November

17, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 65

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Over the last day or so, unfortunately, there were three

tragic deaths, I understand, and apparently several injuries, resulting from

accidents on the highways in the Province. One on the Baie Verte Highway, I

believe, one out on the Trans Canada Highway on the West Coast near Pinchgut

Lake, and one out in my area, just west of Badger.

I want to ask the minister: Have the police confirmed to the

minister that these accidents were the result of treacherous highway conditions

from the accumulation of snow and ice?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have reports on two of these accidents. I must

confess I don't have a report on the third accident, the one in the hon. Leader

of the Opposition's area. With respect to the accident in LaScie, which occurred

on November 16 at approximately 2:15 p.m., apparently the driver of the vehicle

was fatally injured.

Weather conditions at the time of the accident: It was

snowing and the road was snow-covered. We checked, and learned that a department

sand truck left the LaScie unit at Brent Cove intersection at 12:30 p.m. and was

proceeding towards LaScie, sanding intersections and steep grades.

Our truck did arrive at the Shoe Cove intersection before the

accident, so that particular accident area was attended to by the department

before the accident occurred.

With respect to the other accident, that area, as well, was

being sanded. Units were dispatched, and it is my information that that area was

again attended to by department equipment and personnel before the accident

happened.

I can say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that it appears these

accidents were not as a result of negligent operations on behalf of the

department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the weather forecasters, I think,

had forecast a storm for the area long before the time that the minister refers

to, so obviously, the department had a lot of time to prepare. I want to ask

him: Why wasn't the snow clearing and sanding equipment sent out prior to this

12:30 period that he mentions?

Secondly, I want to ask him this: Had the winter shift been

called out in anticipation of that particular storm so there could have been an

even more prompt response than the one he tries to describe here today?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that the

department has been on winter status for at least a week - full winter status.

Equipment has been available; personnel has been available. The operation and

status is on full winter conditions. It has been for a week prior to these

incidents.

As the reports indicate, the department was engaged in

operations before these incidents occurred. Equipment had arrived on the scene.

Work was being done on the scene before the accidents occurred.

Mr. Speaker, as all hon. gentlemen are aware, the cause of an

accident can be for many reasons besides negligent operations of the department.

That is an unfortunate fact of life. To the best of my information, the

equipment was attending to these scenes. We have been on winter status for a

full week. I don't know what the hon. member is trying to insinuate - is it that

the department should be on winter status in July?

MR. TOBIN: It isn't July, boy, it is the middle of

November.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, my question was this: Was the

winter shift

schedule in place, and in effect? He is now trying to imply that it

was - the winter shift

schedule being the 5:00 a.m.

schedule instead of the 8:00

a.m. normal schedule. Is he saying that was in place all over the Province and

has been for a week? Is that what he is trying to tell the House?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my information and

knowledge and the advice I have received, the department has been on winter

operations, winter status, for the last week, and we are attending to the roads

in this Province the same as we would for the past week, this week and the same

as we will be doing until winter status terminates. The operations have been put

in place, the reports indicate the department attended to the situation, was

attending to the situation; and we are fully prepared for a snowfall at any time

and have been for at least a week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister advise the House whether or not, in many of

these depots around the Province, equipment that is used for snow clearing and

sanding, is leased on tender to private operations and so on? In many cases, we

understand, the equipment has not been in place and is not there, in many

places. Is he aware whether or not that is accurate or is his information

different, that the snow clearing and sanding equipment that is required in

every area of this Province is there, is all there, and is he saying that the

winter shift schedule, which is a 5:00 a.m. shift schedule, is in place - that

is the question I am asking him - rather than the ordinary 8:00 a.m. schedule?

Is that what he is trying to say here today?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the

department is on winter status. I will investigate the matter to determine if

there are any variations between the status that is currently in place and the

status that was in place last year. My understanding is that the department is

on winter status. If there is any variation in that I will report that back to

the House, but that is not my understanding, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House,

if the winter shift

schedule was in place and in effect, why did the crew then,

in Baie Verte, not leave until 12:30 p.m., instead of 8:00 or 5:00 or 6:00 in

the morning, when the forecast had been well-known? Could he answer that

question?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under

advisement. The truck left at 12:30 p.m., the accident didn't occur until 2:15

p.m.

MR. MATTHEWS: The truck wasn't there, boy - the ambulance

couldn't even get there.

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

MR. GOVER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The truck

was there.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the ambulance that

had been sent to the site to investigate the accident and address the problem,

itself, was not able to get to the site because it went off the road? If the

roads were cleared, why did that occur? Can he answer that?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Which -

MR. TOBIN: In Baie Verte.

MR. GOVER: In Baie Verte. No, I was not aware of that,

Mr. Speaker. I will have to investigate that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just one final question, Mr. Speaker. I want

to ask the minister seriously here today, has he put off implementing the proper

techniques that should be imposed, including the winter shift schedule? And has

he delayed bringing about some of the equipment that is tendered because of

instructions received to cut back on the expenses incurred by his department? In

other words, is he prepared to put the people's lives in jeopardy in this

Province as a result of government cutbacks? Is that what he is attempting to

do?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is a

categorical no. I have instructed my officials to evaluate the restraint

objectives with a view to achieving that with the minimal impact on service,

and, in particular, with the minimal impact and, hopefully, no impact on snow

and ice control operations.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier.

When the Premier met with the public service union leaders yesterday, did he

give them a tour of his lavishly renovated suite of offices and penthouse

Cabinet room? Was the Premier really so boldfaced as to ask public servants to

make sacrifices in part to pay for his extravagances? Are we to conclude that

this Premier expects the public service to do as I say, not do as I do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, one of these days if the hon.

member and I are in the House long enough, there will undoubtedly be a question

come from her that lacks some of the political venom that we just witnessed. It

is too bad that her questioning is so motivated in that way that it destroys the

credibility of it, and really makes it unworthy of an answer.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Frequently when the

Premier is uncomfortable answering the substance of my questions, he resorts to

this kind of personal attack, showing his own venom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, under this Premier's

Administration, a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers money was spent this

year to renovate the offices of the President of Memorial University. Two

million were spent to provide new offices for the Minister of Fisheries. Did

this Premier, then, find it necessary to assert his own superiority by outdoing

them and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds to spiff up

his own offices?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me say again: Because in

the former administration they jumped the gun, wasted $650,000 renovating the

office, because they did that and wasted it, they got ahead of the adjustments

and changes that had to be made in the building. Then, Mr. Speaker, when the

Works, Services and Transportation Department got up through the eighth floor,

they told us what they were going to do and the extent to which they were going

to alter partitions and ceilings and gut out portions of the eighth floor. And

they said to us: If you are going to make any changes in the future in the

layout now is the time to do it, because these changes have to be made. There is

no alternative but to make these changes. So we added on some additional things

that were desirable to be done.

Now, I greatly regret that the hon. member doesn't like that

answer. She somehow has to try and tie it into a $2 million renovation for the

office of the Minister of Fisheries. The extent to which that is a complete

fabrication, unworthy of being listened to by anybody in the Province, can be

made clear, Mr. Speaker, from the fact that what it means is the renovation of

the Exon House building to provide new facilities for the whole department, to

use the building that was vacated, Mr. Speaker. Monies put to good use, Mr.

Speaker, a sensible management of space needs for the government. It is too bad

hon. members don't appreciate good, sound management.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week this Premier petulantly complained that he didn't

like the oak latticework in his offices that was installed in 1985, and that he

was having difficulty seeing. Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of

dollars of taxpayers' funds to install stylish new fixtures, did it occur to

this Premier to go to Woolco and buy a study lamp for $29.99?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the bright people who did the

office before did the lights and then they covered them with pinewood. It wasn't

oak. I mislead the House. They covered it largely with pine wood to make sure

that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

PREMIER WELLS: - only 50 per cent of the light got

through. No wonder he could sign deals like Sprung and waste $22 million. He

couldn't see what was happening in the office!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: No wonder those kinds of things could

happen, Mr. Speaker.

Now when the changes were being made by Works, Services and

Transportation to the floor, and they asked us if any more were necessary, I

said yes. We've got to do something with this lighting situation in the office.

They did. I didn't design the ceiling. I had nothing to do with it. It wasn't to

my personal specifications. The light was below standard. People weren't

supposed to be working in that level of light, it was that low. That's the level

of light that was there. It was below standard. Mr. Speaker, it's no wonder they

made such a mess of governing the Province. They put themselves deliberately in

the dark.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How does this Premier

have the gall to excuse his obscene spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars

of taxpayers' money on unnecessary redecorating of his office suite when so many

thousands of people in this Province are needy and hurting? Is the Premier

installing $600 glorified doorknobs throughout his office suite to prevent the

angry, teeming masses from getting in and having a look at his $80,000 worth of

new wallpaper, his hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of other stylish new

fittings, and his $120,000 worth of new furniture? Why won't he admit that he's

become the Marie Antoinette of Newfoundland politics?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the only thing obscene about

all of this is the lack of intellectual honesty in any of the comments that have

come from the opposite side. That is an obscenity of incredible proportions.

That they could stand day after day and talk about $600 doorknobs because the

Member for Kilbride fabricated it and put this out. Now he sits there and laughs

at it. Mr. Speaker, if they think that the people of Newfoundland are so stupid

as to believe that kind of bunk, then let them stay in the dark and the

electorate will take good care of them when the election is called.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why did the Premier

think that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were so stupid as to believe

that he didn't see the recession coming, he didn't realize that things were

going to be as bad as they are now, or otherwise he would have stopped the

lavish redecorating of his offices?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have a question as well for the Premier. The Minister of

Employment and the Minister of Fisheries have been in Ottawa the last short

while negotiating an early retirement package for fishermen and fish plant

workers. I am wondering if the Premier could inform the House if indeed now the

Province will be participating in an early retirement program for fishermen and

fish plant workers between the ages of 55 and 64, and when we might expect an

announcement on that particular package?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again I thank the

hon. member for the question.

In the meetings that were held yesterday with the federal

minister, we had a very useful, pointed exchange. We did point out at that

meeting the position clearly of the Province that would be the preferred

position of the Province to enable us to participate in such a program. The

under which they would like to see the Province and the federal government

jointly share in such a program.

We have reported briefly today to the Premier. We need to

take the matter up with the rest of our colleagues, and we expect to be in a

position to make an announcement relative to that matter later in this week.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to

the Premier, again.

Can the Premier confirm that the Province insisted on certain

conditions different from what the federal government had offered as part of the

retirement package - that the Province insisted that certain conditions be

applied to the early retirement package for fishermen and fish plant workers, or

else the Province would not participate. Can the Premier confirm that?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I point out to all hon. members

that in the nature of the discussions we were not talking about putting

conditions on anything. We were talking about the circumstances under which we

would prefer to see the program operate versus the circumstances under which the

federal government would prefer to see the program operate.

We are now in a position where they have information from us,

additional to what they had before; we have information from them. We will be

discussing later this week as to whether or not, with the information that we

now have, we will agree to participate in a jointly funded program.

So there have not been any conditions or any ultimatums

issued to anybody. We are trying to reach agreement on the conditions under

which we can participate in a program that will help these older workers who are

displaced in the fishery.

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

Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

minister.

Can the minister confirm that indeed the Province has

proposed, in order for them to participate in the early retirement package, that

there be a clawback provision in this particular program - that this is a

condition which the Province has insisted upon as part of this package, that

there be a clawback provision as part of the package? Can he confirm that?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I have been involved in times before in terms of negotiating

the final stages of federal/provincial agreements. We are having discussions in

which we have spelled out to them our point of view and our preference. They

have pointed out to us their point of view and their preference. We are in the

position now, knowing fully, exactly, what each of the two levels of government

would prefer to happen to make a decision jointly as to what can happen under

the circumstances, and we expect to be able to give that level of reassurance

and comfort and relief to the older people involved in this fishery problem

later in this week.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister refused to answer the question, but I think by

refusing that he really has answered it. It seems to me that indeed the Province

has insisted that there be a clawback provision as part of the early retirement

package.

I want to ask the minister, since the Premier has referred

the questions to him: Why would the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador be

negotiating benefits away from fishermen and fish plant workers in this Province

when the federal government made it quite clear what they were willing to offer

in the package? Why would the minister and the Wells' administration be

negotiating benefits off the table, out of the pockets of Newfoundland fishermen

and fish plant workers, that the federal government were quite prepared to put

in the package? Why would you now, as a government, want to negotiate these

things away from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I think the context and the

manner in which the hon. member presents the question speaks volumes for the

type of thinking that occurs with members opposite. We are not trying to

negotiate anything away from anybody. We are in the final stages of trying to

negotiate a benefit for fish plant workers, fishermen and trawlermen that will

be in place consistent with benefits for people under the PWAP program and the

POWA program, and also consistent as we have always operated with the kinds of

provisions that would be available for any other older displaced worker in any

sector in this Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Premier. At a fisheries forum in Gander on Sunday with over 200 people

present and participating, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay joined with

those fishermen and other workers present in calling on a program for older

workers and early retirement in the fisheries for those age fifty to fifty-five.

Now the Premier has resisted suggestions from fishermen, from the fishermen's

union and from this side of the House. Will he now listen to his own member for

Baie Verte - White Bay, a man with great experience in the fishery as a

fisherman and as an operator, and now as the representative of a fishing

district, and change his mind about this policy, listen to his own advice from

his own members and change his policy on the program for older workers, and go

for this early retirement from age fifty to fifty-five?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is a good sensible

question, but there is also a good sensible answer. First, it is not my policy,

it is the government's policy decided upon by government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That laughter displays all the

intelligence they are capable of so I understand it. It is not my policy, Mr.

Speaker, it is the policy of the government. The government considered the

issue, and we have explained to this House time and time again why the

government has maintained its position on that. Now I don't know what the hon.

the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay said. I don't necessarily accept that it

is as it has been represented, but whether it was or whether it wasn't the mere

fact that it happens to be someone who is a Liberal who says it doesn't alter

the fundamental unfairness that would be in it for the government to do that,

and the government is not prepared to do that. The position isn't altered merely

because somebody who happens to be a Liberal also expressed an opinion in that

direction.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier in his

statements to the House on this issue referred to the fact that he wasn't

prepared to see other workers, loggers and other workers discriminated against,

and it was based on this principle that the Premier felt he could not support a

program for older workers, for fishermen. Given his strong statements on

anti-discrimination can I ask the Premier whether or not he would apply the same

level of principle of anti-discrimination to the Human Rights Code and change

his mind on that and tell the people of this Province that he will not allow

discrimination against gays and lesbians, or for people who are now permitted by

the Human Rights Code and not prohibited from discriminating against them in

Housing, employment and access to public services. Will he tell the House now

that when Bill 25 comes before the House he will go along with a second

amendment to the Human Rights Code to change the Human Rights Code and prohibit

discrimination against gays and lesbians. Will he do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, gays and lesbians have

precisely the same protection as all other citizens of this Province - exactly

the same protection as all other citizens - protection against discrimination on

any of the bases spelled out in the act. There is no discrimination authorized

in the act because you are gay or lesbian. Gays and lesbians are treated the

same as all citizens in the Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier purposely tries to

confuse the issue, Mr. Speaker. The basis of the question is whether or not the

Premier is prepared to amend the Human Rights Code to prohibit discrimination on

the basis of sexual orientation.

That is not a prohibited ground in the Human Rights Code, and

that is something that a number of provinces of Canada have already undertaken.

The Supreme Court of Ontario has determined that it ought to be in these codes.

Will the government acknowledge that this is a human rights issue that this

government has not addressed, and that under the current legislation the Human

Rights Code does in fact not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual

orientation, and will he agree to amend it to prevent discrimination?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, he's asked the same question

and he now makes another argument in support of his view of the same question.

The answer is exactly the same as it was before.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct

a question to the Minister of Education. In light of the federal government's

northern cod adjustment recovery program, a commitment of approximately $800

million, and approximately $300 million being allocated to training and to

increase skills both within and outside the fishery, and also to promote

literacy within the fishing industry, and the strategic economic plan that

indicates the Province will initiate a fisheries action program to revitalise

and diversify both within and outside the fishery, and education and training of

industry participants will be an integral part of the entire fishery

revitalisation program. I'd like to ask the minister: is this provincial

government participating in the funding in this program by the federal

government or is it 100 per cent funded by the federal government?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there's a committee in place

made up with representation from provincial and federal governments. To date, as

far as our position is, the funding is totally coming from the federal

government.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Where would we be,

I guess, if it wasn't for $300 million in training by the federal government?

Was this Province asked to participate? If it was, in what way, and how much?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Province recognises, as does

the federal government, that the federal government had the role to manage our

fishery. Now as we have said on previous occasions, maybe had it been our

responsibility we probably would have had the same scientists who would have

done the same thing.

The reality is that the federal government had the

responsibility and they have been very responsible, and have recognised the

responsibility. We are cooperating with them every way we can to deliver the

education. We're making available 7,000 or 8,000 seats in our community colleges

to do that. There are ongoing talks. I should tell the hon. member, he'll be

pleased to know, that the whole thing is progressing quite well. I have every

confidence that when the time comes and we have to go ahead with some literacy

training, some professionalization of the fishery is going to involve some work

on the Department of Education's part. I have every confidence, Mr. Speaker,

that this is going to proceed quite smoothly for the benefit of all the people

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I understand

that the provincial government is not participating at all in the training

outside the fishery. That's strictly a provincial responsibility. That's what I

gather from the minister's statement. I've spoken with CEIC and it's my

understanding that money is not being contributed provincially. If the minister

is concerned about training, what are the minister and his department doing to

accommodate those 20,000 or more people who need training, in addition to the

waiting lists now, at provincial post-secondary institutions across the

Province, and in addition to high school graduates and so on who will be coming

on-stream this year, to accommodate that overflow?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can't help the fact that the

hon. member doesn't understand an answer when I give it. I can't help that. Now

maybe I can arrange for some seminars for someone to explain to him how to

listen. I can't help that.

The reality is that the Province is working very closely with

the federal government. We have a contingency plan in place to deal with the

numbers of people who are on the moratorium. I told the hon. member that he will

be quite pleased, as will the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to know that

we are making great strides in this. We are also pleased to know that the

federal government is living up to its responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and is

paying for the lion's share of this.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I indicated that I would look up some information

for the Member for Menihek and I am pleased to report to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the question was: 'Will the minister confirm

that this is the fourth consecutive year in a row' - a bit of redundancy there -

'that retail sales are down by 3 per cent?' I couldn't give the answer off the

top of my head and indicated that I would look up the information for the hon.

gentleman.

The information is, Mr. Speaker, that retail sales in 1992

are projected to be down by .7 per cent, but in 1991 they were up .2 per cent;

in 1990 they were up 5.1 per cent; in 1989 they were up 5.9 per cent. So, Mr.

Speaker, the answer to his question, unequivocally, is no.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, motions 1 and 2, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 1 and 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce two

bills entitled, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act," carried (Bill No. 55),

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

Constabulary," carried. (Bill No. 56).

On motion, Bill Nos. 55 and 56, read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 20, Bill No. 48.

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

the Workers' Compensation Act. I don't know whether somebody adjourned the

debate at the time or -

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we are debating whether or not

we should give this bill a six-month hoist. Your Honour, ruled that the motion

was in order and I have no quarrel with the ruling. Technically, it is in order,

but substantively, to defer the implementation of this bill by six months would

definitely be out of order. It would be out of order not to take measures to

cope with the problems we are having with the Workers' Compensation fund which

is $160 million, I believe, of unfunded liability. And just to recap what we

were saying last day, for the member, if we stop paying in workers' compensation

today, and the people who had entitlements under the Act were to draw them out,

we would be $160 million short.

That is the serious question we are here to address today,

and the bill sets forth procedures by which we can cope with this problem.

Benefits are reduced, collections will be increased. I don't know what else -

there is only one other way that I know to come to grips with this severe

problem, and we are coming to grips with the problem in the long term in other

ways. We will have to come to grips with it in terms of prevention, and I want

to have a few words about prevention of injuries in the workplace.

As I was saying last day, just to say a few words about that

again, in the health care sector, the previous minister introduced, in

collaboration with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, a program by

which people were taught to avoid back injuries. And as I travel around the

Province meeting with the administration and visiting and going through nursing

homes and talking with the staff, and in hospitals, they tell me that the back

injury prevention program is working quite well. I think we should give credit

to the people who are implementing this back injury prevention program, because

it will have tremendous implications for the Workers' Compensation fund. If

people do not get injured in the future, then we won't have to take further

steps with the fund.

What we are trying to cope with now is the actual amount of

the unfunded liability. Let me say that the whole future of expenditure control

lies largely in prevention. Think for a moment of smoking in the workplace, any

effect that has had, or smoking anywhere has had, on the health of the people of

Newfoundland and of Canada.

Let me give you some figures as to the cost of some of the

problems we have with respect to smoking. I asked the other day to have some

statistics brought up. What does it cost for a person to have a lung transplant?

We send lung transplants to Ontario because we don't do transplants in

Newfoundland. It costs $152,320 to get a lung transplant, plus the surgeon's fee

of $1,440, plus the cost of bringing the patient back and forth, that the

government has to pay. Now, that is what government pays, in addition to the

suffering and misery that that person has to go through. A heart transplant:

$111,350, plus surgeons' fees, plus transportation.

So many of the costs in the health care system and many of

the costs in Workers' Compensation are due to life-styles and work-styles which

are inappropriate. Injuries must be prevented and other forms of sickness must

be cut down. The cost of sickness in the workplace has to be addressed. In this

Province, we have to get into a prevention mode. If we can prevent injuries, if

we can prevent people from getting sick by taking the appropriate health steps

we can save a great deal of money and that will go a long way towards balancing

our budgets.

Take the whole question of alcohol and drugs - this is Drug

Awareness Week - think of the misery that is caused by the excessive use of

alcohol and drugs, both on families and, again, in the workplace, and the cost

that is to the provincial treasury and to the individuals who are affected. If

we can come to grips with our drug problem in this Province, our tobacco, our

nicotine and our alcohol, I believe we will go a long way towards solving our

budgetary problems and our workers' compensation unfunded liability problems.

Similarly, with respect to this terrible scourge that seems

to be coming over parts of the world now, this scourge of HIV/AIDS, which has

crept up through life-styles which are probably inappropriate, life-styles by

which a disease is spread through sexual promiscuity, basically. This is a

life-style which is portrayed through television and wherever you look. Many of

our laws, I wouldn't say encourage it, but certainly don't inhibit it. Unless we

can prevent the spread of this disease we will have a very serious budgetary

problem. But I don't know what we can do. If we can't control alcohol, tobacco,

and sex, what is left? But each of these, inappropriately handled, leads to very

serious budgetary problems, and we have to come to grips with that.

Relating that back to the problem of workers' compensation -

workers' compensation has to be addressed. We have no choice but to address it.

We have to address the whole question of lifestyles. If we are to survive, in a

budgetary sense, and governments have to survive, we must come to grips with

these deficits. We must to come to grips with unnecessary expenditures. We must

keep our people healthy - prevention through exercise.

Just to give you some other figures on health care. I didn't

realize that we had 120 persons on dialysis in this Province, the cost of which

is now $40,000 per year per person - $40,000 per year per person for 120 people

on dialysis. In addition to that, 75 per cent of them have to be on a special

drug costing $9,000 per year. That is about $50,000 a year. So the question we

have to come to grips with here is: Are there ways that we can keep our people

healthy and avoid this expensive long care?

The other point I want to make is this: I asked for the cost

of nursing homes in the Province. You know, it costs government $37,000 to keep

one person in a nursing home for a year - $37,000 plus the amount that person,

himself, must pay, in Old Age Pension and Canada Pension. It is about $47,000 a

year, on average. Now some do it cheaper than others, but that is the average

cost to government of running our nursing homes in this Province - $37,000, plus

what the person pays from Old Age Pension.

If we can put in place a system by which people can stay in

their homes and receive some home care, we could cut down on that, as well. What

we really must do is keep -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) home care now.

DR. KITCHEN: No, no. We must keep people healthy. The

message has to be, in the workplace and in the whole of life, that people must

change their lifestyles so that they will be healthy and stay healthy, stay firm

as long as they possibly can, and that will help us - help government and help

themselves live a long and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Now, of course, the member opposite would

like to stick everybody in a nursing home. Stick them all in a nursing home, and

he will be broke before tomorrow morning. If he had to pay for it himself he

wouldn't be talking stocks and bonds to the Member for St. John's East.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He would probably be buying all the

nursing homes.

DR. KITCHEN: He will probably be out in a few minutes to

buy up a few nursing homes, realizing that he can get $37,000 from the

government, plus the $10,000 he gets from the rest.

MR. MURPHY: His eyes opened up as big as saucers.

DR. KITCHEN: His eyes opened up, did they?

Now, we realize that if a person is sick, he should be looked

after in the best way we possibly can do it, either through home care or by the

family or the nursing home. We don't begrudge them. But when I go into nursing

homes, do you know what I find?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

DR. KITCHEN: I find a substantial proportion of people

there - not the majority, but a substantial proportion of people - who have

virtually nothing wrong with them. They just packed up their suitcase when they

turned 65, trotted into the nursing home and said: 'Here I am; look after me.'

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful!

DR. KITCHEN: That is true - and they were encouraged to

do so. This is the foolish part about it - people built nursing homes and they

said: 'Come in.' The person came in, and through CMHC, which is another program

- and it is our fault, too, because we bought into that program. CMHC was saying

a few years ago: 'Come in, we will provide the money for most of it for you to

build this home, and then people can walk in with their suitcases and have their

room and have their meals cooked and their beds looked after and there's nothing

to do but drive your car up by the door, if you have one, or whatever.

The thing they forgot was that people don't stand fixed in

time. As they get older, they get more feeble, they get sick, they have to be in

wheelchairs, they have to stay in bed. And when the wheelchairs started moving

around those little narrow corridors they couldn't move. So we have half-a-dozen

nursing homes out there now which are uninhabitable, virtually, by the people

who are now in them, because they have deteriorated to the point where they have

to be either renovated or new ones have to be built, because of, in my view,

stupid long-term thinking.

Can you imagine somebody building a facility for sixty or

seventy people and thinking that no one would ever deteriorate physically in

that home?

MR. MURPHY: John Collins.

DR. KITCHEN: I don't know where it came from. It was done

in - I suppose it was done under the regime of the people opposite, or perhaps

even before that. I don't know. It doesn't matter who did it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Joe Smallwood.

DR. KITCHEN: No, it wasn't all Joe Smallwood. In any

event, we are stuck with that situation out there now. What we're confronted

with is a situation in which we are spending money where we don't really need to

spend money. If a person is not sick or not very sick, then he shouldn't be in a

nursing home. There are personal care homes for people who need minimal types of

care, and they are much cheaper to operate.

The industry around the Province that people are thinking

about now is this: If only I can get a nursing home, we can hire half the

population and look after the other half who are inside, and that is the way we

are going to bring ourselves into prosperity.

It is not the way to operate. I believe the way to operate,

whether through workers' compensation, or otherwise, is to prevent injuries. If

we can prevent injuries, we don't have to pay out workers' compensation. If we

can keep people healthy, we won't need the nursing homes. If we can keep people

from smoking, we don't need heart transplants very often. That is what we have

to do - we have to keep our people healthy, and, in that way, I believe the

long-term future of workers' compensation and of the health care system is

keeping people healthy, making the workplace safe, putting in place programs by

which workers can be trained, or taught, or think about the safe way to do

things.

It is very easy to have an accident. Accidents usually happen

foolishly. Let me give you a little illustration. A month before I came here I

used to work up in another place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Up in the hallowed halls, right? There we

have a beautiful library, the Queen Elizabeth II Library. As part of my role, I

used to go the library fairly frequently, looking up various documents. There in

the library was a ceiling that was called the stacks, almost as high as the

ceiling in this room, not quite as high, up as far as the clock, anyway. These

were the stacks where all the journals would be placed. You know how the

journals are, a book as big as this - a monthly publication - and they get a

dozen of those and put a cover on them. It is a fairly hefty volume. They put

them on the bottom shelf, the second shelf, the third shelf, the fourth shelf,

and the twelfth shelf.

Now then, you try to get something off the twelfth shelf. If

you had a long arm you might be able to reach up to the eighth shelf. So there

would be a little stand there for you to stand on. That will get you up to the

eleventh step. But if you wanted to get up to the top one, you would have to get

the ladder and climb up. I remember one time trying to get one of those things

off the top shelf. I got it off. I was on the little stool. I hauled the thing

off. I had it alright. But somebody had piled on top of it, unbeknownst to me, a

whole set of unbound books. So down they came, plunk on my head, and back I

fell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: No hard hat!

DR. KITCHEN: No hard hat. I threw out my neck or

something like that and wasn't off for a week. But I could see that if I was in

an occupation that - the neck doesn't matter when you're a professor, it's the

tongue that counts. Now if I had bitten my tongue, that would have been an

industrial accident, but as it happened I was able to move around for a week or

two until the back injury disappeared. Now that is the kind of foolish thing

that goes on in work places that can be avoided. This is the kind of thing that

the minister under whom occupational health and safety falls is concerned about

in the long run.

Now in the short run, Mr. Speaker, we have no choice but to

stop this six months hoist, this out of order six months hoist. Then once we

defeat that, we have then to pass the minister's bill. I would suggest if there

are any points that members opposite, any serious points they have about

individual parts in that bill that can be improved, I am sure that the minister

would take these into account. But I think the point should be made as

specifically and as clearly as possible rather than just the usual ranting and

roaring about a bill. We have to improve that bill if it can be improved so that

when we pass this bill we will have come to grips with this unfunded liability

of the Workers' Compensation fund. Then in the long term we can continue our

efforts to build a safer work place and a healthier society. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. After

listening to the Minister of Health give his speech, particularly as it relates

to teaching at the university, one could readily conclude that the next ad for a

professor at the university would require steel

nosed boots, a hard hat and a good tongue.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the Minister of Health was

coming from on most of what he had to say as it relates to the six month hoist

on Bill 48 that was introduced. But some of the statements that were made by the

Minister of Health I think have to be taken to task. For example, the Minister

of Health said most of the people today who are in nursing homes are there

because they wanted to go there, or there because they walked in with their

suitcases and said: here I am. Make room for me. Now I don't think that is true.

As a matter of fact, I know that it is not true.

So how could you have a minister of the Crown, particularly

the Minister of Health, who is responsible for health care and nursing homes in

this Province, to make such a statement as that? I don't think -

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't been the same since the books

hit him.

MR. TOBIN: I don't think that anyone on that side of the

House should agree with the minister to make that statement because there are

nursing homes throughout the Province, and there are people today from one end

of this Province to the other begging to get in nursing homes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They need to get in too.

MR. TOBIN: And for this minister to stand up today and

say that the only ones - most, he said, most of the ones that are in nursing

homes today are there because they left home, took their suitcase, went to the

home and said: here I am. Now is that a view that is shared with everyone over

there, I wonder? Or is it a result of the books hitting the minister on the head

that caused him to make that statement? Probably that is what it is. Probably as

a result of those books hitting the minister on the head, Mr. Speaker, that he

made that statement.

He goes on to say that if people didn't smoke in this country

there would be no need for heart transplants. That is what the Minister of

Health said.

AN HON. MEMBER: And said lifestyles contribute to people

on dialyses.

MR. TOBIN: If people today did not smoke, we would have

no need for heart transplants. Is that a factual statement, I ask the Minister

of Health? You said that people today would have no need for heart transplants

if people did not smoke. I would say to the Minister of Health that there are

many people in this country who have had heart transplants and who need heart

transplants who never smoked. I don't think the Minister of Health should make

that type of statement. To go on to say that the reason why people are on

dialysis is because of their lifestyle.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he said.

MR. TOBIN: That is what he said. Now maybe the minister

can be forgiven because he also told us that he was hit on the head with books.

AN HON. MEMBER: They fell on him.

MR. TOBIN: The books fell on his head. So maybe these

statements that he made today are a result of being hit on the head with the

books.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a way to gain knowledge, trying to

get them into his head.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman had the good

fortune of attending Memorial University, but was blessed by never having the

Minister of Health as a professor. Never had the Minister of Education as a

professor. The only man I know who came out of university with a pension,

collected another salary on behalf of the government, and who said the

requirements to be a professor were hard hats, steel-toed boots and a long

tongue. I would suspect that most professors would need some brains, I would say

to the Minister of Health.

Yesterday I heard the Member for St. John's South get up in

this House defending this piece of legislation that is now before him. He took

the opportunity to go to great lengths to boast of his association with Fishery

Products International as a manager or supervisor over safety. He was in charge

of all the safety people in this Province. I will give credit, Mr. Speaker, that

Fishery Products in the past few years have indeed put in place some really good

mechanisms in terms of dealing with the safety issues. I would suspect that the

Member for St. John's South played a role considering the capacity he was in.

Mr. Speaker, representing a district in this Province that

depends heavily on the industrialized aspect of employment, namely the Marystown

Shipyard - well, they don't need much now anyway. This government has brought

them down from 600 to 29 employees, so they don't need much safety in terms of a

program. Nor does Fishery Products right now. One of the things that happened

with Fishery Products is that there were some people who had to go on long-term

disability, people who were making very good money. As a result of going on

disability, they were no longer paying into the pension plans that they had, and

there are people in other fields as well who are no longer paying into pension

plans. So there was put in place, I believe it was 1987, by the former

administration a program of annuities whereby people could pay a portion of

their pension into an annuity program. Because they weren't working they hadn't

gotten anything and they were advised to do that, Mr. Speaker, to put in place -

and I will get into this letter in a minute.

There were people in this Province who went around and told

other people that this program that the government had brought in in terms of

the annuities: Well, you will no longer be contributing to a pension plan

because you are incapacitated and will be incapacitated probably for the rest of

your lives and will not be able to go back to work. So we will give you this

opportunity to pay into an annuity program and when you come of age to draw that

out you will at least have a pension. It is not your fault that you can no

longer work. The government has put this program in place. Let's deal with it.

So some of these people, employees, not necessarily union

people although there were some of them too - but the companies had people

explain what this was all about, Mr. Speaker, and people were advised of the

tremendous benefits of this program as it relates to the future retirement

plans.

There are people in this Province today who have paid

somewhere in the area of $16,000 into that annuity program, and when their

statements did not come a few months ago they called Workers' Compensation to

see what was wrong. They never got a satisfactory answer, Mr. Speaker, so they

called back again. As a matter of fact one of the people who called me is from

the District of Fortune - Hermitage. I checked it out and I was told that under

the proposed legislation that was to be brought before the House this fall

session, which we are now dealing with, that if you are not sixty-five by

December 31, every single cent that you have paid in is gone.

I want the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to

tell me when he gets up, when he gets the opportunity to speak in this debate

again, what plans he has for these individuals who have banked their whole

lives, had banked the past number of years as they paid in this annuity, knowing

that when they reach a certain age that they had something to fall back on, that

they would have an income, that they would have enough to take care of

themselves. They may not, like the Minister of Health said, probably they could

change the cycle if one is to listen to him, have to go to a nursing home and

drop their suitcase and say: someone look after me. But I was told by Workers'

Compensation that as of the 31st of December these few gentlemen on whom I

checked, will no longer have the annuity program because the Wells

administration, once again, once again, has socked it boots and all, to the

people who are disadvantaged in this Province.

I do not know and I cannot understand how the Member for St.

John's South, can stand in this House and talk about this good act, when at the

same time people with whom he worked, people with whom he spoke and people he

advised, are no longer able to be part of this program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I know exactly what he is saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not understand it.

MR. TOBIN: I do understand it. I do understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You read it but you do not understand it.

MR. TOBIN: I do understand it. You do not understand it,

that is the problem. The problem is that there are too many Duckworth Street

lawyers making the decisions on the lives of the people who depend on trawlers.

MR. ROBERTS: Kick the lawyers, kick them again.

MR. TOBIN: I do not have to kick them. There are some of

them, their mouths can kick themselves enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am saying to the Member for St. John's South

that he has nothing to be proud of in this piece of legislation with regards to

people who, particularly from FPI, are paying into an annuity program.

MR. MURPHY: I never said I was proud of it.

MR. TOBIN: Well okay then. Now he is not proud of it;

well I am delighted and I can tell the person who mentioned his name to me

yesterday, as to how he discussed it -

MR. MURPHY: I spoke to the amendment, not the bill.

MR. TOBIN: You were the one who talked about your years

with Fishery Products International -

MR. MURPHY: I spoke to the amendment.

MR. TOBIN: - yes you spoke to the amendment. What is

going to happen to somebody who has paid in $6,337.66, what happens to that

money, I ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations? I take that very

seriously and I will tell you something else: there are an awful lot of people

in my district and I am sure throughout this Province who have contributed to

this annuity program, an awful lot of people.

The Member for St. John's South says he knows what is in the

bill. Does he realize what this annuity program is going to do to these people?

But you do not support that portion, I hope? That is what is happening in this

Province as it relates to the bill and yet they are going to cut back; they will

be cutting back, Mr. Speaker, in the Province, cutbacks to the people who depend

on workers' compensation. Some may even reach 40 per cent and they will cut back

that funding to people in this Province when at the same time the Premier will

spend $598,200 on his office and his Cabinet room - $598,000. They talked about

Peckford spending $300,000. It took thirty years in this building for $300,000

to be spent on the eighth floor, and it took this Premier three years to spend

$598,200.

Now, was that enough before he socked it to the people on

workers' compensation; to the nurses; to the civil servants; to the teachers; to

the firemen; to the policemen? Was that enough? No, in 1986 when this whole

thing was retrofitted, the eighth floor and the eleventh floor, which is the

Premier's office and the Premier's cabinet room, there was all new furniture - a

brand new cabinet table, new chairs, and new office furniture on the eighth

floor. Now we have the Premier today saying that they have awarded a contract

for $118,835.43 for furniture.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they should cut back alright. They should

cut back the compensation package on the people of this Province who are home

sick and injured. They should cut it back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I do not know what you are saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: New table and new chairs.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, new table and chairs. $118,835.43 for new

furniture, and every one of these offices had brand new furniture,

spick-and-span new, in 1986. I can tell you one thing, when it was done before

in 1985, or 1986, it was when we were bringing in balanced budgets. It was when

the budgets in this Province were balanced. That is when it was done, not when

you are asking the civil servants of this Province to go out and cut their

wages; not when you are running $154 million deficits do you turn around and

spend $118,000 on doorknobs and chairs and desks. Is that what this government

is proud of?

The Minister of Finance, old stonewall, comes in here, and

himself and the Premier go down yesterday evening and meet with the unions and

say: We may have to cut your wages. He is not cutting the wages when they are

spending $600 for doorknobs, and $80,000 for wallpaper. There are a lot of homes

in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lies.

MR. TOBIN: That is not lies. It is the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is lies.

MR. TOBIN: Is that parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is what the Premier said it cost.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier said what it cost.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I said it only cost seventy. He said it

cost eighty.

MR. TOBIN: I will tell you what the Premier said. It cost

approximately $80,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wallpaper?

MR. TOBIN: Wallpaper for his office.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is for the whole building.

MR. TOBIN: That is not all over the whole building; and I

will tell you something else. Eighty per cent of that $80,000 worth of wallpaper

is on the Premier's office, and the other 20 per cent is on his office on the

eleventh floor, in the cabinet room. That is where it is going on - and the

people in this Province have to starve to death.

I had a call today. As a matter of fact, I had an interview

with CBC Radio, where a person who has not got a door in their home, who had two

windows with snow blowing through it, and could not get help.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. TOBIN: Well I have the letter.

MR. GRIMES: What you just said is not true.

MR. TOBIN: I got a letter today, and I did an interview

with CBC regarding a person who -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect the Minister

of Employment to understand a whole lot about that, because he is a living

example of a two-legged hypocrite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw it, but I can tell

you one thing: When this minister, on the steps of Confederation Building, can

stand in front of a group of teachers and cry, looking for a pack of tissues to

wipe the tears from his eyes because government was only going to give them a 4

per cent increase, and then he can come into this House and cut their wages for

three years in a row, you can't call him a hypocrite, I know that, Mr. Speaker,

and because you can't call him that, I won't say it.

AN HON. MEMBER: But that's what he is.

MR. TOBIN: That is exactly what he did. Yet the people

today who are on compensation in this Province, are going to have it cut up to

40 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking to that gentleman like

that?

MR. TOBIN: Are you making your speech?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking to that gentleman?

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, you have the Minister of

Health standing up in this House today saying that the only people in nursing

homes today are those people who went there and dropped their suitcases and

said: 'Here I am; take care of me.' That is not going to do anything, I say to

the Minister of Health and to this government, for the people of my district in

particular. They are the people who elected me and the people I am most

concerned about. While I am concerned about all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, my first obligation is to the district that elected me.

I say to the gentlemen opposite and to the lady, particularly

those in Cabinet, that your decision to attack the people on workers'

compensation, while it may be consistent with your attack on people by closing

down hospital beds, while it may be consistent with reducing the Budget last

year by $5 million for the Department of Social Services, while it may be

consistent with all of that, there are men, women and children in this Province

who are hurting, who are suffering.

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy today for somebody on workers'

compensation to try to survive on what they are getting. It isn't easy for

someone working today to survive, in most cases. You have the civil servants in

this Province who have had their salaries frozen for the last three years, have

had their contracts ripped up, and yet you have a Premier who is going to spend

$119,000 on new furniture. No wonder this Province is in the mess it's in. No

wonder the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay was out in Gander the other day

fighting the Premier.

I say, Mr. Speaker, with all the sincerity I can muster, to

this government, for God's sake, go out and get a social conscience - that this

government do something for the people of this Province who need support and

assistance, the families in this Province today - and I spoke to the minister

about it, and I know the minister is going to do his best, I said that today, as

well - who have no doors to their porch, who have no windows in their living

rooms, and Scotch tape trying to cover up holes, and the wind and the snow and

the rain beating through it. When you have that kind of situation in this

Province today it doesn't warrant the Premier spending $600 for doorknobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: It does not warrant the Premier spending $600

for doorknobs, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

MS. VERGE: That's per door.

MR. TOBIN: Per door - that's for one knob, $600, one

knob, and he bought several. It does not warrant $118,000 for new furniture for

the Premier's office.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Where did the old stuff go? What happened

to the old furniture?

MR. TOBIN: That's a good question. What happened to the

old - I tell you one thing: The Premier said it wasn't bamboo, it was oak, and

then he said it wasn't oak, it was pine. I say to the Minister of Social

Services that there is a lady in my district today who has no door to her porch,

and a few pieces of matched board and a thumb latch is all she's asking for, to

make the door. Sir, I can tell you, she doesn't want $600 for a doorknob.

MR. EFFORD: Go buy her a door.

MR. TOBIN: She doesn't want $600 for a doorknob, she

doesn't want $1,000 per chair and she doesn't want $80,000 worth of wallpaper.

How many homes in this Province didn't cost $80,000? How many homes in this

Province today have leaky roofs and have wind blowing through them? Yet, this

government during this past year, Mr. Speaker, would not put in place a program

to deal with it.

I would say to the former Minister of Social Services, never

to be a minister again with this Premier -

MR. EFFORD: I won't argue with that, I agree with you.

Why did they fire you when you were there?

MS. VERGE: What is he doing sitting behind the Premier

over there supporting all this extravagance?

MR. EFFORD: I have no choice. (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And we won't accept you. So you have no

choice. That's right.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what has taken place. How can you,

Sir, support this government that spends $600 on a doorknob, that spends $80,000

on wallpaper for the Premier's office, that spends $14,000 -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. EFFORD: You supported a government that spent $10,000

on cigars.

MR. TOBIN: Spent $10,000 on what?

MR. EFFORD: Spent $10,000 on cigars.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Member

for Port de Grave is, if any government spent $10,000 for cigars it is wrong. I

would say that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. RAMSAY: Do you smoke?

MR. TOBIN: I don't smoke, I say to the Member for

LaPoile. I don't smoke. $10,000! That is wrong. That would be wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not smoke, I say to the

member. I would say to the Member for Port de Grave, that does not justify this

Premier spending $118,000 for chairs and wallpaper and desks and a few other

things.

DR. KITCHEN: Watch out for your heart.

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Minister of Health, yes, I will

watch out for my heart. Knowing that the health care of this Province is in your

hands, we should all watch out for our hearts, Mr. Speaker, because if you

continue to treat health the way you treated finance we will all be in trouble.

Now, as I said, he may be excused. He told us a few minutes

ago how the book fell on his head and I think, Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, that

the book had an effect on his head and I am not sure if that was in terms of

brilliance or knowledge. But I will say to the Minister of Health: How can the

Minister of Health look at the nurses today in this Province and slash, Mr.

Speaker, rob, gyp, steal - whatever he wants to call it - the bit of

compensation that these nurses are getting and, at the same time, be part of a

Cabinet that permits the Premier to pay $600 a doorknob and $80,000 for

wallpaper? How can he be part of a Cabinet that supports that?

I say to all of the members opposite: How can they support,

in tough economic times, in rough economic times, when we have a $154 million

deficit, spending $275,000 for renovations plus over $500,000 on his Cabinet

room and, in addition to that, $118,000 for new office furniture, and take the

unions of this Province into a back room yesterday evening and say, `You have to

do something'? How can you justify that, I ask the members opposite?

The Minister of Fisheries says he is not going to do anything

for the people of this Province, and he has done nothing. This government has

turned its back on the fishermen and fish plant workers in this Province from

day one. They have turned their backs on every one of them, including the ones

in Labrador. Yet, Mr. Speaker -

MR. DUMARESQUE: How many times have you turned your back

on the people in Labrador? I ask the member.

MR. TOBIN: Actually, the Premier turned his back on you

when he said you were too immature to put in Cabinet. So if you are too immature

to represent the people in Cabinet, indirectly, you are too immature to

represent them in the House. That is what the Premier was saying.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) we will see the pork

barrelling.

MR. TOBIN: I don't know. Pork-barrelling. Mr. Speaker,

this government -

MR. DUMARESQUE: We will find out what happened to the

fish plants on the Southern Shore. We will find out.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, fish plants - I will tell you

about a few fish plants on the Southern Shore if you wants to hear of them. I

will tell you about a few of them, Mr. Speaker. I have some material here in my

briefcase. The Trepassey fish plant was open in this Province as a deep-sea

plant for fifty years - was fishing in this Province for fifty years when the

closest plant was Job's in St. John's, and Burin on the South Coast. What did

they get from the Minister of Fisheries the other day, those who were proposing

to go in there? They got a letter - they got two, the first, given permission to

go in there, and then they got the second letter from the Minister of Fisheries:

'In light of the current resource shortages, measures must now be taken to

evaluate the processing sector. The provincial government has therefore imposed

a moratorium on the issue of groundfish license, primary processing license, at

facilities which are now inactive, including Trepassey.' That is what Trepassey

got after fifty years of hard work in the fishing industry. A Minister of

Fisheries who made his living representing the people of the Southern Shore who

supported him when he was a federal member, has now turned his back on them and

said: 'Close your plant. It is dead. Move.' It is part of a resettlement

program, I say to the Member for Eagle River. When somebody has worked the

deep-sea fishery in this Province for fifty years -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) see you on Thursday.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, sure they will see me on

Thursday. Not only will they see me, they might hear me on Thursday. They might

hear me on Thursday as well, Mr. Speaker. But I will say to them before I sit

down - I have two minutes left - that my constituents and, indeed, all the

people of Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: - expect better from the government. And I

think, Mr. Speaker, that the least that government can do is refer this piece of

legislation to a Legislative Review Committee so that the people of the hon.

minister's district, of my district, of the Eagle River district and of every

other district in this Province will have an opportunity to tell the people of

this Province and government what they want in terms of changes to Workers'

Compensation, and this government forget their callous attitude towards the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and put the safety, the financial, and the

social lives of the people of this Province ahead of $600 door knobs and $80,000

wallpaper. Thank you.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to

rise and speak in this debate, today. I rise and speak in support of this and

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations because I do have a social

conscience. That is why I am here today, to say that I support this legislation,

Mr. Speaker. I support this legislation because I want to see something that is

going to be in place for my children and the generations after.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be a part of an administration

or be in support of a minister who would allow partisan politics to be the order

of the day, who would allow the fact that there can be taxpayers' money paid

into a fund, as they have allowed it to be in pension funds, either the

teachers' fund or the other civil service pension funds, Mr. Speaker, to allow

that money to be put in there that has been worked hard for and paid there with

all the intentions of having it used in the right way. But, Mr. Speaker, what

has happened up to this point, if there is any consistency that has ever been

applied in this Province over the last fifteen to twenty years, it has been that

it is the partisan political benefit that is the order of the day when it comes

to making decisions that are in the interests of the people.

Mr. Speaker, when these pensions funds were put there, were

they allowed to be left alone to give the people the security that they wanted,

that they worked for and they honestly felt was being put aside for them? No,

Mr. Speaker, these pension funds were used to make sure that there was an extra

road built down in the hon. member's district because he was supporting the PC

Party. It was to make sure that there was extra pavement put down into the hon.

member's riding either on Round Pond Road or any other place in this Province

that it called for. If it was close to election time, it didn't matter. As in

1989, it didn't matter that the Workers' Compensation fund, if it were allowed,

would, in five years, be bankrupt.

What amazes me, as a member of this Legislature, who tries to

observe and acknowledge what the hon. members are saying from time to time, is

that they have this unbelievable mind-set, this blockage, a total blockage in

front of them. Don't they understand what bankruptcy will mean? Don't they

understand that when you send in a cheque and there is no money there and it

bounces, no benefits will accrue to that family? Don't they understand that the

widow whose husband was in the Workers' Compensation program is expecting that

cheque to come for the rest of her life so that she can provide for herself and

her family, and that cheque would be worthless, the numbers on it would mean

nothing?

That is what amazes me, that you can stand up there with all

kinds of gusto and say: Let her go, let her go. Newfoundland and Labrador, who

cares, if at the end of the day, the widow or the children or the injured worker

goes to the bank to cash that cheque and they said: No, I am sorry, Sir, there

is no money in that account. How can you come into this hon. House and stand up

and be prepared not to support and encourage but to destroy the initiative of

any minister here to add protection to that very important social program? Do

they want to turn this over to private industry? Do they want to give people no

other recourse but to go to the courts to get a settlement if they are injured

on the job? Do they want to do that to the person down in L'Anse-au-Clair - who

happens to be a person I know very well - who had an industrial accident and is

impaired for life, a very, very unfortunate industrial accident, Mr. Speaker.

Do you want me to go back and tell his family and others in

this Province that in the future he has to hire a lawyer, he has to go and sue a

company, he has to pursue litigation in that way in order to get his rights? Mr.

Speaker, they would be thrown to the dogs and that is not acceptable. And let

there be no misunderstanding, what the hon. members want is to destroy the very

essence of workers' compensation. I mean, don't believe us, don't believe that

minister, don't believe that Premier, don't believe me - go to the chartered

accountants firm, go to the independent assessor and ask them in all honesty, If

we continue on this path, will the fund exhaust itself? Will there be any money

in five years? And, Mr. Speaker, they will find the answer to be an unequivocal

yes; that if you don't do something, if you continue taking out money as you are

doing today, and pay, in the same way, into the fund, that it will be bankrupt.

I can't believe the intellectual dishonesty that is displayed

time and time again as we have seen the debate on this particular bill come to

the floor and continue, as they talk about how we have no social conscience.

Surely, there is no greater social conscience than that of protecting the

generations above and beyond your own personal situations. Surely, there is no

greater social conscience than that of putting the people before your own

partisan political interest. That is what is happening in this hon. House, Mr.

Speaker. We have a government that took up its responsibilities after election

day and said: We are now the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, not the

Liberal party of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not going to operate and be

programmed on gallop polls, or be programmed because the member for a particular

district that happens to be on the Liberal side is saying: If you do not pave

another road in my riding I am going to lose the election. And he says then:

Okay, we are going to see that it is done.

Well, there is no money for it. The Minister of Finance would

say there is no money for it. But the mentality before: if there is no money in

the direct current account, let's go and take it from the pension funds. That is

what was done. Hundreds of millions of dollars - $165 million now in the deficit

position in the workers' compensation fund.

That money was taken from these funds to make sure that their

colleagues were brought back here into the House of Assembly. That is what I

find so shocking, so intellectually dishonest, so much of a flagrant misuse of

their position in this hon. House - that they would have to tell me to go back

into my riding and say to my people, who are desperately in need of this kind of

security, that what we are advocating is that you can have a survival of the

fittest attitude; you can have a program where you are going to have to bring

together your resources, and you are going to have to go out and make your case

to a court; you are going to have to pursue that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we have an entrepreneur in the Province today

who is quickly trying to lead a charge against this particular legislation; who

is trying to get out in front of the bandwagon and say: We have to get around

this. We have to eliminate this, because he has a certain profit margin to

protect.

We know. That is the philosophy of the Tory party. Apart from

the political interest, there is an overriding philosophy, and there is a real

difference, and there can be no more a piece of legislation to illustrate the

difference in philosophy than what we have before us today. We have liberalism

that believes that we must have a social conscience, we must have fairness in a

system. We must have protection to assist those people who, through no fault of

their own, are in this position; and if it was left to them to be able to

challenge the system and access the courts and get that benefit, that they would

not be able to do that. That is where liberalism is here, alive and well, and I

am proud to be able to support it, Mr. Speaker.

What has been advocated over there is the traditional

philosophy of conservatism - the traditional philosophy that says that there

should be no protection; there should be survival of the fittest; there should

be, as we have in the United States, that the benefits will only accrue to those

who have the money to be able to hire the lawyers to be able to beat the system.

Only those people will be protected under the philosophy that is espoused by

members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, we are not only here taking the steps that are

necessary to see that the workers' compensation fund will be there for

generations to come. We are not only saying that there has to be increases and

adjustments in the system to make sure that it pays. There has to be other

changes.

We see a number of changes that the minister is talking about

bringing in place that can only be acknowledged as very responsible, positive

changes. The age limit for dependent children will be raised to 18, and

dependent children will receive a proportionate death benefit of spousal

entitlement if they are sole survivors of deceased workers. This is a very

important adjustment.

A new provision will be added to allow payment of permanent

functional impairment, even if there is no loss of earnings.Section 59, which

eliminates compensation upon remarriage, will be repealed. A new provision will

be added to broaden the application of rehabilitation programs to dependent

spouses. A new provision will be added to stipulate interest for delayed

compensation beyond thirty days, where circumstances arise over which the

commission has control.

These are examples where we have seen thoughtful,

conscientious, rational assessment of some of the faults of the program, outside

of the financial. These are amendments that will make that particular social

program, that social safety net, that much more secure for the people. They will

know that they are being treated fairly.

Another element of it, and I know some hon. members opposite

have raised it, that has illustrated the type of thing which we are talking

about when it comes to being fair with people. Is the Opposition, Mr. Speaker,

saying that a worker on workers' compensation should receive more benefits when

they're on workers' compensation than they would if they were working?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, but ten per cent less is not more.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, we have in our system today

workers who are taking home more money as a result of being on compensation than

they would if they were actually working. People out there would recoil if they

thought this was true. They would recoil at the fact that we have a system in

place, and we have made contracts, and we have gone out there and pursued

collective agreements that will see more money accrue to an individual who is on

workers' compensation than if they worked their forty hours a week and if they

got all the benefits that they did in the work place.

I can't believe that the members opposite would come in here

and say that that is right, that that is fair. Is that fair to the person who is

out there working on the construction job and who happens to have lost his legs

or limbs, but because he isn't part of a collective agreement, he's not a part

of a system, and he's not a part of some kind of a written contract that will

guarantee him extra, above and beyond his net wages, because he or she does not

have that then they are going to have to suffer for it. I can't believe that

members opposite would want to stand up and say that this is right, this should

continue because it is in the best interest of the people of this Province. It

is not.

When it comes to seeing that expenses are put into check

there's no doubt that we have no lessons to learn from the members opposite. We

have no lessons to learn from hon. members opposite when it comes to expenses,

and seeing that the expenses of hon. members or hon. ministers are kept in

check. I'm sure that hon. members would know that in 1988 when the Cabinet was

sworn in and the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains was sworn into the Cabinet,

I'm sure that the members opposite would not stand up and support the kind of

extravagance that was put into place for that hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't!

MR. DUMARESQUE: It was not done, he says, it was not

done. The marble bathroom was not built, he said. It was not built. The $125,000

bathroom was not installed, he says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not done! Not done!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Was not installed. Mr. Speaker, I have to

admit that I am the living proof that it did exist. I have to admit, because

when we were sworn into office, and when we were told to occupy office space in

this particular government, I was given access to take that office and to try

and make some use of it until we found proper accommodations. I have to attest

that yes, I did see the $125,000 bathroom that was put in place over there for

that hon. minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh yes. There was certainly a lot of very

glossy furnishings there, Mr. Speaker. There were a lot of brass things

associated with that bathroom that I would not want to have everybody see in

this particular Province. But the point has to be made that we have no lessons

to learn.

In May of 1989, just a year after, after April 20, after the

election was over, and there were fifteen days in between the time the

government was gone - the gauntlet was down, the game was over, they were gone -

fifteen days after that was all over the Minister of Forestry at the time would

not accept it. He said: it can't be. The people of this Province did not throw

us out, they did not cast us out, they did not say begone. He said: it can't be!

So in order to try and find the truth, he went out to Corner Brook and hired a

chopper.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes.

He said: I have to find out if this is correct. I have to

find out if, in fact, there has been a declaration that the Tories are no more.

So he said: I am going to hire a chopper - $700 an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that, now?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The Minister of Forestry, in 1989, the

Member for Torngat Mountains. This was April 20. The election was over. It was

all done - gone. They were banished. They were told they were no longer

responsible agents of the government; they had to be dismissed. But it would not

be accepted. The Minister of Forestry at the time could not accept it, so he

went out and hired a charter, a helicopter, in Corner Brook.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did he go?

MR. DUMARESQUE: He took off right up straight, as far up

as he possibly could get, on the helicopter - right up straight in the air - and

said, at $700 an hour -

AN HON. MEMBER: Still going.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes.

For five hours, right up straight, saying: Please God, please

tell me it is not true. After $3,500 of taxpayers money, the message came over:

Go down, my son, it is over. No more can you take the $5,000 on helicopter time

and be able to squander it just to seek some kind of thing that can never be

back again, and that is, Mr. Speaker, having a government in place that has no

social conscience; that has operated on a day-to-day basis for pure political

gain. They have made decisions, accessed funds that were put there, paid for,

duly paid for, by the workers of this Province, to be able to secure their

futures, whether it was in the teachers' fund, or in the general civil service

pension fund, or whether it was in the workers' compensation fund. They pursued,

with zealous pursuit, to see that the application of these scarce funds were

done so that they could secure another member's re-election to their side of the

House; but that is not what the people wanted.

On April 20, 1989, the people had a chance to have their say,

and they said, loud and clear: We cannot accept this kind of philosophy. We

cannot accept this kind of management; and they obviously elected the members on

this side of the House to carry out the duties of the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am proud to be here today, to say

to these people who have given their trust to us, that we are doing what we have

been mandated to do - to carry out the duties of a government on a fair and

balanced program; to carry out the taxpayers trust on the basis that we are

going to be fair to all people in this Province, and we are going to give them

the security that, at the end of the day when they go down and try to get their

workers' compensation cheque cashed, in five or six years, that they will not be

told: Sorry, there is no money.

That is the challenge that we have now. We have, as members

of this hon. House, on this side, to make some tough decisions, and we do not

want to be doing them. We do not want to be doing any adjustment to a program if

it is not going to be in the best interest of all the people. Nobody takes any

pride in having to make any kind of adjustments for people who have been living

on it and adjusting to it in previous years.

What we have been confronted with is not a question of

whether it can continue and be able to come out with the same kind of benefits

that it has in the past. We are not given the luxury of that. We are being told,

and they are being told, that what we have in front of us now is a clear, black

and white situation. We have a fund that is going to be bankrupt. We have a fund

that will not be able to entertain a cheque in six years time. We have a fund

that will give to the widows of this Province, to the workers who have no other

contracts, to the people who have no ability to fight the courts, that there is

going to be something there for you.

That is our responsibility, and I commend the minister for

taking this courageous step. I commend the minister, after three-and-a-half

years, as we have operated in this Province as the government, for having the

political courage to be able to say to the people, honestly and fairly, that we

are doing this because we want to see your future secured. He is not doing it,

Mr. Speaker, in the first six months of the term of a government and be able to

run away from it, and hopefully the people of the Province will forget if there

happens to be some pain. This minister is saying to them honestly: we have to do

it. The time has come that if we don't do it - and he's saying to them: if you

don't re-elect me, I can go out knowing that I did what was right. I believed in

what I was doing, and I did what I believed.

He can go out there with full satisfaction knowing that he

played no partisan politics with this particular issue. He executed his

responsibility as a minister of the Crown. He took that responsibility

seriously. He didn't say, before he was sworn in as minister, that: I'll have to

sign my Liberal card or my PC card. When he signed to illustrate that he was

going to accept the duties as a minister of the Crown he did it as a legislator,

as somebody who was committed to the future of this Province, to the future

social and economic justice of all workers in this Province. He did so by

raising one of the tenets of Liberalism that all people in this Province have

been so proud to support, and that is to support the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - who through no fault of their own - and

I'm not surprised that the Member for Kilbride would say: well, what are you

talking about? It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, as a former minister of the

government, that he would not know what I am talking about. As a former minister

of the government who operated on pure, crass politics, he would not know

anything about a philosophy of helping those who through no fault of their own

cannot help themselves. He would not know anything about that principle. He only

knows the principle of survival of the fittest. That if you can't pull yourself

up by your own bootstraps then you should be banished from society. That is the

principle, that is the philosophy that the hon. member operated with. That was

the order of the day.

So I am proud to stand here and support this legislation, and

conclude by saying that I would hope that as hon. members rise they would have

the intellectual honesty to say - and not go out and mislead the people of this

Province to say that there's nothing wrong in the workers' compensation

programs. That there is an endless supply of money, that you can continue to

draw on it and continue to take from it, and it will continue to say: write more

cheques. That is dishonest, and I believe that all hon. members should at least

show that much understanding and be able to take their positions that much more

seriously. Because I don't believe that in this day and age the people are

willing to accept anything less. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I speak in support

of the amendment for the six-month hoist. In fact, I think it's only proper with

any bill - especially one of this significance - that the public should have an

opportunity to be able to have input, and there should be a little more time for

people to assess exactly the implications that may occur.

Basically the workers' compensation Bill shouldn't be used as

an economic measure, I think basically $160 million unfunded liability, most of

it in the last two years, has escalated considerably. Part of it is because of a

declining workforce, lower payrolls and less contributors into it, a lack of

effort by the government to stimulate the economy and get things moving. To

generate more employment, higher payrolls, more people working, the unfunded

liability of workers' compensation would be much less. I think we have to look

at the overall implications and give this Bill more opportunity to look at

aspects that haven't been addressed to date.

We looked just briefly at a few clauses in the Bill. The

appointment by the board of a CEO. Actually, the board does not have any new

authority in this bill. It indicates that prior approval of Cabinet, if the

Cabinet does not agree with whom the board appoints, he does not get appointed;

it is only a little window dressing, so if the Cabinet says no, this person

cannot be appointed, he cannot be appointed. In other words the Cabinet is

saying you must agree with the person who is selected or we will select somebody

else, so there is no real teeth in that clause at all. I think it is just a

waste of paper and time.

Also, Clause 8 in the Bill says that

section 44 shall not

apply where a worker is injured or killed while being transported in the course

of the worker's employment by a mode of transportation in respect of which

public liability insurance is required to be carried. Does that mean, and I ask

this of the minister: that if a person is commuting from one work site to

another, or from a different location on that same work site, where there is

liability and an injury occurs, the liability of the vehicle would not cover

that individual, it would cover somebody who may be involved in the accident

with that person. Is that person covered currently under workers' compensation

or is that person without any coverage as a result?

Also, currently 90 per cent of the net is received by a

person on workers' compensation. I think it is very irrational on the part of

the government to rush in a bill without having an opportunity to assess the

impact on individuals who are struggling to live on 90 per cent of net, not say

75 per cent or even 80 per cent and those who may, of a long term, have their

amount reduced by 2.5 per cent each year until it gets down to 80 per cent over

a four-year period.

With inflation and the consumer price index, which may be

very low at this time but it is an inflationary factor and individuals are being

asked to survive on less next year, less the year after and less for four years

until it gets to 80 per cent and basically these rates are based upon their

incomes I guess, when they went on workers' compensation. It is very unfair and

I think it is very unfair too that people who have been on workers' compensation

for five and six and ten years and have paid into an annuity, and now the

annuity is discontinued and is put into the injury fund, these people could have

seven and eight and ten and fifteen years contributing to a pension plan in

which they would have a decent income when they retire.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am indicating that if these people had

not been on workers' compensation and they were working -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is paying for annuity, does the hon.

gentleman know?

MR. SULLIVAN: The point I am making is that had these

people not been on workers' compensation they would be out today as productive

members of the workforce and would be making some provision for their own

future. That is the point I am making. And also, I think it is important to

certainly address. I think it has hired five or six occupational health and

safety people, I think it would have been nice to have five or six occupational

health and safety people two years ago when everybody was working and now today,

we hire them when there are less people working. In an expanded work force we

need more people, in a reduced work force we need less people. We may have been

understaffed before, it is nice to see them there but it is a little late to

react to situations when we have an unfunded liability of $160 million. It is a

little late acting and that is one of the reasons why we are in the part of this

problem as we are now. Had the steps been taken earlier, it could have

alleviated some of these problems and also-

AN HON. MEMBER: Is your system (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is your system in the fish plant covering

injuries to your own employees?

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you that in the last ten years

there have been two workers days lost; two man days lost in ten years in the

fish plant that I administer and we pay up to $60,000, and that brings me to my

next point on performance and accountability within the system. I think this

legislation should include not only accountability, it should not only include

performance and accountability over an entire industry, it should provide

specific incentives for operations to have low injury rates and those that have

higher ones -

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that yesterday.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will say it again today.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will say it again next week.

MR. SULLIVAN: If I had to say things that everybody else

said, I guess almost every word that has been printed in the dictionary I would

not get to say anything so, basically I am saying that, there are, yes, abuses

out in the system. No doubt about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, there's always been abuses in the

system. There will continue to be abuses in the system. I understand that people

are swamped with calls and complaints of abuses. The people are overworked, they

haven't got an opportunity to check out these abuses. They're overworked. That's

contributing to abuses. I think an effort should be made in the direction to cut

down on abuse and make the system more effective. That's one way that would help

the unfunded liability in this particular program. Also, you cut down on abuse

by investigating out in the field, checking people who are on compensation. The

same as an RCMP officer, a police officer, gets out in the field and checks

speeding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: If a system is wrong, the system is wrong

because of people. The system didn't get wrong on its own. It's up to people to

correct it.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) you're accusing the people of

committing fraud.

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, you are.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm saying there are abuses in the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: There are abuses in the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) say abuse, you're saying people

are frauds.

MR. SULLIVAN: If the hon. Member for St. John's South

wants to speak I'll gladly give him an opportunity out of my time. I will gladly

give him the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It might be an appropriate time to remind hon. members about

the correct procedure when they're interrupting a person. First of all, there's

no correct procedure for interrupting somebody, because we're not permitted to

do it. Practice and tradition in this House and other Houses is that if a member

wants to ask a question he might do that, but if the hon. member doesn't agree

to give him the time, or to yield to him, then he can't proceed with insisting

upon asking the question or insisting upon interrupting.

So I ask hon. members please to keep that in mind.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, if he does give me time I'll be

happy to answer his -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I thank the hon. member. The hon. member has

offered the time and I take the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not aware of what's going on now. Is the hon.

Member for St. John's South on a point of order?

MR. MURPHY: I'm accepting the offer of the hon. member,

Mr. Speaker, to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: I wasn't aware that the hon. member had

given him some time. Did the hon. member give him time?

MR. MURPHY: Yes he did. He said he'd relinquish.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. If he would like to

ask the question I'll entertain one question in my time allotment, if he wishes

to do so. With a one minute time limit.

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

MR. MURPHY: I want to thank the hon. member. I want to

remind the hon. member: when an employee of any company goes to see a doctor to

complain about an accident or an injury he says: I was injured on the job. He

shows the doctor where his injury is and/or he complains of that injury. The

doctor must respond to that. So you can't say it's a situation of fraud. You

cannot say that. Would the hon. member explain in more detail what he means by

abuse?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Workers'

Compensation has discontinued compensation for people that they considered

abusing it. So they themselves have admitted there is abuse in the system.

Because I know of an individual who had it discontinued because of complaints

that he was doing things that didn't fall within the limits of their injury.

Workers' Compensation has admitted that by cancelling claims that affect it;

that's an acknowledgement that they must have seen abuse in the system,.

If someone has an injury, the nature of the injury and an

explanation and so on must be provided at the work place. Also, I think a key

point I'd like to mention is that - and I'll ask the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations to pursue the performance and accountability aspect of

businesses that have a high rating within a specific industry - not just

industry-wide - and that some incentives must be put in place to encourage

people to work and have greater incentives not only to remain within the

workplace, traditionally it has been shown that in areas of inconsistent

employment, that there has been higher rates of injuries than in areas that have

high peak seasonal employment.

I would ask that the minister implement and bring in some

changes to ensure that performance and accountability are parts of the workers'

compensation, and that is something that is lacking in our system.

If we do not do something to correct the root of the problem,

it is going to grow. We cannot expect to use it as a means to achieve economic

means, solely. It is brought in as a program to assist people who really and

genuinely need that level of assistance. I know that people receiving 75 per

cent of an income, when they were injured on a job that they were performing to

the best of their ability, and have to settle for 75 per cent of net is

unsatisfactory, and is not capable of these individuals of achieving a decent

living, especially in light that a bill has come to this House without having

sufficient time to have this debated fully, and have the public input, and hear

presentations by different sectors of the workforce in this Province to address

these concerns.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the Bill which we are now debating, and the

six month hoist that has been put in place as far as the amendment to the Bill,

I wanted to make a few comments.

The Workers' Compensation Act probably, along with certain

other social areas of government policy, has taken up more time of my tenure as

a member of this House than any other single area.

It is not a social area as such, and this is to get into the

problem associated with the ignorance of even the bureaucracy that exists at

times. The majority of people you speak to who have association with workers'

compensation think that this is another social safety net. They feel that it is

a social entitlement, and therefore the kind of problem arises that we see

today, wherein the pressures are put on the workers' compensation system that

should not necessarily be there - pressures because of financial circumstance,

and not necessarily pressures that exist as a result of the said injuries.

Now again this in the rehabilitation side of the area of

workers' compensation, and the inability to rehabilitate some people because of

lack of job opportunities, the inability to rehabilitate them because of a

variety of reasons, some of which are in the area of training and determining

just what it is that some people may need to retrain themselves for.

The problems that we encountered with the Workers'

Compensation Commission have to do with the framework, I would suppose, of

legislation that was in place prior to our arriving here in government. The

framework is such that the commission operates under the legislation passed by

this House, and from there you have a certain element of that legislation, which

is the statutory review.

This statutory review, I understand, is completed every five

years, and the one previous to our most recent statutory review of last year,

there were a number of recommendations made, very few of which were acted on,

Mr. Speaker.

Again, I feel that the opposition, who were in power at that

time, chose to take the political route. They chose to play the politics of

avoiding that which was necessary to be done with the Workers' Compensation

Commission at the time.

I do not know. If they had done some of these things that

they were so scared to do as government, I wonder, would the Province be in a

better state, or would they possibly have been out of office a lot earlier,

because they avoided dealing with so many things. They avoided dealing with the

pension issue, with the issue of the unfunded liability of the pension plan.

They avoided dealing with the workers' compensation issue. They have avoided

dealing with the issue of top ups that have to do with workers' compensation.

As much as they dislike the idea that the top up issue had

been something that they agreed to in the collective bargaining process, yet

they felt they had no choice but to get rid of it because it was a total

disincentive to workers to improve their situation and be more prompt to get

back to work. As a disincentive it was certainly an element of the problem and

it had to be addressed. Now this government has taken the - I suppose one could

say in one respect the politically astute course. Others would say that it is

politically dangerous to try to go after the problem of the top ups to workers'

compensation. Now if you are going to deal with the financial integrity of the

workers' compensation fund, then I think you would have to decide on the

politics being the politics of caution in making sure that you protect the

integrity of the fund, therefore to act on it in such a way that you plan to try

to prevent the unfunded liability of the workers' compensation fund from

growing, thereby you are doing the right thing. In this day and age it seems

like the right thing is becoming more politically acceptable, to take the

immediate pain for a long term gain as opposed to taking no immediate pain

whatsoever for a short term political gain. It is the total opposite of the way

the opposition used to run the Province when they were in government, but it is

the kind of thing that we have to do now.

Now the bureaucracy that exists in Workers' Compensation, and

I speak of bureaucracy in the broad sense, the Workers' Compensation Commission

have developed systems over the years and they have grown from the adaptation of

the old system of payment for loss of use of limbs where the people were

compensable based on the percentage of loss they experienced in their own

physical situation. Then it evolved into a system of payment for the loss of

wages. So as it evolved, these systems that were in place were adapted and not

necessarily totally changed and revised to accommodate the new system that is in

place now.

Now this is information I have gained in working on certain

cases for individuals who are having problems with the workers' compensation

system. People within the higher ranks of Workers' Compensation over there have

told me that the problem is they have a lot of outdated and ineffective systems

of dealing with the problems associated with workers injuries. So what we end up

with then is we are effectively not assisting the workers by having a system in

place that through the process that they have evolved with is not as effective

as it needs to be. So we have to be able to do an effectiveness analysis of the

systems that are in place there, and this is the kind of thing they are

undertaking now.

Through the process of the statutory review they were able to

come up with a lot of suggestions as to how they might restructure, which they

are now doing. They are doing some restructuring over there hoping to go on a

client based system which will lower the overall cost of the operation in so far

as the cost of the bureaucracy goes. So that would be a key element to

expediting the claims, in seeing to it that people are treated more fairly and

are not held at ransom because of the bureaucracy that is in place.

Now another factor that is in that, and I note in the Bill

clause number 7(2) is a very key element of this, and that requires that the

commission pay interest on compensation payable for loss of wages to a claimant

where payments have been delayed for more than thirty days as a result of

circumstances that are in the control of the commission. Therefore they are

owning up to a responsibility that they have to the worker who is injured if

they happen to hold up the Workers' Compensation for any period of time by

having to pay the cost of the interest associated with the injury, with the

delay in paying the worker the money that they were due.

So this is a key element in the, I suppose, what one would

call the effectiveness, improving the effectiveness, but also a key element in

having people own up to their responsibility of having the Commission own up to

its responsibility to the injured worker.

Now, another area I want to touch on, Mr. Speaker. It's a

newly developed area. I suppose you could say newly developed. It's an area that

will come into being a lot more over the next little while. During the last

number of years whenever involved in hearings and that on the Public Accounts

Committee with institutions that are backed by government - and also the health

care sector, educational, whatever - I usually question them as to what could be

done as a single thing that could be done for you - as an agency or a commission

or whatever - that would improve your overall effectiveness.

In the area of health care - in the area of injuries and this

sort of thing - the key element that has been identified by administrators of

hospitals and nursing homes throughout the Province, is the area of preventive

medicine, of preventive health care, getting into the wellness area. This is a

key element where Workers' Compensation is going to be able to focus on the

wellness of individuals in the future.

Now again, the incentive has to exist on the part of the

employer. If the incentive is there the employer will implement a wellness

program that of course will benefit them in the provision of the health care

benefits that are part of their collective agreements with their unionized

employees, the cost to the employer is of course based on the experience. So the

cost to government, as an example of an employer, is based on the experience of

government in the overall administration of an individual health care plan, like

the Blue Cross system that's in place for government now.

Likewise, if we improve the wellness of employees, and

improve the chance and opportunity for them to participate in a wellness

program, we will all be the better for it down the road, if people are involved

in physical activity that'll benefit their health care and wellness in the

future. Likewise, as far as improving their situation so that in the work place

they're less prone to injury, they're less prone to health-related illness, and

also would become better and more productive workers. If in fact they're

healthier and happier on the job, then the productivity of these individuals

will improve on the job as well.

So that's a key area and it's something that Workers'

Compensation is exploring now. It will I think be an element of the future of

Workers' Compensation which will certainly allow us to get the costs associated

with the unfunded liability.

Now it's a long-term thing. It's not the kind of thing that

has any great immediate results. I do feel that it will certainly have an affect

in the future as to what the problems associated with the workers' compensation

unfunded liability bring about.

If we look at the accountability of individual businesses as

opposed to select groups. If you look at a group of employers, say in the

fishery or forestry sectors, or what have you, there is a classification there.

There will as I understand it be a minimum -maximum type assessment. I feel also

there has to be - and it will take a while to develop this, because we're

getting into a new area, the area of risk assessment and the area of experience

ratings being put on individual employers is of course a new field insofar as

workers' compensation goes.

There are underwriting risks associated with insurance

companies that get into the area of assessing risk, and likewise underwriting

risks associated with general insurance - as far as liability and that goes. It

is a new area I would think in doing a thorough assessment of the risks

associated with an individual employer the kinds of incentives that you can

offer, and you would have to offer incentives that are certainly based on some

formula that is a reasonable formula for incentive and not unreasonable in

either way. Either unreasonable in being too small an incentive or unreasonable

in being too large an incentive, again to a point of causing more problems for

the unfunded liability if in fact you give too much of an incentive, you would

be cutting off your nose to spite your face, in saving the businesses some

money, when in fact they are not paying the true risk assessed to their

situation, so that is another part of the overall equation that has to be taken

into account.

Now, hon, members opposite, getting away from the substance

of the Bill were often noted to comment, through this debate, on some of the

expenditures of this current government in comparison to others. One would only

have to think about some of the expenditures which were made for all of the best

reasons. Expenditures such as the expenditure on Long Harbour which is, you

know, an honourable thing to keep people employed in provision of some subsidies

through the Hydro system to Long Harbour. But again, the costs were extremely

high and we have to take into account the overall cost that had accrued to

government. I know in the Baie Verte situation, St. Lawrence and a lot of

others, it kept our people employed but again, at what price?

If there was ever an analysis done of the amount of money per

job that was supported by the former government, it would just amaze people. The

figures of which they speak, of $600 doorknobs et cetera, are just a pea in a

pod in comparison to the kinds of expenses that were made. I say to them: they

were made for all the right reasons, but again they were made without a total

analysis of exactly what the cost per job was. I think if we did an analysis of

our investment in the last three years this government has invested monies into

job related activities, through Enterprise Newfoundland and other areas in which

we have invested, I think the cost per job, according to my understanding, has

certainly gone down and this is something we have to take into account.

Is it right for a government of the day, at any cost, to

support employment for the people of this Province? And again there comes a

point when you have to do an analysis and say: listen, it is costing us $100,000

a job to maintain this situation, we have to get smart with the money that the

taxpayer is putting into this. On the one hand I suppose this is a key of being

in opposition, and when in opposition you can tell the big lie, you can

criticize for criticism sake and you can do these things, they are not referring

to anyone and speaking in terms that are unparliamentary at all. But the big lie

can be told and hopefully, if you get the right kind of press co-operation, the

big lie can be perpetrated upon the public. Maybe it has been done in the past

as well about limousines and cigars and liquor and fish and dry-cleaning

services and these sorts of things and like you say, maybe it is all a big lie

at times and if the public buys into it, then okay, we have to take a chink in

the armour as the hon. members opposite had to take their chink in the armour of

their limousines.

But again, we have to roll with the punches and these guys I

suspect from now on until the next election, the only thing they will be able to

speak of is the $600 doorknob. That will be their platform. I can see the ad

now; a security lock ad on the tv, and you know this is the way they will be

trying to sell themselves as the purveyors of the public purse, as the

protectors of the people, as the people people. These members of the opposition

will stand proud on the $20 million warehouses that were converted into

hydroponics and they will stand proud on the revelation of three floors of

Confederation Building requiring $80,000 worth of wall coverings, three full

floor, as we stand in their $8 million monstrosity here, that was not necessary

to have been built, but it went ahead.

They have the gall to criticize us afterwards for not

stopping this, for allowing this to proceed - a decision which they had made,

and for us to allow it to proceed was a terrible thing, but for them to award

the contracts and to get into the mode of saying that we need a new Legislature

with ornate appointments - and we need the solid oak this and that, and the

sealskin covered leather chairs, and the opposition who had planned this - and,

of course, we only have to look at the changes that had to be made. I think they

felt that the government was going to be forever, and the opposition was going

to be for a very short period of time, and probably even less, according to the

number of offices that they had developed up there on the floor where the

government members now sit. They were certain to have made a decision that they

would be in government forever, and the opposition, as it stood at the time,

would certainly maintain their position as an opposition, and the Liberals would

be in opposition forever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Until