think that this person I was

talking to, for example, was offering something specific - a specific item that

could be done.

All I am saying is that if you travel around the Province

with a committee to hear what these people have to say, they might give you some

really good ideas, some good, specific ideas developed from some creative

thinking.

Mr. Speaker, again I just wanted to have a few words on the

legislation to express some concerns that I have, and concerns that I have

received from people around the Province, as I have travelled around over the

last year or so - people who have experienced workers' compensation

difficulties; people who through no fault of their own have been injured in the

workplace; and people who do not understand the process; people who have

difficulty cutting through red tape; people who have to call on all of us, Your

Honour included, I am sure, has problems such as this to deal with from time to

time. These people need help with the system.

Now, in addition to their difficulty with the system in

cutting through the red tape and the bureaucracy, they now see the system going

to fail them again, because the system is going to take a sizeable bite out of

their income. They do not understand why, but that is not what is most important

to them - whether they understand why or not. All they know is that it is going

to happen to them, so how are they supposed to survive? A man off work now for a

year and a half or something, probably could be off for the next five years, or

the rest of his life for all he knows. All he knows is that his benefits are

going to be cut by 20 per cent or whatever the case might be. Now if that

wouldn't put the fear of God in people I don't know what would.

So we have a very serious situation on our hands with respect

to workers' compensation. I hope that the government might, instead of wanting

to just ram this through and push it through, there's no reason that we couldn't

do this in February when the House reconvenes, or whatever. There's no reason,

absolutely none whatsoever, why that couldn't be done. I know it's a problem

there, and it's existed. The government has talked about it itself, so two more

months is not going to make a hell of a lot of difference in my view.

I would like to really see the government reconsider the idea

of giving the people of the Province a chance to have their say, a chance to

understand what's happening. It's for that reason that I move the amendment, the

six-month hoist, in the hope that the Legislature might see fit to agree. I

somehow doubt that they will, but maybe they will. Who knows?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Speaking on the amendment (Inaudible)?

MR. MURPHY: Yes. Because if I don't I won't get a chance

to speak on (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

MR. SIMMS: He is allowed to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have every right.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After a

little concurring with my learned colleague, the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes. I intended to speak, Mr. Speaker, to the

main Bill, but now that the Leader of the Opposition has given me an opportunity

I will have a chance to have something to say on a couple of occasions.

First of all, I don't know, after following the brand-new,

shiny new, right out of the box leader of the NDP Party, and the almost new,

slightly little bit rusty, tarnished Leader of the Opposition, it's a pleasure

for me to stand up, because between the two of them they didn't make any sense.

So it is very gratifying indeed.

First of all, let me correct a whole lot of misconceptions

that the Leader of the Opposition got on with. We all know that workers'

compensation is a no-fault system paid for by the employers in the Province. Now

if you were to do a

summary and say: what is workers' compensation, and where

does the funding come from?... the funding comes from the employers in the

Province. There is no other place, outside of a bit of interest years ago when

we had a former Liberal administration. We used to do very well with the

interest.

After our friends opposite took over of course it was all

downhill. I will have the figures by Thursday to show the hon. gentlemen and

lady opposite just what has transpired to necessitate this particular Bill, this

piece of legislation.

Now this piece of legislation is not in my opinion the

greatest piece of legislation that has come into this House, nor will it be the

greatest piece of legislation to come into this House. But what we need to

realise is that like all things in 1992, we have to have a look at, the bottom

line is the dollars versus the number of people who are injured trying to use

what's available to have a standard of living.

There are seven classes in the Workers' Compensation Act.

They go from number one, which is fishing, to number seven, which is

construction. Every other class of employment throughout the Province is covered

under the Workers' Compensation Act. Let me just give you a quick evaluation of

what the fishing industry, before the fishing industry was shut down, what kind

of assessment it was paying to workers' compensation versus the need for dollars

to make sure that those in the industry were covered.

If you were in the processing industry, if you were

processing fish, and you were an employee of FPI or National Sea, the company

had to pay $3.90 per $100 of payroll to look after compensation - I'm going back

to 1988 now - probably more like six dollars now.

In 1988 also, harvesting which was another sector in the

fishing industry was not just $6, harvesting, Mr. Speaker, was $12. $12 per $100

of payroll so for every $100 payroll that was made on a trawler or out on the

Virgin Rocks or wherever, to an employee, $12 had to go down to the Workers'

Compensation Commission and the last year that I was an employee with Fishery

Products International, that particular company sent over $12 million down to

workers' compensation.

Now the reason that that assessment is put there, Mr.

Speaker, is very simple. The reason that is there, is the experience in the

fishing industry; in other words, if in 1986 and 1987 the need was that the

processing part of the industry was having an experience to cover that

experience in three facets: Medical, to pay the doctors because all the doctors

associated with workers' compensation do not come out of MCP. Some of the

members Opposite might be a little set back on hearing that, I saw one member

draw his head back, you do not realize that workers' compensation, the medical

end of it has to be paid by the Workers' Compensation Commission.

The other area is the rehabilitation area. There are a

tremendous number of people involved in rehabilitation in the private sector

with people in workers' compensation and that has to be paid out of that

assessment and the employees themselves - now when the hon. Member for Grand

Falls, the Leader of the Opposition, stood in his place and talked about this

terrible lower percentage of payroll going out to people on workers'

compensation, what he is saying in essence is, that the dollars at workers'

compensation right now are not adequate to pay people 90 per cent of net, which

is the legislation that is now in place, unless you happen to be fortunate

enough to be in a negotiated situation where a top up is in place.

And let me remind hon. members that if you are receiving a

top up and you are getting your full salary, then in essence what happens what

kicks in, is that you, as somebody on compensation with a top up, would receive

more net money by being off than you would, if you were in the workplace, okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No but it still costs the taxpayer. I remind

the hon. member that it costs the taxpayer -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) agreement.

MR. MURPHY: - it costs the taxpayer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I have nothing to say. The hon. member is

correct, he is right, that it is part of an agreement, but it is still fact that

somebody who is in a top up situation and off for two years, is better off than

if they were working! Now that is the system that is in place right now because

the 90 per cent of net is not taxable income, so what happens in the long run is

that somebody who is off -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your point?

MR. MURPHY: - I am just making the point. I am just

trying to explain to the hon. member the horrendous cost in negotiated contracts

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) top up.

MR. MURPHY: Now, I am going to just very quickly because

you know, the hon. member needs to understand that if somebody who has a top up,

who is receiving the same salary that they would be if they were working, and

are off on workers' compensation, that 90 per cent of that income, the net

income, is nontaxable income. If the person is working all the income is

taxable, so that the individual who is involved in a top up situation is

financially better off to be on workers' compensation than they would be if they

were working.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I know the hon. member does not understand a

lot of things.

Now the committee went around the Island. The hon. the Leader

of the Opposition wants an additional six months on the Bill. Well, I suggest to

the Leader of the Opposition, that is like saying that the fellow who had

cancer, the doctor gave him six months to live but he told the doctor: I cannot

pay my bill, so the doctor gave him another six months to live. That is what the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition is saying. He is getting on with gobbledegook

and he knows it. Full knows it to debate it, because the situation related to

workers' compensation, and the situation related to the new Bill, are something

that this government really doesn't want to do, but is forced to do. When I

stand to speak on the Bill they may be a little bit startled to see the

statistics, how they have evolved over the years. As a matter of fact, there

won't be - there are six of them over there now. I would suggest when I get

halfway through when I'm speaking to the Bill I doubt if there'll be any of them

over there. They'll be ashamed. You'll be ashamed to sit in your place. There's

no question about it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) attacking the trawlermen.

MR. MURPHY: The hon. Minister of Health was correct. To

infer that a senior civil servant, a man with a background unblemished, went out

with a committee and listened - with an employer representative and an employee

representative - to the employer groups and the employee groups, and two

submissions were made. I think all that can be said on behalf of both groups -

that covers everybody - is contained in the Committee report. So there's no need

of washing this all over the place any more. It's only a waste of time and

effort.

The safety education and the inspection. Let's have a

realistic look at it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

MR. MURPHY: The minister - Mr. Speaker, can you protect

me from the barrel from the Burin Peninsula? Is there any chance of protecting

me?

MR. TOBIN: What about the trawlerman (Inaudible)?

MR. MURPHY: The last time he shouted that loud was when

he told Premier Peckford that the fellow with the gun was only there to welcome

him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That's the welcoming committee.

MR. MURPHY: The last time he roared that loud that was

what he said. Don't worry, Premier Peckford, it's only a gun to welcome you.

When Mr. Peckford got out of the bus he wasn't long getting back on the bus.

Because it's a poor way to welcome somebody, with the barrel pointing at you.

However, if the Chair will protect me I will carry on and

bring some light to the hon. gentleman, because obviously what I've heard from

the shiny new leader of the NDP and the slightly tainted, unshiny leader of the

PCs was nothing, absolutely nothing. They don't know what they're talking about.

Safety education and inspection. Let's talk about it. He made

some comparisons to other provinces. Per capita we have as good a safety

education - as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, let me say this - hon. members

forget that the hon. Minister of Employment and Labour Relations not too long

ago hired on four new people. The most people that were ever employed in

occupational health and safety education are now working for the government.

Right now. So another fallacy.

Safety education works both ways. The hon. Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs knows this. It works both ways. You ask the

employer for the time, and convince the employer that it's good business to

train and educate your employees in how to work safely. The employer agrees with

you. It only becomes a reality when the employees take advantage and come in and

not only listen to what's being said in the seminars, but also put into practice

the education rules that are being conducted in the seminars. Subsequently what

we have is an educated workforce who are not stood up at a grinder grinding

something with eye protection next to them, provided by the employer, and all of

a sudden we have an accident and somebody loses an eye.

Then that's the no-fault system that we have in front of us

right now. That employee is covered, that employee is protected. Now perhaps

considering the circumstance that we have facing us now, the hon. members

opposite would like to go over to Great Britain where we have a fault system.

MR. TOBIN: What about the letter you wrote to the trawler

captain advising him on the (Inaudible)? What about that one? (Inaudible)

$12,000 (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, can you protect me from the

barrel from Burin? Is there any chance of being protected?

AN HON. MEMBER: The what?

MR. MURPHY: The empty barrel from Burin. Every time I say

something logical -

MR. ROBERTS: A puncheon, not a barrel.

MR. MURPHY: A puncheon. Well, the House Leader says a

puncheon. I don't know. Puncheon! Puncheon! But every time you start making a

good point you will notice the hon. member starts roaring, shouting and bawling.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is parliamentary

to refer to another member by anything other than the hon. member or the member

for such and such a district. If I upset the hon. gentleman, I apologize for it.

All I asked him is, if he wrote a letter to a trawler captain and advised him,

when he went on compensation, about the annuity program, and he has since paid

in over $12,000, and he is going to lose it at the end of this month. That is

all I asked him, if he would address that.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I don't think there

is anything in our Standing Orders or Beauchesne which refers to being called a

puncheon or a barrel as being unparliamentary. Probably we need a Newfoundland

edition of Beauchesne. Hon. members are supposed to refer to other hon. members

by their district and not by any other name.

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

MR. MURPHY: I withdraw the statement. The hon. member is

definitely not a puncheon or a barrel. I don't know what he is, but he is

definitely not a puncheon or a barrel, because a puncheon is worth fifteen

dollars and a barrel is worth twenty-five dollars.

I have no recollection of what the hon. member is talking

about, about writing any letters to any trawler captains. However, I had a lot

of correspondence and I helped a tremendous number of not only captains but

mates, boatswains and, as the hon. member well knows, a lot of fishermen. In my

years as a professional safety engineer I helped a lot of fishermen.

However, back to where we were. Now, you know, Mr. Speaker,

what happens when you don't have sufficient education and you don't have

sufficient inspection. Now, it is too bad that the brand new, shiny, spanking

new, right-out-of-the-box leader of the NDP is not here, because what has

happened in Ontario is what we have to be extremely careful of and what we are

trying to avoid here. What I hear coming out of Ontario right now is that the

new Director of Employment Relations, the new Director of Hiring for the City of

Buffalo is Mr. Rae. With silly laws that only protect one side of the fence, he

has driven business out of Ontario. As a matter of fact, it is only today that

we heard, on the radio, that people in Ontario are leaving to go look for work

in Alberta.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were going to say

Newfoundland.

MR. MURPHY: Newfoundlanders never, not even in the good

days of my friends opposite, stopped going to Alberta and Ontario looking for

work and the hon. member knows it because the hon. member comes from a community

where safety is so important, where the severity of work-related safety

practices is extreme. When you look at iron workers up eight, ten, twelve,

fifteen, twenty-five and thirty stories on a four-inch steel beam or what have

you, if one of them falls, then obviously - so, education is extremely

important.

Here is what the hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party

killed in Ontario. When the inspectors went out and found a worker, an employee

without his personal protective equipment on, such as his hard hat or his

pressure goggles or his safety footwear, he issued that worker a citation. The

worker, just the same as illegally parking somewhere, had a ticket which he had

to pay. He broke the law. The worker had to go down and pay twenty-five dollars.

The next safety violation and/or unsafe act that was committed by the worker, it

cost him more. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is the way the system

should work because, if we are going to have a system in place that draws every

dollar from the employer to look after the employee then, obviously, if we are

going to continue with funding, both parties must accept the liability of safe

work practices.

It doesn't matter who you are. If there is somebody working

for IOC and the company spends $5,000 or $6,000 a year per employee for the

employee's education and protection in the work place, then surely, you would

put some onus on the employee to work safely.

So, when the Leader of the Opposition was talking about

safety education and inspection, again he didn't realize he didn't know what he

was talking about. He rambled around, and, of course, my colleague, the brand

shiny new leader of the NDP spent twenty-five of his thirty minutes addressing

whether he was in conflict or not.

Now let's go back to the no-fault system. This is what the

members opposite are going to get themselves into in this situation. This is

what they are going to get themselves into if they are not very careful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, let me just give you some facts

about Great Britain, where there is a fault system. If an employee trips or

falls in the employers workplace, then he has the right to go to the courts, he

gets a good professional attorney to represent him, and he sues his employer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That is right. And the backup, I would

suggest to hon. members, is somewhere in the vicinity of three to five years.

That is the back up in the courts with Workers' Compensation. Now, what happens

to the employee during those three years while he is waiting to see the judge

about whose fault it was. He lives just a fraction above social assistance,

through no fault of his own, maybe. Now, if he has not taken the glasses and put

them on, then he is wasting his time going to the courthouse. He is wasting his

time. But now under this system, the fault system, if he hasn't done it, then he

is still protected. He is still protected. If he slips on the parking lot of the

employer's premises he is protected. But over in Great Britain - and of the

cases under the fault system that get to court, of the 100 per cent, there is

about 15 per cent that are won in favour of the employee. Is that what the

Opposition wants to throw on the workers of this Province? Or do you want to

save Workers' Compensation, as we know it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Do you want to save Workers' Compensation, as

we know it, or do you want to destroy it? Do you want to destroy it? Is that

what you are up to? You know absolutely naught of what you talk, the brand

spanking shiny new leader of the NDP or the 'go ahead, Dad, run leader of the

Tory party'. Those are the facts.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member doesn't like the facts. Then

he got in his place and he talked about something new out there, employees have

something new. I saw my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, smiling when he said somebody brought up a brand new good idea - how to

save the employer some money, and he danced around. I finally said: 'Len', merit

and demerit. Oh, merit and demerit. What he is saying is - and this has been on

the go for years and we have tried it. We have tried it in class four. Class

four of Workers' Compensation is construction. So if hon. members listen they

will learn. We tried it and what happened was - and I used it as a round example

- if you were paid a million dollars, if you were Mcnamara Construction and you

paid a million dollars into Workers' Compensation - because it is all paid up

front.

MR. WOODFORD: That's ridiculous!

MR. MURPHY: You paid a million dollars - I tell the hon.

the Member for Humber Valley he is being ridiculous, when they were seventeen

years in government.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, don't call it ridiculous now. You

should have changed it when you were the minister.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) ridiculous.

MR. MURPHY: Okay, well then fine. I am glad to see - I

have a lot of respect for the hon. member but he always speaks from his head and

not his heart, or from some other part of the anatomy. Let me say this, that if

that million dollars went out from Mcnamara and Mcnamara's experience was only

in direct payments of $180,000 or $200,000 back to the employees on their

behalf, then put on a 15 per cent administration cost, you would say that

Mcnamara were $750,000 in the black last year at Workers' Compensation. So

Workers' Compensation said to Mcnamara: 'You have made a concentrated effort.

You have your employees working safely. You are doing a good job. You have a

good safety professional in place. You have good education. You are taking

advantages out there, and your workers are staying at work,' then they would

give back to McNamara a proportion of that extra money. Now, that is the system

of merit and demerit.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that can be said about

Workers' Compensation over the years. Some people - remember, I want all hon.

members to remember this. When an employee walks into a doctor's office and

says: 'My shoulder, or my elbow, or my back or whatever,' it is the information

given by the employee to the medical doctor that subsequently says whether or

not that individual becomes a compensable case or not. Form seven is the

employer's report of an accident. Form six is the employee's report of the

accident, and form eight is the doctor's and if they don't all fit, then,

obviously, the worker is not compensable.

So, because of the tremendous amount of pressure that has

been put on Workers' Compensation over the years, and I, as like the leader, as

I am sure the members opposite, all members on this side, every single, solitary

day we have to go, or write, or knock on the door of Workers' Compensation on

behalf of our constituents who are having a difficult time trying to get their

compensation payments -all kinds of problems.

What I say, Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, is that we have

something here in front of us that is not a delectable document. This is not

sweetness; but this is what this government is all about. We are not in the

position of bluffing the employees. We are not in the position to bluff the

employers. We are not running off to the United States, signing bonds and

hauling back money and destroying the future of the people of this Province.

What we have here in front of us is a bill that is addressed, to the best

ability of the employer, to provide funding for injured workers, and the

government happens to be the biggest employer in the Province - the biggest

employer in the Province. So we need to understand the yokes that are around the

necks of certain individuals.

Today - and I talked, and the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West knows, in 1988, $12.2 million worth of assessment went to

Workers' Compensation from one company - the biggest employer in the Province,

Fishery Products International - over $12.5 million. Today, this very day, that

same company are not harvesting, not producing one pound of fish - not a pound.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. MURPHY: Not one pound.

The hon. member, when he stands up in his place, can tell me

what vessel is at sea. He represents the last plant; it is down now, and every

single, solitary FPI plant in this Province is down. There may be a few fellows

working in maintenance, a few fellows down in secondary processing, taking out

of the freezers, some things to do; but what I am talking about, and the hon.

member knows, is the ships departing for Northern cod. This was the great time

of the year. This was it. This was the time of the year, the beehive of

activity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well she has started now. We can argue about

that, but right about now she has started to get going, and there is not one

vessel. Let me say this to you: The assessment from Workers' Compensation that

was $12 million is now, next year, January, maybe $500,000 for fellows to keep

the vessels going, and secondary processing people, and whatever little bit of

TAC that Mr. Crosbie gives them - and I doubt if it will be very much - and they

have to maintain all those vessels and what have you.

What we have is a situation where there is no funding coming

from employers, we still have the tremendous number of injured workers out and

no money coming in and we have dried up the system. We have dried it up. We have

dried it up, that is exactly what happened. If you are an insurance underwriter

and you do not charge enough, that is all workers' compensation is, Mr. Speaker,

it is a glorified insurance company and when the funds dry up, you do one of two

thin