December

11, 1997 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLIII No. 49

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our proceedings today, the Chair would like

to rule on a point raised by the hon. Member for Humber East, when on November

20th, he raised a point of order concerning remarks made by the hon. the Member

for Conception Bay South, and I refer hon. members to Hansard, on page 1210 of

November 20 and I quote: "The hon. gentleman opposite, in speaking to the

construction of a personal care home in the Corner Brook area, has made

reference to statements like, and I quote, "blatant, blatant, blatant patronage

of $500,000" that was given to two individuals. Then he proceeds to name those

individuals. I will not do that because that is, in essence, my point of order".

Then the hon. member later says: "Therefore, I ask that in

accordance with Beauchesne,

section 493 (4) that you, as Speaker, caution the

member to exercise much greater care in making such statements about persons who

are outside of the House and who are unable to reply on their own behalf."

The hon. member of course, is raising a point of order about

a remark made in the House during the previous sitting and, as members know,

point of orders should be raised promptly and I refer members to Beauchesne,

321" A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the

question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place".

The point of order is, therefore, strictly speaking, too

late. However, the Chair should perhaps take this opportunity to remind members

that traditionally, members are immune from censure for what they say in the

House of persons who are not members, except of course, for certain high office

holders such as the Sovereign, Diplomats and Judges, and while there is no

prohibition against discussing by name, those who are not members of the House,

it is, as the hon. member states, desirable that members exercise restraint in

making such statements in the interest of fairness, since such persons are not

able to reply.

As well, I want to draw members' attention to precedence in

this House regarding exhibits. In recent days the Chair has noticed a display of

exhibits in the form of documents taped to the desk of the hon. Member for Cape

St. Francis.

It has been ruled on a number of occasions that members are

not permitted to display exhibits in the House. We have had rulings on such

things as fish, vegetation, salad dressing, and crepe paper, draped over

members' desks.

In the Chair's opinion, signs would also fall into that

category and I would remind hon. members to refrain from placing such items on

their desk or about their desk.

I refer hon. members to Beauchesne 501, in the 6th

Edition, which says, "Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to

produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate and Fogo.

MR. G. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform the House of the passing of a

well-known and well-respected Newfoundlander.

Captain Peter Troake passed peacefully away at the Notre Dame

Bay Memorial Hospital in Twillingate yesterday afternoon at the age of

eighty-nine.

Captain Troake was the well-known skipper of The Christmas

Seal from 1950-1970, a well-known floating X-Ray and Vaccination Unit that

travelled the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador for over two decades.

It was just last week that I had the privilege to assist in

the presentation of a lifetime achievement award presented to Captain Troake by

the Newfoundland and Labrador Lung Association. At that time he entertained

those present with stories of his time as Master of The Christmas Seal .

I might also add that Captain Troake received the Order of

Canada in 1987, and an Honourary Doctorate Degree from Memorial University in

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that we send a message of

condolence to Captain Troake's wife, Hilda, and family on behalf of the House of

Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, on this side would like to be part of that letter of

condolence to the Troake family. I knew Captain Peter Troake very well myself,

and my first memories of him were when The Christmas Seal would come into

my own community and we would go aboard. I think first we would get our

scratches and then we would go back and get our X-rays.

I remember going on The Christmas Seal and, as a

little boy, being treated with respect. He saying, `Come aboard'; and there was

always a meal there - whether it was a biscuit or a bun, Captain Peter Troake

treated everybody alike. My latest memories of the gentleman was when he was the

Captain on the Green Bay Transport , going back and forth from Burnside to

St. Brendan's. He was a great storyteller and he would talk to me about all the

people that he met - and the other gentlemen in the bays and coves, in excess of

1,300 of them, would come out to the Christmas Seal and bring out the

people where there was no wharf. He was certainly a great historian, a great

Newfoundlander, and we, on this side, would like to be associated with the

condolences as put forward by the member.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the two previous speakers in

offering the condolences of members of this House and giving a note of respect

to the late Captain Peter Troake, who I think has a status of being the most

senior master mariner of the Province. I heard this morning one of his

colleagues from his days as Skipper of the Christmas Seal describing what

an excellent navigator Captain Troake was even in the middle of very, very heavy

fog, being able to bring the ship into harbour; no doubt a magnificent career,

Mr. Speaker, and a great contribution to the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Before beginning our routine proceedings,

the Chair would like to welcome today on behalf of all members, twenty-five

Grade VII students from St. Paul's School in the District of Carbonear - Harbour

Grace. They are accompanied by their teachers, Ms Leslie Forward, Mr. Paul

McCarthy and bus driver, Dan Clarke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have in the gallery today, and I

would like to welcome them on behalf of all members, a number of members of the

School Milk Foundation. They are Dr. Jim Hearn, the Chairman of the School Milk

Foundation; Ron Burry, Vice-Chairman; Bernard Sparrow, Secretary/Treasurer; and

Martie Howlett, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are many problems facing the fishing

industry today and especially the diversification of the industry since the cod

moratorium. This year, as for quite a number of years, we saw a return of the

squid fishery to our Province, in fact, in abundance in some regions, and people

went back to the normal industry in which they caught and sold fresh squid. In

particular, people living in communities caught and harvested squid and dried

them, giving extra jobs and extra income to people living in communities in

rural Newfoundland. But at that time, they found that they did not have the

necessary markets for their squid, because of an abundance of squid in countries

such as Japan, and it became a real problem for people living in communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the House that despite this

situation, marketing efforts are producing positive results. As a result of

discussions I had with buyers during my trade mission to Asia last month, a

local company has made arrangements for an overseas market for dried squid.

H. B. Dawe Limited of Cupids just this week arranged with a

company in China to sell dried squid in the Hong Kong market. H. B. Dawe has

already purchased about 50,000 pounds for this purpose, about 20,000 pounds

which is from the Baie Verte Peninsula. The company has plans to market another

five container-loads of dried squid.

Also just recently, for the first time in several years, a

Newfoundland and Labrador company successfully marketed dried squid in Japan.

Golden Shell Fisheries of Hickman's Harbour shipped a container-load within the

past few weeks. Knowing first-hand how stringent the quality standards of

Japanese buyers are, I can say with conviction that this is a real credit to the

company's record for a quality product.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and

the private sector continue to pursue markets for all of our seafood products.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we, on this side, certainly are happy to hear the words

of the minister that now some fishermen can sell their dried squid, Mr. Speaker,

we are not very happy to find that those same fishermen are getting a price less

than eighty cents a pound for this squid. It is the same squid and the same

product, Mr. Speaker, that in other years would bring a price in excess of $3.00

a pound. The real shame of this, Mr. Speaker, is that we allowed foreign

companies to come inside our 200-mile limit, to come into our local waters and

catch up to 80 million pounds of squid, the very same countries to which we now

have to go and access markets. Those companies were in direct competition with

the fishermen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: This is the reason, Mr. Speaker,

fishermen - and the minister shakes his head, but it is true, Minister. You know

very well that the fishermen's sheds are still full of squid. Buyers are out

there with their warehouses filled with squid and many of them will go bankrupt

because of the actions of the minister's cousins in Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite knows

full well that that is a clear misrepresentation of the truths and the facts

about the fishing industry. The Japanese companies that have a 50,000 ton

harvest did not harvest one squid in Canadian waters this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has ruled that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. members of the

House of Assembly of the progress made by the School Milk Program to encourage

the consumption of milk by children in schools across the Province.

Prior to the establishment of this program in 1991, only

90,000 litres of milk were consumed in schools across this Province. With the

introduction of the School Milk Program, in the 1996-1997 school year, milk

consumption reached over 1 million litres, a 1,000 per cent increase in seven

years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Not only are the students drinking milk

at school since the inception of the program, they are also drinking much more

milk over the entire seven-day week. That is creating a good healthy habit for

the home.

For the 1997-1998 school year, there are 359 schools enrolled

in this program, which represents 92 per cent of the schools in the Province.

And there are approximately 97,000 students registered in the School Milk

Program, which represents 96 per cent of all students in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the School Milk Program allows students to

purchase milk at the school at a discount of 60 per cent below normal retail

prices. Newfoundland schools have the second lowest price for chocolate milk and

fourth lowest for white milk in Canada.

Making milk available at this affordable price is only

possible through the continued support of the dairy farmers, milk processors and

this government. In 1996-1997, the fifty-seven dairy farmers in the Province

contributed approximately $500,000 to the program in cash and reduced prices.

The two milk processors, Central Dairies and Brookfield Dairy Group, contributed

approximately $500,000 through subsidized milk, for a total contribution from

the industry of over $1 million.

The benefits of this program to our school-aged children in

terms of health and nutrition and, as recent research confirms, the children's

academic performance, are countless. I am pleased that this government is able

to contribute to the program in a meaningful way. We will continue with our

$200,000 towards the School Milk Program again in the coming year.

We are very pleased here today to see the School Milk

Foundation join us in the gallery, and to commend all of the dairy farmers in

the Province, and also Central Dairies and Brookfield Dairy Group, for their

tremendous support and contribution to the children of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to thank the minister for a

copy of the statement. In response to the statement, I would like to commend the

dairy farmers, the milk processors, and the Newfoundland and Labrador School

Milk Foundation for -

AN HON. MEMBER: And the government.

MS S. OSBORNE: Hang on, now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: - for their contribution to this program.

The children and teachers are certainly to be congratulated as well for their

participation.

I would also like to commend the government for its

contribution of $200,000 but in doing so, I would like to refer to a comment the

minister made: that recent research confirms the relationship of health and

nutrition and academic performance, and I would like to remind the government, I

too, have seen this report. I have referred to this report on more than one

occasion in the House, and the report to which I refer, Mr. Speaker, states: the

numbers of children who are living in poverty and below the poverty line, the

number is so high that I was questioned about this number by some hon. members

on the other side of the House. They came, after I had made a statement one day

and said: It can't be 40,000, but yes, it is 40,000 and it says so right here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: - and I have reminded this government so

often

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

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

Provincial Affairs.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he

have leave? By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join with the minister and the Member for St.

John's West in recognizing the work of the School Milk Program. To reach 96 per

cent of all students in the Province is a remarkable thing with any program and

all those involved deserve to be commended. The contribution of Central Dairies

and the Brookfield Dairy group is very important, that of the government and

that of all the participants particularly the School Milk Foundation and I want

to congratulate them and thank them on behalf of all the children of

Newfoundland. If only, Mr. Speaker, the government would follow that up with

support for an universal comprehensive school lunch program so that children

could have a full meal every day and listen to the dieticians and the

petitioners -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - to this House and Dr. Patricia Canning's

Report to the Minister of Education.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, Dr.

Frederick Russell was appointed in September to study and report on the future

of the municipal jurisdiction of the Southlands Development.

His report was scheduled for completion as at December 31,

Dr. Russell has written me to say that while he has been

working diligently to compile his report, it is taking longer than he

anticipated. Dr. Russell says this is attributable to the fact that the Terms of

Reference are quite broad in some respects and difficult to respond to within

the established time frame. He also says that since the public consultations, he

has received two supplementary submissions from the Cities of St. John's and

Mount Pearl - some as recently as yesterday - and that they require extensive

study and evaluation.

I wish to inform members of the House that I have acceded to

Dr. Russell's request and have extended the submission deadline to January 15,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We, on this side, have no objection whatsoever to the

extension. We know that this is a particularly important study for the City of

St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl, and we are not surprised that it would

take some length of time given the details in which both cities prepared their

submissions.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to Dr. Russell submitting his

report. We, on this side, do understand that he might require an extra couple of

weeks to complete the reading of the documentation and the preparation of his

submission to (inaudible) Cabinet.

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The work that Dr. Fred Russell is doing is very important not

only to the citizens of St. John's but to the whole Avalon region, and to take a

couple of extra weeks to do it, in view of the great public interest in the

matter, is not surprising and not unusual. As one who made a presentation on

behalf of the people of St. John's to this particular commission, I know it will

take some time to digest.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I guess, are for the Minister of Finance, or the acting Minister of Finance, or

the acting Premier, or whoever is prepared to be here in the House, I might add,

and answer a question on finance.

The Premier has been saying recently that we can expect to

see a reduction - he stated publicly on numerous occasions - in personal income

tax, but not in the next few years. The Premier has been out in the public on

that.

I understand that our Province is one of five provinces

recently that requested, at the federal Finance Ministers' meeting, more

flexibility in setting rates and tax brackets and tax credits be provided to the

provinces.

I ask the minister: Has this Province presented a proposal to

the federal minister? And will he provide a copy of what this government is

proposing under a revised tax structure?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the last

part of the question under advisement because I do not know if there has or has

not been a proposal made. I will take it under advisement and check with my

colleague, the Minister of Finance, as soon as he returns.

I should say, though, that when this administration took over

back in 1989, when we opened the books and saw the mess that this Province was

in, we came to the conclusion at that time that it would be quite some years

before we could get the economy of the Province back under control so that we

could have a tax decrease. We certainly look forward to that happening.

I should tell the hon. member, and I am sure he would be

pleased to know, that we are well on the way, that we can now see the light at

the end of the tunnel, and that the day is imminent. I believe that within ten

to twelve years we will be a have Province. I honestly believe that, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: And that is because we are doing all of the

right things, taking all of the right moves, and some day -

AN HON. MEMBER: Have not will be no more.

MR. DECKER: When you say `Have not will be no more', you

have to make it happen.

The difference between this government and the previous

government is that they were hoping some magic force would make it happen. This

government has taken control. We are making things happen. We are going to be a

have Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I would say it is disgraceful that

there is no one here to answer a question on finance. It is disgraceful not to

have one in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It would not be tolerated in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he was in his office many days when

this sat, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question; he is on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: The debt of this Province has risen by 70

per cent since 1989, I say to the person representing him.

If we are doing a proposal on tax changes, it is something to

which Cabinet should be privy; and I don't accept that as an excuse to stand

here and they do not know anything about it.

Now, ten years ago, the federal system was simplified and

there was a reduction from ten tax brackets down to three tax brackets that we

have today. I ask the minister - if he doesn't know about it, he is not doing

his job - is the Province looking at changing from the current three tax

brackets now under the Income Tax Act?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right

when he says that we have a debt in this Province that is much too high. I

should tell him that into that debt, Mr. Speaker, there is $25 million-plus

interest that was put there by a foolhardy scheme called Sprung, Mr. Speaker. It

is because the previous Adminstration, of which his cousin was a part,

squandered money, the money they wasted to blast two tunnels, to blast two holes

in the ground in the Strait of Belle Isle - remember that fiasco? Ten million

dollars -

MR. TULK: One hundred and ten million dollars.

MR. DECKER: One hundred and ten million dollars, blasting

two holes, one on each side of the Strait of Belle Isle. That is why we are not

in the position to give back the tax breaks we want to give back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) elect another Moores.

MR. DECKER: Exactly, Mr. Speaker, and God forbid the day

will ever come when they get control of this government again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With financing costs there is over $30 million because of

Trans City to fill the Liberal coffers here in this Province, in which that

minister played a very integral part, I might add.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Paul Martin has said repeatedly that there

would be a reduction in personal income tax as the economy improves, he has

guaranteed that. That means, I say to the minister, that this Province will get

less revenue because our taxation is a per cent of the federal tax, sixty-nine

per cent, I might add, 15 per cent increase since this government came into

power in 1989.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bearing in mind that less federal tax under the current

structure means less provincial income tax in this Province, I ask the minister:

Is this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Is this Province now

looking at -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was halfway through the question, I will say it again, I

will repeat it in case he missed it. Is this Province now looking at offsetting

those losses because of a federal reduction by changing the number of tax

brackets or the percentage of taxation that people will now pay in our Province

under a separate provincial tax structure?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, just a few issues I have to

address in his

preamble.

Trans City over thirty years will save the Province $6

million. Sprung will cost the Province about $50 million for nothing only a few

cows out in Conception Bay South which were fed cucumbers, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: And rotten tomatoes.

MR. DECKER: The hon. member also does not understand the

recent statements that Mr. Martin has made about when the federal deficit is

taken under control. Mr. Martin has made it perfectly clear that 50 per cent of

these saving will be used to enhance the services that we render to our people,

the health services, the education, and all that sort of thing. The other 50 per

cent, half of it will be used to pay off the national debt, the other half will

be used to deal with a tax cut.

Now, that has not yet been decided. The Federal Government

has not made any decisions. It simply comes out of speeches that the Minister of

Finance has made. He has made it perfectly clear that these decisions have not

been made. Before they are made, this government will not wait, hoping that some

day someone is going to make the sun shine, this government will take the

necessary action in the appropriate time to deal with the issues as they come. I

can also tell the hon. member, I will say it again because it deserves to be

said, that because of the solid economy that this government is putting in

place, the day is about to come pretty soon, when we will not even rely on

equalization, we are getting there pretty fast -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - because of all of the good things that this

government is doing and they are frightened to death over there that we are not

going to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind the minister, who was a part of the process,

that excess of $30 million is not what the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of

Appeals ruled, not at all, in fact quite to the contrary and we are still paying

through the nose for that, I say to the minister.

There are now allowable deductions for child care expenses

and RRSPs under the current Income Tax Act. I ask the minister: Does this

Province intend to divorce these deductions from the new proposed system that

this Province is looking for and is on record, divorce that from deductions

under the federal part of the Income Tax, too, so it cannot apply to provincial

deductions?

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

MR. DECKER: The hon. member hears of proposals and things

that might happen and then he wants us to change our income tax system to deal

with something that might never happen. If it does happen, Mr. Speaker, we will

take it. We do not have to take second place to anyone to show how much we care,

how much we help those who are less fortunate in our society. The recent HST,

the hon. member will know, that hopefully before Christmas -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is done now.

MR. DECKER: Are the cheques sent?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: The cheques are sent out. The people will

receive the cheques - I am not absolutely certain -

AN HON. MEMBER: We passed the bill last week.

MR. DECKER: The bill was passed in this House. We do not

have to take second place to anyone in this country. When there is any policy,

be it federal or provincial, which in any way negatively impacts upon our

people, our people who have the lowest income, we deal with it, Mr. Speaker. We

have shown that and in every case we will do the right thing and the hon. member

should learn that because the majority of the people of the Province know that

we do the right thing when the chips are down and he should learn it. The faster

he does the better for him, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very surprised that a minister, who is part of a

proposal that his finance minister made federally, is pleading ignorance to it.

When he pleads ignorance it is because they are denying the fact that there are

things in that proposal that he does not want the people of the Province to know

about. In fact, the HST he referred to, a family of four that makes more than

$19,000 will get nothing under that rebate system. You have to be way below the

poverty line to even get any money under the rebate system, I say to the

minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister this question: Has the

Province considered, as a top priority under a new tax system or revamping of

taxes generally, to eliminate the payroll tax that is a tax on jobs in this

Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, at the time that we brought the

payroll tax in, the hon. member will recall that we had just been given notice

by the Federal Government that we were going to have substantial cuts made from

some of the various transfer payments. We brought in the payroll tax,

reluctantly. I think we called it the health education tax when we brought it

in. We did not want to do it. It was when we were having a very difficult time.

As a result of bringing that tax in, we are able to collect a substantial amount

of money, much of which, Mr. Speaker, comes from the very same Federal

Government who cut back on the transfer payments because they pay the payroll

tax. We have said over and over that when we begin to cut back on the taxes, as

soon as our economy gets back in order - we have the deficit within $20 million

this year, as the hon. member knows - right on track, I should tell the hon.

member, he will be glad to hear that. As soon as we get everything under

control, one of the first taxes that we are committed to looking at - and we are

going to look at all taxes. We would love to be able to say to the people of

this Province, there are no taxes. We would love that. That would be totally

unrealistic. But among the first taxes that we will review will be the payroll

tax. That is not an announcement that it will be abolished, but we certainly

will review it, Mr. Speaker, in the context of what our society is at the time

when we get around to doing it. That day, Mr. Speaker, is not in the too far

distant future because of what we have done as a government. We have laid the

foundation, Mr. Speaker, for a better tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Just as we said by coincidence in the last

election campaign, Mr. Speaker, a better tomorrow!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise today to ask some questions of the Minister of

Education. Many times in this Province, we have talked about our valuable

resources, like Voisey's Bay, Hibernia, the forestry, the fishery, and so on,

Mr. Speaker. I have said many times in this House, I believe our most valuable

resource is the young people of this Province, who have the fortitude to go

ahead and get an education.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very tough decision that these people

make these days in moving away and going into something, and we must commend

them for doing that. But to address the deep employment decline in Newfoundland

and Labrador we have been encouraging our young people to go back to school and,

Mr. Speaker, many of them are doing so. It is a sad case when students who have

done so and enrolled in a post-secondary program found the course had some very

serious problems, so serious that they dropped out of the course. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Speaker, some of those students who should be in class are in our

gallery today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of

Education what is the status of the Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Training

Institute, approved by this government to offer a paralegal course in September

1996? What is the status of the students of that school?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question with respect to some of the

information mentioned by the hon. member leading up to his question. We are

actually very proud of the people at the post-secondary level who are taking

opportunities to better themselves. An opportunity maybe to remind the House and

the people of the Province who are paying attention to the debates here that

this year we have almost 9,400 full-time students in the College of the North

Atlantic, another 16,000 part-time students in the College of the North

Atlantic, for a total of almost 26,000 students.

There are also, Mr. Speaker, in the private career colleges

that the member asked about almost 9,600 full-time students, another 1,500

part-time students, in excess of 11,000 students in the colleges, both the

public system and the private system. Along with in excess of almost 16,000

students who are at the University. We are delighted to see these people

availing of the opportunities.

From time to time it does come to our attention that in - I

might add, by the way, both in the public system, occasionally in the College of

the North Atlantic and elsewhere, we do get occasionally complaints from

students who are not completely satisfied with the course offering they have

signed up for. It is investigated by the Department of Education. Also, in the

private institutions from time to time we do get complaints from some students

who are not satisfied, or feel at that point in time that they have a grievance

with the college or the school or the institute in which they have registered.

My understanding in coming to the House today, with respect

to the Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Training Institute, is that the

students themselves, and the owners and operators of the facilities, came to

some kind of understanding this morning that is to their mutual agreement.

However, the Department of Education in its monitoring of all of the institutes

had raised a number of issues with the Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal

Training Institute which were under investigation. As a matter of fact, when I

was leaving my office this afternoon to come to the Legislature the owners and

operators of that institute were meeting with officials in the Department of

Education to give -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - an update as to whether or not -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his

answer quickly, please.

MR. GRIMES: - they had corrected the issues that the

Department of Education had found and suggested may be deficient.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, how's that for (inaudible)?

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I will tell you what I think of that answer.

That was absolutely no answer, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister. I want to ask

the minister directly: Is there a formal investigation by your department into

this particular institute? What has prompted that investigation? Why did the

minister see fit to make this matter subject to a formal investigation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are two things

that occur regularly within the Department of Education with respect to our

post-secondary training institutes. One is that we have a process at the initial

granting of a licence to operate that sets out the criteria and provisions and

the stipulations whereby the licence itself is granted. It deals with the

program of studies, the curriculum that is to be covered, the staff who are

going to teach that, the facilities that are actually going to be provided by

the private institute and so on, and then a licence is granted.

Our staff then from time to time in spot-checking go and

check in these institutions, unannounced, to see if in fact they are living up

to the stipulations and the criteria that were in the granting of the licence in

the first instance. Also, instantaneously any time there is a complaint

registered by any one student in any of our institutions an investigation is

immediately undertaken by the staff of the Department of Education.

In this particular instance, a complaint from some students

was registered two or three weeks ago. Our staff went and met with the owners

and operators of the facility. They have discussed with them some areas the

Department of Education thought there were deficiencies in terms of what was

expected to be there with respect to the licence and what was found to be there

at that point in time. Those issues have undergone discussion in the last two or

three weeks. There is a final discussion going on this afternoon, as I

suggested.

With respect to the individual students, the information I

have is that earlier today the owners and operators of the Paralegal Training

Institute met with the students, that they have decided they are satisfied with

what they have worked out amongst themselves, and that they are not making any

further public comment, to my knowledge. If there is something different someone

I'm sure will inform me at the appropriate time.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that

I've met with these students several times in the last few days. I will update

the minister. There is no agreement between the students and the institution. I

will ask the minister again a direct question. Is there a formal investigation

of this institute right now by your department? Is it still ongoing?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member was not

listening. I thought I had answered that particular question.

There has been meetings over the last two weeks as a result

of an inquiry and an investigation that was being conducted by the officials

under the Department of Education, and there was a meeting ongoing, this

afternoon, it is probably ongoing as I stand here and speak, so I do not know

how else I could answer a question: is there an investigation? Yes. When did it

start? Two or three weeks ago. Is it still ongoing? Yes, to the extent that

there is a meeting this afternoon that will determine at the end of the day that

the department has been satisfied that the issues that we raised through the

Department of Education, have been met satisfactory to the officials or else, as

was indicated publicly in the media yesterday, that the Department of Education

had indicated to them that without satisfactory resolution, we would contemplate

lifting the operating license for the particular institute as we would with any

criteria set when the license was granted in the first instance.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a final

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Like I have said, I have spoken to these students many times

and I have also started my own research, Mr. Speaker, as much as possible and it

is crystal clear to me after hearing from the students and the research I have

done, that there is something very, very wrong and some very serious concerns,

Mr. Speaker.

Now, does the minister really think it is appropriate that

his own department should be investigating itself and, will the minister commit

today, to do the honourable thing and commission an independent investigation of

this whole affair?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is a total misrepresentation to suggest that the

Department of Education is investigating itself. The Department of Education,

Mr. Speaker, so that hon. members understand because it is a serious issue, it

is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, and so that hon. members understand, the

Department of Education, through the post-secondary division has a sector whose

job it is, Mr. Speaker, to monitor and licence post-secondary training

institutions in the Province. These are officials hired by the Department of

Education - I guess, if we wanted to, we could have hired them and put them out

in some other agency but they are in the Department of Education. Their job, Mr.

Speaker, is to check -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - the criteria in the first instance before a

license is issued and do, as they are now doing, and if there are complaints or

if anything is actually discovered in the spot checks that they do, to do a

complete investigation, to meet with the owners and operators, to meet also by

the way, Mr. Speaker, with the students because I understand as well, that

earlier this morning the students met with officials from our department and

that is where I got the information that was passed along to me, that my

understanding is that the students, the owners and the operators have resolved

their differences but, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - the issue at the end of the day is again,

in correspondence between the Department of Education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, in correspondence between the

Department of Education and the owners and operators of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Paralegal Training Institute, it was indicated and has been discussed

publicly and repeatedly over the last few days, Mr. Speaker, that with the final

meeting that is going on this afternoon, that unless the department and

officials are convinced that the issues raised that were in contention, are

satisfactorily resolved, that the license of the institute would be lifted.

In the interim, Mr. Speaker, what happened was, the

Department of Education, the officials who deal with these matters, wrote the

institute, suspended their ability to take in any more students, and indicated

to them that unless there was a proper resolution, the institute would have its

license suspended and lifted completely.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are also for the Minister of Education on the

subject of Post-Secondary Private Institutions.

The minister will undoubtedly be aware that the first

graduating class of Massage Therapists from the Career Academy wrote their

Ontario College of Massage Therapy exams in October with a pass rate, Mr.

Speaker, of seven out of twenty-four and, Mr. Speaker, my enquiries to the

Ontario College of Massage Therapy indicates that the pass rate for students

from five colleges writing exams in July, varied from 68 per cent to 100 per

cent with an average of 80 per cent, and, Mr. Speaker, with a failure rate of

two-thirds for our students who are coming from the Career Academy, what does

that say about the minister's ability to control the quality of instruction and

the quality of programs in private, post-secondary institutions?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am saddened to see what seems like a concerted attack on

the private training institutes of Newfoundland and Labrador by members

opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Not my particular role, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has called order. The hon. member was allowed to

present his question. Now I ask hon. members to let the hon. minister answer.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as I indicated in answers to questions previously on

the same issue - different school but same basic general issue - the number one

concern always for the Department of Education and the officials who monitor the

post-secondary training, private institutions, the College of the North

Atlantic, and Memorial University, is for the students, to make sure they are

getting the training for which they subscribe and for which they actually pay.

Mr. Speaker, in this instance I think the hon. member has

used some very selective statistics because, again, when this information was

brought to my attention some time ago I also asked for a longer term analysis of

what the normal outcome is for these examinations which are written in Ontario

with respect to a course like Massage Therapy; and over time, over several years

- July, October, July, October, and other exam periods over the last several

years, not just one examination period - the information that was given to me in

the Department of Education from our officials who checked it out is that while

there was, in this case, a two-third failure rate for the graduates of the

program at The Career Academy who are now doing some upgrading study in an

attempt to write the examination again, that normally when the examinations are

written, the average over the years has been that three-quarters of all of the

students who write from across Canada are unsuccessful in some portion of that

examination in their first attempt.

Mr. Speaker, to try and suggest now that there is something

wrong with one of our private colleges that offers that course, because

two-thirds of the students failed an exam in the first try -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - is not quite correct, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi, a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the minister

will not acknowledge that these questions are being asked to protect the

twenty-four students who just paid in excess of $16,000 or $17,000 to do this

program, and the hundred students who are currently in the course.

Will the minister explain, perhaps, to the House, why in this

particular institution students are not even permitted to have a copy of the

curriculum, and officials from his department even told these students as little

as almost an hour ago that they were not entitled to give them a copy of the

curriculum either. Can he explain that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take that under advisement, unaware of what the hon.

member raises with respect to copies of the curriculum. I will certainly check

that out. I have no doubt - I don't have any reason to suspect that the hon.

member would present anything other than factual information, but I will

certainly take it under advisement and check it out.

With respect to the programs, if the hon. members opposite

are suggesting that the government and the Department of Education is not

concerned about the training that the students are receiving, I don't know where

they would ever get that notion.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province we have a very good, sound, mix

of publicly-funded post-secondary education and privately-funded post-secondary

education. The students themselves make very informed choices. It is monitored

very closely and very directly by the Department of Education.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Everybody's number one priority is the

students who are paying the money for the courses themselves.

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

Vidi, a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister agree today to conduct an investigation

into the quality of the program being offered in Massage Therapy by The Career

Academy to protect the hundred students who are now involved in that program and

paying, according to the minister's figures, in excess of $17,000 for this

program, and to table that report in this House so that we can assure these

students that they will have a quality education. The quality of the instructors

is in question, the quality of the instruction is in question, and the quality

of the course is in question. Will the minister do that? And will the minister

accede to my earlier request made a couple of weeks ago to have an independent

review of the whole private college structure in the Province and the monitoring

abilities of the department?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as we would respond to any complaint that came to the

Department of Education from a student in a course and so on, because it has

been raised with respect to the Massage Therapy course, we will certainly ask

the officials to do an examination of the course and I will present the results

of that examination here in the House of Assembly as requested.

With respect to any kind of overall notion that was brought

forward by the hon. member a week or so ago, of having some kind of external

group go out and examine the post-secondary education of the private institutes,

I will certainly take it under advisement. But if we are going to have an

independent assessment of the training opportunities we will certainly do it in

the context - if we do - of all of them, including a comparison of what we are

doing in the private institutions and the public institutions like The College

of the North Atlantic and Memorial University.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister another question, and maybe

he can confirm what he said a bit earlier, that his department did meet with

these students today. As a matter of fact he did not meet with those today. I

would like to ask the minister, on behalf of the students, why he has refused to

meet with the students themselves, the victims of this mess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated to the hon. member, in discussions outside the

Chamber yesterday or the day before when he raised this issue and I knew the

students had requested a meeting, I had arranged for the students to meet this

morning with the officials. There was no need, as I indicated, for them to meet

with me because the investigation - the only thing that would come out of a

meeting with me would be for me to say we would initiate an investigation. The

investigation had been ongoing for over two weeks and is concluding with

meetings that are ongoing this afternoon. So anyone giving personal recounting

of details to me, as the minister, is not going to aid in the investigation.

That has been ongoing for two weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there was an offer. My

understanding is that the meeting did not occur this morning because the

students did not feel it necessary to meet because they had come to kind of a

resolution with the owner and operators of the institute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of

Government Services and Lands, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Co-Operatives". (Bill No. 60)

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills: "An Act To Amend The

Environment Act," and "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act."

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that

I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The

Public Tender Act."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) get out of here?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: We will be eating our turkey off the Table,

I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: We will be eating our turkey off the Table.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow

I will introduce the following bills: "An Act To Amend the Municipalities Act

(No. 2)," and "An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act," (Bill No. 58).

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And

Occupational Certification."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on November 19 the Member for

St. John's East tabled a question seeking information relating to the Support

Enforcement Agency. I'm pleased to table an answer to the hon. member's

question.

Petitions

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition

today from student-parents who find themselves in a most difficult situation as

a result of having their shelter component clawed back. Over the past two days I

have given examples of families and how they are affected. In her reply to my

petition a day or two ago in this House, the minister strongly encouraged

members to make these cases known to the department.

As I said yesterday, and I will repeat it again today, my

office has been working tirelessly with the department on behalf of these

students but to date no solution has been forthcoming, and the students are

still in dire straits.

Over the past couple of days I have personally visited the

homes of six of the families mentioned in the petitions. If the minister has any

doubt at all that these are not extenuating circumstances, I invite her to do

the same. Such a visit might encourage some slight modicum of compassion for

these students who find themselves in this particular situation because they

tried to better themselves and were given misinformation by her department.

Please, on behalf of these parents, change the claw back

policy to an overpayment regime. It is pretty basic and does not need to be

addressed on an individual basis, but rather can be done across the board. Don't

be long. Hungry children are waiting. I know, I have seen them. Thank you.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise again

to support the petition put forward by my colleague for St. John's West, and to

essentially say the same things that we have said before, and to make note that

the Member for St. John's West in her critic role, and as MHA for one of the

districts in St. John's, has taken it upon herself to go visit those families.

She said today she visited six families where she has found

people who are having great difficulty coping with the difficulties that have

been imposed by this particular government, by its callousness, by its

insensitivity and by its unwillingness to listen to the ordinary Newfoundlander

and Labradorian. We hear the government saying from time to time: We support

access to equal opportunity, access to post-secondary. But when there are people

who cannot afford to pay their way, people who sometimes cannot get student

loans and sometimes people for whom student loans do not pay all the bills, then

we say to these people: We are sorry, you cannot go to post-secondary. When we

find the government then, one branch of government, the Student Aid Division,

loaning monies to these students, and then, the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment and her department clawing back from those very same students, we

have to ask ourselves: Where are the priorities?

Of course, you know when we talk about poor people, equal

opportunity, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he yawns, because that

is boring to him. It is boring to him because he does not want to hear tell of

ordinary people having an equal chance to get ahead; therefore, we say to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, what might be boring to him and causes

him to yawn in his seat, is a reality for many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So we are not surprised that he is insensitive, that he is uncaring, that he

does not care about these people who are victims of those claw-backs. We are not

surprised about that, because if the government were concerned with it they

would do something about it, but they are doing nothing about it.

They knew last year what this policy would do and how it

would disadvantage so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, student-parents who

want to get ahead. This government is more interested in putting up barriers to

equal opportunity, to post-secondary than they are in putting forward proposals

that will give people the chance to get out of the rut they are in and let them

use their abilities to be able to go forward in this world and make better homes

and better families and better opportunities, not only for themselves but for

their children as well.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3, Bill 55, first

reading of a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act".

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act,"

carried. (Bill No. 55).

On motion, Bill No.55 read a first time, ordered read a

second time, presently by leave.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve

itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 47.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (M. Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 17, Bill No. 47, Mr. Chairman.

"An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," (Bill No.

47).

On motion, clause 1, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill No. 47

passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

MR. TULK: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we do have

leave to move third reading of this bill. I believe the procedure then, with

this particular bill, is that we have to get Royal Assent before we can even

give notice of motion of the resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: If that is the case, then we will try to get

Royal Assent this afternoon and move back later this afternoon to Notices of

Motion. If we can do it some other way, then we will do it some other way. I see

the Clerk is looking at me there with a kind of a skew. So I would now call

third reading of that bill, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,

1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill No. 47)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is here. We just gave first reading to Bill 55

and I understand that he has worked out with the Opposition House Leader and the

Leader of the NDP that we would do second reading of Bill No. 55, "An Act To

Amend The Municipalities Act." I call that bill for second reading, if that is

the case.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, there is a miscue here. The bill has

not yet been distributed. It will be distributed shortly; so I withdraw that

Order for the present time. I call Order No. 28, Bill No. 50, "An Act To Amend

The Workers' Compensation Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Workers' Compensation Act". (Bill No. 50)

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few weeks ago, one of the interim measures that we took as

a part of the full review of Workers' Compensation was to increase the benefits

to injured workers for the first thirty-seven weeks from 75 per cent to 80 per

cent. In order for that measure to be taken into account, Mr. Speaker, we have

to change the legislation. So basically, that is what we are doing here today.

Obviously, this is not the full measure of the review that

was done and we are working feverishly on that to get the recommendations in and

to cost out to see what it would mean to implement many of the recommendations

that were in that report. But to make sure that this particular amendment is in

place for the New Year, January 1, to take place, then today, we are introducing

this particular measure to change the Act, as I said, to increase the benefits

from 75 cent to 80 cent for the first thirty-seven weeks that a person is on the

workers' compensation benefit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

That is one of the briefest introductions of a piece of

legislation that I have witnessed in the House since I have been here since

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not on this issue, I say to the minister.

MR. FITZGERALD: Next to the Kodak bill.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not on this issue, has the minister caught

me off guard.

Yes, next to the Kodak bill, last summer, it was the quickest

introduction of a piece of legislation that we have seen.

MR. TULK: The Kodak bill, no, that took a while.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, not by the minister.

MR. TULK: That took five minutes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I remember it well, I say to the Government

House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 50: essentially what it does is that it

emanates from the statutory review recommendations on the Workers' Compensation

Act.

Now, government have had those recommendations for a

considerable period of time. There have been questions asked in the House of the

minister with respect to the recommendations contained in that report, leading

up to this piece of legislation - which was not forthcoming, which was not

planned on government's Order Paper this Fall when the House originally sat. A

number of questions were asked with respect to the recommendations contained

within the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review Committee's report. The

Injured Workers' Association, who the minister complimented, I certainly

complement for the input into the process of this committee, the research, the

effort and in fact, individually the number of injured workers who came before

the committee to tell their story.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I guess it was some time ago the minister

rose in his place on a ministerial announcement; ironically, it was the same day

that the Injured Workers' Association held a press conference, which I attended,

outlining their displeasure and their disgust at the lack of action provided by

government on the recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, all Bill No. 50 does - and it is important for

the record and it is important to say it, that if somebody in the work place is

injured today, the regulations at Workers' Compensation indicate that

immediately upon being processed or assessed and they are put on the system,

they receive, automatically, 75 per cent of their salary for the first

thirty-nine weeks. What this piece of legislation does is it changes that and

gives a 5 per cent increase only for that thirty-nine weeks, but the impression

has been left that it is an increase for every injured worker on the system, and

that is not the case.

I am not saying that the minister left the impression, but

the impression is out there because of the information and calls that I have

gotten on it. People have called who have been on long-term disability or

extended earnings loss and asked: Does that mean that I am getting an increase,

too, of 5 per cent? The reality is no, because the way the system works now is

that after thirty-nine weeks, workers are automatically assessed up to 80 per

cent, anyway.

I say to the minister, I hope this is but one small step that

he is prepared to make; that this piece of legislation is in fact sending a

signal to injured workers, to stakeholders within the system, that some balance

is about to be restored with respect to the injury fund and with respect to

those individuals who have become injured through no fault of their own. After

all, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the Workers' Compensation Act

which was put in place by the will of this House in the 1950s, came into effect

for a number of reasons.

Number one, workers gave up their right to sue individually.

If they were hurt in the workplace, because of monies paid into the system, they

forgave their right to sue an employer because of the Act that we have in place

right now. Both management and labour bought into the concept of a system

whereby if people were hurt in the workplace, if they were injured, if they

could not return to the workplace, there would be some system in place whereby

through assessments on the employer it would become part of the wage package,

that at least there would be something at the end of the day for those

individuals who were unfortunate enough to get injured, or who were unfortunate

enough to work in workplaces or with employers who were not up to scratch when

it came to occupational health and safety and did not believe in safe

workplaces. Now, we have come a long way since 1950, but it is important to note

that is why the Workers' Compensation Act is in place.

There are lot of people who say there are many people on the

system who do not deserve to be on the system. Over the last three to four

years, certainly previous to this government - or I should say previous to this

Premier - many of the ministers who sit in Cabinet today were part of a former

administration that took the view - and that view was clearly articulated in

legislative changes that were bought before this House - that there are many on

the system who should not be on the system; that the amount of monies given to

injured workers was far too much; that what injured workers were getting, they

did not deserve.

But the Statutory Review Committee, an independent, arm's

length committee, clearly said that they found no credible evidence whatsoever

to the assertion that there were people on the system, en masse, abusing it. As

a matter of fact, they went on to say that they found very little evidence of

it.

Some weeks ago, I asked the minister a number of questions

with respect to the recommendations contained in that report, and I believe the

minister - and he can correct me if I am wrong when he stands to his feet to

close debate on this bill. He indicated at that time that there was a committee

in the department put together to evaluate, based upon the financial long-term

stability of the injury fund - because that is what is at stake, too. We have to

provide an approach where we know first and foremost that the long-term

financial health of the commission is in place, is guaranteed, is enshrined, so

that we do not find ourselves in a situation whereby injured workers find that

the Workers' Compensation Commission cannot afford to do what is necessary.

The minister committed, I believe, this spring, to provide

legislative changes to the House that would be more sweeping, that would be more

broad-based. I would like to make a few points on that now. Let us talk about

deeming.

Last week, in questioning, the minister said there was a

committee put in place with respect to the Commission, to look at deeming,

because injured workers are being deemed off the system at a rate that is

frightening for jobs that do not exist. There are hundreds of examples, and I

would like to give a few.

Right now, injured workers are being deemed capable of being

telemarketers. There have been a number of cases that have gone before the Chief

Review Commissioner, two specifically. He has ruled on two occasions recently

that the Commission erred in finding an injured worker capable of being a

telemarketer. Very factually, no such position exists. Yet, it was used as a way

to get people off the system.

The other thing with respect to deeming that has to take

place - and I will get a chance to question the minister further in Question

Period on it in terms of what tangible, positive results have come out of the

committees put in place to work with the Workers' Compensation Commission to

review the whole deeming process, which was a paramount recommendation contained

in the report.

Yesterday I had an injured worker in my office from my

constituency. He went down to the commission with a report from his specialist

in the Province with respect to an injury that he had unfortunately got, can't

return to work for some time. The individual had an MRI done, a CAT scan done,

went through the entire medical process.

I say to the minister this only happened yesterday. It didn't

happen previous to the recommendations coming out, it didn't happen previous to

the questions I've asked him, but this information came to my attention

yesterday. He went down to the Commission. In his back pocket he had the medical

specialist's report. I won't name the doctor here because it isn't appropriate,

but he was a renowned specialist in the Province. Took the specialist's report

to the Commission which indicated, based upon the MRI and CAT scan, that this

individual was incapable of returning to the workforce in any capacity at this

time. That doctor said this individual was 100 per cent disabled as a result of

the injury.

When he got to Workers' Compensation and he dropped the

information on the table to his case worker, the case worker said: Okay, we will

review that; we will get back to you. That was yesterday morning. This morning

he was back into my office after conversations with his case worker...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to hear.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This morning he was

back in my office. His case worker informed him yesterday that the specialist's

report was overruled. Because that specialist said he was 100 per cent disabled,

because he said he could no longer work, that was only the specialist's opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I'm finding it hard to speak.

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

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) members down in the back there

is a caucus room outside called government members room. If you want to have a

caucus meeting, that is the place to do it. Not in the House of Assembly while

we are debating legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That individual went to the case worker.

Actually overruled a medical specialist yesterday afternoon with respect to his

injury. Do you know what the reasoning was, Minister? The reasoning that was

given, based upon a medical specialist's review, was: That is only the

specialist's opinion, it is not my opinion. This is a case worker armed with

information from a general practitioner at the Commission. Overruled the

specialist.

I've written the minister - my letter is being typed, I wrote

it around dinnertime - outlining the situation. It will be passed on to him. I

suspect he will get it this afternoon or tomorrow. That is the very type of

situation we have to stop, Minister, and that you as minister on behalf of

government, responsible for the Workers' Compensation Act, have the power to put

regulations and the legislation in place, and the criteria which the statutory

review committee's recommendations suggest that government should follow that

would strictly limit deeming and how it should be used.

The original concept of deeming was brought in place for one

reason and one reason only. It was brought in place to get uncooperative injured

workers off the system who should not have been on it. That is the only reason

the notion of deeming was brought in place. It was not brought in place, it was

not enshrined in regulations or legislation, to be used to get injured workers

off the system who should be on it, and that is what is happening today. It is

still happening.

I don't understand what changes need to be made. It has to be

an attitudinal change. How is it that a medical specialist in the Province, who

is recognized not only in the Province but in Canada as one of the best in his

field, that his opinion on a worker who has been injured in the workplace can be

so treated with a cavalier attitude by a system and by individuals within that

system who are not capable, who don't have the technical expertise or the

medical background, to make the decision? How is that we let that go on?

It is a serious situation. The minister, as minister, when

you are talking about issues like that - I understand the recommendations are

broad within the statutory review committee's report, but such a decision is not

a financial one. There are not serious financial considerations attached with

changing the notion of deeming so that injured workers who should be

beneficiaries of the injury find, who as part of their wage package pay into the

Workers' Compensation Commission. The employers in the Province would like to

say that it is the employers who fund the injury fund. I refute it. It isn't the

employers alone. It is part of a wage package. Negotiated or not, it is part of

the system that we have regulated by this House. The Workers' Compensation

Commission injury fund is funded by two people: it is funded by the employer on

the one hand and it is funded by the worker on the other hand.

I don't mind saying it, and I would say it anywhere, but how

is it that we can let this go on? Clearly, the minister has the power to act.

The minister said he has put a committee in place and I believe him but I will

say to the minister, that that committee needs to move expeditiously.

That was only one yesterday, there are hundreds more that are

being deemed off the system for jobs that don't exist. They are being deemed off

the system for medical reasons that are being used by individuals who don't have

the background, who don't have the education, who are not specialists in their

field, to deem them off the system. They are being deeded off the system in the

face of specialist' reports, that has to stop I say to the minister. It has to

stop and it has to stop now because that is not the system that we put in place

and that is not the system that we are supposed to have in place. That is not

the reason why Workers' Compensation Commission exists. If there were no injured

workers -and that is ultimately the real ideal society all of us would like to

see - if there were no injured workers, if Occupational Health and Safety

practices Occupational Health and Safety education, Occupational Health and

Safety initiatives that were more foresightful because every dollar we spend in

Occupational Health and Safety - and this is a proven fact - every dollar that

we spend in Occupational Health and Safety, out of that minister's department,

will reap $4 back in the long-run. That is a statistical fact.

Another thing that should be clearly understood by all

members in this House, that when it comes to the Occupational Health and Safety

division of the minister's department - of which there is 191 employees, I

believe, I could be wrong - but Occupational Health and Safety division alone,

that is not funded out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is not funded by

the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador as other services are funded. That is

completely funded by the Workers' Compensation Commission and the injury fund,

100 per cent. It is funded by the contributions that are made to the commission

by employers/employees.

Now to governments credit - because I want to be factual in

terms of my comments on this and fair because it is important to be fair, this

is an important piece of legislation and it's an important topic that we are

talking about - that over the last four years the only department in government

that has grown has been the Department of Occupational Health and Safety. While

growth in numbers does not necessarily mean growth in productivity, it does in

this case, coupled with the fact of the closure of the moratorium because there

was a high rate of industrial accidents within the fishing industry but

Occupational Health and Safety has made some strides. I want to recognize that

today but they have a long ways to go too. The minister knows that and I'm not

trying to be too political. I am just trying to state it as it is.

I say to the minister, for every dollar that we spend in

Occupational Health and Safety, whether it is on hazardous waste management,

whether it is hazardous critical paths within the workplace that every dollar we

spend, one more worker more aware, one more employer more aware of what they are

liable for and what they have to have in place in terms of safer workplaces in

the Province. It reaps benefits, substantial benefits. Wouldn't it be nice if

ten years from now - there are about 3,600 people who are receiving benefits

under the Workers' Compensation Commission as of today. That is about 3,600

injured workers. Wouldn't it be nice if the minister took the opportunity and

the initiative to engage in a foresightful, long-ranging plan that year after

year, for the next ten years, that monies in Occupational Health and Safety go

directly into the workplaces of the Province to better inform, to better

educate, to make people more aware of their responsibilities, not only as

workers but as employers, that we could cut that number in half? Wouldn't that

be something that we could all stand up and applaud in this Legislature? We

could and we would and the minister has an opportunity to do it.

With the recommendations provided by the independent

Statutory Review Committee, which was far reaching - they addressed the issues

that needed to be addressed - government has an opportunity before it now that

it will not have for at least another five years.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if at the next Statutory Review

Committee that government is obligated to put in place, no matter who is there -

that they are obligated every so often to put in place - if we had injured

workers, people who were on the system, come before the committee and say: Over

the last four years I have seen a tremendous change to the Workers' Compensation

Commission. I have seen a tremendous change in attitude by people working there.

I have seen a tremendous change in the way in which we are being handled by

people who are charged with the responsibility - and it is an important one - of

overseeing and managing the fund.

Wouldn't it be something that could be applauded if we were

to do that, or if the action that government takes right now produced that sort

of reaction and response from people who are the stakeholders within the system?

That is what we should be aiming for in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on ad nauseam, I suppose, but I want

to confine my comments to this piece of legislation, Bill No. 50. The minister

has a long way to go, and government has a long way to go, with respect to the

Workers' Compensation Commission. Of the recommendations as set out in the

Statutory Review Committee's report, 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the

recommendations do not involve, Minister, financial sorts of decisions that

would put the injury fund in jeopardy - do not involve that. It requires a

change in thinking; it requires a change in attitude.

I can give you another story, a real one. I have hundreds of

them. Previous to getting involved in politics, I did a lot of work with the

Workers' Compensation Commission. I worked with a labour management group in the

construction industry. I represented injured workers. I worked with employers to

bring down assessments, based upon new programs or new initiatives that

employers within that industry were bringing into effect. It was a training

trust fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I have stories of case managers; I want to

give you one. All of it will remain unnamed, but it is a factual story where an

injured worker came to me and complained about the type of treatment she was

getting. She was dead on; she was correct. At that time I phoned the case

manager - this was about two-and-a-half years ago - who was as sweet as pie, as

the saying goes, to me on the phone. `No problem, Mr. Byrne, we will look after

that. Yes, you are absolutely right. We will take care of it, not a problem.'

The next day, that injured worker from my district came to

see me. She asked me what action I took on her behalf. I explained it to her in

detail, had her inquiry sheets done up, who I had talked to, what we talked

about, what action was promised, what action was taken. She started to break

down and cry in my office, and do you know why? Because when that case manager

got off the phone with me, he got on the phone to her and said to her

uncategorical: If you ever contact a politician with respect to me again, you

will never get another cent out of this injury fund, or out of the Workers'

Compensation Commission.

Mr. Speaker, that is one story and it is not an isolated one.

There are many instances, and that is the type of power that system has on

people's lives because they are injured, because they cannot return to work.

They have no other options. I have seen people lose homes. I have seen marriages

break up. I have seen people lose everything around them that it had taken them

a lifetime to build up; and for that attitude which exists...

My understanding is that the commission right now is doing a

study by an outside agency - has contracted an outside agency - to do a study of

that exact attitude about which I talked. It is not something I brought before

the House because I applaud the initiative that the commission is taking on it.

It is long overdue, I might say, but it is that exact attitude that case

managers, or people within the system have - not all of them. I am not tarring

everybody with the same brush, but if it happens once, it is once to often, that

we are, as an advocate of injured workers and all of us as members of this House

have had, not only the opportunity, but I think the obligation and the

responsibility to be advocates for our constituents who have no other option, no

means to hire legal council, no financial resources whatsoever, nothing in the

cupboards, kids home hungry, bills piling up. When you see that sort of thing

happening, all of us have a responsibility to be an advocate for someone in that

role. It happens, I say to the minister, it happens.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: If I were down there or if I were minister,

I know that -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: - myself too, probably thirty per cent of

the activity that generates from my district generates with respect to an

appeal, but that attitude, where a case worker can so blatantly be nice and say,

no problem sir, we will do whatever we can, what you are talking about is

correct and I will take care of it, not a problem, thank you very much and then

pick up the phone the day after or that afternoon and phone the injured worker

and say, if you ever, ever talk to somebody like a politician with respect to

this issue again, you will never get one cent. That is happening every day. It

is happening -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, yes, it is happening and mark it down -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not trying to be an alarmist, I am not

trying to raise issues or to say that it is happening broad based, but it is

happening minister, too frequently. It is happening way too frequently for it to

be an occasional occurrence. That is the issue, that if it were an isolated

incident, you could isolate it and correct it and have a comfort zone that you

know it would not happen again, but it is happening too many times for it to be

an isolated occurrence and it speaks of attitude. Make no mistake, that people

who are in that system who are administering it, who have workers below them who

they are responsible for as case managers, they themselves are in a very, very

big position of power when you are dealing with the daily lives of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, it would be remiss of me in bringing that issue

forward not to talk about something else. The standard by which any organization

should be judged in terms of its financial ability to move on; its front line

services versus its management services and there is a ratio that is pretty well

accepted within this industry, Workers' Compensation Commission across the

country and there should be about fifteen to twenty per cent in terms of

administrative people and eighty to eight-five per cent people on the front

lines, services orientated, because that is what Workers' Compensation

Commission is, it is a service, first and foremost. It exists and owes its very

existence to the fact that injuries are occurring in our workplaces that at our

Workers' Compensation Commission that it is very top heavy, extremely top heavy

with administration, about thirty-five per cent.

Case managers right now at the Workers' Compensation

Commission are dealing with case loads in excess of sixty, seventy, eighty

cases. There is no way that a case manager can effectively work with an injured

worker, with the employer or where the accident happened and deal effectively

and intimately with what is taking place at Workers' Compensation, when they

have a system by where sixty or seventy cases are piled on their desk that high.

It is impossible.

Yet, administratively, the administration, the upper echelons

of workers' compensation constantly are putting pressure on case managers to

make decisions and to make them quickly and that pressure, that squeeze that is

occurring there on the significant case load that is continuously piling up and

up and up and the pressure from up above on a case manager to make the decision

is causing decisions to be made that should not be made and that is what is

happening. That is why we are getting decisions coming out, people being deemed

off the system for no reason, it is not just happening for the sake of it

happening. There has to be an overriding reason for that stuff to be taking

place.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I could deem you to be anything and I

have in the past and probably will again in the future, I say to the minister

and certainly -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: - and certainly the Government House Leader

has deemed this member to be a few things on certain occasions. But he is right

about how terrible that word deeming is, using this context.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I don't have the list with me, but I have a

fairly good recollection of the administration down there. We have people who

are a vice-president of compensation services, executive director of

compensation services, a director of compensation services; same thing in human

resources, same thing in planning, financial administration, Mr. Speaker. But

(inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what they call a PFI. They do a

functional capacity on you. They can deem you to be only 20 per cent or 30 per

cent disabled. That happens. You have been so deemed as being whatever. Serious

issue.

You look at the governing philosophy. Most times members in

this House will stand and say to government: You are spending too much money on

this or that, what a significant waste. I looked at what the board of directors

spent last year. What did the board of directors cost the Commission last year?

Anybody like to hazard a guess? What do you think it cost?

AN HON. MEMBER: Too much?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, seriously. What would you think the

governance of the Workers' Compensation Commission, outside of its

administrative staff and its chief executive officer, the board of directors

that the minister appoints, how much?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: About seven people. How much do you think

it cost for the board of directors last year to operate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? Two point five what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Twenty-two thousand dollars. That is what

it cost. What does that tell you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is nothing. But what it is producing is

nothing. It tells me that it is a board of directors - and if you look at the

attendance of the board of directors - and I'm not ascribing or casting any

aspersions on anybody. I'm talking about the system. It tells me that it is a

board of directors that is not governing. That is what it tells me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Your government appointed them, John, so

you should know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Got to be. There is an employer rep on it,

there is an employee rep. It is a prescribed set in terms of where it comes

from. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that it tells me it is a board of directors

that isn't governing. That it is meeting on a regular basis with the top-level

administration, recommendations are coming forth, and discussing things in a

very general way.

What we require in this Province right now with the Workers'

Compensation Commission is a direct hands-on approach. That is what the system

requires, I say to the people in this House, a direct, hands-on approach to

ensure that there is effective administration, to ensure that there is long-term

financial stability, and ultimately to ensure that those people who are injured

receive the benefits according to

an act that was enshrined in this House.

That is what it is about. That is what it should be about. We

don't live in an ideal world, but where there are instances where that isn't

happening that a proper accountable system is in place to correct the things

that should not happen. That they are corrected immediately, isolated, to ensure

that they don't happen again.

I would say to the minister that in terms of recommending to

you, as minister, I would take a serious look at the ratio between top levels of

administration and the actual front-line services. I've talked to case managers

who are doing their very best to try to accommodate, to try to deal with the

case files they have in front of them to the best of their ability, but there

just isn't enough time, Mr. Speaker.

If we were going to move in a direction and look beyond the

tips of our noses that would ensure the creditable financial stability of the

fund - because it has to be about that. If we were going to move in a direction

that would eliminate abuse, so that the individuals who find themselves in a

position through no fault of their own are injured and need to depend upon this,

that it is in place for them, and we have to look at providing more front-line

resources to case managers to reduce their case-loads, they need to be cut in

half at least. Case managers have told me that, for them to effectively do their

job, and still, it would be very hectic but they believe that they could do it

if they were dealing with cases of thirty to thirty-five, not sixty or seventy

or even more.

Remember, and it needs to be said for the record as well,

that a case manager, just does not deal with an injured worker but has to deal

with people with respect to - is there a possibility for re-education to get the

person back into the workforce. I have not met very many injured workers whom,

if the opportunity was presented to them would not go back to the workplace

tomorrow; if the opportunities were there and if they could, physically handle

it. Case managers have to deal with employers in terms of continuing

assessments, finding ways and solutions for those people who possibly could be

retrained, who possibly could find alternate employment, that they could get

back into it so you are not just talking about one case manager dealing with

thirty people, that is not the impression that should be left, because these are

complicated and complex sorts of files that you are talking about.

One file unto itself, Mr. Speaker, and I can show you, I have

about 250 to 260 in my office, one filing cabinet just deals with injured

workers with whom I have worked in the past four years; one file could be two or

three inches thick in terms of the doctors assessments, in terms of the

assessments done by the Miller Centre, unbelievable the information that is

done. But the minister has to move in a direction and the government has the

power to do it. Former ministers have stood up and said: Workers' Compensation

Commission operates at arm's length; that may be true but it is not entirely

true. The minister appoints the board of directors and government appoints the

CEO of that organization, so it has the power to implement its agenda.

What has been lacking, Mr. Speaker, is the will to do it but

it seems, Mr. Speaker, and I want to refer to Bill 50, that government wanted to

send out a message before Christmas, and I believe that what government is doing

by Bill 50 -and the minister can comment because I would like him to - that by

introducing this piece of legislation, if that is sending a signal, that he is

saying to the people, the stakeholders in the system, that some balance is going

to be restored, that the notions of deeming, situations where specialists are

being overruled by people who, though are not qualified, overrule them will be

no more; that this piece of legislation, I am looking at it from that point of

view.

I want to give benefit of the doubt and say to the minister

that this is a small step, it is, it has not received wide support but it has

not received widespread criticism because I believe, and I can say to the

minister I hope, but if it is not, this member will be up every day asking you

questions on it, you can be assured of that - that this is a step of what we are

going to see coming this spring with a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that

is comprehensive, that is broad-based, that deals with the recommendations as

put forward in the Statutory Review Committee's Report, that deals with

situations where the ratio between front-line services and administration is

narrowed so there are more resources put into the front-line, more case managers

up front, less case-loads so that we can deal with things expeditiously because,

if we do not deal with things expeditiously minister, here is just one scenario

of what happens:

An injured worker let us say, for the benefit of the doubt is

thrown off the system who should be on it. Here is the cost to the system, one

person: the injured worker goes to internal review, about a three-month period

elapses, so within internal review, there is an individual there who is taking

up time, resources reviewing the case file. That injured worker then - that is

money, that cost dollars, that costs a lot of dollars - goes to the internal

review, the injured worker comes out, nine chances out of ten he or she cannot

go there. Sometimes it is allowed. Sometimes it is permitted. They get a letter

back from Internal Review - that is what happens, it is a vicious circle - they

get a letter back from Internal Review saying that they have upheld the

Commission's decision, but you have a right to appeal to the Chief Review

Commissioner.

The injured worker, hopefully based upon advice, as they

should seek it, appeals to the Chief Review Commissioner. Every time a case goes

before the Chief Review Commissioner, it costs $500. That is just for the Chief

Review Commissioner, it has nothing to do with the administrative support that

is there, another cost to the system.

The Chief Review Commissioner, Mr. Speaker, finds that the

injured worker's case has merit, and that in fact the Workers' Compensation

Commission has erred in law, that the regulations and the Act before them were

misinterpreted. That decision then is sent back to the Workers' Compensation

Commission and the injured worker is relieved, finally - finally, they say some

justice has been restored - only to find out a week later, that the Commission

has sent a letter back, in many cases, in a number of ways, and let me give you

some instances. One occurred this week with me again. They sent a letter back to

the Chief Review Commissioner saying: On the decision of Workers' Compensation,

file number, your decision can be interpreted in two ways. It can be interpreted

that the individual's compensation you have said we should provide should only

be provided from the time of your decision. Or it can be interpreted that we

should not provide it at all. We would seek further clarification.

The Chief Review Commissioner has to take that letter, has to

take that case, and review it all again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another $500?

MR. E. BYRNE: Possibly. He sends back another letter to

the Workers' Compensation Commission that says: My decision was clear. The

interpretation is this, clearly - said the same thing only in different words.

The Commission sends back a letter. This is just one person we are talking about

now. Multiply it by, say, 150, and we get a notion or some sense of what that is

costing the system that it does not need to cost the system; that is the point

of this debate.

So it is sent back. The Commission says: Okay, we would like

to appeal the decision of the Review Commissioner, and when appealing the

decision of the Review Commissioner, it goes to the Supreme Court. Now, when

this Minister of Education was the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

he brought in a system from a three-person appeal tribunal to a single

adjudicator system. Associated with that Act - because he went as far as he

could in law to make the decisions of the independent Chief Review Commissioner

binding, and binding, meaning binding both on the Commission and binding on the

injured worker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did that?

MR. E. BYRNE: The former minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes it was. Because one of the big

complaints we had at the time, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, is that

all the decisions that were being made at the tribunal were being overturned,

all of them.

MR. TULK: By whom?

MR. E. BYRNE: By the Workers' Compensation Commission.

Under the new regime that was put in place in 1994, which we debated in this

House in the Spring - actually, it was the last day the House closed in the

Spring of 1994, and I met with the minister on it at the time - they went as far

as they could in law to make it binding both upon the Commission and the injured

worker.

Clear enough. We agreed to that. We said it was a good thing,

we supported it. The only right of appeal, either by the injured worker on the

one hand or by the Compensation Commission on the other hand, was the Supreme

Court. Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? The docket at the Supreme Court for

cases became so full with appeals from the Review Commissioner, that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, changed it. They did not

come before the House to change it. They changed the regulations - the

regulations that made the decision final and binding, that gave the Commission

the right to look at decisions of the Review Commissioner. Now, that is a fact.

Because often in this Legislature we debate the legislation.

We do not get an opportunity to debate the regulatory framework that is

associated with legislation. That was done. The Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods now, who was the Minister of Environment and Labour then, was the

minister who spearheaded that approach. Because there definitely was pressure

put on by the court system. Their docket was full. They did not have enough time

to deal with the appeals that they would have to hear from.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) ruled in favour?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, or against.

So what has really happened, Mr. Speaker, is that we have

taken some teeth out of the Review Commissioner's decisions. We have not made

them final and binding as they were originally intended to be. But, Mr. Speaker,

the point of this entire discussion is to provide to members of this House and

this minister what takes place on one file. If caseloads were reduced, if the

pressure was not there - in terms of sixty or seventy - that that pressure is

causing decisions to be made that should not be made.

As a result of decisions that should not be made, that are

being made, appeals are starting to occur. These things do not happen in

isolation, there is a fall-out. There are repercussions to the actions that are

being taken, and as a result of those repercussions, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing

an appeal process occur at a rate that it should not be occurring. We are seeing

basic decisions being made by caseworkers, under pressure, from both ends, that

should not be made. As a result, the appeal process starts, Internal Review,

Chief Review Commissioner, reviewed by the Workers' Compensation Commission,

back to the Chief Review Commissioner again, and that costs money.

Now, if we are interested, clearly, in saving money and

securing the financial stability of the injury fund itself, then I suggest to

the minister, let us invest in more front-line services. I believe that for

every dollar you invest you will get two back. I believe that the ramifications

of the pressure that is on managers there now will be eliminated to a large

degree; that the number of appeals will be decreased significantly; that the

whole notion of internal review will not be as necessary as it is today, and

that saves money. That money that can be saved can be redirected back into the

front-lines to ensure there is no job loss - because I believe that jobs are

important. I believe that the types of jobs that are being done right now are

not focused on where they should be done.

Internal review, Mr. Speaker, we want to look at just another

notion. Let us talk about internal review. Internal review, by its very

definition, is simply this, that if a decision is made that an injured worker or

an employer for that matter, does not agree with, their first line of appeal is

internally within the Commission, that they will review internally.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long does that take?

MR. E. BYRNE: Forget about how long it takes. That is one

thing but I had occasion, Mr. Speaker - again, a factual story - about six to

eight weeks ago, to go to a hearing with an individual from Bell Island, at

Internal Review. Now, the situation - we will not get into the details of the

case because it is not necessary to prove the point that I am going to bring

forward.

About fifteen minutes into the presentation that we were

making, I questioned the Commission's decision on why they made this decision. I

suspected - and I said it at the internal review - I suspected that it was a

conscience decision that was made on this fellow and that they constantly tried

to booth him off the system. You know, the Internal Review Officer said, `No,

Sir,' right in the review, `that's not the case.' I said why? She said, `I made

that decision.' I said, `Well, what are you doing reviewing your own decision?'

This was a case manager who was gone from case manager to Internal Review. This

gentleman's file was outstanding for about a year.

MR. J. BYRNE: That cannot be true.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh it is. We are going to appeal to a Chief

Review Commissioner, I think, about mid-January. It should be flicked out on

that issue alone, notwithstanding the medical evidence where a specialist -

again, another notion where a specialist overruled, but right in the middle of

an internal review, we had an internal review specialist reviewing a case of

which one year previous, she was the case manager. We had an internal review

specialist sitting down reviewing an injured worker's case history of which she

made decisions on. Now, in all honesty, do any of us believe that there was no

prejudice? Let us assume for a moment there was not, but the perception of it,

the very notion that I could sit in judgement of my own decisions that affects

the life of an individual, daily, right now, it is obscene, Mr. Speaker. It is

obscene, it is unheard of, and in any court system, it would not be viewed as

being at arms length. Now, outside of all of the evidence and what was contained

in that worker's file, the fact of the matter is that when we get to the Chief

Review Commissioner, based upon the rules and regulations associated with the

Workers' Compensation Act, which I think I know, that that case should be

overturned for that reason alone - again, a significant and terrible waste of

resources, misdirected.

My own view - some people disagree with me, there are injured

workers who disagree with me. That's fine, but my own is that I do not believe

there should be an internal review process. I think it is wasteful. I think that

if we put more money into front-line resources, I think if we provide the tools

and the ammunition that are necessary for people to make the right decisions, I

believe if the guidelines are in place on policy, clearly communicated up and

down the line, that there would be no need for internal review. And, as a result

of doing that, where there was a dispute, it would be, in fact, on a question of

law or regulations. It would not be because people are being deemed off the

system, because they should not be. It would be because there is a legitimate

dispute with the regulation or the

interpretation of that regulation; and the

first line of appeal should be the Chief Review Commissioner, and his decisions

or her decisions, whatever the case may be, should be final and binding to the

greatest extent that this Legislature can enshrine, and that the last course of

repeal should be The Supreme Court. That is the system we have in place for many

other jurisdictions in what government controls.

That is my view, but I do not believe internal review is

operating the way it should be, and we are not providing the resources to that

area the way that it should be done. It is being misdirected.

Again, I say to the minister, this is not an isolated case.

Right now, I could go up to my files and I bet you I can pick out at least ten

or fifteen cases where the exact same situation happened.

I have to say, too, as an individual, if I were a case worker

today, or if I were just a worker, in terms of all of my colleagues here - the

minister is the same way; I am sure every member over there is the same way -

how comfortable would you be, after sitting around making decisions on files,

case managers, interacting back and forth with your professional colleagues,

getting their advice on particular cases, on particular medical assessments -

how comfortable would you be if you were taken from that position and put in

Internal Review and then given the responsibility of reviewing your colleagues,

your former professional associates, your friends with whom you still socialize,

who still come over to your house on Sundays maybe for Sunday brunch?

The reality is that many people who work together in the

workplace socialize outside together because of common interests, common goals,

common objectives, common workplace; but how comfortable, truly, would you be?

Personally, I would not want to be in that position.

If there is going to be an internal review decision, if the

conventional wisdom at the end of the day after this process is reviewed is that

Internal Review should stay, then it should be accompanied by another set of

criteria, that those people who are in Internal Review, that is exactly what

they do, and only what they do; that they cannot be taken from a case manager's

position one day and put into an internal review specialist the next day. I

mean, the perception of it... How would the minister like to be in a position

where, as an internal review specialist, he is overturning decisions that may

have pretty extraordinary and far-reaching consequences for his or her

co-worker? Not only is it an uncomfortable position - and I am not saying that

it is not being done, because it probably is; but, again, providing the benefit

of the doubt, the perception of it is wrong. It is not right, and it does not

allow for proper decisions to be made. It has to change. That has to change.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying this: The

minister has a unique opportunity before him. I know he is - and I say this with

all affection - a socially-conscious red Liberal, that he is primarily

concerned, that he is concerned, with his responsibility. I know he is concerned

- I believe it - with the results of his decisions and the ramifications of his

decisions, but he has to balance, and I understand the balance that he is going

to have to try to achieve, but he has an opportunity. He has the opportunity to

set the direction for the Workers' Compensation Commission for the next ten

years, a direction that will do a number of things.

Number one, it will provide for long-term financial security

because the commission financially is in very, very healthy shape. Number two,

that it will provide an opportunity and it will set the direction for the

commission that no longer will medical specialists' reports be overruled by

occupational therapists, by case managers or general practitioners. That has to

happen and it has to happen swiftly, minister. That he can set the direction by

where - and I would even support the minister hiring someone to go down,

independent, and look at the administrative structure of the Workers'

Compensation Commission because it needs to be overhauled, internally - that he

can set the direction as minister, where the resources - a more effective use of

the resources right now are put into the direction where they should be put.

That is in the front line services that would reduce case managers' loads that

were guidelines effective. Administration should be about effective

administration, where guidelines are provided up and down the line.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: We will see - guidelines up and down the

line that are clearly communicated, clearly articulated. That he can be the

minister noted for restoring some balance and justice to a system that was

effectively enshrined in 1952 or 1953 in this House, to do exactly that, to

provide some justice and balance to workers who are not getting the balance and

justice they deserve. That is the reason workers' compensation and Workers'

Compensation Commission came into effect. That he can redirect and be applauded

for - and I will tell the minister this, that the moves in those directions will

be applauded by this member outside of any political rhetoric, outside of

partisan politics because it is too important, I say to the minister, and I will

say this too, that you can be the minister, that you have the opportunity to say

to the Workers' Compensation Commission that you were the one who put a system

in place that can be a model for the rest of the country, that not only restored

balance and some justice, that took a unique turn and looked at reducing

accidents, putting more resources into occupational health and safety. That in

your tenure and because of the measures that you took, accidents in the

workplace were reduced by over forty to fifty per cent. That in your term and

your tenure, that you could be the minister to stand up and say, ten or fifteen

years from now, that as a result of my stewardship over this department that

when I became minister there were 3,600 injured workers, there are now only

1,800. That is the opportunity you have and I think that is the opportunity that

you should seize.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words today on this workers'

compensation bill and I first of all have to congratulate my colleague who spent

some time talking about workers' compensation and who certainly made some very

good points as it relates to the workers' compensation and who is, I must say,

very, very well versed in issues of workers' compensation and I believe that

every word he said today is true.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention to the minister today, of

just one particular incident that I had. I have appeared before workers'

compensation on a number of occasions, but I often wondered if I would have the

opportunity to stand in my place in the House to relay a story that I had on

workers' compensation to the minister. I am glad today that this presents me the

opportunity to do so.

I, minister, attended a hearing before the Chief Review

Commissioner of workers' compensation with a constituent of mine, presented a

case before the Chief Review Commissioner. I guess my client and somebody at

Workers' Compensation somewhere during his case had certainly gotten across each

other, and I guess between maybe the case worker and himself there wasn't really

a good deal, or certainly there were not good communications back and forth.

He ended up eventually before the Chief Review Commissioner.

We presented our case, and within the mandatory time we received a letter back

from the commissioner saying that the constituent had won the case. The

arguments that had been put forward both by him and by the medical doctor who

had reviewed his case and who had certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: - placed before him the medical evidence and,

of course, we had won the case.

That was fine. I went on holidays in the summer, and I was

off about two days when my phone rang at home. This was my constituent, who told

me that he had gone back to Workers' Compensation, Minister, and had asked when

he could come in to have his case settled, when he could discuss with his worker

his job of retraining, only to be told on the phone by the chap at Workers'

Compensation that nothing had changed in his case. To quote the fellow: Nothing

has changed with you. I am dealing with your case, and what I say is what you

will eventually end up with.

He relayed that story to me, and I said: No, no, no, that is

totally unreal. There is nobody down there. They are either going to accept the

decision of the Chief Review Commissioner or they are going to the next level,

of course, which is on to court. He said: Well, Bob, that is what they told me

today.

I got on the phone and phoned out, and got talking to

somebody in their executive offices. I don't remember who, and if I did I would

not name them anyway. I mentioned the case, and about an hour or so later I got

another call from somebody else who sits in the executive offices down there. I

relayed the story to him, and told him that I thought it was a disgrace, and

that if indeed they were going on to the next level, which was on to the Supreme

Court, then to please let us know and I would instruct my constituent to go hire

a lawyer and prepare to go to court.

Anyway, some time that day my constituent got another phone

call, again from the Workers' Compensation Commission, only this time from a

little bit higher up the line and from the executive office, and said: No, no,

no, what this guy told you is all wrong. In actual fact, we are now going to

settle your case. You don't need to go on to the next level. We are going to

give you the money, and that is the end of it.

So I say to the minister that if ever there was an

institution, or whatever you want to call the Workers' Compensation Commission,

that should be investigated independently, as my colleague has suggested, and if

ever there was something in this Province that should certainly be reorganized

or realigned and probably stripped, some of them, and some of them should be

moved on out the door, it is the Workers' Compensation Commission in this

Province.

Some while ago when the petition was presented in the House,

I received some 270-odd letters, and I just highlight that one case of what

happened to a constituent of mine, and I am sure members opposite get the same

thing. To me, that is a disgrace.

So I would urge the minister that as quickly as possible we

would get into Workers' Compensation with an independent to do a study so that a

lot of the things that my colleague has said - and very eloquently, I might add

- the last few minutes talking about we can certainly implement so that

constituents of mine, and I am sure members opposite, are not going in winning

their case, bringing in medical evidence, taking the time and spending the money

to get these things, and then presenting them before Workers' Compensation, only

to end up getting the result that they get.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister will certainly

look into those things and in future ensure that they never happen again to

workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. lady

wants to speak on this bill, but if I could, I understand that the Opposition

House Leader has agreed to - and we have to do it now - not participate in the

Late Show and that we will, by unanimous consent, agree that we will carry on

debate.

There are four or five bills I think - there is a particular

bill that we need Royal Assent in order to be able for it to be put on a

resolution and I think we have agreed that we will bring the Lieutenant-

Govern