Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 15 December 1998 (43rd General Assembly, 3rd Session)
1998-12-15
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 15, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No.
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for getting the
statement a little bit later than normal to the member opposite.
Since I became minister about eighteen months ago we have listened to the
people of the Province and taken action on a number of fronts. The Provincial
Health Forum which we held in May of 1997 was the first of its kind in our
Province. It allowed people from all over the Province, representing health
providers and consumers, to come together with government to discuss specific
issues and to identify practical solutions to the problems identified.
Subsequent to that forum and with the support of my Cabinet colleagues, I took a
number of initiatives to strengthen our health care system. The most significant
initiative was taken in the summer of 1997 when Cabinet allocated $20 million to
help stabilize the Regional Health Institutional Boards. In addition, we
provided an additional $5.3 million for physicians' services.
In the fall of 1997, some Regional Institutional Boards raised concerns that
they were still experiencing funding shortages. At that time, I requested
officials of my department to begin a comprehensive review of the Regional
Institutional Boards and that review has recently been completed. This is in
addition to the Atkinson Report which was completed on the Western Regional
Institutional and Health and Community Services Boards and is now also in the
department for review. I should say, my officials were well received by the
Boards and enjoyed a high level of cooperation while working with them.
The reductions to CHST funding for health care in this Province have been
significant. Despite these reductions in federal funding we have ensured that
health care budgets in this Province have not been reduced. Nonetheless, we are
still experiencing problems in the system. Institutional Boards have accumulated
significant deficits to the end of 1997-1998 despite the infusion of $20 million
in fiscal 1997-1998. Boards are projecting further deficits of $20 million to
$25 million for 1998-1999 and the department has $10 million in new funding to
apply against these deficits.
We must not allow the deficits of these Boards to grow. We must take
corrective action. This Province cannot afford to fund these deficits from its
own limited financial resources. We must obtain additional funding from the
federal government. We also have a responsibility to ensure that our health care
system is managed effectively and efficiently. Many of the Regional
Institutional Boards have achieved efficiencies and made service improvements.
Some Boards are not as far along in the regionalization process, and therefore
further efficiencies are yet to be achieved.
We have to work with our Boards to ensure that together we have a system that
is affordable and accountable to the public. Several Boards have been
experiencing problems and corrective action is being taken. New senior
executives have been employed by two Boards. A common financial system will be
implemented in all Institutional Boards. All financial statements will now be in
a standard format and all audited financial statements for 1997-1998 have been
received; the first time in a number of years. Regular meetings are now being
held between senior departmental and board officials. The challenge to all of us
is to provide quality, affordable health care within available funding.
Our integration of programs and services continues and we are implementing
the National Child Benefit Reinvestment Plan which is consistent with our
Strategic Social Plan. Yet with all of the improvements we have made I have to
say we still face significant challenges in our provincial health system.
We know we will always have waiting lists, as long as we have a publicly
funded health care system. We also know that those who need the services the
most will receive the services first. In this Province we are doing what we can
with our limited resources for health care. We are on the right track and will
continue to work to improve the health system of our Province. If we are to
maintain our publicly funded health care system which we have all come to value
and rely on, we will need to ensure our system is as efficient as possible and
we will need the increased financial support of the federal government.
I have repeatedly called on the federal government to inject more money into
our provincial health system. Our Premier has also spoken clearly and
decisively, both nationally and provincially, on this matter. He has advocated
to the federal government that the Canada Health and Social Transfer should be
increased to ensure the stability of existing health programs and services.
Similar calls to the federal government have come from countless health
providers and administrators, unions and concerned citizens.
In closing, I want to express my appreciation for the commitment and
willingness of my staff and the staff and management of the Regional Boards to
help improve our health system by working in partnership for the benefit of all
citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the minister tomorrow, at my private member's resolution on asking
the federal government to put money back in the Canada Health and Social
Transfer that was really robbed out of that system, that it will get full
support on that side of the House.
About one and a half years ago when she became minister - in the midst of a
federal election, when they were under attack and they made a shuffle in Cabinet
- the Minister of Health and Community Services stood in this House, on April
28. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stood too. They almost bowled
each other over to stand up in the House and make this statement that the
federal government is not going to be cutting funds. They said: We are going to
have $66 million extra in health care.
Then on March 11, 1998 the minister had the audacity to write the federal
minister and say to him in this letter: In my opinion it is misleading to
portray the decision to cease reductions in transfer payments in a manner which
implies to Canadians that the provinces will now have more money available in
their health system.
Something I said on April 28 in this House, Minister. You attacked the
federal government, but it was good to do it during election when you played
politics with this issue. You were forced to go to a public forum here to
address certain serious problems in our Province that you did not listen to, I
might add.
I wouldn't stand and boast that it took a year and a half later to get a
report, the Atkinson Report, on the state of health care and a financial
statement three years later. You are in power since 1989. That is a reflection
on the inadequacy or incompetency of government to be able to get a statement
filed on an annual basis, showing where taxpayers' money is being spent in our
Province. That is not something to stand up about in this House. That is
something to keep a ministerial statement from doing, and to come in and try and
paint a good news story.
I support re-investment in health care. The resolution on the Order Paper
tomorrow will state that. Not put some of it back, put all of it back that was
robbed, because we have an operating surplus now on a federal level. The Premier
knows that full well. He sat around the federal Cabinet Table when there
discussions of where they were going to cut. You can blame who you like on
deficits, whether it is the federal PCs or not. It doesn't make any difference
to me who caused it or what the problem was. We are now in an operating surplus.
We all have to stand together and demand that every single cent be put back so
we can provide better health care for all the people of our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have
leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
the Canada Health and Social Transfer, the then-Minister of Health who, until
10:00 this morning was Minister of Justice, said that this spells the end of
Between that statement and the statement of the minister of today,
acknowledging that we are in a crisis in health care funding in this Province,
their health care system, and has been saying that everything is in good order,
that they are doing a good job.
If they had held to the position taken by the former Minister of Health when
this was first introduced and fought valiantly from that day forward, we
probably would not be in the boat we are in today. I am glad they are finally
acknowledging it, but they are part of the problem. They and the federal
government, of which the Premier was a part, created the problem. We need to
have a full-fledged commitment to medical funding and Medicare and health care
funding in this country and in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I am pleased to announce the launch of the InfoTel information system
in Newfoundland and Labrador. InfoTel is a joint federal-provincial initiative
that provides information on employment opportunities within the Government of
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has already implemented a telephone
system which provides 24-hour access to employment opportunities in the federal
public service. The Public Service Commission of the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador has decided to participate in this project so that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians can easily access information regarding advertised positions in
both the federal and provincial governments.
As I am sure my colleagues are aware, public competitions are currently
posted on Public Service Commission bulletin boards and advertised in
newspapers. The Public Service Commission web page also advertises employment
opportunities within the provincial public service. These avenues will remain
available. The provincial government remains committed to ensuring that
information concerning public employment opportunities is sufficiently
advertised and accessible to the public. Job searchers can now access publicly
advertised job opportunities on a 24-hour basis.
Mr. Speaker, InfoTel is a good example of partnering between federal and
provincial governments. The federal government has absorbed the costs of
installation and maintenance of this project. The only cost for the provincial
government is for the provision of promotional materials such as the brochures
which have been distributed in the House today.
I am pleased that we, as a government, are able to increase access to public
information about public service jobs.
Thank you, Mr, Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Anything that improves access to public information which respect to this
statement that is related to jobs is good news for the public. If the minister
were serious in what he is standing and saying about the Public Service
Commission, they would start to reinvest in the Public Service Commission to
ensure that accessibly is done on an equal footing -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: - and that hiring within departments is not necessarily
done by departments and departmental ministers but is done clearly on equal
footing so those who are qualified, those who are the best experienced, end up
in the public service.
What the minister should also take from this is providing easier access to
information not only with respect to employment opportunities but to what
government is up to. If he were serious on that regard, we would debating in
this Legislature, this sitting, easier access and a renewed and rejuvenated
Freedom of Information Act so that not only members of the House but all public
officials and people generally could get access to what government is about.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he
have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
the Public Service Commission is doing. If the minister were to go further and
say that all jobs in the public service - whether they be temporary jobs or jobs
in departments that are currently not done through the Public Service Commission
- were also going to be advertising so that the public would have equal access
from all members of the public to these jobs, I would be ready to applaud this
statement. Unfortunately he did not say so.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, in view of recent events related to the Canadian
Blood Bank, I wish to take this opportunity today to update the House on the
status of the Province's investment in that company. As hon. members are already
aware, a loan guarantee of $500,000 was provided to the company earlier this
year by the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. This investment was
made following significant management changes in the company and was intended to
bridge the company while it was attempting to restructure itself financially.
This investment was secured by an assignment of a mortgage on a commercial
building in St. John's. This building has an appraised market value of $1.2
million. This was previously indicated to members by the Minister of Development
and Rural Renewal during Question Period on November 19 when he stated that our
security is in the form of real estate, not in equipment and supplies used by
the Blood Bank on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that
the security for this investment is still in place. The building in question has
recently been listed on the market. We have discussed this with the bank
involved and have every reason to believe that the investment is not at risk. We
will continue to monitor this very closely to ensure that the Province's
investment remains fully protected.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minster for this brief
statement.
Of course, we are all happy to hear that it is secured but when we read that:
We have discussed this with the bank involved and have every reason to believe
that the investment is not at risk...
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of investments by this government that a lot of
people are questioning today. With this $500,000 we hope that is secured but it
is also time maybe to look at some other investments that the government has
made in recent days.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the
Minister of Finance and Minister of Justice.
Two weeks ago in the House I asked him questions related to the Immigration
Investment Fund with respect to the construction of the hospitals that were
announced in the 1998 Budget. In his response at that time he said the
Immigration Investment Fund - there are certain arrangements that have to be put
in place. He talked about the fact that the government may have to create a
private entity. Could he elaborate today on what he meant by a private entity?
Will government have to set up a private entity?
Will government own that private entity, or will somebody else and government
deal with the Immigrant Investment Fund through that private entity?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I referred to was a requirement under the federal legislation for
eligibility for this investment program that it be a public/private partnership.
The second requirement is that the money has to be invested in public
infrastructure. The issue is how we do that. The classic way of doing it is to
have a leaseback arrangement whereby the Province would contract with a group or
an individual who has tendered for an arrangement whereby they would construct.
We would flow the funds and then lease back for a prescribed period of time.
That is the sort of entity that I referred to.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: My understanding from what you have indicated, Minister, is
that you are talking - will the money from the Immigrant Investment Fund
actually flow to a private developer who may win a tender, or will government
have to set up a separate company, put the money in the separate company and
then let that flow to the private developer? Again, I am not clear on what you
said. Will the Immigrant Investment Fund money actually go to the private
developer to build the hospitals? Is that what the minister is saying?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the hon. member that the problem with the criteria is that it is not
entirely explicit. It has to be a public/private partnership. What that will
contemplate is not entirely clear. What we see happening is that the money has
to flow out of a fund to some sort of public/private partnership arrangement.
What will likely occur is that if government decides to use the money, for
example, to build hospitals, then one eventuality or one possibility is that the
money will flow out of the fund to the contractor who would then build the
hospital, who would then agree to repay the money to the fund on a leaseback
arrangement.
The critical difference here would be that normally government would borrow
on the market to find that money to pay for public infrastructure; in this case
it accesses the fund.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, a couple of weeks ago government indicated, or
the minister indicated, that there were no decisions made with respect to either
leasing arrangements for a period of twenty to twenty-five years, or whether
government would build the hospitals themselves. Is the Minister of Finance
saying today that Cabinet has taken the decision, or that government has taken
the decision, that on these hospitals, the five that were announced in the
Budget, that the financing through the Immigrant Investment Fund will actually
be done on a leaseback basis over a twenty to twenty-five year period. Has that
decision been made?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, that decision has not been made. As I
indicated to the hon. member, the government is exploring a proper way to
utilize the funds from this Immigrant Investment Fund for public infrastructure
such as hospitals.
There was a tender called some time ago - it closed - and we have extended
that just to examine the terms of the contract to see whether it is advisable
for us to do in the fashion that the member indicates.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Minister of Finance said
directly that no decision had been made on leasing yet. Yet, in the tender for
the Harbour Breton hospitals, it called for a twenty-five year lease agreement.
The three proposals that he received, for example: Hospital Leasing Services,
$891,250 per year for twenty-five years; Newfoundland Limited, $10,719,747,966
for twenty-five years; Newfoundland Limited, $10,716,594,137.
It seems to me like you have made a decision, Minister, if you are going to
proceed with leasing. It seems to me in your tender call that you have indicated
that what you are looking for is for companies to make a bid to construct a
hospital with a leaseback arrangement in mind for twenty-five years.
The question is: If you have made that decision, why haven't you made it
public? If you haven't, when will you make your mind up?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer to the hon. member's question is no, no decision has been taken.
The department called for tenders on a certain basis. Government has not decided
to accept any tenders. The hon. member knows, if he reads the tender document,
it says: The lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted.
Government is reviewing it. We have asked for an extension of thirty days to
determine whether or not we will do it in this fashion, or we may use some other
method to fund the hospitals.
In answer to his question, to be very direct, no decision has been made.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: This is a public chamber where you ask public questions,
Premier, I say to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I am just trying to be clear because what is happening,
what seems to me, is that a decision has been made. I am told that a decision
has been made. The minister is saying right now that there has been no decision
made on how the hospitals will be constructed.
I would like to ask him this question: Surely you must have assessed, before
calling tenders - the Department of Finance itself, on behalf of government -
what would be the best financial arrangements for the people of the Province,
whether it was a twenty-five year lease agreement or outright purchase
construction and the Province doing it. Can you share that assessment with us?
And could you table in the House today what would be in the best financial
interests of the people of the Province: a twenty-five year lease agreement with
a particular company on five hospitals - maybe even schools, maybe government
are looking at school construction under the same way - however, could you share
what that assessment was and what you have given to Cabinet to this point that
would indicate when you would make a decision and on what basis you would make a
decision?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government will make the decision
on the basis of what is in the public interest of the Province.
As the hon. member knows, there are two aspects of decision making; one is
bureaucratic, the other is governmental or ministerial. In this case, the
officials of various departments determined to proceed in this manner and to
call for tenders. A ministerial committee of Treasury Board and Cabinet are now
reviewing that to see if it is appropriate to do so and if it serves the
interests of the Province and government's concern in fostering public/private
partnerships and, secondly, doing it in the most efficient, economic means
possible.
We have not reached a conclusion. We have had some very interesting
discussions. We have gone over the proposals in very great detail, as we have
the tender documents, and we have not yet made a decision. We have asked for
tenders to be extended for that reason.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Two weeks ago you indicated that a decision would be made by last Friday with
respect to these decisions. Are you saying that decision has now been delayed to
another future date? If so, can you explain why that has been delayed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, what I said was that if we were
going to accept any of the tenders it would be made by that Friday because that
was the deadline for acceptance of the tenders. What I just said was that we
went back, asked the proponents, the people who tendered on the documents, to
give us an extension. I believe it is until January 8. We will, in the meantime,
examine it to see if it meets the ministerial criteria for these sorts of
arrangements. If it does not, we will reject them; if it does, we will accept
the lowest tender, I expect.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I expect it within the next week to ten days.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
Today the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union announced that they have
rejected a tentative agreement that was offered by government and the employers
of our health care system. Now the nurses' union stated in their release today
that government has spent a great deal of money in many other areas and not
enough on health care. Health care, Minister, is the top priority of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we have seen such a continuous
deterioration of health care. That deterioration has been so significant that 87
per cent of nurses feel that patients' health is at risk, and 82 per cent of
nurses feel that their own health is at risk because of that. I want to ask the
minister if she shares that view that she held when she was their president, and
the view that is held by nurses today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will respond to the -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member raised a question regarding
the nurses' agreement. I just want to clarify, for the public record, that the
government negotiated with the nurses' union a tentative agreement. It was
brought to the membership. It was rejected by a very narrow margin and that is
where matters stand as of the present date.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question was that nurses have stated that 87 per cent of patients are at
risk today because of overwork and understaffing, and 82 per cent of nurses are
at risk. I ask the minister: Does she share that view that she held when she was
their president, and the view that is held by nurses today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Everybody knows that our health care system is under a lot of stress. We have
made a number of statements -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am answering the question and I would ask
the hon. member to listen.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I did listen to his question and I would like an
opportunity to answer that question.
Mr. Speaker, the health care system today is under a lot of stress and, as I
read in my Ministerial Statement previously, we have put $20 million back into
the system last year. We have another $10 million. We have just signed a number
of collective agreements. Yes, the system is under stress. Physicians, nurses,
nursing assistance, LPNs, all of the health care workers are working under very
stressful conditions. If we had more money we would definitely give more money
to the system, and not just limit it to health care.
As my colleague pointed out a moment ago, that agreement was negotiated. The
nurses' union brought forward a tentative agreement which was rejected by its
membership. I understand if you were to read the rest of the press release to
which you are referring that they will also come back and meet with government,
with Treasury Board, and try to find a way, if possible, to resolve the issues.
We all recognize and value the work of nurses and all of our health care
providers in the system, and we know they are working very hard, and we know it
is very stressful. Mr. Speaker, as I said, when you are in government you have
to govern and governing is about making choices. We have some very difficult
decisions to make with the limited financial resources we have.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nurses do not feel respected by government and this is evidenced by a lower
offer to them than was offered to other medical professionals and managers, I
say to the minister. Why, Minister, have you not stood up to defend your
colleagues and given them the respect they deserve?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The collective agreement tentatively reached with the nurses is the very same
agreement, the 7 per cent agreement, reached with all of the other bargaining
agents throughout the public service. The member opposite cannot speak out of
both sides of his mouth when he talks about the issues we are trying to deal
with: physician recruitment and position management in this Province and in this
country.
We made an arrangement with physicians that to this very day he is
complaining about. Unfortunately, it is something that perhaps he does not quite
grasp. When you are on this side of the House you have to make some very
difficult decisions. The same offer that was given to NAPE and CUPE and all of
the other public sector unions was offered to the nurses, and they did, and were
successful, in negotiating other issues around casual workers. I know by the
percentage of rejection, 51.4 per cent, that in fact there are a number of
issues that were acceptable to a number of people and a number that were not. I
have to say that the same offer that was made to all of the other public service
collective bargaining agents was offered to the nurses, and he knows that. I
presume he knows that, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth. I have
it in writing here, your letter, if you would like me to table a copy, where you
have been speaking on both sides of your mouth in Hansard of last year.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: In the September issue of The Canadian Nurse ,
Minister, you were quoted as saying: "Nurses, if you don't make dust, you
eat dust, nurses make dust."
Minister, you will agree that nurses have eaten enough dust. I ask you when
are you going to start dealing with the real issues facing nurses in our
Province today?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very honoured that the
member opposite would have read a tribute
article to me in The Canadian Nurse .
I did not realise he was on their mailing list.
I have to say that I have the utmost respect for nurses. I currently hold an
active nurse's license, and I know they are working very hard. I have said it
time and time again and I will continue to say it: We do not have enough money
to pay for the work that nurses and all other health care providers are doing
for the people of this Province.
When you are on this side of the House, when you have limited financial
resources, you have to make choices. Those choices that we made through Treasury
Board were that we were able to offer the same amount of money to all of the
public sector bargaining agents, including the nurses.
I want to say this again, very clearly for the record, that I very much
support and acknowledge the work that nurses do, and other health care providers
in our system. We will continue to meet with them to try to resolve the issues.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that when you have limited
financial resources you have to make the decisions that we have had to make over
the last number of years.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the new Minister of Justice. Often when there is a new
minister, I say, there is often times a new vision. I would like to ask this
question with respect to the Whitbourne Boys' Home. We have heard stories in the
last several months surrounding the treatment people have endured at the
Whitbourne Boys' Home when they were younger, I say, Mr. Minister. There have
been serious allegations made in recent weeks and in recent months: allegations
of abuse of all kinds, even suggestions of cover up. Will the minister now give
consideration to a commission of inquiry to deal with these allegations so that
these boys, the former residents, may have their stories told and heard?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the hon. member knows, the position of the government has been articulated
by my colleague in the House in recent days in response to his questions. As the
hon. member knows, if he has been following the news reports, the individuals
concerned are suing government. There are many forms of inquires. The clearest
is one that is before the courts, and I expect that any concerns, allegations
and so on will be forthcoming in any civil cases that are now pending, as well
as criminal cases that have been heard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is the minister saying he is leaving the door open? That
once these matters have gone through the legal process, both criminal matters
and civil matters before the courts, is the minister saying he will leave the
door open and give consideration to a full scale inquiry, similar to what the
residents of Mount Cashel were entitled to and what they were given? What is the
difference between the residents of Mount Cashel and the residents of the old
Whitbourne Boys' Home?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the issues is one of legal processes. As the hon.
member well knows, if you conduct an inquiry while there are any sorts of other
proceedings pending, you can bias those.
In direct response to the member's question, we would not preclude anything
at this point. Clearly, there are civil proceedings which I understand have
arisen out of criminal proceedings. The prudent thing to do is to wait and see
what the outcome of that is. The current civil proceedings bring into question
whether or not government was liable. I expect that is an issue on which the
judge or judges concerned will hear evidence and pass a verdict, and that will
be very public in the nature of the journalistic reports and the decision that
will eventually arise from the courts. Whether or not, subsequent to that, it is
either necessary, expedient or advisable to hold an public inquiry is something
that I do not think either of us should try to prejudge at this point.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Last week the
minister announced a further provincial involvement in a private sector company,
S.C.B. Fisheries Limited. I ask the minister: What public policy purpose is
there in this financial intervention, and what guarantee has the Province
received to protect its investment?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the public policy is very simple. We have a
great deal of confidence in the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and
Labrador in the future. Not only the fin fish but the mussel industry, so the
whole of the aquaculture industry. I believe very strongly that, while we are
far behind here compared to other provinces and other countries, we will get
there and we will have a very lucrative industry in the future.
What protection is there for government's investment? The protection that the
aquaculture industry will stay alive in the Province. We could have forgot about
it, we could have let it go, we could have collapsed the industry. Who would
that benefit? As I said, the aquaculture industry is working very well in other
countries around the world, in the United States in particular, and especially
in Atlantic Canada. So, the protection of protecting and ensuring that the
aquaculture industry is going to be a lucrative industry in the future, going to
employ hundreds of people - it is certainly employing a couple of hundred people
in the Bay d'Espoir area and the Connaigre Peninsula, and several hundred people
in the mussel industry -, the confidence in the industry of the future is the
protection that we have for the investment of our dollars.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister that we
over here as well support the aquaculture industry, and support funding put into
development and research.
Recently we have seen the Province become more financially involved in IPL,
another example of a large investment of taxpayers' money, I say to the
minister. Would the minister inform the House of government's policy as it
relates to investing in private sector companies?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, government must have confidence in small
business operations in this Province. If we don't have some confidence that
there is a role to play for free enterprise in the system, what kind of a
government or what kind of a responsibility would we hold? The mere fact that we
have to work and we have to support private industry is a way to develop the
economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is very clear that as a government we want to get out of being involved in
private industry. That is the reason why we are trying to move the aquaculture
industry into the hands of a private investor. We want to get away from it
totally. Certainly, regardless of whether we are involved directly or
indirectly, we must have confidence in the private developers in this Province
and support them wherever we possibly can.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, some time ago in this House you gave a statement on the status of
the fishing industry, making the point that much private sector investment was
behind the current success of that particular industry. Given your support for
private enterprise I ask the minister: Why is he now investing the taxpayers'
money? Why hasn't he left S.C.B. Fisheries Limited's financial problems to the
private sector rather than to the taxpayers of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: If we followed that train of thought, what the hon. member is
saying there, the S.C.B. Fisheries Limited, or the aquaculture industry on the
Connaigre Peninsula would have gone into bankruptcy. If that is what the hon.
member is saying, then I do not think he is going to get agreement from many
people in this Province, to let the aquaculture industry go. The direction in
which we are leading is exactly that, to lead it into private industry.
Our commitment is, first of all, to make sure that there is a aquaculture
industry on the Connaigre Peninsula. Then - in fact, not then. We are now in the
process of working with a private firm which has the financial ability to take
over that industry and make it work. To let it go? That would be irresponsible.
We do not intend to do that.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week, the minister announced that when they took a look at S.C.B.
Fisheries Limited it was found to be poorly managed. I say to the minister, the
government's money, taxpayers' dollars, has being going into this particular
company for a number of years now. I ask the minister why he waited until just a
few short months ago to put somebody from his department down there to look at
the management of this particular operation and to monitor its operations?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it has been almost three years since I was
appointed Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture of the Province. One thing I
wanted to do as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is to work with the
industry as a whole. Being Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does not give
me the authority to walk into a private company and say: Let me look at your
books. I do not have that authority as minister.
I can, if a company comes to me, as minister, work with them, discuss with
them their problems and, if I see it's necessary, depending on what they are
asking, then I would take another step.
In the case of S.C.B. Fisheries Limited, only this year did that company come
to government looking for financial support. One of the conditions in our
discussions was that before we made any commitment to any financial support I
would send my Assistant Deputy Minister down to S.C.B. Fisheries Limited to look
at the whole operational structure, the management. What were the problems in
there? What were the problems they were experiencing? I was not going to commit
any taxpayers' dollars until we had full control of the industry and we knew
exactly where that industry would be going in the future, and we could identify
the problems which got it into the position it was in at that particular time.
We made the decision to send our Assistant Deputy Minister down there after
the company came to us and asked us for assistance.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the
Minister of Environment and Labour.
Minister, at $5.25 an hour this Province's minimum wage is the lowest in the
country. In May of 1996, shortly after taking office, the Minister of
Environment and Labour announced the government was planning to change all of
that. While we saw a two-stage increase to $5.25 an hour, ours still remains the
lowest in the country. In that respect, nothing has changed.
Minister, we are moving towards April, 1999, two years since the minimum wage
was last adjusted. Don't you think it is time to raise the minimum wage and at
least bring us in line with the wage levels in neighbouring provinces?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the hon. member for
his question.
When we are ready we can probably have a look at that in the department. We
obviously care about the people in the Province and the Province's ability, and
private industry ability, to pay wages to the people who work for them. We are
always cognizant of the fact that these people are there, and of the wage they
receive. As I said, when we look at it, if there is an opportunity for us to
make an adjustment to it, we will do that.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In a news release in May 1996 the minister said: Increasing the minimum wage
will also have a positive impact on the income and spending power of people who
work in the retail trade, home and child care, accommodation, food and beverage
industries.
The minister has already admitted that raising the minimum wage brings
benefits. If he is not prepared to announce a raise, won't he at least announce
that he is recommissioning the Labour Standards Board to examine the issue and
make recommendations which I am sure will reflect their 1996 advice that raising
the minimum wage is the right thing to do?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can say to the hon. member that we are presently reviewing in the
department the minimum, and I can also say to him that in 1999 we are doing a
complete overhaul of the labour standards in the Province. At that particular
time I am sure there are things we can do to improve the labour market quality
in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister that as trade barriers fall and we pursue economic and
fiscal cooperation with our fellow Atlantic Provinces, harmonizing the minimum
wage level becomes a priority. The minister also said that in 1996.
With P.E.I. at $5.40 and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at $5.50, will the
minister admit that a modest boost of our minimum wage is the responsible thing
to do? If he worries about the impact on employers, will he consider doing
something about the payroll tax, the tax on jobs, that is raising the cost to
local business of creating jobs?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can say to the hon. member again that the minimum wage presently is under
review at the department and in due time we will have a particular announcement
on that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy, whoever that may be.
I understand they are in transition. I will ask the question anyway. There are
many questions still from the people in Labrador West concerning IOC and the
developments with the Sept-Iles plant being reactivated. I understand that some
officials there from Hatch were having a meeting recently. They also made a
number of requests, some weeks ago now, which the government said they would
live up to, one of them to meet with Hatch officials, and also to meet with
MetChem Bechtel officials. I am just wondering if the minister can update us on
if those meetings are going to take place.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
AN HON. MEMBER: Will the real minister please stand up?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are having meetings with the (inaudible). The
microphone. We are constantly having -
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will spare the House the microphone that
does not work, and tell the member that there are meetings ongoing. We continue
to meet as well with IOC to address the matters that have been raised by the
workers in the communities. Specifically, the questions that have been raised by
the Member for Labrador West, notably to ensure that work is performed first and
foremost in Labrador City, rather than in Sept-Iles.
Secondly, that the no layoff policy which is currently in place is
maintained. There are 388 employees today who would otherwise be on layoff who
are still employed because of the new layoff policy that was achieved from the
intervention for the Member for Labrador West.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that as the investment program goes forward,
it goes forward in a way that maximizes the benefits to the people of Labrador
City.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am glad they straightened out who the
minister finally was. Still the question is unanswered. They met with Hatch
officials. Apparently they are waiting for another request to see the numbers
that MetChem Bechtel have. Another question they had, and the government said
that they would have that within weeks, was a ten-year
summary of taxes and
royalties from IOC. It was asked for by the committee to the minister. When will
be that be forthcoming, I would ask the minister, whoever that may be?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Mines and Energy has
sent a twenty-two-page detailed letter to all of those who asked all of those
questions.
MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have for tabling the Consolidated Public Accounts of the Province in four
volumes. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with the Auditor General's Act, I hereby table
the Report of the Auditor General of the Audit of the Financial Statements of
the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again to continue to present another petition on behalf of the people
of Labrador West. It reads:
WHEREAS the residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial government in
supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador
resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of secondary
processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the Premier would stand today to
answer some of these questions, some that are still ongoing as lately as
yesterday. A list of questions that the Committee that met with government and
requested certain information on is still not forthcoming. That is why I
continue these questions today. Apparently they are to meet with Hatch
officials, but, I say to the minister, whoever that may be today, that they
still have not lived up to that commitment of providing the proper numbers so
that the people of Labrador West can go over their numbers themselves. Simply
put, to say that Hatch did an independent study. There are still a lot of
questions within that study itself that the people of Labrador West do not fully
understand or fully believe.
The question still remains - as the Premier talked today about the jobs and
the maximizing potential -, the truth is we are going to miss out on it big
time, and also send a message to the people of this Province again that the
resources of our Province are going to in this case Quebec, to provide jobs in
that part of Canada.
The people in this Province are also concerned at what kind of a message this
is sending to investors. One day you have taken a tough stand with Inco and
holding them up, saying: You will go nowhere with this resource until full
benefits and all jobs come to this Province. The next day we are telling
something different to the Iron Ore Company of Canada, a company that has been
here for thirty-eight years, made billions of dollars, made a lot of profit out
of the resources of Labrador West, and are going to be sending our resource, the
iron ore of Labrador City to Sept-Iles, Quebec, to employ people in that
province.
It does not sit well with the people of Labrador West. It did not days ago,
it still does not today, and it will not tomorrow. Some people say it is a done
deal, forget about it and get on with it. That does not make it right, just to
forget about it.
Even when the deal is done and the plant is still operating, if it does go
ahead in Sept-Iles, Quebec, which it seems the way this government is intent on
doing, the people of Labrador West will never ever forget the decision this
government has made with respect to IOC and the strong stance that they should
have taken.
I am going to continue, as long as this House of Assembly is in session and
even afterwards, in any way that we can to support the people of Labrador West
in simply saying that the resources of Newfoundland and Labrador stay in
Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of the people of this Province, and
are not to be shipped out and processed elsewhere.
To make note of it, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture always says
about our fishery resources, and I agree with him totally: Process the fish
here, let the work stay here. It is the same with the seal industry. Develop the
entire seal so that it is capsulized, the meat is canned and so on. In the same
respect we have to take that philosophy from the fishery and put it into our
natural resources. As a matter of fact, even more importantly into our ore
resources, for the simple reason that they are not renewable, as in the fishery.
Once a mine goes into production that is the day it begins to shut down. That is
what we have to remember about our mineral resources.
The people of this Province - not just the people of Labrador West, who have
been main contributors to this Province for years - are sick to their stomach to
believe that the Premier of Quebec, the person who wants to break up this great
country of ours, was gloating on the first day of a provincial campaign that the
resources of Labrador City were coming down to Sept-Iles, Quebec, to drive that
economy down there.
We should be ashamed of it. It is a policy decision that should have been
reversed. Things could have been done, it could have been treated differently,
and the people of Labrador West certainly have not given up and we have not
given up. We hope that many people in this Province feel the same way about our
resources. At the end of the day they will see the light, reverse the decisions,
do whatever they have to do.
One time the Premier was going to go across the country and make sure that he
would turn off the power on Churchill Falls. That is a pretty dramatic thing to
do, but what about the stand that he could have taken with IOC? He still has his
open plane ticket to Australia. He is not there yet. He could have at least went
down there. Was every stone unturned in this particular matter? I do not think
so. The people of this Province have not accepted it, will not accept it ever,
and I do not think the people of Labrador West certainly will ever accept it, or
will they ever forget it.
As days go on we will continue to do this in this Assembly and through other
means. We support them wholly and we will continue to support them in this
Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have spoken on this petition on a number of occasions in this House. My
colleague has said that the people of this Province do not accept the decision
made by this government not to demand that the pellet plant be kept in Labrador
City. That is a fact. At the meetings of the municipalities' association of the
Province, that was voiced very strongly. There is a committee in place in
Labrador City that is very active, and it is continuing to be active, because
this is an unjust decision by this government.
This decision by this government is going to have a very bad affect, not only
on the resources in Labrador West but on other resources as well. When you look
at Voisey's Bay, what will be the fallout of this decision on Labrador West?
What power does this give Inco? There is no difference in demanding that the
resources from Voisey's Bay have the secondary processing done in this Province
and demand that a smelter be located in this Province, and demanding that a
pellet plant be located in Labrador West.
Inco claim, and have fought with the claim, that it is not viable to put a
smelter in this Province, but the government claims that a smelter, in
conjunction with the resources from Voisey's Bay as an overall project, is
viable and therefore the smelter should be located in this Province. While IOC
say that it is not viable to put a pellet plant in Labrador or it is more viable
to put a pellet plant in Sept-Iles than in Labrador, the people of Labrador West
say that it is viable to have the combined operation in Labrador West. As long
as it is viable to have the combined operation, then the secondary processing of
our resources should be done in this Province to give maximum benefits to the
people of this Province. I agree with that.
I agree that if the overall project is viable - whether it is more or less
viable to have a smelter located in Quebec - that our resources should give
maximum benefit to the people of our Province, not to the people of Quebec, not
to the people of any other province or any other country. If there is a
possibility and if there is a viable means of doing it in this Province, it
should be done in this Province to give benefit to the people of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition here on behalf of the public service pensioners. It reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;
WHEREAS the public service pensioners in this Province have not had an
increase in their pension since 1989; and
WHEREAS some 11,000 retired public service pensioners are directly affected;
and
WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime contributing to
their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;
WHEREFORE your petitioners and those represented by forms attached urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide adequate increases in
benefits to public service pensioners which reflect the increases in wages of
public servants.
Mr. Speaker, anybody who is paid in this Province through the public service
has been given an increase, and rightly so. Why have the public service
pensioners not been given that same increase? That is the question here. That is
the question that has not received an adequate answer. This Administration is
the first administration since public service pensions have been indexed and
increased to deny public service pensioners that right.
The public service pensioners of this Province have worked hard to develop
the systems and the infrastructure this Province now enjoys. Many of them have
worked twenty, twenty-five, sometimes thirty years in the public service. Some
of these pensioners now are surviving on less than $11,000 a year. That is not
fair to the public service pensioners, when we see all sorts of public service
pensions across the country indexed to reflect inflation in their provinces and
to reflect the cost of living increases. This Administration here is refusing to
do that for the public service pensioners of this Province.
We have seen them present petitions to us to have presented to the House. We
have seen them lobby in our Confederation Building. We have seen articles
written to the editor in The Telegram and we have heard them on Open Line
shows. What they speak of, as sad as it may be, is true. Many of them are unable
to survive on what they are receiving. Why this Administration has refused to
index their pensions now to reflect the increases that the public service
pension have received is incomprehensible.
It is selfish for the members of this House to deny the public service
pensioners the same increase that everybody else who is being paid through the
public service are now enjoying. Mr. Speaker, we have been fighting for the
public service pensioners now for a year-and-a-half. Ever since the increase was
given to the public service, we have been fighting on behalf of the public
service pensioners because we believe that they as well deserve this increase.
They deserve it as much as we do and they deserve it as much as the public
service workers do. They deserve the increase.
The cost of living is going up. Their cost in rent, in home heating, in
groceries, and every other expense is going up. Yet, this Administration has
refused to increase their wages to meet the increase that the public service
have enjoyed. That, Mr. Speaker, is unfair.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to support the petition presented by the Member for St. John's South,
and to speak in favour of government action to remedy the inequity for public
service pensioners. These individuals received consistent assurances from the
government of the day up until 1989 based on principle and on practice that they
would receive increases along with the public sector wage rate increases. This
amounts to an assurance, to a practice, and to an expectation that was a
reasonable expectation that ought to be honoured by this government.
We have seen, through the representations made to this House of Assembly, in
the lobby of this House of Assembly through demonstrations, through letters,
through petitions, through letters to members of the House, to ministers, to the
Premier, through calls to Open Line programs and public discussion generally,
that many of the people who are on public service pensions from this Province
are suffering from very, very low wages.
Mr. Speaker, government to date has, in reality, ridiculed this request by
talking about the one person in the public service, or the former public
servant, who receives in excess of $100,000 and they failed to acknowledge so
many of the public service pensioners whose pensions are in fact $5,000, $6,000,
$7,000, or $8,000, totally and grossly inadequate to meet their basic needs.
Many of these individuals are not even at the stage of being able to collect
other forms of income support through the Canada Pension Plan or through the
various old age pension provisions of the Federal Government and the old age
supplement. There is an opportunity here for government to sit down with the
negotiating committee, with the representatives of the pensioners, and negotiate
something that if fair and that recognizes the real need that exists.
Obviously, government's approach to the funding of public sector pensions has
changed and it may not be that a full-scale, across-the-board type of percentage
increase is what is necessary to meet the real need that is there. I think that
there is room to negotiate, for compromise, for flexibility, and for an
opportunity to be creative and do something that will benefit the people who are
in receipt of very, very low pensions from this government.
In Nova Scotia, in the health care sector, the pension plan was amended to
provide the equivalent of an old age supplement to those who would otherwise
have an income of less than that, and that was used to effectively top up the
lower end of the pensioners without providing an increase for those who were
well off or who had very high pensions.
There are ways of being creative in doing this, and I do not think that the
demand of all those who were out here in the lobby last week was that an all or
nothing, black and white, 7 per cent increase to everybody is what is demanded
or needed. What they were talking about was the fact that public service
pensioners of this Province ought to be treated with dignity and respect and
ought not to be left fallen by the wayside because of a change of policy that
they had come to rely on and depend on and in fact had a reasonable expectation
that they would continue to have available to them.
Mr. Speaker, I support the pensioners in their efforts to seek justice from
this government. I call on government today to make a decision, to make a public
indication, make a public statement that they are prepared to deal fairly with
the public service pensioners and sit down with them to negotiate a proper form
of increase to ensure that we do not have public service pensioners populating
our food banks, depending on charity, and not being able to live a dignified
retirement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at
5:00 p.m.
All those in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into
Committee of the Whole.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. My microphone is not working. By
leave, I may move over to this seat if that is okay.
Order 2, Bill No. 37.
CHAIR: Before proceeding to Bill No. 37, the Chair would like guidance
from hon. members.
Traditionally at Committee stage we have entered into an agreement where
members on either side of the House will speak for ten minutes. The Standing
Orders do not address this, but this is a tradition that we have consistently
used. I am asking now if it is the understanding of the members of the House
that we stick to the same tradition as usual, ten minutes per speaker?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order 2, Bill No. 37,
An Act Respecting Child, Youth And Family
Services.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few comments on Bill 37,
An Act Respecting Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
I know they have some act dealing with child, youth and family services. We
admit it is long overdue. The minister made reference to, I think it was,
fifty-four years, I believe she mentioned without having
an act. It is certainly
positive to see
an act come in place. I have said before, and I said on second
reading, it is very important we have the resources to be able to carry this
out. Because we are giving very important responsibilities now out to boards to
oversee areas here, because it is in chaos now. The minister might not admit it
here, but I am sure the minister knows in her own heart and soul that,
especially, child welfare services here are in a very difficult position. There
are large numbers, they have high caseloads, the turnover is unbelievable. It is
very difficult to be able to maintain people in that. They hired some people a
few weeks ago and then laid them off again just a few weeks after.
What we have advocated here, and what we still say, and there is a private
member's resolution on the books, is for a child advocate. We are not proposing
that we amend this legislation to do that, but we are saying that we feel there
should be some parallel legislation to come in and bring in a child advocate's
act.
An act to have someone out there, independent, at arms-length, looking
after the best interest of children in our Province. I think it is very
important and vital.
There are responsibilities added here to this particular bill,
responsibilities that go out to people who come under the boards. One of the
greatest concerns we have with the health and community services taking over the
child, youth and family services aspect there, and the original divisions of the
family and rehabilitative service division that was with the Department of Human
Resources and Employment, is a concern that interests of children may get lost
in the bigger picture, in the larger department there. It may not get the
attention it deserves.
It is important that there be a very close monitoring, and that the resources
exist to ensure children are protected here. What we do not want to see is this.
We know there is a bureaucracy brought in with this particular bill, but it is
important that the bureaucracy does not act as a deterrent in achieving the
intended purposes of this act. It is most important.
I say to the minister I certainly hope we are going to look after our young
people. They are the future leaders of the Province. We have to start at the
very basic level, and they have not being getting the appropriate attention they
should be getting for the past number of years.
I do not intend to unduly prolong this. I wanted to make a few comments again
to reiterate to the minister the importance of ensuring that appropriate
monitoring is there, and that we do something with the child welfare division to
get it more effective and lighten the workloads on people there. I have heard so
many stories. I know many people have worked there, many people in the field. We
all know many people who are employed in the field today within our health care
system, and dealing with children, and especially in child welfare. It is a very
sensitive and vital area. They are the most indefensible people in our society,
and we should ensure they get the best protection we possibly can for them, and
ensure they go on to be very productive citizens in our Province. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to speak briefly at the
Committee stage on the Bill 37,
An Act Respecting Child, Youth and Family
Services. I spoke on this at second reading and pointed out some of the concerns
I have with respect to the legislation.
We do have a serious problem in this Province with respect to provision of
services for young people. It is a very crucial area. We had an unfortunate, sad
history in this Province where not only children in direct care of foster care,
but also in institutional care - in Mount Cashel, and recently at the old
Whitbourne Boys' Home -, where children in the care of the Province have been
subjected to abuse, in some cases by care givers themselves, and in other cases
by visitors to these institutions. Also, there has been a series of cases
involving sexual abuse and other forms of abuse in foster homes in this
Province.
We have to have a system that works. This major overhaul of the provisions
for youth and children is necessary. It is overdue. It is not certain that this
particular legislation is the full answer. We have to monitor this very
carefully and look at how it works in practice. It is one thing to have
legislation in place that can provide the protection; it is another thing to
actually have the staff resources in the field to ensure that the protection of
children is actually able to take place in a manner that is appropriate to the
children's needs.
I do hope that in passing this legislation we are not giving legislative lip
service, as it were, to the best interest of children and to the needs of
children, but in fact we are going to have the means given to staff members and
social workers to be able to put into practice the very important requirements
to look after the children in this Province, those who are in care and those who
are not, who are in need of preventive services.
Amongst the many principles in clause 7 is 7(e). One of the principles is
that "prevention activities are integral to the promotion of the safety,
health and well-being of a child." That, as a principle, I have no
difficulty endorsing. In fact, it is one of the most important and perhaps more
neglected areas of child care and child issues in the Province. It is very easy
to identify. Social workers and experts in the field - you do not even have to
be an expert. Common sense will tell you that a great many children in this
Province are at risk because of family or financial or other social
circumstances that set them apart from those who will have a full opportunity to
avail of family life, of schooling, of the opportunities and enrichment that can
be available from a school environment, because of social or financial
deprivation, or even nutritional deprivation.
Until we have a full-fledged commitment to ensure that these prevention
activities have sufficient resources to make them effective, then this will
remain a hollow principle when it comes to actually making a difference in the
life of a child in need of the protection of government.
We have had over the past couple of years, from my party and in my
representations in this House, a whole series of petitions in particular, but
questions as well, and support for a universal, comprehensive school lunch
program which would ensure that every schoolchild in the Province of
Newfoundland has at least one good nutritional meal every day they are in
school, to ensure that they have an opportunity to learn and take full advantage
of the school system by having at least one fully nutritional meal each day.
That sounds like a very modest proposal in many respects, but the sad reality
is that this is a necessary measure to ensure that children in this Province
really do have a chance to learn, grow and develop properly and get the full
advantage of the school system.
That is one measure that can be undertaken by government that would play a
strong role in prevention of further need for government services. It is pretty
obvious. The studies that have been done show that money spent on prevention
saves money on treatment.
There was recently a study done by a professor at McMaster University which
was discussed on national radio the other day. They were actually able to track
families who had access to certain services at a crucial stage and measure the
amount of dollars that were saved in correction and probation services and other
psychiatric services that would have otherwise been provided to a family. It was
discovered through this proper research methodology and scientific analysis
rigorously applied to this particular circumstance to show that essentially
governments had a choice. Governments could spend money on prevention or they
could spend money on treatment.
Even if there is an equal amount of money, and if there is not one dollar
being saved, it is better to spend money on prevention than to spend money on
treatment because money spent on prevention provides a better life for people
and a better opportunity for people. Money spent on treatment, whether it be
correction services or probation services, or whether it be psychiatric
services, that money is spent just holding back - like the water in a dam - just
holding back the dam and not really providing any improvement to the lives of
people.
Prevention is very, very important and every dollar spent on prevention saves
money not only in the long run but also in the short run because it provides for
a better life for people. In the long run, of course, it provides individuals
with an opportunity to be the master of their own fate and not dependent upon
government services and, in fact, can be a contributor to their own families and
society, which every person in this Province wants to be.
There was no one - and I say no one - who, given the opportunity to fully
participate as a productive member of society, would turn it down. That is my
belief and my faith in people, and I believe that we have to give recognition in
our child welfare legislation and in the practice of government to that belief,
because that is how we will bring about improvement in society.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to rise and have
a few comments on this particular piece of legislation.
I said in the debate on second reading that this piece of legislation is long
overdue. The last bill that we had dealing with this matter was introduced in
1944, during Commission of Government, and it has taken fifty-four years for us
to get back to revising the substantive legislation.
We on this side complimented the government to the extent that the bill is
introduced now after all of the talk that has gone on for the last ten years.
Long before I came to the Legislature in 1993, there was talk that we would have
a new child welfare piece of legislation in this Province. After I arrived here,
my colleague from Bonavista South was the critic for the Department of Social
Services. At that time we had the talk about the Child Welfare League of America
report.
At that time the then Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Clyde Wells,
talked about introducing new legislation but he finished his two terms in office
and the matter was never addressed by way of a new act. However, we do say to
the minister that there is a shift in philosophy, a shift in approach. We have
hopefully moved from crisis management in child welfare to child centred
policies aimed at intervention and prevention. We believe, on this side, that is
indeed a good thing.
Mr. Chairman, I am very sad however to see that the minister did not see fit
to remove the monitoring of the legislation to a non-political process. One of
the things that came forward very strongly to the Select Committee on Children's
Interests by the people who made representations - and we are talking over 200
individuals and over 100 written submissions - all virtually unanimously said
that they wish to have a child advocate appointed in this Province. Now, there
were one or two groups that did not support that particular proposal but they
were, by and far, very much in the minority.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have missed something here. I acknowledge the
minister has put in place an advisory committee. I acknowledge that the
legislation calls for a review every two years, but what has happened so often
when you have those kinds of reviews is that the party in power makes sure that
the people who are appointed to those particular positions are indeed supporters
of the party in power. We want people whose focus is not necessarily that of
supporting the party in power as much as they are to support the children of
this Province. There is a big difference between appointing a review committee
that is focused on the party in power position as opposed to being focused on
children.
One of the reasons why other provinces have taken the monitoring of the
legislation out of the political forum - and that includes the advisory
committee approach - is that they believe that children are too important to be
left to the whims of the party in power in terms of their advocacy. We believe
that children should have more power, should have a stronger voice. What has
been found in other provinces is the fact that they have agreed that a child
advocate brings that sense of independence and that sense of advocacy.
Mr. Chairman, on the day that this particular piece of legislation was
announced, we saw that Judge Lloyd Wicks - and I have some respect for Lloyd
Wicks. He sat on the bench for many years. However, almost immediately when it
was announced we saw him before the TV cameras with his prepared script saying
this was a red letter day and all that kind of thing. It was all part of a
set-up, undoubtedly. Lloyd Wicks was doing his advocacy, doing his commentary.
We know that particular advocacy has its place, but we are concerned that kind
of thing, that kind of approach, might lead itself to being more supportive of
the party in power than it is of a general approach to child advocacy.
We on this side believe that there is a need for government to reconsider. We
believe that the whole issue of advocacy should be depoliticized completely. We
want to say to the minister that she should be reconsidering. Certainly we on
this side believe that all of the groups which presented to the Select Committee
on Children's Interests cannot be wrong because there was unanimous agreement
that a child advocate was needed. In fact, as the minister should know, the
first advocate appointed - or child ombudsman you call it in some places - was
actually put in Norway, in 1981. Since then, this concept of having a child
advocate has spread throughout a fair bit of the democratic world but it has not
spread to Newfoundland and Labrador.
I do have my misgivings about the advisory committee, very strong misgivings
about it. I have seen that kind of advisory committee working in other places. I
am saying to the minister that she should probably reconsider her views on that
matter.
Mr. Chairman, six of ten provinces have appointed a child advocate. The City
of Vancouver has one as well. There is a lot of support across the country, and
while there are sometimes difficulties with the child advocate, parties in power
have been somewhat reluctant sometimes to give that position the kind of
independence it requires, in those places where they have given the advocate the
complete independence it has worked much better.
I know in the Province of Manitoba initially they had the child advocate
reporting back to the Minister of Social Services and there was some great
difficulty with that because the advocate was not considered to be an
independent agent of children and speaking exclusively on behalf of children.
That caused difficulties because the advocate was reporting to a minister, and
when the advocate's reports were not satisfactory the advocate was always
somewhat intimidated by the fact that his or her job might have been on the
line. That kind of expectation, that the people who work for government will not
be critical of government, is my concern.
Where it has worked best is where the child advocate is an independent
officer of the Legislature. Just like today, we had the Report of the Auditor
General submitted to the Legislature. It was tabled this afternoon by the
Speaker of the House. That is very independent. The Auditor General is not
dependent on the whims of the government of the day for tenure in her office. It
is her job to present an independent report.
What I would like to see in government is the same kind of authority given to
a child advocate so that person is not answerable to any party in power but is
answerable to the entire Legislature. That is the kind of independence we need
when it comes to children's issues, which we have not have in this Province and
I do not see mentioned in this particular piece of legislation.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure I will have another
chance before the evening is out.
On motion, clauses 1 to 82, carried.
A bill, "An Act Respecting Child, Youth And Family Services". (Bill
No. 37)
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chair, Order 3, Bill No. 18.
CHAIR: Order 3, Bill No. 18,
An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification
And Growth Enterprises Act.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: We are doing Order 3, Bill No. 18.
MR. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the critic is not in the House right now but he
has already made his points.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On motion, clauses 1 to 4, carried.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification And Growth
Enterprises Act". (Bill No 18)
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chair, Order 4, Bill No. 43.
CHAIR: Order 4, Bill No. 43,
An Act To Incorporate The Business
Investment Corporation.
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: I forgot to ask, Mr. Chairman, the minister responsible has
two amendments which are fairly straightforward. Go ahead.
CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, subclause 4(3) of the bill is amended by
deleting the date "January 1, 1991" and substituting the words
"this Act comes into force".
Number 2: The bill is further amended by adding immediately after clause 19
the following: Commencement: "20. This Act comes into force on a day to be
proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council".
Moved and seconded by my colleague, the Acting Government House Leader.
CHAIR: Order, please!
For the record, would we like the microphone turned on?
The hon. the Acting Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of bringing this piece of
legislation to the House is that we want to repeal a number of acts there were
under the Department of Development and Rural Renewal and put them under one
authority. In order to do that we have to bring in amendments to the legislation
with no date involved. What we are doing there - because the act now states:
deleting the date January 1, 1991.
We want to be able to do it when the act comes into force. In other words, we
would not be ready to do it January 1 of 1999, so instead of putting a
particular date on it, it is just when the act comes into force it will be
proclaimed. So it is just a minor amendment to the date.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) in Question Period for the last four weeks.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Member for Bonavista North obviously has in-depth knowledge of this piece
of legislation, as does the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, now the
Acting Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. The purpose of the amendments
is to transfer everything to what used to be formerly ENL and NLDC, the
Fisheries Loan Act, all of it into one sort of corporation to deal with the
business that were formerly dealt with by those entities, correct? In terms of
the Fisheries Loan Board, Farm Loan Board, whatever the case may be.
MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Right. Then this new entity, in terms of its activities
with development, loans, small business, rural renewal, will all be done through
this new entity, fair enough.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make a few comments. I did make a few comments in second
reading also. I understand that it comes under one entity and it basically is
the winding up or winding down - whichever way you want to look at it - of the
Fisheries Loan Board and the Farm Development Corporation, basically is what it
has done, and brought it into that.
One point I want to make to the minister and have him make a couple of
comments on it, in
Section 15, "The corporation shall, not later than
September 30 in each year, prepare and submit to the minister a financial
statement setting out the assets and liabilities of the corporation, a copy of
its audited financial statement and the receipts and expenditures of the
corporation for the previous financial year."
It says submit to the minister and in turn the minister submit this to the
floor of the House of Assembly. Is that how it is understood? I brought that up
before, I think, with the minister. Of course over the years there have been
some problems, especially at the tail end with the Fisheries Loan Board and with
the Farm Development Board assessing those loans. Now it will come under one
corporation called the Business Investment Corporation. We have no problem with
that. Basically this is a housecleaning bill, and basically it tightens it up or
tidies it up, and hopefully at the end of the day makes it a more efficient
system for people to use that in government. Really we are talking about a
winding down of those Fisheries Loan Board and the Farm Development Board to
bring it under one entity and hopefully make it more efficient for all people,
for the use of the public. Mr. Chairman, we do not have any problem with this
particular bill.
On motion, clauses 1 through 3, carried.
On motion, amendment carried.
On motion, clause 4, as amended, carried.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 5 through 19 carry?
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: We have lots of time. There is no need to be passing bills
here, five to nineteen, bang, like that. We will go clause-by-clause if that
would be okay.
I just want to make a point on clause 5. Government's initiative here with
respect to
An Act To Incorporate The Business Investment Corporation, is really
not in the public mindset in terms of where government is going with it yet.
That would be a fair comment to say.
Clause 5, object of the corporation. "The corporation shall be
responsible for making available and managing investments in small to medium
sized private businesses, co-operatives, community development corporations and
other enterprises for the purpose of creating employment opportunities for the
people of the province."
This corporation, in dealing with the REDBs, for example, will work hand in
hand with the REDBs? Will the REDBs, in terms of requests, be driving where the
corporation invests money, or vice versa, or a combination of both?
This is an important piece of legislation. I guess it is a departure from
government's normal activities, a little bit. It is a different direction that
maybe at the end of the day in terms of its approach and how it goes about doing
things, but we are setting up a brand new corporation, formerly the Economic
Recovery Commission, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, in assisting with
development and rural renewal in the Province, expanding the economy.
In terms of the corporation, is government going to make appointments to the
corporation? Oversee it? Could you elaborate a little bit further, I ask the
minister?
CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do here in this House, as
the hon. Member for Baie Verte said, we are trying to make the system more
efficient. Here is what we have. We have one, two, three, four different acts on
the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. It is not necessary to have all
of those acts so what the minister has done is, he has repealed all of those
acts and is bringing in one act to represent all of the people. It is
efficiency.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked a question: How would we be working
with the REDB boards to invest into private industry in Newfoundland? Would they
be doing it on their own, or would we be doing it separately? Would we be
working together? It is very clear.
The only way you can have successful investment opportunities in this
Province is to work with the people out there in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. That is what the minister did. He, the minister, put a system in place
so that the REDB boards and the government, his department, would have full
consultation to make this work.
On motion, clauses 5 through 19, carried.
On motion, new clause 20, as per the amendment, carried.
A bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Business Investment
Corporation". (Bill No. 43)
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Acting Government House Leader.
Mr. Chairman, Order 5, Bill No. 42.
CHAIR: Order 5, Bill No. 42,
An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation
Act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, not yet.
MR. FRENCH: No, not quite yet, Mr. Chairman.
We have a number of concerns with this particular piece of legislation, and
we are certainly going to have a lot of questions that are going to have to be
answered today by the minister. Even then, I do not know if at the end of the
day we are going to be able to support this piece of legislation which we feel,
on this side of the House, certainly does not go far enough.
There are explanations in this, I say to the minister, that are needed. As we
go down through this bill, there are going to be questions that I will be asking
and hopefully the minister can certainly supply me with the answers. We are
going to be looking for some
definitions and so on.
I have probably close to three pages here, and as we go down through this
bill I am going to be asking the minister questions on various sections. We
really do not get into it until we get to probably somewhere around
section 3,
and from then on we are going to be asking questions; so I will probably be
interrupting from time to time as we go through this.
With those couple of remarks I will sit down and we will carry on.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are on clause 1, the title of
the bill, is that correct?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.
We talked at length in second reading with respect to this act,
An Act To
Amend The Workers' Compensation Act. The Act itself does not go very far with
respect to implementing the recommendations that came out of the statutory
review committee's report. The biggest issues facing injured workers prior to
that review being done, and the presentation made to the independent committee,
were clear.
Talk about deeming for a moment. The statutory review committee's report on
deeming could only be described as scathing; the spirit of how the Workers'
Compensation Commission is using deeming was scathing, using it as a means of
getting people off of the system; people who are legitimate, who are bona fide.
Who were not only in need but who were supposed to be there in the first place.
There were many examples brought to this Legislature by where the Workers'
Compensation Commission on the one hand had deemed an individual - just to give
you one example; I could go on and on and give you others - capable of working
as a radio dispatcher for $23,000 or $24,000 a year. They deemed another
individual capable of being a radio dispatcher at a salary of $14,000 a year.
There was a gentleman, an injured worker, confined completely to his hospital
bed, who was deemed capable of doing sales and marketing via the telephone. The
list goes on.
Government's response and government's reaction to that report with respect
to deeming was that they put a committee in place in study it, but the process
of deeming and what the statutory review committee's report found, and the
recommendations that they made with respect to this issue, have not been
implemented to date.
It is a scathing report that the minister did not take on behalf of
government the necessary and corrective action to ensure that took place.
Nowhere in this piece of legislation, Bill 42,
An Act To Amend The Workers'
Compensation Act, do we see it.
Let us talk about Canada Pension clawback. Right now there was a case brought
forward - one example of hundreds. The Canada Pension Plan is an entitlement. It
is a pension plan. It is something that the employer pays into 50 per cent; it
is something that workers in this country pay into 50 per cent.
I had one person say to me recently - an injured worker; worked for about
twenty-two or twenty-three years - that he would like to have what he put into
the Canada Pension Plan over the last twenty-two or twenty-three years. He would
like to have it himself, so he could invest it. He would be far better off today
if that was the case.
Here is what happens: The Workers' Compensation Commission advises an injured
worker to apply for Canada Pension. The injured worker applies for Canada
Pension, gets in receipt of Canada Pension, only to have it clawed back 100 per
cent - clawed back 100 per cent - so the worker is no further ahead. The only
group that is further ahead with respect to that is the Commission itself.
Then we see, earlier this year, the audacity of the Commission itself writing
off nearly $6.5 million to $7 million for employers in the Province. When it
comes to nickels and dimes and pennies and dollar bills - $2, $3, as little as
$23 a week - the Commission hounds, and I have hundreds of examples of it. In
the past five years I have stood in this House on many occasions asking
questions - legitimate questions - about how the Commission's dealings with
injured workers on the one hand and with employers on the other hand are not
consistent. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander; but, in
one fell swoop of the pen, $6.5 million or $7 million written off in employers'
assessments.
Yet, there have been injured workers in my office who are living on marginal
incomes, below the poverty line, have lost homes, have lost marriages, have lost
everything. Some who are dependent for drug cards on the Department of Human
Resources and Development, and the Commission claws back $20, $25, $30, from
them. You wonder why, then, people are so upset, when you see the average worker
so upset about what is taking place.
The statutory review committee's report to the minister and recommendation on
Canada Pension was clear. At the very least that the only clawback that should
occur on Canada Pension - and I agree with this, by the way - that the clawback
in Canada Pension should be only 50 per cent and that the other 50 per cent
which was contributed by workers in this Province - injured workers - should be
given back to them because it truly belongs to them. This is what they have
contributed into.
We do it, members of this House. Every working person contributes to the
Canada Pension Plan. God forbid that either one of us ever find ourselves in a
situation someday where, through no fault of our own, we are seriously injured
to the point where we cannot return to the occupation from which we came, and
that we too have to depend upon the injured workers on the Workers' Compensation
Commission.
I was asked a question recently with respect to: Should the Workers'
Compensation Commission be privatized or not? I am not saying that government is
considering this, but I am just saying I was asked the question about it. My
answer was, no.
When you reflect back upon why Workers' Compensation Commissions were put in
place across the country, the acts in this Legislature that gave them life, it
was for one simple purpose. Number one: Individuals gave up their individual
right to sue based upon accidents in the workplace, based upon negligence in the
workplace.
We have come a long way in forty years with respect to the Workplace Health,
Safety and Compensation Commission, but we have a long way to go, and we are not
near to the point where we should be. There seems to be an attitude that is
prevalent within the Workers' Compensation Commission. I fail to understand how
government has not come to terms with it.
I remember the Member for Exploits, when he was the Minister for Employment
and Labour, in a former Administration. I remember the former Member for St.
John's South, Minister of Employment and Labour, dealing with the Workers'
Compensation Commission. I recall these past ministers, and the one now -
legitimate individuals, people who are generally concerned, I would think, with
the affairs of the Province, what people go through. Yet, in five-and-a-half
years, since I have been elected a member of this House, nobody seems to have
the strength, no one seems to have the will, to wrestle with the attitude that
exists.
I will give you another example, Minister. Two weeks ago I was at an appeal
with the Chief Review Commissioner. There is a long-standing tradition that
where a dispute exists when it comes to benefits from the injury fund, that if
the commission cannot prove beyond a doubt that somebody's injury is sufficient
to an extent that it was caused in the workplace - if they cannot prove that
fully - then the benefit of the doubt must be given the injured worker.
I sat with a gentleman two weeks ago who has a skin condition that has
disabled him - completely disabled. Most people would know that the skin is the
largest body organ. He cannot work with his hands. He was a sheet metal worker,
lichen planus was the condition that he had. It was determined that it was not
caused by his workplace. They - meaning the Workers' Compensation Commission -
hung their hat on his own doctor's report. The doctor said this: I cannot be
sure that his condition was a cause of the workplace, but I can tell you this,
that prior to him going to work as a sheet metal worker he did not have it.
I found something else interesting, that all of us individuals, human beings,
carry within us that sort of germ or virus. It can rear its head in many ways.
On the fingers means your nails are gone, the skin is cracked to the extent that
you cannot work. Anyway, the commission said no, it was not a result of the
workplace. Therefore, this person was denied benefits. Therefore, it went to
appeal.
We got to appeal. We had the doctor, Dr. Laura Parsons. We had her in
testifying on behalf of the injured worker. I made the point, I asked her
directly, I said: The Workers' Compensation Commission have judged this
individual that this condition was not the cause of the workplace. Can you say
that for sure? She said: No, I cannot say it was the result of the workplace. I
said: Can you tell me that it was not? She said: No, I cannot. What I can tell
you is that he did not have this condition prior to being a sheet metal worker
and that he can no longer work as a sheet metal worker because of the
aggravation working with hands, the condition that it causes. You would not
believe it. You would not believe that it was a set of hands that - if you had
it yourself you would be very concerned. I can tell you, she said, there is no
conclusive proof anywhere in this country that will show that this condition
called lichen planus is a result of anything, other than the fact that we all
carry it. I can tell you that as a result of working in the workplace he can no
longer work.
I do not have the appeal back yet - I do not have the decision back - but I
am convinced that we are going to win it because the Workers' Compensation
Commission, under regulation and under law, has no other choice but to rule in
favour of that injured worker because they could not conclusively prove.
What they do - I want to bring it back to the attitude - deal with, what this
indicates, is an attitude that one line out of an entire medical report, a
specialist's report, saying that we are not sure but - bingo. It gives the
opportunity to not accept liability and put some man and his family on the
street. In this case that is what happened.
Just look at the costs. Just look at the financial cost to the injury fund,
because that is what picks up all the cost here. This gentleman went through
about three case workers, an internal review. Workers' Compensation legal
counsel looked at it; I looked at it. It went to the Chief Review Commissioner,
another cost.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.
MR. E. BYRNE: Another cost associated with it, to go back in the first
place to determine what they should have determined up front: that they did have
a liability to this man; that as a result of the workplace he was injured; as a
result of being injured he cannot work any longer at his trade.
They have two obligations: one, that he should be funded from the injury
fund; and two, if there is something else that he can do then that is what the
Occupational Health and Safety Training Fund is there for, to rehabilitate if
necessary.
The attitude is what I find so offensive. That is what you have to wrestle
with, and I see no evidence that is being done here today; no evidence in Bill
42,
An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act. There is no evidence that
that attitude is being wrestled.
Has anyone ever gone down to the Commission - if you want to talk about
is behind big plexiglass. You cannot see anybody. You cannot walk around.
Someone has to come down and get you.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Babb Lock and Safe - and I don't mean to use Babb - but any
lock and safe company must have made a fortune. You talk about an environment
that is not conducive to dealing with people's problems. It is unbelievable, but
it is a physical example and a physical sign of what exists behind those doors.
I have no doubt that there are good people in the Commission. I have no doubt
about it.
Another issue that I do not see in this particular piece of legislation: How
is it, in this day and age, that an injured worker with a specialist's report in
their back pocket can go down to the Workers' Compensation Commission only to be
overruled by a case worker, a physiotherapist, or a general practitioner? Could
somebody explain that to me?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I am not so sure it has changed, Minister. I am not so
sure it has changed. I think you should have a second look. There are
physiotherapists today who still have the ability to overrule, based upon their
own assessment of injured workers.
This is, I guess, the first type of the bill. I have gone over it a little
bit but there are many clauses here that we will debate. I will take my leave
and sit down if somebody else would like to speak to it.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to carry on with what the Leader of the Opposition has said, att
workers' - and I guess when you get down to appeals and you are doing appeals,
as I have said many a time in this House, and more so since becoming the critic
for this area, what we should do, if we can find enough money in any government
fund, is to buy 100 copies - and I have said this to the minister - of How To
Win Friends and Influence People , and we should send it down for 95 per cent
of the people at Workers' Compensation to read. Because if you call down someday
- we all go through this. Members on that side of the House go through it. I
have had conversations with members over there.
I guess, Mr. Chairman, the worse thing we ever did in Newfoundland and
Labrador was have Wal-Mart come in because Wal-Mart introduced something called
a `greeter'. There are more people in Newfoundland and Labrador today who have
been deemed greeters than... I don't know where we would ever find employment.
They become greeters in the store. I don't know where we would ever find the
jobs.
I have seen a man who had medical evidence, done by a specialist, I say to
the minister, that he was deaf and it was deemed that he could be a radio
dispatcher. He was deaf. He had a hearing impairment. The medical evidence
clearly showed that he had a hearing impairment but at the end of the day
somebody, with probably not even an eight-hour First Aid course, could deem this
gentleman capable of being a radio operator or a radio dispatcher.
I had a letter when I went to statutory review, I say to the minister, from a
doctor who said he would not hire this man to do his filing, not because of the
man but because of his physical condition: because he had problems walking,
because he had problems hearing. He would not hire the man to do his filing.
That is a man who, on a bright sunny morning, who was self-employed, while
returning to his place of business was almost killed in a car accident. He spent
six months in hospital and came back, thank goodness for his wife and family,
recovered from his illness. To this day we have won one appeal. We are now back
arguing another clause of workers' compensation before the chief review
commissioner. We did that about two weeks ago. On and on it goes.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if we look at ways to save money
sometimes, Minister, how much money, in the name of goodness, are we spending on
Workers' Compensation? How many experts do we have down there? My definition of
an expert is certainly different than theirs. My definition of an expert is a
person who knows more and more about less and less. When I see people who are
down there who can come up with all this medical evidence, and they know more
than specialists in this Province. I have argued cases. There are specialists in
this Province, who some occupational therapist will say: Yes, that man there is
capable of going to work. Then we go through this whole scenario all over again.
We spend a fortune on injured workers in this Province. There was a gentleman
who came into my office one day. I was introduced to him and we got talking
about - I think I may have mentioned this before - how he was deemed to be a
carpet salesman because he could use the phone while lying on his back in a
store. If you can imagine going into a store to buy a
section of carpet and some
fellow is over in the corner `hove off' on the broad of his back using the
phone, I do not know what kind of opinion or impression somebody would get.
We are forcing people with little or no money to go to lawyers because they
are afraid of taking a chance on losing a case. I have talked to many members on
the opposite side who have come up against roadblocks, who have become nervous
that they may lose the case so they go out and hire a lawyer. Then it costs them
more money, of course.
I have one gentleman whose accident goes back to 1991. His funds are still in
escrow because the Commission, while allowing him a certain percentage, on the
other hand is saying: We want a larger amount of money from you. These funds to
this day are still held in an escrow account and are going to remain there for
quite some time.
I believe, Minister, that if we keep going long enough there will come a
point in time, if we keep winning as we have being doing, when Workers'
Compensation will actually owe this man money. For now, I believe the last
amount he was awarded was some $37,000, and still it goes on.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, I have seen families who have come
near to divorce, near to splitting up their family. I represented a lady at a
hearing. They had just bought a house. She was injured on the job and it became
very difficult for them, all of a sudden, to pay their light bill and phone bill
and make their mortgage payment. The lady would call me on certain occasions in
tears saying: I believe it is time, that maybe if I was on my own then I would
not be putting my husband through what he is going through. At the end of the
day, we were successful in the lady being awarded workers' compensation. As
well, the commissioner also ordered this lady be retrained.
Why did we do all of this to her? It took about a year. To me, it makes no
sense. You can phone down now and you have to leave a message and somebody will
call you back. Heaven forbid that they all get sick in that executive office
down there at one time. I hope there is never a flu bug goes through there,
because if they all get sick on one day nobody in this place here will be able
to talk to anybody down there.
This is what we are going through, Mr. Minister. I am sure you are aware of
that. I am sure you hear this day in, day out, seven days a week. I am sure you
also hear from some of your own colleagues of the trouble that they have with
Workers' Compensation in the Province. I am not here today saying open the vault
door and give everything away. What I am doing here today, I say to the
minister, is asking you to relay to these people that we will expect more and
demand more in the way of caring and understanding for the injured workers, men
and women, in this Province who have suffered because of Workers' Compensation,
and no other reason in the world.
At the end of the day, when the cases are awarded in the favour of the
injured worker, then somewhere down life's road we must have already made a
mistake. We must have lost out on the ability. I believe that this Commission
was set up to help, not to hinder, the injured worker in this Province. I do not
believe today that that is the case any more. I say that, and I wish I did not
have to say it.
I attended a meeting a while ago with a constituent of mine on Canada
Pension.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FRENCH: Can I have a few minutes just to clue up?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. FRENCH: While attending it I said to Canada Pension: I hope the day
never comes when I get the same feeling towards you people as I have towards
Worker's Compensation. If it is respect that is needed, to me respect should be
earned. I have not seen that coming out of the Commission.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, since taking on this critic portfolio I have met
many injured workers in the Province. I have received calls from every nook and
cranny in this Province from injured workers who are suffering. They have nobody
in their area to represent them. It makes it difficult sometimes if you have to
go to Labrador or the West Coast. It is not always easy for a member who sits in
this place to do it, even if he were the member from that particular area.
I am not saying that every decision they make is wrong, but when you look at
the number of cases that are awarded by the review commissioner I believe that
there is something to be gained.
I will sit down on this note. I will just say, Mr. Chairman, that I would
like to see this particular place have a heart, have feelings for the injured
workers of Newfoundland and Labrador. I appeal to the minister today to put this
forward to the Workers' Compensation Commission in the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to make just a few comments with respect to Bill 42,
An Act To Amend
The Workers' Compensation Act. I would like to repeat the comments I made during
second reading. It has to do, really, with what is necessary, as I see it, which
is direction from the minister to the Commission, and the various departments
within the Workers' Compensation Commission, to do what is necessary with
respect to expediting the process for the ultimate benefit of injured workers in
this Province.
What we see all too often are matters being returned, perhaps from the
chairman of the tribunal, for reassessment and further evaluation, only to have
the system then become completely bogged down. I am familiar with circumstances
where we have injured workers, claimants before the review commission, who have
had a hearing only to find that their matters have been returned to the
commission for further review. Then we have reviews taking months before a final
determination is made and before a proper assessment is made of that individual
claimant.
What is required, I say to the minister, in circumstances like that is
perhaps putting in place a time limit, whether that be fourteen days, twenty-one
days or thirty days, which for example the medical officer, in situations where
a medical assessment is required, would have a fairly strict time limitation in
which to work to ensure that there is a response given to the appropriate
individuals who would then be in a position to pass on to the claimant the
decision one way or another.
What is most frustrating, I would to the minister, in a majority of cases is
that people are simply left in limbo. They do not know from one day to the next
what the status of their claim is upon reassessment. Individuals are simply
waiting for months on end without an answer and without a determination of their
case. Because there are appeal provisions in the statute, that if a decision is
made there is then a further ninety-day period in which that claimant can
further review the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Then if
that decision is not found to be acceptable, there is a further right of appeal
to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of this Province. What is most
frustrating is this unnecessary delay where we have people who obviously are
injured to begin with, and it is causing great emotional distress, psychological
distress, simply because there has been no decision rendered on behalf of their
claim.
What I would suggest to the minister is that he give strong recommendation to
the commission to put in place strict time periods for medical re-evaluation and
medical assessment. When in fact a directive has been given by the review
tribunal back to the commission, and perhaps even upon assessment and
evaluation, even before, even upon the original application, that there be a
fourteen day, twenty-one day or thirty day period by law, by regulation. Then
the claimant knows not only what to expect, but when he or she will expect it.
In my observation of many of the procedures and activities that take place, the
cause for greatest concern and greatest frustration amongst injured workers in
this Province is the delay and the frustration that this delay causes. That does
nobody any interest, I say to the minister.
If there were time limits put in place, at least then claimants will know
when to expect a decision and then the decision itself can be dealt with. If it
is negative, there is a right of appeal. If it is positive, obviously then the
injured worker is satisfied. It is the delay factor, I would submit to the
minister, which is one of the most significant causes of concern. If that
particular problem could be addressed and alleviated I think we would see
significant advances being made, particularly in the eyes of claimants in this
Province. It would have a significant impact perhaps on lessening the number of
reviews, appeals and evaluations that are made at the commission level.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On motion, clause 1, carried.
CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: I have a few comments too, Mr. Chairman, on the bill here.
Overall on this particular bill, one of the concerns is this. We all agree it is
important that the Commission be fully funded at some point in time. We have
made some tremendous progress over the last several years, I think, to the tune
of about 30 per cent on the unfunded liability portion. We are now up to, I
think, 72.4 per cent, if I remember off hand, from a 42.4 per cent position. It
was estimated that it would be fully funded, I think, initially, by 2011. Was it
2005 it was intended to be?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, pushed it back to 2012. Basically, that would move at
a marginal rate over the next number of years. It was only roughly 2 per cent a
year would be increased in that funding area.
I have experienced a lot of situations too, and everybody in this House has
cases that they have been to at the Workers' Compensation review division. I was
involved in several cases over the past several months. One of the major
concerns there is this. There are people being heard at the Workers'
Compensation review division that I know cannot physically work.
I will use one example of a person from my district. It did not make any
difference, it was a matter of principle, and I think I made reference to this
before. The person had taken retirement and their income was higher than they
would have had anyway, so it made no monetary difference to that person
whatsoever. That person went there out of principle, and I went with them, and
the ruling did not go in their