Volume XL Monday Province of Newfoundland FORTIETH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard} Speaker: Honourable Patrick McNicholas Number 49 9 June 1986

The House met at 3:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): Order, please! Statements by Ministers MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. HR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to announce increases for the price of fish paid to Labrador fishermen who are served by government owned and operated plants in Northern Labrador. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, since our goal is to emphasize quality wherever possible, these increases will pertain only to number . one quality fish.

The price for salmon will be increased by five cents a pound, the price for char will see an overall increase of eight cents a pound, the price paid for trout will be increased by five cents a pound, and the price to fishermen for shucked scallops will be increased by twenty-five cents a pound. Based on last year's production, these increases will put considerable extra money into the hands of fishermen. The price for groundfish will be in accordance with the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and union negotiated prices. Mr.

Speaker, despite the fact that these plants have been averaging losses of $500,000 annually over the past number of years, the escalating costs to fishermen, especially in the North, must be recognized and addressed. In L2862 June 9, 1986 Vol XL addition, a new marketing agreement has been arranged with a local company to purchase outright most of the production from these plants for 1986. This arrangement has put us in a position, not only to increase the prices paid to fishermen, but to help decrease the losses associated with the operation of these plants as well. M.C.B. Limited of s.t.

John's, which is owned and operated by Mr. Harvey Best, submitted the most acceptable marketing proposal of the five offers tendered. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that four vessels have been awarded collection charters for the 1985 season. These vessels are employed to collect salmon and char from remote fishing stations and deliver it to the freezing plants in Nain and Makkovik. The vessels chartered this year are owned and operated by Mr.Tim MacNeil and Mr. Lester Mitchell of Makkovik, and by Mr. Tom Rose and Mr. Gordon Diamond of St. Anthony. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. W.

CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister again for giving me a copy of his statement prior to the House opening. We welcome the increase in the price of salmon, char, trout and shucked scallops. We are not sure if these increases are as much as they should be. When you realize the price being paid for fresh salmon today, a No. 49 R2862

five cent a pound increase certainly does not seem like all the money in the world. Mr. Speaker, the minister in his statement talks about the price of _ groundfish. He says the groundfish price will be in accordance with Canadian Saltfish Corporation and union prices. Well, therein, Mr. Speaker, I think, lies the story, and maybe the minister should make note of some of the things I am about to say and have the matter investigated. It is rather strange, Mr. Speaker, that the price set by the Canadian Saltfish Corporation for the price of fish is so much below that being now paid in Nova Scotia.

I have figures here to indicate, for example, that the Canadian Sal tf ish Corporation's price on extra large fish, over twenty-six inches in length, is eighty cents a pound, that is for the salt bulk fish. I am told that the fishermen in Nova Scotia get $1.25 a pound for the same fish going to the same market. I know the minister will probably have an explanation or will try to rationalize that difference, but in light of the fact that that difference exists I think that the producers, the fishermen, should be given an explanation.

For example, in Newfoundland, according to the Canadian Saltfish Corporation's latest price, which was issued last week, they are recommending a price of twenty-six cents a pound for fresh, gutted head-on cod. The Nova Scotia fishermen receive - these are the figures I have - fifty-two cents a pound. That is just twice as much. Again, I know the minister will try to rationalize it and maybe he can, but certainly I believe that in light of the L2863 June 9, 1986 Vol XL disparity between the prices paid to Newfoundland fishermen and those paid to Nova Scotia fishermen I think, Mr.

Speaker, an explanation is in order. In other prices the difference, of course, is identical. For example, in Newfoundland under the Canadian Sal tf ish Corporation's 1986 price list for large and medium size fish, that is fish from seventeen inches to twenty-six inches, the salt bulk price being paid to fishermen is seventy cents a pound and the price paid Nova Scotia fishermen would be $1.15 a pound. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the han. Minister responsible for Energy (Mr.

Marshall), I am pleased to inform this hon. House that · Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has today raised $100 million in the Canadian capital market. The issue of debentures is for a term of ten years, at an interest rate of 9 7/8 per cent, and was priced at 99.75 per cent of the principal amount to yield 9.92 per cent. The debentures are guaranteed by the Province of Newfoundland. The issue, which is Hydro's first borrowing in Canada since 1983, was arranged by Dominion Securities Pitfield Limited, McLeod Young Weir Limited, Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. and Richardson Greenshields of Canada Limited.

The issue has been well received by the underwriting syndicate. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. No. 49 R2863

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Mr. Speaker, we are happy to see that the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation is still able to borrow in the Canadian capital markets. We would like the minister to indicate at some point, however, just what it is costing the Province because of the reduced credit rating of the Province. We had a downgrading by one of our rating agencies last year and when you get into an issue of $100 million, this has surely cost the taxpayers of this Province a fair amount of money.

So, at some point in time, we would like to hear from the minister just what it is costing the Province, which stands behind Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Even though the Province is not borrowing directly, what is it costing the taxpayers of this province, either through our Crown corporations or in our dlrect borrowing, because of the reduced credit rating? Oral Questions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition. the Leader of the MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, in July of 1975 the Public Service Commission transferred back to Departmental Selection Boards the hiring for those positions for which there was supposedly a high turn over. I would like to ask the Premier was this a delegation of authority from the Public Service Commission? And was it intended that the same degree of integrity, L2864 June 9, 1986 Vol XL the same standards and the same criteria, namely, hiring on merit, be applied by these Departmental Selection Boards in the same way as by the Public Service Commission? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: I think the answer to that question is yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition? the Leader of the MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, and I believe on Wednesday as well, but on Thursday, on page 2754 in Hansard, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young) said The Public Service Commission had had transferred to it the responsibility for filling these four positions at the Kelligrews MED Centre. Checking with senior officials of the Public Service Commission today, that Commission indicates that there has not yet been any such referral.

Will the Premier indicate whether he is prepared to accept a minister of the Crown standing up and telling this House one thing when the reality is, in fact, something else? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the minister said that he instructed his officials in the Department of Public Works to allow the normal processes to occur, which is for the Department No. 49 R2864

.· of Public Works to refer the ~ositions to the Public Service Commission for normal processing. But if it has not been referred right now, there might some reason why the officials have not referred it and I will undertake to get the information for the bon. gentleman. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I refer to the Premier since he has obviously forgotten what the minister said. On June 5, 1986, page 2754, right hand column of Hansard, does the Premier recall the minister saying, 'Mr.

Speaker, it is being done by . the Public Service Commission'? Does the Premier recall the minister making that statement? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the mtnister making it but obviously he made it. That is what the minister said, that it is being referred. He has given it to his deputy minister or assistant minister to refer. The minister does not refer things to the Public Service Commission, his department does. So, the minister gave instructions for his department to refer it to the Public Service Commission.

Why it has not been referred to this date I will find out for the bon. member. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. L2865 June 9, 1986 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Mr. Speaker, on television last week, I think it was Thursday, the Premier said that he did not agree with the statement of the Minister of Public Works and · Services. Would the Premier indicate just exactly where the disagreement lies? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: This is foolishness. This is foolish stuff. I am not going to answer that, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition is trying to make something out of nothing. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we have now reached an interesting stage in this Assembly where we have the Premier of the Province deciding he is not going to answer legitimate questions with respect to how hiring is being done in the public service.

Will the Premier indicate whether he agrees with the statement by the Minister of Public Works and Services, as made in this House as well as outside the House, that he will give preference to the sons and daughters of political supporters over non-supporters? Does the Premier agree with that statement? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. No. 49 R2865

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that a number of times last week, here in the House and outside. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. KR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the M:.:. Speaker, the Premier has not answered that question. I ask the Premier again, does he agree with the Minister of Public Works and Services establishing as a criterion - with 40,000 young men and women unemployed - does he agree with one of the criterion being whether or not they are the sons and daughters of the minister's political supporters? Would the Premier have the courage to answer that question?

He has not yet done it. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I have already answered that inside and outside the House last week. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: My question is for the Minister of Health (Dr. Twomey), Mr. Speaker. I have here a letter from the General Hospital which was sent, I believe, to all the management people at the General Hospital.

The substance of the letter is that theOOospital is giving to each one of its management people L2866 June 9, 1986 Vol XL a $100 gift certificate in order to have a time out in recognition of, I guess, the job they been doing as management people. Since this has been a cost somewhere in the range of $20,000 for the total there, I would like to ask the Minister of Health, as the department responsible for these hospital boards, whether or not he approves of this particular perk being given to the management people? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not exercise control over any hospital board in this Province. It was a decision, I understand - I heard about it last week - where the board decided to give a $100 gift certificate to members of their executive staff and management. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the han. member for Kenihek. MR. FENWICK: the Mr. Speaker, in the General Hospital Management Act, whenever it was passed, one of the sections indicates that the hospital has to present a budget to the Department of Health, to the minister, is that not correct, and that that budget has to approved?

My question to the minister is this: One of the sections indicates that if there is a change in the financial position of the hospital they are required to come back to the Department of Health, to the minister, for an approval either upward or downward in their budget. Since they have No. 49 R2866

not done this or it seems from th~ minister's answer they have not, does this mean then that the minister is approving budgets in which $20,000 perks are available to management people in the hospital? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I think that the amount you have mentioned is incorrect. I believe it is less, about $8, 000 or $9,000 less. Have I approved it? It has been approved by the board. ·Furthermore, I made further enquiries and the money has not come from payments made to the General Hospital Corporation by the government.

It has come out of money that has been given to the board by other people or from other sources. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker, a supple~entary. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary. MR. FENWICK: Let me see if I can get this right. Do you mean when the hospitals are out there advertising for extra money, that some of this extra money that they have raised is now going for these perks and it is not the government's money? Is that what you are saying? Is it that actually those public appeals are not for essential equipment, as we have been told but are actually for lining the pockets of the management people? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. DR. TWOMEY: L2867 June 9, 1986 Vol XL ~ cannot tell you if it comes from a foundation or from other gifts given to the hospital. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of Opposition. MR. BARRY: the Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier, in light of the fact that the Minister of Public Works on Thursday promised to give to this House information concerning the date when the competition for the jobs at the Kelligrews MED Center was cancelled by him, would the Premier undertake to have that information supplied to the House tomorrow? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I will as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully tomorrow. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is aware that the House is in the process of getting close to coming to the end of the Order Paper. MR. J. CARTER: We will stay here all Summer. MR. BARRY: Yes, we will stay here all Summer unless we get answers to these questions. MR. SPEAKER: No. 49 R2867

Or-der-, please! MR . BARRY: It does not take that long to get a date fr-om the Depar-tment of Public Wor-ks, Mr-. Speaker-, and we would ask the Pr-emier- to give a commitment that he will do it tomor-r-ow. I would ask the Pr-emier­ will he also obtain the date of when the depar-tmental selection boar-d passed in its r-ecommendations to the minister­ for- the per-manent employees to be hir-ed for- this position? The Mini~ter- of Public Works and Services promised the member for Bonavista North (Mr. Lush) on Friday that this infor-mation would be supplied and it has not yet . been given.

It was also promised on Thursday. ·MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr-. Speaker, it was pr-omised on Thursday and promised on Fr-iday. I am sur-e that the Minister of Public Wor-ks, if . he was here, perhaps would have the infor-mation today. But I will check it all out for the teader- of the Opposition and try to get the infor-mation as soon as I can. If I can get it before six o'clock I will get it, if I can get it by tomorrow I will get it. I will get it as fast as it is humanly possible to get it. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier gave us the same undertakings before Christmas last year with respect L2868 June 9, 1986 Vol XL to giving us infor-mation on other matters and we are sti 11 waiting for the information. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, the Premier will he also obtain for this House a copy of all written correspondence relating to the hiring of these employees for the KED Centre, including memoranda written by the minister and responses to this memoranda by the public employees of the Department of Public Works? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I will get whatever infor-mation I can on the matter for the bon. the Leader of the Opposition. No problem. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Opposition. the Leader of the MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether the Premier will establish whether there was a memorandum. MR. PATTERSON: Ask a sensible question. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: would the Premier establish whether there was a memorandum from the Minister of Public Works ordering that certain departmental employees not be allowed to sit on the departmental selection board? MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the Premier. No. 49 R2868

PREMIER PECKFORD: I do not know anything about that. I will have to check that out fo~ the Leade~ of the Opposition. I guess the ministe~ is in his ~ight if he wants to take ce~tain decisions like that, but I will check it out fo~ the Leade~ of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: M~. Speake~. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leade~ of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Would the P~emier undertake to check out the reason why the Minister of Public Works orde~ed these public employees not to sit on any fu~ther depa~tmental selection boa~ds?

Would the P~emie~ establish whethe~ this was in fact because the ministe~ did not like the selection, on me~it, which these depa~tmental employees made? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the P~emie~. PREMIER PECKFORD : I will have to check it out, Kr. Speake~. Yes. MR. BARRY: M~. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leade~ of Opposition. the MR. BARRY: M~. Speake~. will the P~emier establish whether in fact the minister had not been consulted with ~espect to which employees originally we~e to sit on the board?

Would the Premier establish why it is that after approving that ce~tain employees L2869 June 9, 1986 Vol XL sit on the boa~d that the mil)iste~ . would subsequently orde~ that these employees not be allowed to sit on any further selection boa~ds? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I will check it out, Mr. Speaker. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: In addition to the checking out of these matters, will the Premier give an undertaking to inform this House once he checks it out? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD; Mr. Speake~.

I have answered that. I have that about four times. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: already answe~ed The han. Opposition. the Leader of the MR. BARRY: No, Mr. Speaker. To the last three questions all the Premier said was that he will check it out. I want to ask the P~emier will he check it out and will he inform this House? MR.. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I have answe~ed that, Kr. Speaker. No. 49 R2869

MR. BARRY: . A final question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final question, the bon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: The Premier did not answer that question. I would like to ask the Premier has he given instructions to the Minister of Public Works to stay out of this House until the heat is off him on this question? MR. SPEAKER: · The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to answer that. We · do not operate that way over here. If the Leader of the Opposition has some of his members kept out of the House for certain days, that is his problem.

Over here we do not mind listening to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition. MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for st. Barbe. MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. The Premier stated last week in the House that the code of conduct for ministers with respect to hiring temporary employees should be merit, experience and performance. I would like to ask the Premier whether or not he believes the Minister of Public Works, by his own admission twice on public television across this Province, breached the Premier's very code of conduct for hiring? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. L2870 June 9, 1986 Vol XL PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is the same old stuff that we had last week. MR. FUREY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for St. Barbe. MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier is he condoning what the Minister of Public Works and Services has stated twice on public television, that patronage is acceptable in his department? Is the Premier condoning that by saying that he has already answered it, by ducking out from underneath it? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: It was Speaker. already answered, Mr. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier stated in Hansard last week, speaking in this House on the government's hiring system, 'It is a fair, democratic system for hiring people for the various departments of this government.• In view of the Minister of Public Works and Services' statement that he hires those people who vote Tory and who have Tory leanings, who voted for him in particular, does the Premier stand by that statement that the hiring process of government, especially for temporary workers, is democratic No. 49 R2870

or does he condone the political porkbarrelling of the Minister of Public Works and Services? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: The same question was asked by the previous questioner, Mr. Speaker. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: The Premier can stonewall all he likes. The fact of the matter is that outside of this House he said MR. PECKFORD: It is the same question. MR. TULK: Do you want to get in the Chair as well? Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the Premier, specifically, what it was that he was referring to when he said outside of this House that he disagreed with the Minister of Public Works and Services in the way that he was handling the hiring of people in his department? Will he answer that question or is he going to try and sit there and stone-wall and allow the corruption to go on in this government that is presently going on? MR. PATTERSON: Make him withdraw, Mr. Speaker. MR. BARRY: Right on! Right on! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! order, please!

I L2871 .June 9, 1986 Vol XL ask the han. member to withdraw this term 'corruption! MR. BARRY: Why? Why, Mr. Speaker? MR. PECKFORD: Did you hear the Leader of the Opposition? MR. TULK: Kr. Speaker, whatever I have said that the Speaker wants me to withdraw, of course I withdraw it. Let me ask the Premier the question in another way. He has said, and we have in front of us again, some of the things that the Premier has said about hiring in the public service, and he has said that - MR. OTTENHEIMER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, for .the past fifteen minutes I think a number of the rules in Beauchesne have been totally ignored. MR. FUREY: Do we have a democracy here? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Democracy does not mean ignoring the rules, as the hon. gentleman thinks. He seems to think that he is the fount of democracy and only his views count. However, there are parliamentary rules of which the hon. gentleman is not the author.

They are in Beauchesne, page 129, and one says, In putting a question a member must confine himself; to certain things and, 'A question written or oral must not: -there is a 'not', which may not No. 49 R2871

be in the edition the . hon. gentleman has - (

c) multiply, with a slight variations, a similar question on the same point. (

d) repeat in substance a question already answered. Those are quite straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and I think that in the interests of the conduct of public business they should be enforced. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Leader of the Mr. Speaker, we see it now! We see a Premier, we see a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a former Speaker of this House- MR. DAWE: What fantasy are you going to weave now? . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: And we saw the Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Dawe) being the first exponent of the new Peckford doctrine, the new Peckford port barrelling doctrine, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transportation was the first exponent of that and now we have the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Young) following his guidelines. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the han. member please speak to the point of order? MR. BARRY: If I have the protection of the Chair so that I will be able to speak in silence, Mr. Speaker. L2872 June 9, 1986 Vol XL MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, we have a Premier who for years has carried on the pretence of an open government. SOME HON. MEMBERS: What is the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. BARRY: This is exactly what I am referring to. For the last several days, when a serious issue has come up for which the taxpayers of this Province and the Opposition are entitled to obtain information by questioning - MR. DAWE: That is not a point of order. MR. TOBIN: Is this a speech? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

BARRY: When a serious question comes up for which the Opposition is entitled to obtain information for the benefit of the public, we now have the Premier and the former Speaker trying to stonewall and prevent the Opposition from asking questions even though the Premier is refusing to answer them. We have now come to the sorry state in this Province where despite the fact that we have a Question Period we have a Premier who is afraid to answer questions. PREMIER PECKFORD: He is not on the point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: No. 49 R2872

We have a Premier who is afraid to answer questions. That is where we are in this Province today. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: And the spurious point of order ~aised by the Acting House Leader - MR. DAWE: Sit down, boy. MR. SPEAKER: Order, p-lease! MR. BARRY: You should not Speaker like that. frighten the MR. SPEAKER: I am prepared to rule on that · point of order. MR. BARRY: Do you mean I cannot finish my remarks on the point of order? MR. SIMMS: You were giving a speech. MR.

SPEAKER: I do not mind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition completing his remarks, but he was not speaking to the point· of ·order. If you would like to speak to the point of order, I am quite prepared to hear you. MR. BARRY: Maybe Your Honour did not get all the statement by the Acting Government House Leader (Mr. Ottenh~imer). What the Acting . Government . House Leader is saying is that because there are questions dealing with the same issue, he says worded in a L2873 June 9, 1986 Vol XL different fashion, that somehow this is improper. Mr.

Speaker, it may be improper in a unitarian state, a one party system, it is not improper, as Your Honour would know from speaking with some of the members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, it is not uncommon in any part of the democratic world where we have a two party system . It is not uncommon for members to ask questions and to keep asking question until they get answers, and we are not getting answers because the Premier is afraid to give them. The Premier is a hypocrite and is afraid to give answers. He does not have the intestinal fortitude of a ten cent codfish, Mr. Speaker. MR.

DAWE: You got less. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMS: Sit down, boy. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order, I would like to read again what the bon. member said, and I will quote Beauchesne again on page 129 . "A question oral or written must not: (

e) multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point". "{

d) repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused. •• Now, as far as I am concerned, today there were a number of repeated questions and I must say No. 49 R2873

that that point is well taken. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Let me ask the hon. gentleman a question that I do not believe he has been asked. He certainly has not answered it, so let me ask him what I do not believe he has been asked. We heard the Premier disagree with the Minister of Public Words and Services, and we heard the Premier say that he does not believe in hiring for political patronage purposes. Let me ask him if he is man enough to stand by his · convictions.

What is he going to do about that disagreement that he has with the Minister of Public Works and Services? Is he going to do anything or is he going to allow the morality of his government to slide further than it already has? MR. BARRY: Right, right. Y~u disagreed, now what are you going to do about it? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It appears to me that that is exactly the same question. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that question has not been asked. MR. BARRY: Oh! MR. SPEAKER: As far as I can understand that question has been asked on numerous occasions. MR.

BARRY: L2874 June 9, 1986 -' Vol XL It has never been asked. never been asked. MR. TULK: It has A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Maybe the hon. gentleman would like to ask it in a different fashion. As far as I can see it is the same question. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me put the question differently. Let me ask a different question.

I hold in my hand a sheet that was put out by the government of this Province that said, ''A government must be publicly accountable to the people of the Province, and ·especially the taxpayers of this Province.' Does the Premier believe that it is publicly accountable to the people of this Province to allow the Minister of Public Works and Services to use the taxpayers money for his own political . purposes? MR. BARRY: Right, right! MR. TULK: Now, Kr. Speaker, has that been asked? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I answered all of the questions last week.

I indicated to members opposite that we hire on the basis of experience, on the basis of conpetence, on the basis of a whole range of things, and that criteria are set down for the hiring of both temporary workers and permanent workers. That is the way we hired in the past, that is the way we hire, and that is the way we are going to hire in No. 49 R2874

the future. That answers all the questions the hon. members have. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Let me again refer to the document that the Premier has put out here. 'To the . gener~l public: Part of the responsibility of the Province is to hold a good ~tewardship of the· taxpayers' money.' Does he believe that a · government should hire people who are their political cronies, or the sons and daughters of their political cronies? Does he believe that that is good stewardship of the taxpayers money in this Province? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we are over here . and they are over there is that we do · practice good stewardship. · MR. SIMMS: We even hire Liberals! MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville. MR. K. AYLWARD: Just one quick question to the Premier. Does the Premier fully support the Minister of Public Works and Services on his statements of the last few days concerning hiring and, if he has already answered the question, would he tell the rest of the L2875 June 9, 1986 Vol XL people of the Province because they cannot seem to hear him?

All we want to know is yes or no? Do you support him or do you not? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I have answered that, Mr. Speaker, many times. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Premier. Now let me refer to one sentence from Hansard of March 31, 1981, where the then Minister of Transportation (Mr. Brett) tendered his resignation.

"Matters have arisen over the past number of days which have cast doubt as to my ability to perform my ministerial functions and which reflect on the government of the day.'' I ask the Premier, since he has said very clearly on public television, and to the public news media and to the people of this Province, that he does not condone the actions as stated by the Minister of Public Works - MR. OTTENHEIMER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of Minister Affairs. order, the hon. the of Intergovernmental MR. OTTENHEIMER: ·When the hon. gentleman takes his seat I will make my point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. 49 R2875

Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman who, during his brief tenure in the House, has made it a speciality, and indeed about his only contribution 1 to endeavour to suggest abuses by ministers and to launch into what are very close to personal attacks, first on the han. Minister of Social Services (Mr. Brett) and now on the han. the Minister of Public Works, irrespective of that, the sections on page 129 of Beauchesne, to which you referred a few minutes ago, are again with impugni ty being ignored. MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order, I just could not satisfy myself what point the han. member was trying to make. The only comment I will make is that his

preamble was very long, so maybe he would get to his question. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is he has stated very clearly to the public news media, to the people of this Province, that he does not condone what the Minister of Public Works has done. If that is the case, will the Premier of this Province, stating that to the public news media and to the people of the Province, now ask the Minister of Public Works to resign since he has openly admitted to the wrongdoings in his department? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, that is exactly the L2876 June 9, 1986 Vol XL same as questions we had before . and therefore it is out of order. MR. EFFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon . the member for Port de Grave. MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question that has been asked before. I would like to ask the Premier: In light of all the answers that he has not given, what does the Minister of Public Works have on the Premier of this Province that he cannot ask for his resignation? KR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: I figured that was coming.

If I do not take a decision that the bon. member likes, of course, then the Minister of Publ~c Works has something on me. MR. EFFORD: Well, it sure looks like it. MR. PECKFORD: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the member for Port de Grave wants to stay on that low road, he will be alone. I am not joining him. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier indicate to this House whether he has now changed his philosophy with respect to the House of No. 49 R2876

Assembly and with respect to Question Period, and has he now decided that when issues relating to a minister arise that he will not answer the questions of the Opposition? Is this the new approach of his administration with respect to openess in government? MR.. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I answered all of the questions that they were raising last week. I indicated how the government hires permanently, which is through the Public Service Commission, which was set up under a PC administration for the first time in the histo'ry of this Province, and how we hire temporary workers.

I have answered those questions. If I want to ask for the Minister of Public Works and Services' resignation, I will. If I do not want to, I will not. That is for me to decide, and I will decide if I do or if I will not or whatever in my own good time. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the· Leader Opposition. MR. BARRY: of the Mr. Speaker, that is fine and we thank the Premeir for that information. Now what we would like to know is what are the criteria by which his ministers will be judged by him?

Has he now decided that in making up his mind in his own good time as to whether or not to ask for the resignation of a minister that he is going to lower the standards, and he is not going to ask the question of L2877 June 9, 1986 Vol XL whether or not the minister, as he has admitted in this House he has done, has abused the position of trust in which he was placed? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will use ·all the reputable criteria that any leader uses. MR. BARRY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has not addressed the issue which the minister has admitted, at no point in time. I challenge the Premier, will he tell us where he has answered this question: Does he agree that the political affiliation of the parents of young men and women should be a factor, just one of the factors possibly, · but should it be a factor at all in hiring by the Minister of Public Workers and Services? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: That is the same thing as we heard for the last thirty minutes. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Answers to ouestions for which Notice has been Given MR. SPEAKER: No. 49 R2877

The bon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question on today's Ord~r Paper from the hon. the member for Stephenville (Mr. K. Aylward). The answer to the question is (

a) the· stumpage fees charged in the Cold Brook area of Stephenville is $8.52 a cord for pulpwood and $7. "tO per 1, 000 for sawlogs. And (b), is the Coal Brook forest access road going to be upgraded as it is in desperate shape? Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question in a letter to the bon. member and I am sure he is familiar with the situation. Orders of the Day Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers." (Bill No. 45) MR .. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Consumer Affairs. MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to say a few words pertaining to this piece of legislation. The bill itself appears to be a 1i t tle bulky but, indeed, most of . it outlines the technic ali ties with which we intend to implement the principle of this piece of legislation. Mr ~ Speaker, this piece In essence, purpose of legislation is licensing programme agents, adjusters the of L2878 to create a for insurance and brokers, June 9, 1986 Vol XL etc.

It will replace two previous bills, one called the Insurance Adjusters Act, which came into force in the 1960s, and another piece of legislation referred to as the Life and Accident Insurance Agents (Licencing) Act which came into effect in the 1940s. Certainly, since that time, as all bon. members know, matters pertaining to various kinds of insurance and regulations and requirements and performance of those who are involved in the insurance industry have changed considerably. As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the purpose is to set up a licencing system.

It will give the Superintendent of Insurance, who will be responsible for the administration of this act, a wider range of responsibilities and duties. · We will have a step licencing system, if you will, wherein a student who is interested in getting involved in the insurance business will serve a kind of apprenticeship and, once he has done this, he will graduate, if you wil~, to a full-fledged insurance agent or broker or adjuster or whatever the case might be. In the regulation part of the act, Mr. Speaker, there is an intention to develop a class licencing system.

What is meant by that, of course, is that if someone is going to get involved, say, in the class of insurance known as life insurance, then it is hoped that by a proper training programme, a proper educational programme, a proper examination, if you will, that that person will be more expertise in the life insurance class than if he were becoming involved in liability insurance, say, or marine insurance, or whatever it might be. No. 49 R2878

The primary goal, Mr. Speaker, of this legislation is to, as I said, ensure more the technical competence of life insurance agents, adjusters and brokers than anything else.

But we have to look at the companies, the corporations which sell insurance, as well, to make sure that they have the proper expertise and the proper licences to carry on their business. .Those provisions in this act will also outline the licencing of corporations and the partnerships as well. ·And the main purpose, of course, for licencing corporations is to provide an appropriate body to accept the responsibility, if you will, as the principal in agency law for the individual who sells insurance or who adjusts a claim. Mr.

Speaker, a considerable amount of time and energy has gone into drafting this piece of legislation. Consultations have been held with the industry, and, indeed, over the past two or three years , there has been consultations with the insurance industry on this piece of legislation.

They did have some concerns in certain areas but I am pleased to say that in the main we have managed to resolve these matters with them and, as I understand it, they are reasonably happy and, indeed, have done some lobbying, if you will, with some members opposite to try and ensure that this piece of legislation is passed during this session. Of course, there is an appeals procedure. If a company or an insurance agent has his licence taken away or suspended, or whatever, he has the right to make an appeal to a committee who will hear the appeal and render a L2879 June 9, 1986 Vol XL decision.

And certainly if the appellant, I suppose, is not happy with the decision of the Appeal Commit tee, then he can appeal the matter to the court, as is everybody's right, I guess, in this free society. Mr. Speaker, that is basically the principle of what the bill will try to do. As I said, there are numerous terms in the bill.

They have been taken ·, in the main, from some other acts · and .. in consultation with the Insurance Acts of Ontario, Alberta an,d Nova Scotia and some others that are referred to, and if, when we get into the Committee stage of this bill some bon. members have a specific question on a specific definition or a specific clause, then I will certainly do my best to try to answer those questions for hon. members. Mr.

Speaker, that, in essence, as I said, is the principle of the bill: to set up a licencing system, to give the Superintendent a little more authority and responsibility in this area, to revise two acts that are kind ·of old at the present time, and hopefully to provide better protection to the consumer in the long run by having better .qualified insurance agents, adjusters, brokers, people and companies and corporations that are involved in the insurance industry. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition. No. 49 the Leader of the R2879

MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, can support the principle of this bill. It is a fairly detailed bill and we will have to look at it more carefully as we go through Conunittee stage. As I understand the minister, it is merely

an act that will consolidate existing legislation to a certain extent, the present Adjusters Registration Act and so forth, ~nd it is designed for the protection of the public. There are some, I think, good provisions in here with respect to ensuring that the adjuster- maintains the confidentiality of information received and so forth. I should state that as a lawyer there could be some possible conflict which I should declare, in that we act for insurance companies from time to time. This is

an act of general applicability to the · insurance industry. I understand that the insurance industry generally supports this. Are there any companies or individuals who are opposed that the minister is aware of? .Has ·there been any opposition raised with the minister with respect to this? I am not aware of any, but maybe the minister could indicate if there has been. MR. RUSSELL: May I? MR. BARRY: Sure! By leave now, if he wishes. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, by leave, just a couple of seconds. MR. SPEAKER ·: The hon. the Minister of Consumer Affairs. MR.

RUSSELL: Some of the companies had a minor piece of ·Concern, I suppose, in a L2880 June 9, 1986 Vol XL way. If I could use, perhaps, an example, sometimes you get persons saying, 'If my employee' - I am talking of an automobile adjuster now - 'is not available, I will do it.' So we have said to him. 'Look, if you are holding yourself out to be an adjuster by doing that, then you have to be licenced and meet the same qualifications as anybody else.' It would be the same as me saying, well, I am not really a lawyer, but if you want me to do this for you, I will, which would certainly be wrong for me.

There has been that kind of thing, but nothing of major significance. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. BARRY: This will be the sort of thing that we will look at as we go through Committee stage, if there are any specific problems like that. As a matter of principle I think it is a good thing that we have this new legislation which is quite detailed.

We may question whether everything that is in the regulations should be set out in the regulations and whether we should not have some specific sections dealing with matters such as the grounds on which licences can be revoked and so forth, or prescribing the requirements for the issuing of special licences. Maybe these are matters that should be dealt with in the legislation itself, but we will listen to the minister on that point and we will have the opportunity during Commit tee stage to deal with it more thoroughly. Ari adjuster is an important element to the process.

The court cases that arise in the matter of insurance law often are No. 49 R2880

decided on the basis of the facts, and it is the insurance adjuster who usually plays a very large role in establishing what the facts of a particular case are. Also, of course, in addition to adjusters we have agents and brokers dealt with here, and they have a very responsible position. In many cases, the validity of insurance policies can turn if an occurrence happens and the insurance company wants to look at it very closely.

The information which has been given on the application form, for example, is very crucial at times, whether the individual has properly given all information which would enable the insurer to properly evaluate the risk. If you have a poor agent, it may be that the proper instructions were not given; it may be, as is often the case, the agent fills out a form and has the individual sign it. Well, if that agent does not know what he or she is doing, there is a risk that the insurance could be voided.

They are positions that involve a lot of responsibility, and I think it is good that the minister is looking at the requirements for the licencing of these individuals and we are prepared to support this legislation. MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate. The bon. Minister of Consumer Affairs and Communications. MR. RUSSELL: Mr . Speaker, I do not have much else to add. There was one point that I, perhaps, did overlook in my original remarks, and that has to do with multi-company representation.

After three years - we have kind of said three years L2881 June 9, 1986 Vol XL and, I suppose, that could be open for opinion - after a person is a full-fledged insurance agent, if you will, insurance generally, then, as there is in existence now in some other provinces, he will be able to represent multi-companies and not just represent one company alone.

There are certain technicalities in this Bill, and will be in the regulations, where he will have to meet certain criteria whereby, if he is representing company B and he is kind of licensed under company A, then certainly company A cannot be responsible for what he does pertaining to company B and that kind of thing. That is a kind of deviation, because in this Province at the present time there is no such thing as multi-company representation, and that is. perhaps, another important part of this Bil that I forgot to mention. There are a number of ' technical points,

definitions and other things that perhaps we can get into in Committee stage on this Bill. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading. On, motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers," read a second time, ordered to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 45) Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill No. 21) The bon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present for second reading Bill No. 21,

An Act To Amend The Labour No. 49 R2881

Standards Act. This Bill will bring about improvements and protection in benefits for Newfoundland workers which I shall describe in more detail, Mr. Speaker, as I go through the Bill. Clause 1 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with an amendment to

Section 37 of the act.

Section 37 of the current act presently gives a written wage claim by an employee first priority · over the claims of other creditors of an employer. Now Clause 1, Mr. Speaker, of the new bill would allow a representative of the employe .e, such as the employee's trade union or any representative, a person claiming to represent the employee, a right to file a written claim on behalf of the individual employee or a group of employees. This change, . Mr. Speaker, is particularly significant' where a claim is laid for a large number of employees, such as a mining operation or a fish plant operation. Mr.

Speaker, many employees in the Province's hospitality industry have their wages supplemented ·by tips and gratuities. Now, these payments do not form part of the wages and as a consequence are unprotected, Mr. Speaker, by the ·Labour Standards Act. Clause 2 of the bill amends the act to ensure that the employees have statutory entitlement to their tips and gratuities. So it would form part of their wages. MR. CALLAN: How about their income tax? MR. BLANCHARD: Income tax purposes, too. Mr. Speaker,

Section 40 of the -current act provides for maternity L2882 June 9, 1986 Vol XL leave of seventeen weeks and preserves the job of the employee upon the completion of maternity leave. Experience with the present provision indicates that some employers have interpreted this provision to permit them to dismiss the employee before she commences her maternity leave. Clause 3 of this bill is intended to prevent such

interpretation and give effect to the actual intent of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, by the passage of the provision contained in Clause 4 of this bill, this House will place Newfoundland workers among those having the most progressive adoption leave provisions in Canada. Now, Sir, up until this time there has been no provision in the legislation for adoption leave. We are introducing a provision now for adoption leave which will give adoptive parents virtually the same rights and privileges as natural parents. In its present form, members will note, Mr. Speaker, that the bill states in the proposed new

section 42 (1), subsection (2): "Adoption leave consists of a period of not more than seventeen weeks," etc. Now,· Mr. ·speaker, I intend to lead in with an amendment to that

section during the Committee stage which will state clearly what the intent of the department is and what the intent of the law is, that a person can have seventeen weeks maternity leave not 'up to seventeen weeks.' I mean by saying up to seventeen weeks. MR. W. CARTER: That is what is there now. No. 49 R2882

MR. BLANCHARD: ·That is right. That is what is t~er-e now. Well, I will lead iri. with an amendment dur-ing the Committee discussion of the bill which will make it clear- that the employee will be entitled to seventeen weeks. MR. TULK: Seventeen amendment. MR . BLANCHARD: weeks (inaudible) That is r-ight. Now, it will be subject to negotiation between the employee and her- employer-. She may not want to take or- the adoptive par-ent may not want to take the full seventeen weeks for­ whatever- r-eason. MR. TULK: Is it at her- discr-etion? MR. BLANCHARD: It is at her- · discr-etion.

If she makes an application for- seventeen weeks adoption leave, then the law r-equir-es that she be pr-ovided with seventeen weeks adoption leave. MR. W. CARTER : She or- he? MR. BLANCHARD: Well, either- par-ent, the adoptive par-ent I ought to say, Mr-. Speaker-. As I have stated, ther-e is flexibility for- them to negotiate the per-iod. One of the things that we have to r-emember in this par-ticular- change that we ar-e making her-e and in the full seventeen weeks is that it br-ings in har-mony our- law r-especting adoptive leave with the laws gover-ning unemployment insur-ance. We had planned, Mr-.

Speaker-, for- a pr-ovision for- adoptive leave which would be, I think it was eight weeks we .had thought of. I do not L2883 June 9, 1986 Vol XL know wher-e that particular- pr-ovision came fr-om. Somebody plucked it out of thin air- and the original bill said eight weeks. But we have come to r-ealize that it would be somewhat discr-iminator-y against Newfoundland wor-ker-s if they wer-e not entitled to apply for- and r-eceive the same kind of adoptive leave as in mater-nity leave for- a natur-al bir-th. So, Mr.

Speaker-, the r-est of the bill, Clauses 5, 6, and 7 are just consequential amendments necessary for the Director- of Labour Standar-ds and the Labour Standar-ds Tribunal to enforce the and gratuity provisions. going to belabour new tips I am not those That to say provisions, Mr. Speaker. covers I think what I have at this moment. Sir, I am pleased to propose Bill 21 for second reading. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! member for Fogo. MR. TULK: The hon. ' the Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that we on this side of the House support this bill in principle.

We have no problems with it at all. It is a liberal bill, small '1' liberal, and, of course, if you are a liberal, you have a liberal philosophy. MR. FUREY: And you have a liberal minister. MR. TULK: Oh, the Minister of Labour-, in his own mind, is a liber-al. There is no doubt about that. No. 49 R2883

MR. FUREY: We know. MR. TULI<: There is no doubt about where the Minister of Labour stands in regards to his philosophy. MR. FENWICK: He may, indeed, be called a socialist. MR. TULI<: No, he is not quite that bad. He is able to make some decisions. Some of our socialist friends are not. At least he makes some decisions~ So let me say to the minister that we have no problems at all in supporting the principle of this bill because it is a liberal bill. Of course, it is just justice for the people who get tips that they should be able to' do more or less whatever they want to do with them.

Maternity leave, I think it has come to be accepted by everybody in the Western World as almost a right · for people. In this Province, I suppose, it was established first by the Newfoundland Teachers• Association. Surely it is the right of every person . to be able to do that and nobody should be able to fire somebody just simply because they need maternity leave. On adoption leave, I am pleased to see that the minister says not up to seventeen weeks because we know full well what people would try to do with that.

They would try to interpret the legislation to mean one week or even, I suspect, some people would try to get away with two or three days, if they could, and then perhaps deduct people's wages for it, or perhaps even L2884 June 9, 1986 Vol XL dismiss them. So I am pleased to see that the minister has seen that mistake in the drafting of this bill and that, indeed, we will now see the seventeen weeks become a minimum. I say to the minister that we have no problems with this bill whatsoever because it is a liberal bill. I did not say that half-heartedly. I think it reflects the minister's own thinking.

Of -course, what we are talking about is equality for people and that is the principle of this bill, that is -what it talks about, people's rights, their equality before the law and their equality in a country. I would only wish that we could see equality dished out as it is being dished out in this bill to more of the people in this Province, such as the people we saw this Spring on the picket lines in this Province trying to get equality with their own peers.

I would hope that we · could get clear of seeing the - decorum, I have been told · about it so often - I would hope that we would see the minister over the Summer exercise what are his supposed great skills at mediation and his great skills at conciliation to see that equality is not only given in this legislation, as indeed it is - it is a step towards equality - but rather than DR. COLLINS: Worker's Compensa .tion has - MR. TULI<: - see - DR. COLLINS: - done a lot - MR. FUREY: No. 49 R2884

·Tell care bear to be quiet. MR. SPEAKER (Hickey): Order, please! MR. TULK: Hr. Speaker, there is the problem that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) has. He is a liberal-minded person and he is being constantly interrupted and told by the somewhat likeable Tory in the doorway and the Tory in the front seat, who perhaps is also a likeable fellow but does very 1i ttle to liberalize the laws in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. TULK: No, I am n-ot talking about that gentleman at all.

I would say to the Minister of Labour that he should take more steps along a similar line as he has taken in this bill, that he should over the Summer use what are supposed to be his skills to see that, indeed, the NAPE members who are government employees in this Province gain equal rights in terms of wages, rather than having the President of Treasury Board (Kr. Windsor) and the government carrying those newspaper ads that are being paid for by the taxpayers of this Province.

I will say to the bon. gentleman now, without any fear of contradiction from this side, that we would much sooner see him, the Minister of Labour and the President of Treasury Board (Kr. Windsor) as well, than we would see the present gentleman who sits there. Because as I said, I believe the hon. gentleman, and he has demonstrated it with this bill, is a small "1" liberal.

I would suspect he would prefer to L2885 June 9, 1986 Vol XL be a big "1" Liberal but he certainly has liberal tendencies and we would love to see a minister as President of the Treasury Board who would see that the NAPE workers in this Province get a fair deal, rather than the kind of confrontationalist attitude that we are seeing from the present President of Treasury Board. I understand Mr. Karch in his last few statement said that a .weak effort was made by the Minister of Labour. That is correct.

The Minister of Labour cannot say that he stood by his liberal principles in the face of the Tory Opposition that came from the four front benches there and from the President of Treasury Board. KR. BLANCHARD: I made an agreement - MR. TULK: You made an agreement with whom? MR. BLANCHARD: - to change legislation and he did not need to have strike to get it changed. MR. TULK: You made an agreement with who? MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. March. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TULK: And what happened? The people over there would not let you put it into effect. MR. BLANCHARD: (Inaudible.) MR.

TULK: That is exactly what happened. I No. 49 R2885

know and everybody else in this Province knows that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) is a very unhappy gentleman and he would like to see equality for government workers in this Province in the same way as he sees equality in this bill. He loves equality because he is a small '1' liberal. He would love to be, I suspect, a big 'L' Liberal. I suppose if ever it carne to the point, we would have to accept the bon. gentleman on this side, would we not. If ever it came to the point, we would have to accept the bon. gentleman on this side because he is a small '1' liberal.

I say to him that if we are going to see more of this type of legislation and more equality for people in this Province, then he has to learn to stand up, regardless of what it does to his political future, he has to learn to stand up to the four Tories that are over there and the one Tory that sits over there. I have contended that the Premier of this Province, when he 'carne into this Legislature, was a llberal but, under the influence of the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins), the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Ottenheirner), the President of the Council (Mr.

Marshall) and people like the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Windsor), the Premier has now become what my grandfather would refer to as a stinking Tory. He has become a stinking Tory. I want to warn the hon. gentleman that I am afraid that even though we have seen this liberal bill brought before this House, this bill that seeks equality for people in the workplace, in a couple of years, they will do the same thing to L2886 June 9, 1986 Vol XL him. They wi 11 bury him and we are going to be forced, if that is the case, Mr.

Speaker, to take the Minister of Labour on full brunt and defeat him in the Bay of Islands. MR. BLANCHARD: That should be interesting. MR. TULK: We are going to have to do it. The hon. gentleman won the last time, I understand, by fourteen votes or sixteen or something like that, maybe eighteen but, - MR. FUREY: Fourteen. MR. TULK: - less than twenty. I suppose if he keeps bringing . in this kind of bill, this bill, as I said, that seeks equality, that is a liberal bill, we may tak~ some pity on him.

I have to say to him that if he keeps allowing the President of Treasury Board to treat the workers of this Province as he treated them - MR. BLANCHARD: What has this got to do with the bill? MR. TULK: It has · everything to do with it. This is a bill of equality. - that if he allows the President of Treasury Board to ride roughshod over him, to ride roughshod over the workers of this Province, then we are going to have to go out and do something about it. We are going to have to see that he is dumped out of politics in this Province. MR. PATTERSON: Corne down and run against me. No. 49 R2886

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TULK: Are you running again? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. TULK: I thought you were too upset with Premier Peckford to run. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TULK: Well, we have got a fellow waiting just to knock off your 149 majority. MR. SPEAKER (Hickey): Order, please! Order, please! Can we come back to the bill that is before the House? MR. TULK: Yes, Mr. distracted. Speaker, I am It is terrible. being Mr.

Speaker, I refer to those things because it illustrates, I say to the Minister of · Labour, what it is that is wrong with this government and with labour practices in this Province. If the Minister of Labour were to do the kinds of things that he is doing in this bill, if he were to do the same thing in regards to labour relations and exercise. the skills that he is suppose to have, as he ·has done in this bill, then he would . indeed be a great Minister of Labour. As it stands right now - MR. BLANCHARD: Do you mean I am not now? L2887 June 9, 1986 Vol XL MR. TULK: No, you are not. No.

You have not achieved greatness. You supposedly achieved a modest degree of greatness as a deputy minister but even - MR. FENWICK: We have to wait until he comes out of the closet. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. TULK: When he comes out of the closet, that is the correct. We hope he does not come out of the closet like the member for Menihek (Mr. Fenwick) did, half on one side, half on the other. He was not sure where he was until he was told on the weekend by Richard Cashin which way he could go. MR. FUREY: He got nuked. MR.

TULK: But when he comes out of the closet - that is the correct term - he achieved a fair success, a modest degree of greatness as the Deputy Minister of Labour, although he has to be somehow responsible for that infamous bill. What is that bill called? MR. FUREY: Bill 59, the essential employees bill. MR. TULK: Bill 59, the essential 'employees bill. I can hardly believe he did. MR. FUREY: He never wrote that. MR. TULK: I can heardly believe he did. I said you achieved a modest No. 49 R2887

degree of greatness as the Deputy ·Minister. You have had now, I think, a year or fourteen months or something like that as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) and this is the first piece of good liberal legislation that the minister has brought forward.

Of course we are going to support that and in it is a lesson for the Minister of Labour to learn in that if he brings forward more of the same kind ·of measures and if in September we can see him, .as a result of his efforts, keep down bully boy from Mount Peal and see that NAPE and the government workers in this Province get equality - parity, that is what it means, the minister knows that. I know what he thinks should happen - if he can screw his courage up enough to take on those people, Mr.

Speaker, and perform the same kind of deal that he has performed here, then I say to him that his greatness, as the Minister of Labour, will practically be ensured. I fear for the bon. gentleman. I fear that we are going to see him bow under to the bully from Mount Pearl and that we are going to see the continuation of those ads over the Summer in an attempt by the government to gain the public support that they lost when they turned the police on the workers in this Province, or when he turned them on for two days and then took them off, back on, back off, you . know.

I fear that the Minister of Labour is going to fall under that pressure. I give him that warning both as a friend and as a person who had at least had some respect as a Deputy Minister. Mr. Speaker, as I said, we support this bill. We have no problem supporting it in principle. I am L2888 June 9, 1986 Vol XL glad to see, as I say again, that the minister is going to bring in an amendment to the bill to guarantee that instead of up to seventeen weeks, the legislation is clear in that it means a minimum of seventeen weeks.

I am glad also to see that the minister has said that will be, of course, in terms of adoption leave for any person who desires adoption leave, regardless of whether it is male or female, that that is negotiable but, only negotiable inasfar as the person who requires or wants the adoption leave. I would not want it to be negotiable in the sense that the employer in this Province could say, 'No, you cannot have it', because otherwise, the piece of legislation that he is now bringing forward would not be effective. So, having said those remarks, Mr.

Speaker, we on this side concur with the minister on this one bill. Again, I want to warn him to be a good Minister of Labour and to take on the Tories on the other side. MR. FENWICK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Menihek. MR. FENWICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only have a few comments on it and a couple of questions and suggestions. Primarily I would like to echo the comments of the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) that I am very pleased to see this kind of very progressive legislation. It is part way in the direction of what we want to see.

Once we have formed the government, if we are looking around for a good Deputy No. 49 R2888

Minister of Labour, he may be available at that time and we will certainly be glad to see him back again. MR . GILBERT: He will be too old and decrepit by that time. MR. FENWICK: Purely on your certainly not on that is for sure. qualifications, your politics, A couple of questions I would like to ask the minister to write down and have a look at: Clause 2 says that tips or gratuities are the property of the person to whom they are given. That is an excellent idea because I have heard of instances where the employers have managed to wheedle back the tips and gratuities and, essentially, rake them off.

I would like to ask the minister if this will preclude a situation that I have heard about on frequent occasions which I think is a reasonably decent situation and probably should not be interferred with. That is a situation where a waitress, who is usually the individual who gets the tips, ends up sharing them with a busboy who helps clean off the tables afterwards, and often, actually, has a way in which they are also shared, sometimes with a cook, in some smaller operations. Now, I have seen it happen and I have heard of it, and it does not seem to me an untenable situation.

I was just wondering if this legislation would preclude that kind of thing being d~ne, or has there been any thought about whether it would or not? Anyway, I will give you a few more concerns and you can address them. Clause (3), • that an employer may L2889 June 9, 1986 Vol XL not dismiss an employee for the reason only that the employee is pregnant and requests maternity leave. ' I would like to say that I am extremely pleased to see that there.

As a matter of fact, .r am even surprised to see it there, not in a derogatory fashion, but I would have assumed that that protection was already there, but perhaps it is not there in this legislation yet. Is that what you said? MR. BLANCHARD: It is (inaudible). MR. FENWICK: Okay. Because certainly it seems to me that dismissing a person for becoming pregnant is a very shoddy way in which to treat an individual. Another question: Clause (4) on adoption leave.

I am not sure what the situation is with regard to adoptions in our Province right now, whether or not there are long waiting lists and whether people have to wait maybe several years for an adoption; In that case, I would suggest to the minister and I am not sure if he has considered this, but with respect to the twelve consecutive months employment · to be eligible for that leave, it seems to me that if I were in a position as a prospective parent and I wished to adopt a child, having gone ahead and processed the papers and made applications, and then six months or eight months later, the application finally had gone through, after I had gotten into a new job and only been there a couple of months, it seems to me that I would still require the time to get used to the child at home which, of course, is the intention behind this particular provision, I would suggest.

No. 49 R2889

So I would like to suggest to the minister that may.be those 12 consecutive months employment before one has the right to the seventeen weeks adoption leave may be looked at· and perhaps reduced to a much shorter period of time. I think it might be to bring this legislation in tandem with unemployment insurance regulations and that may be the reason for it, but still, I would also suggest that that should be no reason for us to allow the federal unemployment insurance regulations to govern our response to this particular situation.

I believe a reasonably solid argument can be made that adoption, because of the long waits involved, is a pretty unplanned process, almost as unplanned as having a child can be in some circumstances. Speaking as the father of six of them - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. FENWICK: Pardon? MR. BLANCHARD: Some kind (inaudible). MR. GILBERT: of compensation The assessment (inaudible). MR.

FENWICK: No, I understand that is probably the reason for it, but I strongly urge that if we are talking about people filing papers for adopti.on and knowing exactly when that would occur, then · this makes some sense, but if they are sitting there waiting for an adoption and it may be two months or it may be six months or maybe three or four years, then I would suggest they have very little control over when the adoption occurs.

The requirement to have .been employed L2890 June 9, 1986 Vol XL for twelve months prior to getting the leave may be an additional burden that is not really justified under the kinds of circumstances we are talking about. Anyway, I just thought I would mention it to the minister. The f ina! conunent I would like to make is that we are now advancing, however haltingly, but haltingly along the direction I would like to see us go with respect to parenting leav.e, which is adoption leave, maternity leave and so on. I would like to suggest that the objective for the present Minister of Labour (Mr.

Blanchard), especially after he becomes a mandarin in my administration when we form the government, is that we would like to look at the - MR. OTTENHEIMER: What longevity! MR. FENWICK: I think he would be pretty good then, too. We would like him to look at the situation in some of the Scandinavian countries.

I believe, in sweden, for example, there is a one year leave provision, or up to one year's leave provided for parents when they have a child or when they adopt a child, and the provision is switchable so that if there is a natural birth that occurs and the wife takes three or four months off, the husband, for example, can take the rest of the leave off. It is guaranteed leave. They have the right to apply for it. They have the absolute right to get it and, of course, they also receive whatever the Swedish equivalent of unemployment insurance is. as well.

So I would like to suggest the minister that this perhaps is the direction we should be working in, because I think it is very No. 49 R2890

important that young babies and young children get the proper nurturing at that time and, since in most of our societies we are now looking at the majority of families actually in the position where both husband and wife work, we should make it as easy as possible to provide for this kind of important nuturing at the beginning of a child's life. At the same time, the provision of leave like that, of course, is a generator of emp~oyment in other areas, in the sense that there has to be other employees brought on to replace these individuals while they are on leave.

Having made those short comments on the bill, I would like to commend the minister for bringing it in. They are progressive moves and some that · we would certainly wish to support. We are glad to see that the minister has come out of the socialist closet and is now a full-blown member of the Socialist International. HR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Before the hon. member speaks, I would just like to remind hon. members that second reading of the bill deals with the principle of the bill as opposed to clause by clause examination. That is more appropriately done in Committee.

I do not wish to place any more constraints on hon. members than is necessary, but a lot of the questions that might be raised ·in second reading can more appropriately be raised in Committee and there will probably be even more time in order to do it. The hon. the member for Stephenville. HR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just L2891 June 9, 1986 Vol XL have some short comments in supporting this legislation. For many years, a problem, I think, that has existed in the hospitality industry and other related industries· has to do with gratuities and tips, and so .on, involved with paying people to work.

I am very happy to see that this problem is being addressed by this legislation as the wages of these people are usually very low. This addresses the problem of making sure that they get properly compensated for their good work. Again, tips and gratuities of any manner are a reward for good service provided. So I am glad to see that it is in there. I am also happy to see the clauses on maternity leave. I think this is a good bill. It is very liberal, no doubt about it, and I am very happy to see it.

I have a problem today which I cannot say too much about to the minister, but I must say this piece of legislation is ·a very good one to see. Also, the fourth part of Clause (4) 'Would permit an employee who has been employed by an employer for at least twelve consecutive months to obtain up to s~venteen weeks adoption leave,' I think that is very important. . I know many parents who have been in the process of adopting young children, especially, and in that process they have had a hard time in trying to get the time needed to bring the child into the family.

It is very important for the future of ·the family unit that this type of amendment be put into the bill, which will allow adoptive parents to have this right actually, to be able to bring young children into the family and help them become a part No. 49 R2891

of the family unit. I think it is very important, and it ends a type of discrimination. I am very happy to see it. I think it will improve the health and welfare of the family unit in a great . way when it. comes to adopting young children. Also, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to bring to the minister's attention the stephenville strike which is ongoing. I would like for him, as much as possible, to keep me updated. I must say he is doing it very, very ·adequately, but we need to keep putting that forth because it is still ongoing. It has been ongoing far too long.

I think everybody wants to get it settled. So I want to make sure the minister takes · note of that and keeps me updated. But on the whole bill I must say I am very happy to see it today. It is long overdue, but we will give the minister full marks and full credit and full compliments on the whole thing. The minister makes it very tough, sometimes, to be in opposition, when he brings in a bill like this. But we support good bills, and if we can make any constructive conunents, we will. Thank you, · Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. Motion, second. reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act, 1983." (Bill No. 39). MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. MR. BLANCHARD: L2892 June 9, 1986 Vol XL Mr. Speaker, they are really working me here today. It is a long while since I have ·been up, but they are taking me right on. Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased, I might say, to introduce Bill 39, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act, 1983 ...

As bon. members will Speaker, last December last year's session, the House that I consider at a ve·ry certain amendments to recall, Mr. I think, in I informed intended to early date the Workers' Compensation Act, primarily of an administrative nature, and also to insert some provisions in that act dealing with an outside appeal process. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in keeping with that statement, the recent Speech from the Throne set forth government's intention to further amend the Workers' Compensation Act to do two primary things, number one, to streamline the adminstration of the commission, and two, to establish that external appeals tribunal to hear and make final rulings on appeals from decisions of the commission. Of course, Mr. Speaker, introducing these changes to the parent act will require certain other consequential amendments to other sections of the legislation, as well. Of course, these are rather insignificant.

These matters have bee .n under review by government for several months. The bill proposes amendments to give effect to these two major changes in the administration of the system. In addition, the bill proposes significant changes in the investment powers of the commission, extends scope of coverage and allows for assignment of benefits where a court has No. 49 R2892

ordered support payments to spouses and dependents. With regard to the first matter, Hr. Speaker, that of streamlining the administration of the commission, the legislation will provide for replacement o~ the current board of commissioners with a board of directors, and the board of directors, Mr. Speaker, will be made up of a part-time chairman and several part-time members. The part-time members will be representative of workers, employers and the general public. Again, Mr.

Speaker, for those bon. members opposite who have read the bi 11, they wi 11 note that this is at variance with what the bill states at the present moment. The . bill in its present state states that the -chairman would be on a full-time basis. Now, we have decided on a change, and again I will lead in with an amendment during Committee stage to propose that the board will all be part-time and there will be a chief executive officer, or executive director, whatever we choose to call him, who will be responsible for the day-to-day operations, sort of the permanent head of the administrative aspects of the board.

Hr. Speaker, the commission is a big operation. Because of its size and scope, it is important that the administrative structure conform to modern concepts which will allow it to be more responsive to the needs of the constituency which it serves. Traditionally, the Board of Commissioners has had a dual role: Firstly, they have responsibility for general administration of the agency, a role similar to a board of directors of a private or a Crown L2893 June 9, 1986 Vol XL corporation; and secondly, it is a quasi judicial role, hearing and ruling on appeals related to compensation benefits and employer assessments.

The functional separation of the two roles has always been somewhat obscure. The description of the two roles has never been clearer respecting the day-today operational responsibility of the Board of Commissioners vis-a-vis the staff. From the beginning of the operation in 1950 until the early 1980s, the commissioners, including the Chairman, were involved in the day-to-day administrative activities and decision-making at all stages .

While there was often confusion as to who was responsible for various aspects with a relatively small operation, uncomplicated claims and assessments, very basic benefit structures, limited programmes for injured workers, very few challenges from those affected by the decisions, the system has been, up until! now, manageable. Over the past several years, Mr. Speaker, certain changes have been made to streamline the operation. First, functional and clearly defined line departments have been established, and qualified management personnel have been put in place to head each department.

Secondly, major functions, compensation benefits and programmes in finance and general support services have been put under the direction of executive directors. There are executive directors for each of the functional departments. An official board of directors has been created in the form of an executive committee. No. 49 R2893

~'· ·~ Whi .le we did not have a formalized board of directors provided for in the legislation, Mr. Speaker, internally they have really set up a board of directors made up of the executive committee which consists of the board . of commissioners plus two executive directors . There has been separation, to the greatest extent possible, of the policy and programme formulation function of the executive committee from the service delivery responsibilities at the departmental level. Commissioners have assumed the primary role of hearing and ruling on appeals and departmental decisions on claims and assessments.

While in practice the board of commissioners is no longer directly responsible for the day-to-day activities at the department level, there is still a tendency to have department heads and executive directors report to all three commissioners with resulting confusion as to who is directly responsible. You can just imagine, if all the staff are going to report on a daily basis to a chairman and two commissioners, there has to be somebody who has to be boss. There has been confusion over that, as to whether the chairman of the board is really at ·a different level than the commissioners.

Obviously, · he is at a different level, but the staff had the feeling that most likely they had to report to all three commissioners, and that has been somewhat prevalent. With a management team in place, there is no longer a need for commissioners to .be involved in departmental administrative activities. Since the commissioners' been hearing establishment primary appeals, of an L2894 June 9, 1986 role has with the external Vol XL appeals tribunal the role of the commissioners is greatly diminished. The board of directors wili have overall responsibility for (

a) the general administration of the commission; (

b) approval · of policies and programmes relating to benefits, assessments, investments and any other matters of a general nature required to ensure the intent of the legislation is being applied to provide programmes and services to injured workers, and that these programmes and services are adequately funded through good financial management; and (

c) to review legislation and recommend amendments or revisions. The board will obviously delegate responsibilities for the day-to-day administration to the staff of the commission's line departments. The board of directors will not hear or rule on appeals on individual matters respecting a worker's claim or an employer's assessment. Appeals from the decision of the commission's staff on these individual matters will be heard and ruled on by the proposed appeals tribunal. Now, Mr.

Speaker, again the Bill in its present form provides that, as I said before, the chairman would be full-time and all other members of the board would serve on a part-time basis. As I stated earlier, they will be all on a part-time basis and there will be provision for the appointment ·of an executive director. It will consist of at least two members representative of workers, two members to be representative of employers and two members representative of the general public. The reason for representation by No. 49 R2894

employers and workers is obvious because of their direct involvement in the Commission's operations. However, since the costs of compensation are passed on to the consumer by way of increased costs of goods and services, · it is really an indirect form of taxation and, therefore, the general public will have representation on the board. All members of the board will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for fixed terms, subject to reappointment. Now, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the external appeals tribunal, currently the Workers' Compensation Act provides for an appeal to the board of commissioners decided by assessment on any matter adjudication ~ staff of the Commission. There from a decision of is no appeal the l;>oard of commissioners other than the very restricted appeal to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court on matters involving, of course, a question as to the Commission's jurisdiction or a question of pure law. There has been a perception, Mr. Speaker, among claimants and their representatives that the present system of appeals is unfair and biased.

Now, I am not going to infer or lead you to believe, Mr. Speaker, that there has been anything really wrong or there has been a bias, but since there has been a pe~ception of bias, we want to change it. It is something similar, I guess, to any of us who would go to trial and want to appeal our conviction. Obviously, we would not want to go back to the same panel of judges and make an appeal, we would want to appeal to a different panel of judges.

L2895 June 9, 1986 Vol XL This is appeals really what the external tribunal will be all about; it will be distinct from the obviously, we will house them outside Compensation Board, in all respects. separate and board and, be trying to the Workers' away from, it After careful examination by government, the decision was made to propose amendments to the legislation to allow for the creation of this appeals tribunal. The tribunal will be the final decision-making authority on all matters concerning individual claims and assessments coming within the jurisdiction of the commission.

It will function separately from the corporate operations of the commission, as I said. The tribunal will not be a policy-making body but, of course, it ought to have the right to recommend policy changes or formulation of new policy for consideration by the board of directors. The chairman of the appeals tribunal will serve as an ex officio member of the board of directors of the commission. I expect, Mr. Speaker, when we lead in with the amendments at Committee stage, that the executive director, or whatever we would call him, will also be, ex officio, a member of the board of directors.

All members of the appeals tribunal will serve on a part-time basis. Initially there will likely be two representatives of workers, two representatives of employers and a chairperson and vice-chairperson not associated with other interest groups .~ Appeals will be heard by a panel of three persons. No. 49 R2895

AN HON. MEMBER: Who will be appointing? MR. BLANCHARD: doing all the The Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Obviously, most other boards and commissions are appointed in that manner, with nominations, I would think, from the interest groups to be from the workers and from the employers. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered . the two, as I said, primary aspects of the bill, that of the streamlining, the going from a commission to a board of directors, and also the appeals tribunal. We turn to some other, perhaps, less important aspects of the bill, no less important, perhaps, but not of the same highlight.

The bill also proposes removing some restrictions on the investment powers of the commission. The act currently restricts investments of the funds of the commission to securities, such as bonds and debentures as defined by

an act respecting trustees. These are bonds and debentures issued by the Government of Canada, provincial governments, Crown corporation, etc. Because of these restrictions, the commission finds it is not earning as high a rate of interest or return on its investments as it could if it had the right to have a more diversified portfolio, for example, investing in equities. Most other boards and commissions across Canada have the authority to invest in equities, . and we think our board should have the same.

Thus, the act is being amended to allow the commission to invest in equities as set out in the guidelines set by the Canadian L2896 June 9, 1986 Vol XL and British Insurance Companies Act. This is identical, Mr. Speaker, to the investment authority allowed under the Pensions Act of 1983. Additionally, the act currently specifies that approval must be given by the Minister of Finance to purchase or sell any securities. This is a rather outdated provision, Mr. Speaker.

The commission deals directly with investment dealers and, in order to achieve the best rate of return, must sometimes buy and sell on very short notice. Seeking prior approval of the Minister of Finance, although we have great respect for the Minister of Finance; Mr. Speaker, getting his approval to invest on short notice is sometimes cumbersome and we hope to change that. Also, Mr. Speaker, the current act specifies that the commission must ·place its funds on deposit in a bank as approved by the Minister of Finance.

Again, this is a somewhat outdated provision and the act is being amended to simply state that the commission may place its funds on deposit in any chartered bank. Obviously, ·Mr. Speaker, you must know that our excellent Minister of Finance agrees with those changes, and agrees that we ought to simplify these matters. Extension of coverage.: The bill also proposes an amendment to allow for regulations to extend coverage of workers' compensation to volunteers agreed in emergency measures · · work and, would you believe, Mr. Speaker, to members of the House of Assembly. No. 49 R2896

So my critic over there will realize now that he is going to be covered. You know, if the going gets rough, he will be covered by workers' compensation. On assignment of benefits the current . act allows for the assignment or attachment of compensation benefits only · in cases where monies are owed for board and lodging. The Department of Justice has requested that the legislation allow for assignment or attachment of benefits to comply with court orders, where such orders, of course, are made for maintenance and support payments to a dependent spouse or children.

The act is being amended to allow for assignment or attachment on that basis only, but on no other basis, except with the specific approval of the commission. Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered all aspects of this bill. I would respectfully suggest that this bill is a very good bill. I am sure my colleagues on the opposite side of the House will agree with that, and recognize that this is done for the benefit of those people who have to claims and who have had problem of injuries in the force. I have great pleasure Mr.

Speaker, in proposing bill for second reading. make the work now, this Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Hickey): The hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say right off the top again - it will not work for you 'Cal'. Where you are L2897 June 9, 1986 Vol XL going, be no years. Workers' good to AN HON. MEMBER: Who? MR. TULK: Compensation will you after three I was talking to the member for LaPoile. Mr.

Speaker, let me say to the Minister of Labour, again in second reading we are speaking of the principle of the bill and, in principle, we have no quarrel with the bill, none at all. · The board of directors of the commission is again, in principle, a very good idea. The appeal tribunal is the part that we would support, not 100 per cent but 200 per cent because the truth of the matter is that the appeal procedure that is presently in the Workers' Compensation Board is anachronism; it is so outdated as to be almost a subject for a Charles Dickens novels.

There is absolutely no doubt about the anachronism of that process that we now put people through. I could go through example after example after example that I found in the past eight years as a member of this legislature where you are required on numerous occasions to deal with problems that arise from workers receiving injuries in the workplace and by being told that they are really not allowed, not permitted, to make any of the decisions that concern their own physical well-being and their own future employment. But I will just use one.

I use the case of a gentleman in the town of Carmanville in my own district, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Marshall Collins. I do not No. 49 R2897

know if the minister is familiar with him or not, I think he might be, I think there might have been some correspondence to him on it, there have certainly been lots to the Workers' Compensation Board. The gentleman had worked with Terra Nova Tel and he suffered from falling off a telephone pole. He injured his back some years ago and was consequently put in . the hospital and partially cured. After a number of years that injury reoccured, and he went back .to the Workers' Compensation Board. MR. BLANCHARD: We are fixing that now. MR. TULI<: Well I hope you are fixing it.

There are a couple of things about this bill that may not be the fix that the minister believes it to be. Perhaps he can explain why it is but let me say to him that, on principle, yes it is there. This particular person, as I said, worked with Terra Nova Tel, fell off a light pole, injured his back, and then the injury reoccured. He went back to Workers' Compensation and at first was told by them that he had no recourse at all and that Workers' Compensation did not belong to him.

That was appealed and then they told him, 'yes, if you take certain medical treatment, then you are entitled to Workers' Compensation until such time as that treatment is over.' The type of treatment that was recommended by one doctor was that he have a spinal infusion. I think that is the common phrase that is used for it.

Everybody in this Proivnce knows that under the present medical situation that L2898 June 9, 1986 Vol XL exists in the Province, the present medical knowledge that is in the Province, with spinal infusions, you have a 50/50 chance of being cured, shall we say, or a 50/SO chance of ending ·up in a wheelchair. The gentleman refused as I believe was his right to refuse. He refused saying that he believed, on the advise of another specialist, that if he wore a certain type brace, then there was no need for him to have an operation and, indeed, he might go back to work at some point in time.

The Workers' Compensation Board said, 'No, you cannot do that. • The strange thing is that the appeal was put in place. He appealled to people employed by the Workers' Compensation Board. I forget the exact makeup of it right now. Now that is one appeal level. He was turned down by people who had made the decision beforehand. He then went to the Board of Commissioners, yes, an appeal board made up of the Board of Commissioners. The same people who had made the decision in the first place and in the second place, made it again the third time, employees of the Workers' Compensation Board. MR.

BLANCHARD: They are Commission. MR. TULI<: employees of the Yes, they are employees of the Commission. So again, of course, ·the gentleman was told, 'No, no'. You know, the strange thing about this peculiar case is that the gentleman said, 'No, you go to hell'. That is basically what he said. • I will No. 49 R2898

do what I believe is best for my body'. He wore the brace for six months and is now back on the job with Terra Nova Tel. Yet when he appeals the decision after that to the Workers' Compensation Board saying, 'I m~de the right decision, you did not', they refused to pay him for the period of time that he was off work wearing a brace. The reason is simple. It is that the same people, as I said before, who made the decision in the first place, made it in the second place and made it in the third place. Nothing would change their mind because they had their medical advise and he had his.

They had something to back up them and, of course, part of their job is to see that the Workers' Compensation Board survives on its own. I mean that is part of their job. MR. BLANCHARD: You can read on the bottom of page 5 and you will see - MR. TULK: In the new bill. I will get to tha.t. I am talking about the procedure that is now in place and the need for the Appeals Tribunal. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. TULK: Going to beat it to death!

It is time for some of the horror stories to be told in this Province that go on with various bureaucracies that exist in this government or commissions or whatever that are at arms length from this government. If the Minister of Labour does not want to tell them, then I certainly will not. I am not going to beat it to death because it was the first time it was brought up.

L2899 June 9, 1986 Vol XL Now, if the han. gentleman wants to get into that vein, we will get into it and we will knock this around for six weeks and we will rap some very important cases about the errors of the hon. gentleman and about the Commission that he has been responsible for for a number of years. But that aside, Mr. Speaker, principle of this bill the is supportable. Of of Directors is course, the Board supportable and that set up itself is supportable. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that there is something in this bill that bothers me.

That is the appointment process that the gentleman is talking about. A board of · directors is to be made up of not less than seven and no more than eleven members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. That is the Cabinet, that is the twenty-two that now sit in the Peckford government and sit in Cabinet which make that decision on those appointments. And while the hon. gentleman says, 'of course, there will be room for nominations from the people in the work force, from the employee and from the employer, ' I say . to him that there is no guarantee in this legislation that that will be the case.

Having seen how this government, and the Workers' Compensation Board is a prime example of it again - I have nothing against the hon. gentleman wh .o is there, I am not talking about him personally. I am not talking about Mr. Ed Maynard personally but, it is a well known fact that he is a former PC member and minister of this House. While he may be doing a good job himself, the principle of what I am talking about is the No. 49 R2899

same thing. We can see, given the record of this gove:nunent and the number of patronage appointments that have been made, we can see, for example, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Blanchard) in three years times, when we knock him off in Bay of Islands, if they should be lucky enough to form the government, which they will not, but if they should be, we could indeed see the Minister of Labour appointed to the appeals tribunal, the board of directors, chairman or whatever. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. TULK: In the . case of the Minister of Labour, he might. .

If he does not show any more strength .than he has shown in the last labour strike, it is debatable whether he will protect the interest of the workers in this Province and that is what I am concerned about. He might very well protect the employers in this Province, government policy and so on but, I would be somewhat scared of how much strength the hon. gentleman would show in the light of his Tory friends. I say to him that that is the ·weakness in the Bill and that is one we are going to have to comment more on in committee stage.

The method of appointment of the board of directors lends itself to wide open patronage appointments and that, as I said before, somewhat bothers me, given the record of this government. I am not going to carry with that. I just want to point that out. The same thing is true of the appeals tribunal, the same thing L2900 June 9, 1986 Vol XL is true in that particular case and, again, you can wonder just who will fill the role. Will it be filled on the basis of competence or on the basis of, let us say, of what the trade unions, the employees or employers in this Province want?

Or will it be filled on the basis, and we have gone through example after example in the last little while of how the Minister of Public Works and Services (Mr. Young) - and the Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth (Mr .. Matthews) made a little confession the other evening - but we have gone through example after example in this House in the last year or so where we have seen former members of this House, one that was defeated by the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Gilbert), get appointments. He was appointed as the official hand shaker in the Province.

The former member for Twillingate, I believe, she refused an appointment. MR. W. CARTER: No, she has one involved with the census. MR. TULK: Through her federal buddies. The former member for Bonavista North, Mr. Cross, where is he? Did he get anything? He is on a board. The member for Fortune Hermitage, I am not sure whether he got an appointment by this government or not. AN HON. MEMBER: What was his name? MR. TULK: I forget his name. AN HON. MEMBER: Don Stewart. MR. TULK: No. 49 R2900

·The official hand shaker was defeated by the member for Burgeo Bay - Bay d-Espair. We saw the former member for St. Barbe who was so ably given the boot by my friend there, we saw him appointed to - What was he appointed to? MR. FUREY: I think he is in charge of finding pasture land on the Northern Peninsula. MR. TULK: In charge of finding pasture land on the Northern Peninsula. The member for Windsor - Buchans knocked out a fellow who they then decided they had to give $28,000 a year for and he has an office in Windsor - Buchans. We do not know what he is doing there.

I do not believe the former for Stephenville got anything because I think they disliked him so much they just wanted to give him the flick anyway. He was a very good friend of mine and I hated to see that done. The point is, the point has to be made that the record the record of this government in patronage appointments - their candidates are starving to death in Fogo - the record of this government in patronage appointments leaves one to be very suspect of any appointments that are going to be done. I say this to the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Blanchard): I do not believe that the Minister of Labour has an evil bone in his body and I do not believe he has got a patronage bone in his body at this point, he has a problem, there they are up here. There they are, up here. That is where the strength is in this government and that is where the power lies. I would say to the Minister of Labour that that process - MR. R. AYLWARD: L2901 June 9, 1986 Vol XL We heard the strength was over there. MR. TULK: Strength where? AN HON. MEMBER: 'Barry.' MR. TULK: No, that is the leadership strength. I am talking about the present strength that exists in the government.

The strength exists on those four seats right here and that one right there. That is where it is at and I say to the Minister of Labour that even though he may be well intentioned in this, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. · I say to him that this legislation is not quite strong enough because it should allow for some employer association in this Province to appoint members, and they should be taken - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR.

TULK: That is not here, that is why I making it, it is not guaranteed and they should not only be able to nominate them, unless the Minister of Labour - and the Minister of Labour is responsible for this - if the Miniiter of Labour can come up with some very good reasons as to why those people should not go on a board that should go on antl the same thing, of course, is true for the employees and employers of this Province, it is true for both of them.

It should not be left to the political whims of the Minister of Justice (Ms Verge) and she is a fairly powerful figure, although she has not done all that she has set out to do for No. 49 R2901

the women's movement in this Province. She has been slapped a few times in that regard. The Premier has smacked her across the mouth a few times in that regard. MR. HISCOCK: We should have· an independent police commission. MR. TULK: She could end up with that. I say to the Minister of Labour that that is a problem that he is going to run into. Therefore, the people like Mr.

Marshall Collins of Carmanville, who had a just case, who proved that he was right, there is no doubt in my mind that he was right and I am sure if the minister read his case there would be no doubt in .his mind that he was right in doing what he did yet got no compensation for the time period that that took. I say to him that that could be a problem. DR. COLLINS: With a surname like that, how does Mr. Marshall Collins vote? MR. TULK: He is one of the best Liberals in Fogo district, I can tell ~he bon. member that. The Collins of Fogo district are not like the Collins in St. John's East.

They do not have· not that much Tory blood in them. Their blood is red from the tips of their toes to the crown of their head. There is no blue Tory blood in them. They are good people, excellent;. people, open minded people, not close minded people like the Tory Collins we got for the Minister of Finance. MR. FUREY: It is sort of a metaphor for openness. L2902 June 9, 1986 Vol XL MR. TULK: When it gets out in the light of day, it has to turn red. Mr.

Speaker, there is one other question that I would ask the minister and we can pose some questions for the . minister to answer when he closes the debate and this is a very legitimate question. Perhaps I have misread this some way, that is possible. I see here in the legislation, I think, that the composition of the panels for the appeal tribunal are of a temporary nature. A panel ceases to exist when the matter it is considering is in the opinion of · the person acting as its chairman, completed.

I would like for the minister to perhaps - he may have a very good reason for it but I would like for him to explaill: as to why it is that 'three or four panels of knowledgeable people in this area could not be set up on a permanent basis, the panels of the appeal tribunal. There is a point at which those people will need some experience. There is a danger that today it is Johnny and tomorrow you have Joe, who is perhaps somewhat ignorant of the facts. But I would like for the minister when he rise to close the debate to answer that question as well. He mentioned about the investments of the Commission.

He pointed out that, of course, now the investments that the Commission is allowed to make are not as diversified as they would like for them to be. That they would like to have a much more diversified portfolio than presently exists for the Commission to be able to invest in a wider area. What he implied was that that would help them make more interest, of course, on their investment. No. 49 R2902

I also say to him that under the present circumstances, where the Commission is allowed to invest, while they may not be able to make, shall we say, as much cash or as much interest on their money, the security of the investments that they presently have is far greater now perhaps than it is going to be when they are allowed to diversify into other markets because, as you know and I know there is, although I · have not made any money in investing - I do not know whether the Minister of Labour has or not - but I say to him that one thing that he must keep in mind or he should keep in mind at this point is that even though today the portfolio of investments of the Compensation Board is not as diversified as perhaps as you would like to see it, the fact of the matter is is where they are allowed to invest today, the investments are very secure.

MR. BLANCHARD: Other boards have a wider scope. MR. TULK: I know that other boards do, · but it depends upon the type of advice that you are . going to get. We have had cases, shall I say, quasi judical .boards, arms length, government corporation where they have made certain investments and have gone under. Of course, the prime example of that, I suppose, was last year, was it, the Continental Bank? MR. FUREY: What? MR. TULK: Those couple of Western banks that went down the tube, there were a number of investments in them.

The investments of the groups ; the corporations that invested in them L2903 June 9, 1986 Vol XL were in great danger. know for sure if .they saved, I am not sure. I do not were all AN HON. MEMBER: Yes. MR. TULK: But they. were all saved through the intervention of federal government.

So I say to the minister while they will -be able diversify their portfolio investments, they may not have same security of investment they now have. only the that to of the as He praised up the Minister of Finance, and under the present circumstances, of course, one could not at all be upset about taking the Minister of Finance out of anything. I wish the hell we could take him out of his budget making he attempts in this Province and perhaps we would have some prosperity in the Province.

But overall I say to the minister that on principle, I would like for him though in his good liberal manner and his good liberal tradition consider whether, in fact, when we get into Committee stage of his bill as to whether he should not bring in an amendment to ensure that the people who sat on the Board of Directors of the Commission and the people who sit on the Appeals Tribunal, the nominees, or the people who come from industry and the people who come from, shall we say, unions or working people, ·are people who are nominated by them, not only do they have the right to nominate but, they have the right to place.

That is the one major amendment that I would like to see the minister bring in. Otherwise he is leaving himself wide open for the political patronage of the No. 49 R2903

Premier and the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall). I cannot say as much about the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister (Mr. Ottenheimer), but certainly there have been all kinds of cases, and the minister knows that I am right, _ of political patronage, of political appointments and so on. The minister in his wisdom and in his sincere desire, I believe, to put in place a protection for the working person in this Province, should consider a nomination process for the positions on both those boards. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas): The bon. the member for Twillingate. MR. W.

CARTER: There are a couple of questions I would like to ask the minister. Maybe when be sums up, he can set it straight. In the amendment, Mr. Speaker, he talks about the make-up of the tribunal. He talks about the number of members that will serve on the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal and the fact that some of these members will represent labour and some, management and others. In the case, for example, where outsiders are appointed, such as the representative for "labour and management, these will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

I am wondering on whose recommendation, for example, will the minister appoint a person representing labour? Will that person be recommended by the Federation of Labour? Nominations L2904 June 9, 1986 Vol XL will come from the groups to be represented and appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Mr. Speaker, there is obviously a lot of unrest in the Province today with respect to Worker's Compensation. I have heard of cases in my own district, which, ·as the member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) described, can only be called horror stories.

I have a case, for example, where a person had a very severe industrial accident : A young men in his early to mid-thirties was actually buried alive and, when removed, had severe damage and injuries to his body. That person, who was a labourer prior to the accident, was put on Workers' Compensation, not a big amount but certainly, at that time, enough to keep body and soul together.

He made the mistake of asking me to ·make representation to the board to have his payment ~ncreased, which I did; I made representation to the chairman and laid out what I thought was a strong case for an increase in the amount of compensation. Lo and behold, the letter I got back from th chairman of the board told me that, having reviewed the gentleman's case, they were . going to reduce the amount of compensation. Now, I am not suggesting that it was because I made representation to the Chairman that the amount was reduced, but certainly it would give me some room for suspicions.

Anyway, I will tell the minister an~ give him the dates on it afterwards. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in question, anyway, had his amount reduced, thereby making it almost impossible to keep body and soul together. Over the period, he had physical examinations and his condition was improving but never to the point No. 49 R2904

where the man could resume normal work as he was prior to the accident. I suppose, never again will that person be able to do the type of work that he was doing at the time of the accident. Anyway, the last I heard from that gentleman was that his compensation had been cut off altogether. Apparently, he went to a doctor and had an examination, and the doctor told him that he would be ready now to take on light work and that is what he should do, get out and get some light work. It was on the basis of that examination that this gentleman's compensation was discontinued. Now, in my view, Mr.

Speaker, that is not good enough, because that man will never be able - and I am just using this as an example, because there are other cases somewhat similar - that person will never again be able to do the kind of work that he was doing prior to the accident, hard labour work. To tell him that he is now able to do light work or to get a job that would entail light work is not the answer because in the community where this person lives, any kind of work is pretty well impossible to get, much less a light kind of work.

The fact is, to make a long story short, that person today is without any kind of compensation from the Board, a man .who, I suppose, a little over a year ago should have been dead with the type of accident he had. It is only a miracle that saved him. Almost every bone in his body had been crushed in the course of the accident. He was physically buried alive. They had to dig him out with a backhoe and get him to a hospital and rehabilitate him, L2905 June 9, 1986 Vol XL which they have done and done a very good job. But again the point I make is he will never be able to work again like he could.

So the Workers' Compensation Board have washed their hands of that particular gentleman because he is now fit to do light work. , I appreciate the minister's show of interest and concern because I will be writing him about it afterwards. But I did make representation to the Workers' Compensation Board, to the Chairman, and the response I got back, Mr. Speaker, was anything but satisfactory. In fact, so much so that it would almost lead one to believe that maybe there was some little element of politics creeping into it. I would hate to think that because I happen to know the Chairman very well.

I served in Cabinet with him. I have nothing against the Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board but his reply to my letter, Mr. Speaker, was certainly not what I expected. That is why I welcome the news that ' the Board will be overhauled. I gather, Mr. Speaker, from the amendment that there will be two sets of directors now. One, the regular Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation Board as we know it, and there will be a Tribunal established. Now, will the Chairman of the Workers