November

26, 1997

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 38

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. member, the Chair would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly today approximately fifty Level One democracy students from

the Queen Elizabeth Regional High School represented by the districts, Topsail,

Conception Bay South and Conception Bay East - Bell Island. They are accompanied

by their teacher Mr. Fred Wood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of privilege. The Minister of Health yesterday

insinuated in this House and to the press, in a direct statement just outside

the doors of the House of Assembly, that I opposed expenditure of $3 million to

cardiac care. A statement, Mr. Speaker, that was malicious and untrue. Everyone

knows I have carried the battle for over four years for extra funding for the

area of cardiac care. I ask the minister, will she stand in her place and

withdraw that statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health, to the point of privilege

raised.

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

Is this responding to a point of privilege?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, I am not.

MR. SPEAKER: No, okay.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise on a point of order, yesterday in the House during oral questions the

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has to deal with the point of privilege that the hon. member

raised. Is the hon. Minister of Justice responding to that point of privilege?

MR. DECKER: There is no evidence of a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

This was a debate, simply no more than a disagreement between two hon. members.

Certainly I don't see any basis for a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will just take the point raised under advisement and report back to

the House.

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the House during oral questions the

Minister of Education in answering the question put by my colleague, the Member

for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, began with a lighthearted commentary regarding the

question itself and that's understandable. In fact, he said he believed that

some members of the official Opposition were - to use his words or to paraphrase

his words - jockeying to put questions on the Order Paper in Question Period,

that is part of what he perceives as aspirations for the leadership of the PC

Party.

Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty with the lighthearted bantering that often

characterizes debate in the House. However, yesterday the minister, in jest,

made comments that have been reported in the local press as factual. Let me

quote from Hansard. What the minister said was, "It was only a couple of days

ago with respect to an issue like this, Mr. Speaker, a real question about a

matter concerning education, that one of the members of the Official Opposition

actually leaned over - I think it is against the rules of the House - and stole

an issue off the desk of the Leader of the NDP...".

Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition would not bother to comment on

this particular matter or that type of exchange; however, yesterday afternoon on

CBC Radio, and again this morning on both CBC and on VOCM, the comments made by

the minister are taken as factual and, in fact, are being interpreted by the

listening audience as exactly what was said. That, certainly, I do not think was

the intention of the minister, and I would ask him today if he would clarify

that comment so that things that are said in jest are not taken or

misinterpreted by the media or by the listening public as being statements of

fact.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do concur with the hon. Opposition House Leader that I think everybody in

this Legislature understood that my reference to one of their members stealing

an issue off the desk of the Leader of the Opposition - they did try to

piggyback on his issue. Everybody understands that it was in jest. I think

everybody in the House understood that.

With respect to the other issue that was raised in the point of order, I

understand, and everybody on this side understands, that nobody over there wants

the leadership of that Party and they should be concerned about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Really, there is no point of order raised by the hon. member.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last few days we have heard numerous irresponsible and

baseless comments which I feel must be addressed to negate the fearmongering by

the Opposition and to help restore the faith people have in the public health

system we enjoy in this Province.

We have heard the Opposition say people should remain in hospital for longer

periods in order to receive better medical care. That is false. In fact,

throughout this country and indeed throughout North America, people need less

time in hospital to receive the effective medical attention they require. Mr.

Speaker, for example, in a study by the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and

Evaluation, and reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, it was

determined that hospital bed closures have not been at the expense of patients'

health. The report further revealed that while hospital stays have gotten

shorter, some hospitals still keep patients longer than appears necessary. The

results of this study were similar to American studies and obviously have more

merit than the misinformation of the Opposition.

We have heard from the Opposition critic, through the media, that there is a

plan to reduce the beds in the St. John's area to 768. This was reported on a

local talk show by the member, yet, he has not produced any such plan and the

Health Care Corporation of St. John's tells me the actual number is 1,181, and

that is after hospital site relocations are completed in St. John's. Currently,

Mr. Speaker, there are 1,225 beds and I would like to point out, that is more

than a 300-bed discrepancy. These correct figures are based more on a direction

towards a community health model and optimizing hospitals rather than downsizing

them.

We have heard the Opposition suggest that re-admissions to hospitals are

happening on a frequent basis and are costing taxpayers more money than if

people remained in hospitals for longer periods. That is false. In this Province

last year, over 66,000 surgical procedures were performed and of all of those

patients less than 1 per cent, Mr. Speaker, were readmitted for infections. The

Manitoba report demonstrated that while hospital stays were indeed shorter,

people were not being re-admitted any more than before for infections. In fact,

the hospital which had the second lowest re-admission rate for heart patients

discharged them the fastest, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard the Opposition suggest that people are having high rates of

infections and re-infections because of early discharges from hospitals. That is

false. For instance, the national average of class 3 or serious re-infections in

this country is over 25 per cent. At the Health Care Corporation in St. John's

this year, the rate is 2.7 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J. M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not playing with numbers, I am

stating the facts.

The average for our Province is well within the norms which are

internationally established and also accepted throughout Canada. This statistic

is nothing to be ashamed of considering the number of procedures performed.

We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition, on one occasion, that

government should not export jobs by sending people away for elective cardiac

surgery. On another occasion, he said that more people should have access to

cardiac surgery from outside this Province, and additionally, they should be

able to bring family members with them. His contradictions do nothing to benefit

people who are worried about their health and the health of a family member. Mr.

Speaker, over 100 people were offered the option of having their surgeries

performed in another Province. Yet, the majority of them decided against the

option for their own reasons. Of the approximately forty people who did want to

go, twenty-nine have already had their surgeries. The remaining surgeries are

scheduled for December and January. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to accommodate

people by giving them options, while we wait for another month or so until the

renovations at the General Hospital can allow a reduction in the waiting time

for cardiac surgeries.

Mr. Speaker, this government is taking decisive action on a number of fronts

to address the waiting list for cardiac surgery. We provided over $1 million

last year for service delivery enhancement and to make renovations possible for

the ICU to increase the beds from fourteen to seventeen. We have announced that

there will be dedicated beds available within the new renovations at the General

Hospital, which will be completed and will be operational in January of next

year. We allocated a new $3 million for the development of a dedicated

cardiovascular unit for the recovery of cardiovascular patients. We are actively

recruiting a new cardiovascular surgeon. We have tried to accommodate people who

have been on the waiting list for cardiac surgery for more than six months by

offering the option of having their surgeries performed in other provinces. Mr.

Speaker, we are not paying lip service like the Opposition. We are acting and we

are continuing to act to improve and enhance health and health care for the

Province.

Anecdotes and stories of individual, anonymous patients may serve the needs

of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, but they do nothing but promote fear if they

have no basis in fact. They must be part of the complete story which includes

statistics outlining provincial, national and international trends in medicine.

The only purpose served by this direction by the Opposition is to demoralize

hospital staff and promote fear in patients who need certainly no more stress

than they are already incurring while receiving medical care.

Our hospitals provide the means for institutional care, as clearly defined in

the Canada Health Act. The staff of those hospitals provide a valuable service

through their dedication and hard work and I want to publicly commend them and

thank them. Over the last few years in this country the medical community

throughout the world have seen the merit in moving away from institutional care

and towards community care, and we are also moving in that direction. Neither

doctors, nurses, or support staff, rush a person out of a hospital before they

are well enough to leave. However, the medical team is the qualified and capable

group which has to make medical decisions related to waiting lists and hospital

discharges.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of any government have a role to play; however, they

also have a responsibility to the people they represent. Opinions, innuendo,

speculation and political opportunism must take a back seat to the truth when we

are dealing with the health of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Health is an extremely important area, and so I urge the

members opposite to take the politics out of health. If you feel the need to

deal with health issues politically, then perhaps you can join us, the

government, to continue to lobby the federal government for more money for

health and health care in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just make one reference to her last comment and then I will get down

to the facts of the issue, that she has misrepresented here today.

The Premier, your leader, was the person who presided over this Province

federally when we went from $19 billion to $12.5 billion for cuts in health

care, and transfers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He was the person representing us, and he had the audacity

to say on public television that we are going to have another $1.5 billion back.

They are not going to cut us the $1.5 billion that they were going to cut us.

Not one extra cent is in health care this year because of federal transfers than

there was last year. There is not a commitment of $1 more, and that has been out

in the public, a misconception, that he and you have put out in the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You are the one who inflicted this upon us. That is why we

are having the problems, Premier.

I will get to the facts of the issue. Number one: I, as Opposition Leader,

said that you should not be sending people home from hospitals when the

resources are not in the community to take care of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I support sending people home if the resources are there.

You have not provided them. You have provided lip service to community health

and you have not delivered, I say to the minister. You should know better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You are distorting figures. Almost ninety people in

hospitals in this city today are medically discharged, waiting for beds in

nursing homes - almost ninety. It varies when you look at the Miller Centre and

any other hospitals around this city. Your numbers are camouflaged and they are

not accurate, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Secondly, the minister talks about surgical procedures, we

have day surgery. She is trying to hide the real facts. I can give instances to

you, minister, where people are back in hospital in the third month because they

got infection from the surgery. Their kidneys have failed and they are on

dialysis three times a day. I speak with people almost every single day, real

cases of people who had surgery today. Seven out of eight came back in one

hospital here in this city very recently in one specific area. This is

happening. I asked a question, but it is not in infection statistics for last

year. I said to you minister, there is an increase recently in the rate of

infections and you are trying to hide that with figures that you have tucked

away and back over the last year or two. They are outdated, minister, we are

dealing with today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You are trying to put a different slant on this. I tell you

what we should do and clarify it where I have been on cardiac surgery because

you, the former minister and this government have procrastinated. Here is what

we need to do now and I have said it many times, we need to have a separate

intensive care dedicated to cardiac care and because the number has gone from

100 to over 240, we have to continue, when we get that in January, and later

when the Health Sciences Centre is restructured, we still have to continue

sending people away until we get the list under control and down to a certain

level. That is what we need to do minister. That is clear and I have said it

time and time again. You took my statements and gave false statements out to the

public that are not accurate and I will stand on every single statement that I

made because they came from authoritative sources, I say to the minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You have already made false statements here today. False

statements in this document, it is a farce. What cardiac surgeon is going to

come in, I say to the minister, when less than nine get done a week? We have two

surgeons, they do one a day, that is less than a full weeks work for two. You

have to put the facility in place. You have to have the structure in place and

you have to have the commitment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - to allow the surgery to get done before we get a cardiac

surgeon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well I will tell the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, because I am mad about this issue and I don't like

untruths.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to provide a status

report on government's review of the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review

Committee Report of the Workers' Compensation Act. I am also announcing

government's first response to this report which will see an increase to

benefits and claimants. The status report I am providing here today outlines the

beginning of government's efforts to address the recommendations of the

Statutory Review Committee.

Mr. Speaker, upon receipt of this report in May 1997, my department undertook

to immediately review, analyze and consult on the recommendations in this

report. This involved further consultations with Workers' Compensation

Commission, the Board of Directors, individual stakeholders and associations

including the Board of Trade, the Employers Council, the Federation of Labour,

the Injured Workers' Association and many others.

As recently as Monday of this week, the Federation of Labour met with me to

provide this response to this critical report. Given the extensive

consultations, we have been able to hold to date, I am breaking with tradition

to provide hon. members with a status report in advance of a more detailed and

complete announcement following the full review.

Throughout the consultations held to date with stakeholders, I have sensed a

spirit of co-operation between workers and employers in an effort to ensure that

Newfoundland and Labrador's Workers' Compensation System continues to serve the

needs of all stakeholders.

Given the magnitude of the report and the broad range of complex issues, the

analysis of this report needs to be detailed and comprehensive to ensure that

the changes we make are appropriate to the needs of workers and employers. We

consider this level of consultation and analysis essential prior to introducing

the full range of amendments which will affect the Workers' Compensation System,

injured workers, and employers for the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, a Statutory Review such as this is commissioned every five years

to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of workers are kept up to date.

We have made this report a major priority within the department and we expect to

have the review completed by the spring of 1998. We will work as diligently as

possible to also have the legislative amendments necessary to bring about

government's response.

As indicated in the Statutory Review Report, the changes to the system of

workers' compensation needs to be addressed in a holistic manner. Mr. Speaker,

we accept and support this approach and are taking measures to accomplish this

goal. I commit to you here today, government will announce a complete list of

changes to workers' compensation early in 1998 and we will bring the whole

Legislative changes in the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, employers and employees and this government

are deeply concerned about providing fair and equitable benefits to injured

workers, while at the same time ensuring the long-term financial viability of

the Workers' Compensation System. This government, Mr. Speaker, is committed to

ensuring that Newfoundland and Labrador has a system that is responsive,

sustainable, and provides an adequate level of benefits to injured workers.

Government's response will address issues that have arisen in the past such as

deeming, employer assessment, benefits, rehabilitation and administration.

Mr. Speaker, while the consultations on this major report are still under

way, I am taking steps here today, to announce that government is initiating

action to amend legislation during this session of the House to introduce an

increase in certain benefits. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that

government decided to increase benefits from 75 per cent to 80 per cent

effective January 1, 1998 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR LANGDON: - for the first thirty-nine weeks of an individual's claim.

Claimants currently receive benefits at a rate of 75 per cent for this time

period; they will now receive 80 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that

this is the beginning of our response to this report. This will not result in

any increase in the 1998 employer assessment rates.

In being more responsive to the needs of all its stakeholders, the Workers'

Compensation Commission has been actively undertaking measures to improve the

quality of its services. As part of this, the Commission has developed a

position paper and action items to provide Quality Service Initiatives to its

clients. Some of these include Customer Service training which will be developed

and delivered to all new staff hired at the Commission. To solicit further the

views of stakeholders, i.e. workers and employers, the Commission will undertake

to survey a sample of clients to receive feedback and modify its services where

necessary and I want to comment, here today, the Commission and its staff for

recognizing and responding to the needs of clients in such a positive way. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that these initiatives will go a long way to improving the

quality of services by the Commission.

The amendments and initiatives to the Workers' Compensation System, I am

announcing here today, are largely a result of feedback from clients. I believe

this direction represents a significant step forward in the system of Workers'

Compensation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Government, Mr

Speaker, is committed to dealing with the response in a timely fashion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were the Minister of Environment and Labour today, having

received this report and the recommendations contained in it, some seven months

later, here is the statement I would be announcing. I would be standing in the

House today announcing that I've put in place a system where deeming, which is

now being used to deem people off the system, is now stopped. That where people

who are deemed qualified -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Where people who are deemed qualified of performing another

job within society that they meet all the medical requirements, educational

requirements, and physical requirements. Number one, Mr. Speaker. That is part

of the statement I would be making today that this minister hasn't.

Number two. I would be standing in this House, and included in my statement

as the minister I would be saying that specialists' reports will no longer be

overruled, will no longer be overturned, by general practitioners at the

Workers' Compensation Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Will no longer be overruled or overturned by occupational

therapists, and will no longer be overturned by case managers with no

qualifications, Mr. Speaker, to do so.

Thirdly, if I were making this statement today I would be standing in this

House saying clearly and loudly that the recommendations contained in this

report are a condemnation of the system that now exists. I would move swiftly to

appoint a new board of directors to restore some confidence in the system so

that those people who should be benefiting by this system do not become injured

workers of the Workers' Compensation system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm shocked to hear that the Minister

of Environment and Labour has come into this House six or seven months after

this May 1997 report and has only the ability to tell this House that one-half

of one of the ninety-four recommendations is this government prepared to deal

with today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. HARRIS: The committee interviewed and considered all of the

recommendations of all of the stakeholders. They have set out in the back all of

the considerations, all of the arguments. The minister has had six months to

review all of this, and yet we don't see anything but partly returning some of

the benefits back to what they were in 1990. In 1990, Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent

of net income is what workers got. They reduced it to 75 per cent. We are now

going back to 80 per cent for the first thirty-nine weeks. What about the rest?

What about the restoration of the rest of the benefit level?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there are some very serious problems identified

in this report. They said: A glaring need existed to have employers involved in

rehabilitation and assist employees to return to work. They said: There has been

a quarter of a century of employer apathy. That has to be fixed, Mr. Speaker.

They also say that they are convinced -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. HARRIS: - that never in the history of this Province has there been a

greater need to emphasize safety -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - as the first line of defence against preventable -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - accidents and Workers' Compensation's cost. By leave, Mr.

Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Just to finish my thought, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: This is a very serious matter. The last time out, costs were

identified as the problem and reducing benefits was identified as the solution.

This commission has identified safety as a serious problem, employer neglect in

returning people to work as a serious problem. These problems can be fixed, and

the financial side will be fixed as a result. I ask the minister to move

swiftly, not to wait till next May or June, a year later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to draw the attention to visitors to the gallery that we always

welcome visitors here, and members I'm sure are delighted that we have visitors

in the gallery. I just want to say that they are not allowed to take

part in the

debate here by showing approval or disapproval of anything that proceeds on the

floor of the House, and by applauding or any disorder of any other nature. I ask

them to respect that long-standing parliamentary tradition.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the

Minister of Health. I ask the minister would she stand in her place and withdraw

the statement she made yesterday in the House, and outside the House to the

press, that I opposed the allocation of money for health care to pay for

cardiovascular surgery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - a statement that she knows to be false. Will she withdraw

it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. member's question was out of order. It might have been a

point of order, but I don't think that question is in order. Questions ought to

be of an urgent nature. Questions must be brief. "It must be a question, not an

expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation, nor debate." I am

referring to Beauchesne, paragraph 409.

"The question ought to seek information and, therefore, cannot be based upon

a hypothesis, cannot seek an opinion, either legal or otherwise, and must not

suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representations."

I believe that question was probably out of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister, is she trying to deflect attention away from her

own incompetence as Minister of Health by making false and malicious statements

about other members of the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member cannot make these representations in the House. His

statements are unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw them.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw that. I did not intend, certainly, to make any unparliamentary

statement.

Yesterday, on CBC Here & Now, the minister deliberately tried to put a spin

on the protest of Mr. Head at St. Clare's Hospital on Monday. She tried to

create an impression with the press and with the public that the protest was

self-serving and that he was only interested in getting himself bumped up on the

heart surgery list.

Anyone who saw and heard Mr. Head's protest knows nothing could be further

from the truth. The minister's actions were despicable, and everyone in this

Province was shocked and dismayed when they heard her. I ask her: Minister, do

you have any standards of decency?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member is out of order and I ask him to withdraw his

statement.

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Speaker to provide for the

rules of relevancy in the House. The Leader of the Opposition has now, three

times in a row, not put a question to a minister about her responsibilities to

discharge the role and the services of the Department of Health, but rather has

three times - when the Leader of the Opposition knows full well it is contrary

to the rules - hurled insults across the floor.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw those insults, and I

would ask the Speaker to ensure that the rules of relevancy are followed in

Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order that the hon. the Premier has raised, I just want to

remind hon. members that Question Period is a time for putting questions to the

government, that it ought to be a question, that it should not be comments. The

preamble should not be inflammatory, and the hon. member should get to his

question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I believe the hon. leader withdrew the

comments he had made.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister if she agreed that Mr. Head was trying to make a

case to shorten the waiting list on surgery rather than making an effort to move

him up on the wait list for surgery.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the questions ought not to seek opinions from the

ministers. The question should seek information. Again, I refer hon. members to

Beauchesne, paragraph 409 (3): "The question ought to seek information and,

therefore... cannot seek an opinion, either legal or otherwise, and must not

suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representations."

Again, I believe the hon. member's question is out of order. I rule that the

question is out of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Yesterday, just prior to Question Period expiring, I was dealing with the

Minister of Environment and Labour with respect to the Workers' Compensation

Commission's notion of `deeming'. I did not get a chance yesterday, so I would

like to follow up with a question.

In the Statutory Review Committee's report, the notion of deeming, the

committee said, dealt with - the original intent of deeming was to get

uncooperative injured workers off the system who were capable of doing a job.

Obviously, the Statutory Review report went on to say, that intent has been

changed. Has the minister had any discussions with the Workers' Compensation

Commission with respect to deeming? Can he inform the House what those

discussions were? And can he tell the House today that the notion of deeming as

it now exists, or the intent, as it now exists at Workers' Compensation, will be

abolished and that a new system will be put in place that will deal with

clearly, the physical requirements of injured workers, their education ability

to perform the job that they are deemed for and based upon sound advice. Can the

minister inform the House of that today, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member was listening, I think yesterday, when he asked me the

question, I told him that I met with the Workers' Compensation Board of

Directors for eight hours and one of the things that I brought to their

attention was `deeming'. The way it is done now, I consider it to be

unacceptable, and I told him so. I also told them to strike a committee to look

at the whole process of deeming. This week, when I met with Elaine Price, of the

Federation of Labour, I made a commitment to her that we would strike a

committee, that we would look at deeming, as I had said to Workers'

Compensation, and we would deal with the issue.

There is no doubt in my mind and in the members' minds opposite, that deeming

is a problem. For every injured worker sitting in the gallery, it is a problem.

We will deal with it. We will set up a committee to see what is the best way to

bring it all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I did not get that answer yesterday, but I

would like to inform the minister that he has already set up a committee; it is

called a Statuary Review Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is Minister, that it is clear, you have the

authority to act, all I am asking today it that you act.

Let me ask the minister another question. In his eight-hour meeting with the

Workers' Compensation Review Division, did he seek a commitment or did he tell

the Commission that no longer medical specialists reports will be overruled by

case managers, will be overruled based upon a three- or four-hour assessment by

an occupational therapist and that the rule of the day, when it comes to an

injury that an injured worker has, that the rule, fundamentally, will be the

report by the specialists and not by a system that is trying to get injured

workers off it?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can say to the hon. member that we did discuss it and it will be a

part of the recommendations that we will bring forth to the House in the spring

- or in the fall sitting. I make a commitment to you that we will do that. We

will look at all aspects, every recommendation that is there.

I recognize as a minister - and I do not think anybody in the House has a

monopoly on compassion; anybody has a monopoly on pity for the workers. We

recognize that. As a minister, I certainly do. I have told the people that I

have met, and I make a commitment to them, that we will look at every

recommendation and at the end of the day we will do what is best for the worker

and to maintain the integrity of the system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

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

I say to the minister, this is a serious issue. I understand and I fully

support the notion that the integrity of the system from a sound financial

footing must be maintained or there will not be a workers' compensation system

or there will not be benefits for injured workers; that is fundamental, I do not

think anybody would disagree. I also agree with the minister when he says that

nobody has a monopoly on compassion or in dealing with this issue. Clearly, what

I am trying to get from the minister and from government is a time line, an

action line.

I would like to ask the minister this question: Seventy-five per cent to

eighty per cent of the recommendations contained in this report can be handled

internally, Minister, do not require legislative changes to be brought before

this House. With respect to injured workers who are affected by the decisions

being now taken by the Workers' Compensation Commission, can the minister say

that between now and next Spring, he, as minister, will commit that Workers'

Compensation will move forward on the recommendations that do not need the

legislative stamp of approval and implement them with all speed? Can he commit

to that today?

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

MR LANGDON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will commit to that. In fact, I will go

back to the department with these recommendations; I will bring it to Cabinet

and ask to have it fast-tracked so that we can have it implemented.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General.

Considering the fact that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

through our criminal justice system, responds to many criminal offences by

punishing offenders through incarceration, which tends to be very expensive and

ineffective and ignores the victim and the community harmed by crime; and

considering that only a very small percentage of corrections spending goes to

victims' services, support and programs; and further considering that the

criminal justice system in this Province ignores the basic needs of victims by

denying them a voice in the court process and criminal proceedings and does not

provide for compensation for losses or opportunities for alternative dispute

resolution, is the minister proposing any substantial reforms or changes to the

current system to enhance the role and provide greater support for victims in

the criminal justice process?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I would not be allowed the time that I

would require to deal with the issue that the hon. member raised, because he has

raised some very important issues.

First he talks about incarceration in this Province. I want to tell the hon.

member that some years ago, not that many years ago, we had an occupancy rate in

our correction centres, sometimes in excess of 100 per cent. We ended up having

double bunking in some of our institutions. In the cells, which were

eight-by-ten, we actually used to have two people. So at times we were in excess

of 100 per cent. Today, the occupancy rate is in the vicinity of 80 per cent. In

the last few years we have been able to actually close an institution in

Stephenville. It looks like in the near future we are going to be able to close

another centre in Bishop's Falls. Now, we are looking for an alternate use for

it. That is not happening, Mr. Speaker, because crime is going down to any great

extent - crime is declining in some areas - but it is happening because we are

getting into other methods of sentencing. The judges, quite often, because of

recent changes to the Criminal Code, can sentence to community service. We have

a process whereby people are released from prison on a bracelet where they are

supervised, Mr. Speaker, and in other places where they get temporary absences.

So in our reform system in this Province, I believe we are probably one of the

most advanced in all of Canada. So many of the issues the hon. member raised

have been dealt with and are in the process of being dealt with.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is

spending more on incarceration per offender than any other province in Canada.

Considering, Mr. Speaker, that we out-spend our neighbours in Nova Scotia on

incarceration, even though our population is half theirs and our crime rate

considerably lower, and further considering that we spend only 12 per cent of

our corrections budget on community corrections, like offender work programs and

probation, a far less expensive and more effective way to deal with non-violent

offenders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is the minister planning to limit our dependence on

incarceration and expand community corrections to address these deficiencies?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is so easy for people to miss the big

picture. There are people in this Province and in this country who would bring

back capital punishment and who would be very free with capital punishment, very

right wing, and would make sure that no matter what the crime, then the

perpetrator would be punished beyond all reasonable extreme. That is one

extreme.

There is another extreme, Mr. Speaker, in this country which would see all

offenders allowed to go free - no such thing as tying the offence to any concept

of punishment or any concept of rehabilitation. These are the two extremes. The

role of government is to try to strike a balance between these two extremes, and

I believe I can quite truthfully say to the House today that we, in this

Province, are indeed striking that balance. As I explained in the question

before you got to the supplementary, we have brought incarceration down

significantly. We have already closed one prison. We have reached the stage

where we no longer need a prison which is in Central Newfoundland. The occupancy

rate in our prisons today is around 80 per cent. Just three years ago, it was in

excess of 100 per cent. So we are making tremendous strides.

Now, the hon. member can get up and pick certain figures and make points and

try to score political points on it but the reality is, Mr. Speaker, we are

making tremendous strides. As a matter of fact, we have had representation from

other provinces asking us for advice on implementing their system where you put

people out on electronic monitoring. We are the most advanced province in all of

Canada. We are advising other provinces how to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DECKER: - implement that electronic monitoring.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over a year ago the federal

government passed legislation that changed sentencing guidelines and allowed for

the use of various alternative measures in the criminal justice system, such as

victim-offender mediation. I refer Minister, specifically to Bill C-41. Where

does this ministry stand on the use of mediation as a formal alternative

sanction in our criminal justice system?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will also know that Bill C-41

gave the judges the authority to sentence to community service or whatever. It

did not give the Minister of Justice, did not give the political process, nor

would I want it, Mr. Speaker.

I believe it is indeed an excellent route to follow. Mediation is being used

across the country. It is beginning to be used in this Province. I've had

several examples brought to my attention just recently where mediation was used.

I certainly do think that in the future you will see more and more mediation.

Where do I stand? Where do we stand (inaudible)? We stand solid behind it

because it is an excellent concept and I think it is the way of the future. That

doesn't mean that every time there is an offence committed it will be resolved

by mediation, but it does mean that more of the offences which are being

committed will indeed be addressed by mediation. It is a good way to go, and I

certainly fully support it.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister

of Human Resources and Employment. Last week I asked the minister to give more

consideration in clawing back social assistance from recipients with student

loans since her policy could leave some families with less than $50 a month

until after Christmas. The minister said the policy affects only a small portion

of recipients. I ask the minister: If the number involved is so small, how

little will it really cost the department to give them a few extra months to

repay the overpayments? Why is she playing Grinch this Christmas and leaving

single-parent students with too little to properly care for their children?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the member, as I

indicated last week my department is working with individuals who are in this

situation on a case-by-case basis, and as best we can we are working out

arrangements to try and accommodate their needs so that they will be able to

continue their studies and comply with the policy in question.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: The minister has had time since Friday to check the

numbers and tell us exactly how much money is involved. I ask her here to table

that information now. Since these single-parent students are prepared to pay

back the money, and probably wouldn't have spent it in the first place if the

lines of communication with the department hadn't broken down, why is the

minister being so heartless when she has the power to tell her officials to give

these people a few extra months? In terms of dealing with them one on one, you

are tying up your staff. Why don't you just make a carte blanche rule and deal

with them all at once?

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the specific amount of the

money in question, I would have to say that the amount of money in question

varies on a day-to-day basis depending on the arrangements that we work out with

each one of our individual clients.

If the member opposite takes issue with the fact that I am expending staff

resources in trying to support our clients and work out individualized

arrangements, I have some difficulty with that. I think that is a very

legitimate response to the issue we are dealing with here. My staff are trying

to work individually with the people in question. As we speak we are meeting

with clients and looking at their individual circumstances, and determining

where possible we can make alternate arrangements and spread out a pay back

schedule. That work will continue over the next number of weeks until all of the

cases in question have been dealt with.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: These students are not trying to get out of repaying the

money, and a decision to treat these situations as overpayments won't bankrupt

the government. Treating them individually, what you are doing is clawing them

back over the rest of the semester. That is two months, November and December,

collecting as high as $400 and $500 per month from single parents.

Why won't the minister recognize that it will cause far less hardship on the

government to change its policy than it will cause hardship for single-parent

families if you leave the policy as it is now and, in light of last Thursday's

being National Day of the Child, will the minister do more than wear a blue

ribbon by showing some leniency to these individuals and families, not make them

victims, but allow them to repay the money over a longer period of time?

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the member fails to recognize that when I speak to the individualized

arrangements that we are trying to make with the clients in this circumstance,

what we are very much trying to do, is to work individually, deal with the

circumstances that each person presents and try to come to some accommodation on

this, and this is the only appropriate way to deal with these cases that are

remaining. Every effort is being made - I repeat again, every effort is being

made to support the parents who are in this situation who are receiving social

assistance or were receiving student aid and social assistance to ensure that

they can continue with their studies and receive the amount of support that they

need to finish their terms. We are working on that, we are working diligently on

it and we will be proceeding in that manner.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West, a supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: the people who are

calling your department must be quite different from the ones who are calling my

office. The ones who are calling my office, are single parents and also married

parents who have had loans, who have tried to improve their lot in life, now

find themselves with this money being clawed back before Christmas, before they

can remain on social assistance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: - and I ask the minister again: Will she please,

relinquish this order that she has now, and treat the payments that they have

had as overpayments and not claw it back all at once before Christmas?

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

To just refresh some of the information with respect to this: The policy

required that clients would return to the department the shelter component by

thirty days within the time that they had received their student aid. We are now

proceeding to deal with cases where clients did not comply with the policy to

return the shelter component. In cases where people did not have the proper

information in order to comply, we are dealing on an individual basis to work

out satisfactory arrangements.

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

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

My questions are for the Premier and regard interprovincial trade.

In recent conversations with many of the members of the Food Processors

Association of Newfoundland, I have been told that part of the reason they are

unable to secure contracts with government institution such as hospitals, is

because large, national firms once receiving the government tenders then

sub-contract for the supply of products. If a local supplier such as Sunnyland

Juice cannot supply on a national basis, they are not even considered for our

own institutions here provincially. Local companies get more co-operation from

national chain stores such as Sobeys or Dominion than they do from our own

provincial government, a government, that by the way, boasts the `Manufactured

Right Here' slogan I might add.

Will the Premier consider putting in the procurement packages, as they come

up for renewal, specifications that will guarantee local manufacturers and

producers the ability to competitively bid for the supply of the products for

government institutions?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to share with the hon. member the knowledge that there are no

conflicts over here, there is just an abundance of competence, and we can

provide an answer to a particular question from one of several departments.

I have had some experience, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue that was

raised by the hon. member, and he is not quite factual in terms of some of the

things he presented.

Let me say first of all that in terms of broad principle we would like to see

everything that is consumed in the Province be something that, if possible, is

manufactured in the Province. That is a principle that we would like to be able

to see carried out generally throughout the Province.

In terms of policy, we have to recognize realities as well. There are three

realities that have to be factored in when any supplier is given the

responsibility, by virtue of a tender or an award, to provide services or goods

to public institutions such as hospitals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: First of all, they have to be able to provide the product

in a timely fashion. They have to have quality, they have to have service

capability, and they have to have price. These are the three principles that

must apply in any area.

Mr. Speaker, we can become very parochial and say nothing gets consumed in

Newfoundland that is not made in Newfoundland if it is otherwise made here. We

can say that no orange juice can be consumed in our public institutions if it is

not made here; but I also have to say to the hon. member that if we are going to

take that approach then we have to think about the 10,000 products -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - that are made in Newfoundland and that are exported.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. MATTHEWS: We want to ensure that Terra Nova Shoes can send their

boots across the border. We want to ensure that the people in Point Leamington

can sell their gloves across the border. We want to make sure that Brookfield

Ice Cream can continue to supply ice cream to the SkyDome -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. MATTHEWS: - and we want to make sure that our value-added fishery

products can get to markets elsewhere.

We want to also be able to play by rules that are national and international,

to give our own manufacturers good and fair advantage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a supplementary.

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

Something is wrong when a national catering company that wins a Newfoundland

Government contract then subcontracts to national firms instead of purchasing

products manufactured right here in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Will the Premier put in place, within government

tendering packages, clauses that will ensure that subcontractors supplying to

Newfoundland Government, such as schools, hospitals and so on, are obliged to

give first consideration to local producers at least within the 5 per cent

preference level that is now within the Atlantic Procurement Agreement? Will he

give government companies the edge for a change?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the way the Public Tender Act works is that

the act provides for a competitive bidding process in which the lowest priced

product is awarded the public tender for our government-paid-for service.

What the member opposite is suggesting is that there be an amendment, I

believe, or some kind of amendment, to the Public Tender Act to give some

consideration in some circumstances, or perhaps in all circumstances, to locally

produced services or locally manufactured products.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition - indeed I would say to the

member and to his Party - if that is a serious, serious representation, and it

may well be, being made by the Party opposite, we are prepared to consider

whatever proposal they are prepared to put on the Table of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, one quick supplementary.

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

Why is it that local manufacturers, such as Sunnyland Juice, are considered

high enough in quality to have Sobeys put their own label on the product; yet

the government will not ensure that those products can competitively bid within

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Will the Premier ensure that any contracts that are tendered on for

institutions such as hospitals, schools and so on, that through the Atlantic

Procurement Package the 5 per cent leverage that is supposed to be given to

Newfoundland companies will be given to Newfoundland companies, and that those

companies that win those tenders be asked to consider Newfoundland companies

first?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Premier, I just want to say that it is Wednesday and

it is Private Members Day. We should now be moving to Orders of the Day, which

we will have do unless we have leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, okay.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is raising an interesting

question. The reality is everybody wants to see our locally produced products be

as successful as possible, but it is as equally a reality and all members of

this House know it, that we have a Public Tender Act and the Public Tender Act

requires in law -

AN HON. MEMBER: When did you find that out?

PREMIER TOBIN: The Public Tenders Act requires - this is a serious

question, I believe raised by a serious member and it deserves a thoughtful

response and I believe that his own leader should pay some attention to the

response.

What is being proposed here in essence, any way you cut it, is that

Newfoundland and Labrador consider, in effect, amendments to the Public Tender

Act to allow for some preference in whatever circumstances might be contemplated

for locally produced goods or services. That at the end of the day, is what is

being proposed.

Now, that is a serious public policy issue. I say to the party opposite, and

I think it deserves some consideration and this government would be open to some

suggestions from members opposite about potential amendments to the Public

Tender Act.

Let me go further, Mr. Speaker, I believe for example, there is something

fundamentally wrong today in this Province when workers from Newfoundland and

Labrador or companies cannot work in the province of Quebec, but yet workers

from the province of Quebec, by way of example, and companies work in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would purpose that there be exactly

reciprocal treatment for workers on both sides of the border or we put an end to

the free entry of workers and contractors in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador and that is another reason we need to look at the Public Tender Act and

I await the members recommendations as to how we can make changes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:03 p.m.; we are beyond the 3:00 p.m. period. We now move to

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the hon. the Minister of Health.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, based on the statement made today by the

Leader of the Opposition during Question Period - while I do not have Hansard

here - I am devastated and very disturbed that the Leader of the Opposition gave

the clear impression that I, as Minister of Health, was in some way

self-serving, and implied that I accused a patient of staging an incident to get

attention. Mr. Speaker, this is untrue, unfair and vicious. The Leader of the

Opposition should ask the media to see the full two interviews that I did on

this very serious issue. I hereby give notice that as soon as I have had an

opportunity to fully review Hansard, I would like to raise a point of privilege

on this very serious accusation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member on a point of order?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave of the House. I spoke to

the Premier on the matter and he has indicated his support for it. It being

Private Members' Day and 3:00 p.m., we have not had the opportunity to move to

petitions, but I would like to present a petition.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Premier and

the government for allowing the opportunity beyond the rules of the House at the

moment to operate under leave.

I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador: We, the undersigned, urge the government to implement the

recommendations of the Statutory Review Committee and Workers' Compensation

immediately, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the boxes of information here attached to the petition are some

6,270 letters to members of the House of Assembly. I will read for the record.

It is an open letter to MHAs but they have been categorized by district so that

each member in the House can see for themselves the situation that injured

workers are facing, and that people, injured workers and their families, are

requesting members to take seriously the recommendations contained in this

report.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want to say that there are, as of today,

I believe, 3,671 injured workers on the system. What we have here is a letter

signed by over 6,200 individuals of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

who are either injured workers or family or friends of injured workers who have

been negatively impacted upon by the system.

I will just read for the record, Mr. Speaker, that `... as a friend and

supporter of the Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers' Association, I am

writing to you, my member of the House of Assembly to express my outrage and

dissatisfaction with the present system of Workers' Compensation. Injured

workers have been devastated by the impact the Workers' Compensation Commission

has inflicted upon them and their families. It is imperative that this system be

modified to better assist injured workers, which was the original intent when

first introduced in 1951. The Workers' Compensation Statutory Review Committee

has asked for sweeping changes in their report to government. This report is

scheduled to be debated in the House of Assembly during the fall session. As my

MHA, I trust that when this report is presented in the House for debate and a

vote of approval, that you will support the injured workers from your district.

I thank you in advance for supporting the injured workers of Newfoundland and

Labrador in their pursuit for an improved quality of life than they presently

have under the existing system of compensation. They have suffered an injustice

for many years. It is time to confer upon them the dignity they deserve and a

much, much improved workers' compensation system.'

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up any more time of the House to debate the

issue. We have talked about it in Question Period. There has been a Ministerial

Statement. I think it is clear, from the response that is here. The Pages will

distributing individually to each member, and there is a listing here, as well,

for individual members to show how many individual letters they have from their

districts, that they take seriously the concerns that have been articulated and

when legislation to this House comes for approval that members move

expeditiously and swiftly to approve it and also to support the minister if he

needs support and to push the minister if he needs a push, to ensure that the

recommendations that do not require legislative changes are implemented quickly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak briefly in support of the comments of the Member for Kilbride

on the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review. There has been a very

comprehensive report prepared for the government and for the minister. The

detail included in this, not only of the recommendations but also of the

position that each particular representative on the board took, the

considerations of all the various so-called stakeholders, have been taken into

consideration and a comprehensive report presented.

What is pretty clear is that the changes that were made after the 1991

statutory review were done for financial reasons. It was stated in the report

that the substantial savings that were obtained - a $30 million operating loss

has been eliminated, a $60 million decrease in the unfunded liability since the

changes that were made in 1992 - most of these economic benefits, most of the

financial improvements, have been achieved by cutting the initial benefit level

from 90 per cent to 75 per cent of net income, longer term benefits from 90 per

cent to 80 per cent, and by employing a deeming process designed to reduce

benefit pay-outs to minimum levels, by reducing rehabilitation initiatives, and

by imposing an additional $13 million levy.

It is pretty clear, aside from the additional levy, that the savings that

have been attained have been by decreasing the amount of support that injured

workers receive from the system. That has devastated families, it has treated

injured workers as if they were, somehow or other, pariahs on the system. In

fact, they are victims of an industrial system that does not place enough

emphasis on safety, does not require employers to get out of their

quarter-century of apathy on ensuring that workers return to jobs. There is no

incentive or initiative for employers to bring people back to work. This

statutory report says that employers, once they get on the Workers' Compensation

system, turn their back on the workers, treat them as if they are no longer

interested in their future, no longer interested in having them as employees and

making money on them.

This is a very serious matter. In 1991 I was here when the last statutory

report came in. The previous government moved swiftly to reduce benefits. It was

breathtaking, the speed at which they moved to reduce the benefits. The current

Minister of Education was in charge at the time. He hammered these things

through the House, amidst considerable opposition, I might say, but they were

changed very quickly. The minister has had this report since last May. I realize

he is only a new minister, he only became minister in August, but he is a very

intelligent man, a quick study, I understand. He understands things very

quickly, can follow the arguments very well, and is quite sympathetic to the

needs of injured workers. I urge the members of the Cabinet and government to

listen to him, and to move speedily to make whatever changes can be made now

without legislation. If there is any legislation coming before this House to

improve the lot of injured workers, to place greater emphasis on safety as a

means of reducing industrial carnage, they will be passed swiftly by this side

of the House. I am sure we will not waste any time in debating them, we will

pass them immediately.

It is a very important matter. There are grave concerns raised in this

report. I am sorry to hear that the minister is not moving faster on them, as

fast as the government moved five years ago when they saw a way to make some

savings in the system at the expense of injured workers. The minister will have

whatever support that is needed from this side of the House, and not only that,

will be sure to hear from this side of the House on an ongoing basis until these

changes are implemented.

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the Injured Workers' Association and Mr.

Haynes for doing such a good job in organizing here and presenting the brief and

so on. I think they have to be commended for that. I met with him earlier, just

after becoming minister, and was impressed with his sincerity and his concern

for injured workers, and I give him credit for that. It is very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: I want to assure the workers who are in the gallery here

today that I have a commitment from the Cabinet, from the Premier in particular,

saying that we will fast-track many of the recommendations that are in the

report. I look forward in the next number of weeks to doing that.

The other recommendations there that are more difficult, and the extenuating

circumstances involved with them, will take a little longer to do. But I want to

be expeditious in what we do, and at the end of the day, I want to assure the

workers and this House, that whatever I do will be with the interests of the

workers in mind to alleviate any of the anguish and sorrow that they would have,

but yet also to bear in mind, as I said earlier, that we must maintain the

integrity of the plan. I am sure, at the end of the day, the employers and

workers who are represented here will continue to do a good job.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like also to mention the fact that

the people who sit on the Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation

Commission are people who are sent there by union representatives and workers

and by employers, and I have tremendous faith in people like Allan Carter from

NAPE, Eileen Humphries from the Nurses' Union, and Mr. Kennedy from the workers'

group, who serve diligently on this board. I am sure that their interests, when

they go to the board, are for the integrity of the plan, but also to make sure

that the conditions of the injured workers are looked after and life made as

pleasant as possible in spite of the injuries that have occurred.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of this resolution today is to bring immediate attention to the

inadequacy and the inefficiency of the Canada Student Loan Program in terms of

meeting the practical, functional and financial needs of students pursuing a

post-secondary education in the `90s and beyond; and secondly to emphasize and

illustrate and demonstrate another major problem, probably the nation's most

pressing problem, Canada's most pressing problem, namely, student indebtedness.

As a matter of fact, there are those who say that the level of student debt in

Canada appears to be without parallel anywhere in the world.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, a major purpose of this resolution is to convince and

request the prompt action of both governments, federal and provincial, to

initiate major reform to the Canadian Student Loan Program, with particular

emphasis towards developing measures that will deal effectively and efficiently

with student indebtedness.

To ensure immediate action in respect of correcting and improving the Canada

Student Loan Program, another important aspect of this resolution, another

request, was to ask both levels of government to ensure that it is given a high

priority on the agenda of the upcoming First Ministers' Conference which will

take place in early December.

Mr. Speaker, to get this matter to the national level, to get this matter to

the Table of First Ministers, will take a little more than this resolution, as

all hon. members are aware, although the passage of this resolution will be very

important and very significant. To get this resolution to the national level, to

get this resolution on the national agenda, to get this resolution on the Table

of the First Ministers' Conference, is going to take the co-operation, the

determination, and the political will of this government and the Premier.

I have been reasonably encouraged and impressed with the efforts of the

government and particularly with the Premier in his efforts to make sure that

this issue is brought before the national government. I know that in the past

few months, he spared no effort in terms of giving this issue the kind of debate

and discussion that it deserves, but we will be counting on him and his

government to ensure that this resolution gets the results and the action which

is implicit in the resolution.

The passage of this resolution today, given the collective support of the

House, will give the resolution, I believe, the further impetus and expediency

to our government to ensure that action is taken on this matter immediately, and

the debate generated will result, I am sure, not only in identifying the

problems, the weaknesses and the inadequacies of the Canada Student Loan

Program, but I am sure that the debate will result in members giving ideas,

suggestions and principles which will guide the government and the senior

officials whose job it will be to further refine, develop, enhance and improve

the present Canada Student Loan Program and to develop a program which will

ensure fairness, equity and opportunity for all Canadians, regardless of their

economic backgrounds to pursue a post-secondary education.

I point out that the Canada Student Loan plan is the only loan program which

guarantees Canadians the opportunity to undertake studies in the province of

their choice and, as such, can make a vital contribution to national unity and

nation-building.

It is axiomatic and a truism to state in Canada that financial and economic

investments in education are an investment in the future; that education and

formal training are prerequisites to employment.

The research and study have demonstrated, unequivocally, the relationship

between educational attainment and unemployment. The research is overwhelming

supporting the fact that the higher the level of education, the higher generally

is the rate of employment and the quality of employment.

Hence, I think the rationale has long been established in Canada for publicly

supporting, supporting financially, education throughout the nation and

particularly post-secondary education.

Believing in the value of education, that is why the Federal Government moved

in the mid 1960s to set up a Canada Student Loan Program. Mr. Speaker, I do not

think I need to go through the history; everybody is familiar with the Canada

loan program.

all Canadians. The program was jointly sponsored by the Federal Government and

the Provincial Government, with the Federal Government absorbing sixty per cent

of the loans and the Province, forty per cent.

Basically, the Canada Student Loan Program is a loan program,

straightforward, a loan program,

whereas in the provinces, they have made it a

combination of loans and grants and taxed with remission schemes as we have in

this Province. But it is fair to say that over the years, the Canada Student

Loan Program has not kept up with the financial, economic and social needs of

the country and, as a result, it has caused great hardship on students, that it

is not now achieving the goals and purposes which we envisaged for the Canada

Student Loan Program.

What I want to do in my short time this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is to

identify the weaknesses, specifically with respect to two items: 1) The Student

Aid itself, the actual money, the loans, and student indebtedness.

In terms of recommending suggestions for future direction, there are plenty

of recommendations for both the Federal Government and the Provincial Government

to follow. I recommend to all members a presentation by our own Newfoundland and

Labrador Federation of Students submitted to the government, I think, early Fall

- I am not precisely certain of the date but I think it was early Fall and is

called: Commonsense, Supporting Post-secondary Education Securing Our Future,

and the federation of students makes some very good recommendations but, I also

refer hon. members to another presentation and this presentation was made in

January of 1997, a discussion paper entitled: The Student Assistant Reform

Initiative, which is the effort of seven national organizations involved in

post-secondary education.

These are all organizations involved in post-secondary education of some

nature. The teachers, students involved in this have come up with a discussion

paper making some great recommendations, and I think they could provide the

basis of any reform to the Student Loan Program. Although, at the end, after

going through some of these, I would like to make a recommendation or two

myself. I am a little bit reluctant to do that, it is only to throw it out for

discussion, because I believe that any major changes to the program ought to

come from the students themselves, and the teachers who are involved, and

parents. So, Mr. Speaker, even though I want to make a suggestion or two on my

own, I am cognizant of the recommendations and the literature before those who

will be required to make changes to the Student Aid Program.

Mr. Speaker, on page 11 in the Newfoundland presentation, it says: it is

difficult to decide where to begin when recommending changes to the Canada

Student Loan Program since the program's problems are numerous. It goes on to

point out, as I have done a little earlier, the break-up of the Canada Student

Loan Program with the federal composition of 60 per cent and the provincial

composition of 40 per cent; and the report points out, in accessing these loans,

in approaching the Student Aid Division, in fact it becomes very confusing. The

rules governing each becomes very confusing and sometimes even the

administrators are confused by the rules and regulations affecting the

governance and the approval of each of these programs, the provincial and the

federal. It is their recommendation that the two ought to be combined, that they

ought to be harmonized and I certainly concur with that. I think that under the

present structure that is certainly the way it should be, that it should be -

all for the same purpose and that it ought to be the one - that the two loans

ought to be harmonized and the rules fine-tuned to make the administration more

simple, to take out any confusion, any irregularities, to fine-tune the rules

governing the approval of a student loan. I certainly can concur with that. In

addition to that, I think that the student loans themselves must be improved in

accordance with the financial conditions of today. The loans must be a

reflection of the financial realities -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. LUSH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not realize - the fifteen minutes went

so fast and I won't abuse the time given to me.

I just want to say that I certainly concur with the harmonization suggested

by our own students and I also concur with an increase in the student loans. I

also agree with the - and I don't have time to get into that at this point but -

initiatives advanced by the seven national organizations, the title of which I

have given and I shall give it again for hon. members is the Student Assistance

Reform Initiative. They certainly outline some important initiatives there but

if I might, Mr. Speaker, just -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: If I might, I would just like to advance at this stage my own

suggestion, and that is out of the models that I have seen. The one that pleases

me most is the income contingency repayment plan, the income contingency loan

repayment program. Basically, with that program, its strength is in its payback.

Its strength is in dealing with student indebtedness. A particular one is that

it advocates that the payback must be related to a student's income and that it

should be taken care of by the income tax division. In other words, Revenue

Canada. Revenue Canada knows the whereabouts of every student. They know what

they are doing. They know what they are working at and when they start work.

They know when they are working and they take out a rate in proportion to their

rate of pay or their wages and if they are earning larger wages they will take

out a higher rate. If they are making lower wages they will take out a lower

rate. It is related to income and if there is no employment, which has been a

very distinct possibility for students in this economic climate, they make no

payment, Mr. Speaker. This would do away with collecting agencies which has

become the scourge of students in Canada, in Newfoundland in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I will get a chance to talk about it - in my wrap up of fifteen

minutes. I hope that hon. members will come forward with other suggestions in

terms of helping the students of this Province deal with the difficulties of

financing education and to deal with the difficulties of student debt.

Thank you.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I was first elected in May, 1993, and this is

the fifth Private Members' Resolution that I have spoken on dealing with this

issue. Four of them I have presented myself, the fifth one, now advanced by the

hon. Member for Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, I think the record is clear in terms of where this member and

this party stands on student indebtedness. I will take some time in a few

moments to outline clearly for the record again what we said in 1993, what we

said in 1994, what we said in 1995, 1996, and recently in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that has been put forward clearly is something

this Party not only supports, but has recommended time and time again to

government. I want to congratulate the member, because one year ago his point of

view on this very important issue was not the same point of view that he is

offering and putting forward and advancing today. Even though he has come to the

party late, I congratulate him for coming, and I support his resolution

wholeheartedly in advancing the cause of indebtedness of students.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce itself nationally has said that the

largest single crisis that is going to face the country by the years 2005 to

2010 is this very issue, indebtedness of students. I've said publicly before,

and I will say it again, in my years at the post-secondary institution known as

Memorial University, when I concluded my academic career there, I came out of

that institution with $26,000 worth of student loans, all of it to be paid back.

None of it deferred, no grants, et cetera. I still have three and a half years

left to pay at a rate of $359 a month. For $26,000, by the time I pay it back,

according to the

schedule of interest I signed (inaudible) day I will have paid

It must be emphasized clearly that when we talk about student loans they are

exactly that. They are loans. The grant portions of student loans provincially

were eliminated in the 1993 Budget, or 1994 Budget. What we are talking about is

loans. If I were to start the same program that I was enrolled in today,

conclude five years later, my student loan wouldn't be $26,000. It would be

somewhere in the vicinity of $46,000 or $47,000. That is the type of debt load

people are experiencing at Memorial University. Post-secondary education is far

beyond just Memorial. The type of debt that students are incurring, coming out

with no job, no future of employment - there is certainly no forgiveness when it

comes to the lending institutions.

As a matter of fact, let me tell you some horror stories that have come to my

office from constituents of mine. One student, $39,000 worth of loans, within an

eighteen-month period couldn't repay and the banks wanted their money. He

couldn't give them any money, he didn't have any money. He was on social

services. As a result of that, the banks foreclosed on the loan, for the lack of

credit agency. To this day he isn't in a position to pay back. What he could pay

back amounts to about $50 to $75 a month, because it is based upon his ability

to pay, not upon what anybody else believes their ability to pay. There are

situations like that, and the member has correctly alluded to them, where

students with no employment, no prospect of employment, must be looked at in

terms of special or extenuating circumstances. The common saying is that they

have fallen through the cracks.

I would just like to read into the record what this Party's position is that

was presented two years ago at a conference. One, it calls for this:

Harmonization of the federal Canada Student Loan with the provincial

Newfoundland student loan to get rid of the confusion now inherent in the

separate systems. The member talked about it. We support it. We supported it two

years ago, we support it today.

Two: Revisit the recommendations in the student assistance reform initiative

released in January, namely, to provide special opportunities, grants to

students in need, give deferred grants to graduates in the form of interest

relief, create student employment programs, and make student loan interest

payments tax deductible.

Three: Design a more adequate student assistance program with a better debt

remission component and a tax deduction for loan repayments similar to capital

investment tax deductions.

That unto itself makes a tremendous amount of sense. Give students the option

to classify themselves as independent. This is clearly an important issue. For

those who have no knowledge of the system, who don't understand the system, here

is what it means.

For most students going to a post-secondary institution - I will use Memorial

- if you are classified as a dependent student, even though the rules are such

that you will not receive a full loan, you will not receive full Canada or

provincial loans, if your parents make a certain amount of money.

Now, the point is Mr. Speaker, that the ceilings that have been imposed by

the systems that say: if your household income is $35,000 then for example you

are only eligible for so much or not at all.

These regulations, while the spirit of them I understand, are having the

reverse effect of what they were suppose to have. They were supposed to ensure

that equity in the system would prevail, that those who needed to get it, would

get it and those who did not need it, who could get assistance because they came

from a marginal higher level of income from their parents, would not be able to

take advantage of the program. Well, that is not happening. It is considerations

of numbers of people in the family, household debt is not part of that program.

By clearly asking or giving students the opportunity to classify themselves as

independent, brings in line, I think, our philosophy as a society.

A student of eighteen years old is allowed to vote, is allowed to drive, at

nineteen is allowed to drink, is allowed to pursue any activity within society.

Why should they be considered dependent when clearly they are independent

thinking individuals? Mr. Speaker, we call for that.

Number five: We are on the record for saying that you should deduct no more

then twenty per cent of the pre-study discretionary income from allowable loans.

Number six: We ask and are on the record for saying, increase the weekly

living allowance used in calculating discretionary income.

Number seven: Deduct no more than twenty per cent of income earned during the

period of study for such things as part-time jobs and bursaries.

There are people who are on co-op programs who end up in Halifax, who end up

in Deer Lake, who end up essentially outside of their normal living environment,

as a result their living conditions; the amount it costs them to live far exceed

what the student loan program takes into consideration.

Number eight: Regularly increase allowances for compulsory fees like tuition

and books. So, allowance reflects the costs. Common sense I put forward, Mr.

Speaker.

Number nine: Increase the maximum amount of loan limit to better reflect the

rising cost of education.

While the Minister of Education himself a couple of weeks ago, publicly mused

about the idea with respect to private training institutions where tuition costs

are higher and if people cannot afford it, if the student loan program does not

allow them to meet basic tuition costs, then maybe they should consider going to

the publicly funded institutions.

What he did not say is that the publicly funded institutions, their courses

are being stripped, the amount of courses available are somewhat in the vicinity

of seventy or eighty per cent less than what they were five years ago.

public college system within this Province has diminished to such a degree that

it has caused a prolific and significant need for the private sector to step up,

especially in rural Newfoundland.

So, while the minister can say that, he should have also said that as a

result of this dilemma, as a result of this situation that many young people are

facing in the Province, that the Province is moving expeditiously to increase

the levels of students loans, so that where people are going to private

institutions where tuitions are higher, that if they wish to they can take

advantage of a loan system by where it will give them the basic necessities,

such as the cost of their tuitions, the cost of their books and a living weekly

allowance so that they can live at bare minimum levels anyway.

Number ten: We are on the record for saying, our leader made a presentation

to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students on two separate

occasions, last year and this year calling for these measures.

The last one that he talked about was that the program should provide a cost

of living subsidy to students whose program of study is not available in their

own home town.

Let me say to the hon. member, clearly that this side of the House supports

this resolution. It is not unlike the resolutions that we have talked about on

four separate occasions that have been put forward by this side of the House.

That I might add for the record, Mr. Speaker, were not and I repeat, were not

supported by the government of the day.

But I am pleased to stand with him today to say clearly and in a most

articulate way, that I support this resolution. That this side of the House and

this party supports the resolution and the sooner that we can renegotiate,

redefine, reconfigure the student loan system that better reflects the reality

of today.

Number one: That provides an opportunity for students to have equal

remission and large portions of remission are allowed so that students do not

come out with loans that equal mortgages in many cases, that before they even

start their lives they have a mortgage - what can be described only as a

mortgage - of $40,000 or $50,000 hanging over their heads, that some more

remission be given to them so that component of our society can move forward and

deliver us into the next century.

With that I will conclude my remarks and let other hon. members participate

in this debate.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate this afternoon. As a

person who for pretty well the whole of his life, I guess, has been involved in

the education field, either as a deliverer of the service or a consumer, it is

certainly an issue that is near and dear to me and I am pleased to have this

opportunity to share for a few moments with the members of this hon. House my

views with regard to this very timely topic.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the previous speakers today I have been

reflecting back on my years in education, and going back some considerable

years. I remember beginning school on the Port au Port Peninsula, and proceeding

through the primary, elementary and high school, and graduating from high school

as one of a class of four graduates.

Thinking back to the number of friends of mine who had started the process

and were nowhere to be seen some eleven years later always had a strong

impression and left me to wonder what had happened along the way to all of the

others who had begun this process with me.

Later, as an educator and as an advocate for improvements to the educational

services in the area of the Province in which I lived and worked, it also was

very clear to me that some of the problems that had been apparent years prior,

during my own time in the system, were still very much in evidence.

I think back to the efforts upon which we embarked in the school system in

which I worked back in the early eighties, looking at the dropout problem, we

were appalled to determine and to realize that in the school system in which I

was employed at that time, we had a dropout rate of 70 per cent. That was only a

short time ago. We are talking the early eighties. This is not ancient history;

this is very recent history.

At that time, in our area of the Province, we tried to in a very real way

address the serious concerns and tried to reverse the trend that obviously we

all recognized was impacting so negatively on our communities and on the

individuals who lived there.

Also, as a volunteer in the community, I had occasion to be fairly heavily

involved in economic development, in trying to promote economic development in

that area, trying to help people identify and realize ways in which they might

make a living. So in that capacity as an educator and as an economic developer,

it was pretty obvious that the education and economic development were very

closely related. Certainly in our area of the Province, in the area of the

Province in which I lived, it was pretty apparent that many of the difficulties

we were facing in terms of our struggles to try to develop and grow our economy

were in large

part impacted by the fact that what we were finding in the area

was that large numbers of our people were undereducated.

Mr. Speaker, the reality in the area where I live, and unfortunately still

very much the reality, the young people who proceeded through the system and

acquired high school graduation, many of them moved on elsewhere. Many of them

could not see a reason to remain in the area, and those who did remain behind,

in the main, were people who had dropped out of school and, as a result, were

restricted in the types of options and career choices which were open to them.

Speaking from my own experience, Mr. Speaker, when I finished high school in

the early 1960s and was looking at a career choice - on the Port au Port

Peninsula back in the early '60s, when I graduated, there were not a lot of

options that I could look to, there were not a lot of fields that I could see,

that were open to me. The Student Aid Program at that time was in its very, very

early stages, and the only thing available was a grant system, provided by the

government of the day, that was intended to attract graduates from the high

school program into the teaching program at the University, and I guess, that

pretty well shaped the career that I was to pursue.

I know, many of my friends and many of the people I have known over the

years, their experience was similar to mine, in that the option was there for

them. If they wanted university, the only way they could look at university was

to aspire to become a teacher, to avail of the grant program that was made

available by the government of the day, and that, Mr. Speaker, I opted to do.

And I can say to you and say to this hon. House today, that as I reflect back to

the early 1960s, coming from the West Coast of the Province, from a tiny, little

community -

MR. H. HODDER: How old are you, at all?

MR. SMITH: How old do you think I am?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Indeed I do. But, Mr. Speaker, reflecting back to that time, I

still remember travelling to this part of the Province for the first time and

arriving here - well, I will date myself in the sense that I arrived here at

University the first year that the residence opened. As a matter of fact, I had

the privilege of being one of the first residents in Rothmere House, so that is

going back a ways.

MR. H. HODDER: Nineteen thirty-four.

MR. SMITH: No, that is your year, `Harvey'.

But, Mr. Speaker, the thing about it is, as I reflect back, and I guess, in

the context of what we are debating here today, the one thing that is relevant

about it is that, the opportunity that was provided to me at that time, by

virtue of the fact that there was a program in place which made it possible for

someone coming from a situation who, otherwise would not have been able to

consider a career in which university training was a component of it, I

appreciate the fact that having Student Aid Programs in place are very, very

important.

I also appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that because of these programs that

were in place, the fact that I was able to avail of a university education

because there was assistance available to me, I would like to feel it shaped,

not only the career which I was able to pursue and make a living, but I believe,

as an educator, that it has shaped me as a person. And this is the important

thing whenever we engage in the education - and the education debate is such,

that education is important for education's sake.

Mr. Speaker, in our area of the Province and the area of the Province where I

have lived and worked, this is one of the things that we have set out as a goal,

to try to create among our people, a learning environment, an environment in

which everyone, young and old alike, recognize and believe and subscribe to the

view of life-long learning, that education is not something that you begin in

Kindergarten or pre-school but is something that you engage in the whole of your

life; and in order to do that, you have to accept the principle that education

should be accessible to all of our citizens at every stage of their development.

We are very fortunate in this country to have available at the primary,

elementary and secondary level, free education, and the difficulty for our young

graduates first appears when they have to look to the post-secondary.

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that in recent years the costs associated

with this have been somewhat staggering. I have three children who have gone

through the program, so I can relate to the recent situation as well. Because I

know the reality of their having to deal with student aid and student loans, and

trying to come to grips with dealing with the debt load with which they are

faced after their program has been completed.

I mentioned earlier that I have been around for a while. There are other

members in this House as well, I am sure, who could relate, too, if they would

dare to admit, but I was around in the days when the government of the day not

only announced free tuition, but I can remember being at the meeting where the

Premier of the day, surrounded by his Cabinet, announced: Not only will we have

free tuition, but you are going to get a salary of $100 a month. I mean, the

grand sum of $100 a month - I can tell you, that news was greeted with

astounding applause. All of the students at the University of the day just could

not believe their good fortune.

Unfortunately, it was short-lived. I do not know how long - I guess I availed

of it for a couple of years. It did not last very long before - I am not sure,

because I did not continue there. It may have been - the hon. member opposite is

indicating it might have been three years. I do not know because I was not in

attendance for three continuous years. It may have been there for the third

year. I was one of these people who, after a couple of years, had to go out and

start trying to earn a living, trying to scrape together a few more dollars so I

could come back in and continue my training.

We do have precedents. I heard one of the members opposite make reference

earlier this afternoon to a suggestion that has been made in recent days about

the idea of making post-secondary education totally free and accessible to all

young people. That is certainly laudable. I think it is something that no one,

in principle, would have any difficulty subscribing to. I guess we recognize the

reality, as well, that at this point in time it may not be the type of program

that we can embark upon.

Certainly, I think we have to commit ourselves to making sure that not only

is the support to our students maintained at an acceptable level, so that

post-secondary education continues to be accessible to all of them; we also have

to do it and complete it in the context that when these young people do leave

the post-secondary institutions that the debt load they are saddled with is not

such that their future success in life is, in fact, negatively impacted upon.

I do not think we can allow that to happen. I am always concerned when I read

reports and hear of instances where students are declaring personal bankruptcy.

I think that is really tragic. I think it is tragic when that fate befalls

anyone. I think it is even more tragic when it is a course of action that a

young person, very early on in their life, feels that they have no choice but to

opt for this because the situation in which they find themselves is such that it

is not possible for them to continue without placing undue hardship on

themselves and on their families.

I feel strongly that this Province and this country must commit themselves to

continuing to make education a priority. It must be our goal that all of our

citizens will be able to achieve all of their potential, that opportunities will

continue to exist and be available to people who want to pursue careers in any

number of fields. As difficult as it may be, and confronted with the problems

that are indeed real, and I certainly sympathize with the students who are

confronted with this today, I also recognize that - at the beginning I reflected

back on my early years in entering the post-secondary education system.

I look at my own children. In the course of that number of years, which in an

historical perspective are not that long or not that great, we have seen

significant changes in this Province. Right now, young graduates from the school

that I graduated from many years ago, young students coming out of that school

now, high school graduates, unlike myself, now can aspire to any of the careers

that are available to high school graduates in the larger centres of the

Province. So if you are graduating from high school in Nain, Lourdes, Cape St.

George or on the Bay Verte Peninsula, wherever, there is no reason, coming out

of a high school now that you cannot say, I can pursue any career. That is the

type of thing, Mr. Speaker, that we must ensure remains the norm, because the

real losers in all of this, if we allow any of our young people to not fully

realize the potential, to not have the opportunity to fully develop the gifts

which they have been given, then we, as a nation, and we, as a Province, are the

losers, because these young people have so much to offer. If one of these young

people out there decides tomorrow that he is not going to pursue a

post-secondary education, this may be the one person who will have, within him,

the answer to a lot of the problems and a lot of the questions that we have been

pursuing for a number of years. So certainly, it is incumbent upon us as

governments; it is incumbent upon us as citizens of this great country, to try

to ensure that that level of support is there for all of our young people, that

the encouragement is there, the motivation is there.

Mr. Speaker, if I can relate again to my own experience, in the school in

which I was employed prior to getting into politics, one of the things we did

was institute a universal pre-school program. All of the children in our area

came to school a year earlier because we recognized that we had many children

starting school in kindergarten who were disadvantaged. They did not have the

stimulation that would allow them to be able to come in and compete with

students from other families. So what we did was bring in a pre-school program,

bring them in a year earlier.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that - and again sending out the message as to

how important education is to all of us, as part of the entry into pre-school

programs - we also asked that the parents enrol in effective parenting programs,

because we recognized that education is not just for the young, it is not just

for a certain segment of our society, it is for all of our citizens. Mr.

Speaker, we must continue to strive to make sure that these opportunities

continue to be available to our young people.

We, as legislators, must try to do everything that we can to ensure that all

of our young people are given every opportunity to participate, are given every

opportunity to avail of the career choices that are out there, so that they can

then, in turn, make a contribution, which I am sure they will, to building and

growing this great nation of ours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to rise to comment briefly on the resolution put forward by the Member

for Terra Nova. It reads: `Whereas the present Canada Student Loan Program is

manifestly inadequate, making the successful pursuit of post-secondary education

critically less accessible and affordable to thousands of students throughout

the Province and indeed, throughout Canada', therefore, in part of the

resolution he says that he is calling upon all of us to support the initiative

being taken by the First Ministers. Because there has been some dialogue in the

local press of late on the fact that student loans and student assistance

programs will be a topic for the First Ministers' Conference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I could quote to the member the comments he made last year,

in May, 1996, when the Member for Kilbride stood in his place and put forward a

similar motion. At that time, he chastised the Opposition for wanting every kind

of thing. He said: It is so easy to stand up and be against things, and he said:

we want more money for social service, we want more money for health care, we

want more money for this and he told us that we should be kind of, you know,

putting everything into perspective, and I could quote here because when I did

some of the research on this, I found out that our file - this is just the

Hansard material - is quite extensive because we have been putting forward these

kinds of resolutions since I arrived in the House in 1993.

I am pleased that the Member for Terra Nova today has put forward a

resolution which is virtually identical in theme if not in word to that put

forward by the Member for Kilbride on four occasions, and put forward by this

member last year when we talked about funding for the parents. We had that

resolution in the House in May of 1997 and on each occasion, the member whom I

think, his heart is in the right place, kind of spoke not in favour of the

resolution but, when the time came to vote he did not stand in his place and

support it, in fact, he voted against it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we put forward on this side, repeatedly, our proposals for

handling this particular problem, and as the member alluded to, a report called:

Commonsense Supporting Post-secondary Education, has some wonderful suggestions

in it and it also put forward some proposals that I think all governments in

Canada should be considering, and when we put forward our comments which were

part of a presentation made by this Party to the Federation of Students, we

certainly outlined ten different proposals that we would like to see included in

a revision to the Student Loan Program and the Member for Kilbride, today put

some of those forward.

We believe that we shall harmonize the federal Canada Student Loan and the

provincial Newfoundland Student Loan which are currently off course,

administered separately under different rules which confuse students,

administrators and bankers; and it concerns me when I hear bankers for example,

saying that they want to get out of the student loans altogether because they

are very high risks for them and we find that when the banking industry is

losing faith in the Student Loan Program, that causes some real concerns.

We also said in our presentation to the Federation of Students, that we

should review the recommendations in the Student Assistance Reform Initiative

released in January of this year by seven national post-secondary organizations,

and we believe that we should implement tax measures, such as making student

loan interest payments tax deductible. We support that. We say that when we are

asking students to take on increasing debt loads, we have to treat it as

something of a very serious national problem, when we find that a few years ago,

when the people were taking out $10,000 or $15,000 in student loan debt, we know

at that time, eight, ten, twelve years ago, as these students graduated, had

chances to get jobs. Now, we are asking people to take on a debt load of $30,000

to $40,000 to $50,000 and we are saying to them in some cases: If you want a

job, you are going to have to take one paying ten dollars an hour or eight

dollars an hour or something like that because many of these students cannot

find jobs, so the difference between my colleague from Port au Port, who just

spoke and myself who graduated from university roughly the same time - although

I was a student on the Parade Street Campus in 1960-61, so I was in university

before he was - but when we graduated, yes I had student loans and paid them off

over a ten-year period. On the day that I graduated from MUN, my total student

loan was three times my gross annual salary but, at least I had a job. I had a

job that I could go to and certainly I would say to members that, that is the

difference today.

Students today, have much higher student loans but they do not have the kind

of guarantees for job opportunities that we had a few years ago. So when we say

things like, we support implementing tax measures such that we would make

student loan interest payments tax deductible, we believe that is a very serious

initiative. That at least would provide some, shall we say, incentive to the

students.

Sometimes we would make business interest that is paid by business on loans;

some of these things can be deducted. Why let business that is investing in,

shall we say, the production of goods and services - you are going to let these

people deduct their interest payments as part of their business tax regime; you

are going to make them tax deductible - why not say to a young man or a young

woman: If you are going to invest $30,000 or $40,000 in your life, in your

future..., what is wrong with saying to these young people: Let's make those

student loan interest payments tax deductible.? It makes good sense. It would be

a forward-looking proposal.

We on this side of the House support that kind of initiative. We support

giving students the option of declaring themselves dependent or independent,

since many dependent students cannot rely on their parents for any help by way

of financial contributions. When we put labels on people, sometimes we treat

them very unfairly. My colleague from Kilbride said we should be providing a

cost of living subsidy to students whose program of study is not available at

home.

We put forward in this presentation to the Federation of Students, ten

different proposals, ten different initiatives, that we would support. We said

at that time that action on student aid is long overdue.

I say to my colleague from Terra Nova that we will be supporting his

resolution here today, and I am going to keep my comments fairly short because

we have several other colleagues on this side who would like to have a comment.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we cannot continue to go the way we are

going. We espouse to make education accessible, to have equality of opportunity,

and when it comes to post-secondary that is not happening, because today a young

person who is graduating from high school in, shall we say, Botwood or

Twillingate or La Scie, is not able to access post-secondary equally as well and

with the same opportunity as somebody graduating from a high school in St.

John's or Mount Pearl, and that is not right.

We have to say to government and all sides, maybe the time has come for us to

take bold initiatives. Maybe we should consider going back to what the Smallwood

government initiated some years ago. The concept of having free tuition is not

that foreign. A few years ago when we were all finishing high school, Grade XI

or Grade XII was a significant level of education in many parts of this

Province. Today it is just a step, so we have to take a longer look at what we

mean by education. We have to look at the fact that when people leave high

school and go to post-secondary, if we are going to have a commitment towards

having a well-informed, well-educated population, we cannot have people held

back because they do not have the financial resources to be able to maximize

their potential.

We say to the Member for Terra Nova, we support his resolution. We hope that

when it is taken to the federal government at the First Ministers' Conference,

that it is aggressively put forward by the Premier on behalf of all of the

students who are now in post-secondary and those who will be in post-secondary

in the next few years, because we cannot do anything less than to aggressively

support anything that will help our young people get a better chance to get

forward in this world and maximize all of their abilities.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak today in support of the resolution presented by the Member

for Terra Nova, recognizing the importance of student indebtedness and the need

to deal with the issue of the Canada Student Loan Program.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed one of the most serious problems that is faced by

young people, and not only young people, in this Province, by young people and

young adults who are seeking to get an education to be able to participate in

the world of work, to have a chance for a gainful and decent employment, and to

further have opportunities to make use of their abilities.

We have a crisis in student loans, in student financing, in student debt,

today in this Province and throughout Canada. A bigger problem in this Province

because so many more students, a much larger percentage of the population, would

not, could not, cannot obtain a proper post-secondary education, or any

post-secondary education at all, without the resources that are available from

borrowing money one way or the other. We don't have a significant population of

people whose families have the income to pay the cost of post-secondary

education. That is the first problem.

The second problem is that tuition fees have gone through the roof. In the

last five or six years tuition fees at Memorial University have climbed

steadily. Obviously in response to that the student population has declined. We

have seen the tuition fees from 1991 go from around $600 a semester to now

$1,600 a semester. Since 1991. I see the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

there saying yes, he agrees that it is his responsibility. He acknowledges that

the government has forced this increase on Memorial University and its students.

That is the second problem, the enormous rise in tuition fees at public

institutions such as Memorial University.

The third problem is this government's abandonment of public education at the

post-secondary level, to a large extent. In the last three or fours years it has

taken $20 million out of post-secondary education. Twenty million dollars

removed from the support of post-secondary education in this Province. What do

we see happening? The close down of programs in a public college, a vocational

school. It is now the College of the North Atlantic. One wonders whether it is

out in the North Atlantic or whether it is really here on home ground in the

Province of Newfoundland.

We see them closing down campuses. Close down the campus in Lewisporte. They

threatened to close it down in Carbonear. They gutted it with the minister's

approval. They eviscerated it with the minister's approval. They closed down a

campus on Bell Island. There was some lip service from the member, but they

closed her down. Closed down a campus in Lewisporte. Closed down a campus in

Springdale, and they leased it to somebody for a dollar.

What do we have in place of that? Private institutions. There are some

forty-nine now. The tuition that is charged by the private institutions would

scare the pants off you: $8,000, $10,000, $12,000 for a program. What kind of a

program? How about this one? A veterinary assistant. Now, how many veterinarians

are there in the Province? Half a dozen private veterinarians, most of whom

probably have assistants? What do they charge for that? Twelve thousand dollars,

$13,000 to be a veterinarian assistant?

Paralegals is another example. I understand there is a whole first year class

who has quit at one of the paralegal institutions, disgusted with the level of

the program, looking for someone to take their case, so they can sue them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We have another situation, a lawsuit against the government,

Mr. Speaker, due to a failure of a school, I think it was the Colin Jamieson

School; the school of journalism. A failure, and the students who were promised

something got nothing. They are trying to sue the government because the

government failed to properly look after the program.

If they call it quality assurance, Mr. Speaker, some quality assurance, some

quality some assurance; neither quality nor assurance of anything.

The Minister of Education tried to give the impression yesterday in the

House, that the government looks after - makes sure that they are getting value

for money, that is all looked after. What he did not say was that the government

plays no role whatsoever in capping the size of the tuition. None, they