November

19, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 67

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: This has got to be some important.

MR. SIMMS: I say to the Minister of Education, he perhaps

should keep his ears and eyes open; it just might be.

I want to ask the questions today of the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. I know that the minister is receiving at his

office, on a regular basis the last couple of days in particular, a number of

representations about driving conditions and safety on the highway. I know that

for a fact because I have received copies of a letter, for example, a very

serious letter, which I may have an opportunity to allude to a little later.

Now that the minister told us, and he told us on Tuesday as

well as on Thursday past, and I quote: That the department has been on winter

operations, winter status, for the past week. That is what he told us on Tuesday

and Thursday.

I want to ask the minister if he will now confirm that the

central region of his department, which operates several highway depots out in

that area, were told only yesterday that the Winter shift will be brought on

next week - next Wednesday? Can he confirm that?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, for the month of November Winter

status for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation first involves

bringing on the second foreman. The second foreman has been in place in the

Avalon region since November 2; in the eastern region since November 9; in the

central region since November 2; and in the western region since November 4.

That is the start of winter status for the department.

The foremen, who are dispersed throughout the Province,

assess the road conditions, as I indicated yesterday, between 4:30 a.m. and 5:00

a.m. every day. If the foreman feels, at that particular point in time, that it

is necessary to bring crew and equipment on to the roads, he has the authority

to make that decision. He can make that decision at 5:00 a.m. or at any time. He

has the authority to bring men and equipment on to the roads if he feels the

need warrants it at that particular time in the day or indeed at any particular

time of the day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would give a

straight answer to what is a straight question. I asked him on Tuesday, and on

Thursday he was asked again: were the Winter shifts on?... and he tried to pass

it over by talking about these words that he uses, Winter operations and Winter

status. I asked him to confirm that the central region were only told yesterday

to hire the Winter shifts. Can he confirm that? That is what I had asked him.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I was quite prepared to give this

information yesterday, only I was not permitted the opportunity to provide this

information yesterday. I had the information yesterday and there is nothing to

hide, I am quite prepared to provide the information.

The Opposition would like to make some allegation that

because of government restraint, the safety of the travelling public is being

put in jeopardy; that something is being done differently this year than has

been done in previous years. As the members opposite know, and several of them

have been Ministers of Works, Services and Transportation, the Winter status is

a phasing in status and what is being done this year with respect to Winter

status is no different from what has been done last year with respect to Winter

status and no different from what was done the year before with respect to

Winter status.

As hon. gentlemen are aware, in the month of November it is

still possible to conduct Summer maintenance, to do grading of roads, to install

signs, to do culverts, to install guard rails so, what we have put in place for

bringing on the crew at 5:00 a.m. is firstly, we - generally the snowfall is

heavier on the west coast so the shifts come on earlier on the west coast than

they do as you move east, but on the west coast where, the snowfall is generally

experienced to be the heaviest, the foreman and crew have been on since November

4th.

In the central region, where the snowfall experience has not

been so heavy and where it is possible to grade roads and do summer maintenance

for which the office receives many requests, the shift is not brought on at 5:00

a.m. The foreman is on at 5:00 a.m. to assess the road conditions to determine

if it is necessary to bring the shift on at 5:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GOVER: - if it is necessary they will bring the shift

on at 5:00 a.m. The shift is scheduled to go on at 5:00 a.m. regular on November

25th for the central region.

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

MR. SIMMS: The minister could have answered my question

with his last sentence. I asked him to confirm that the Winter shifts will not

be on until next week, instead of implying on Tuesday and Thursday that they are

in full Winter operations; that is the point I am trying to make. He misled the

House, whether deliberately or not, that is the point I am trying to make. Now

will he confirm for this House that many regional superintendents and foremen

out around the Province can't hire the men for those Winter crews because in

fact they don't even have the equipment they need for Winter operations? Half of

the equipment is still out in the yards, for example, in the central

Newfoundland yard. Can he confirm that?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, if the foreman determines men and

equipment are needed he has the authority to order the men and equipment out. If

the equipment needed exceeds the equipment available to the Department, then

there is a system in place to acquire additional equipment if needed.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister is

listening. I'm telling him that half the equipment for a number of the regional

operations, including the central Newfoundland one, is laid up at the yard, at

the Grand Falls depot. Now, if half the equipment is laid up then how can the

operations work properly? How can they hire the men if there's no equipment for

the men to work on? That's the question. Let me ask him this question. Can the

minister confirm that the Winter mechanics - those who would normally be hired

to repair equipment usually in existence at the depots - are not yet in place?

Can he confirm that?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm what I have said.

That the foremen, who are competent and capable people, and dispersed throughout

this Province, and are familiar with the climatic conditions in their region,

and with the roadway in their region, make an assessment. If their assessment is

such that the men and equipment are required, they dispatch the equipment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: If additional equipment is required over and

above that which the Department has available there is a mechanism in place to

ensure the speedy delivery of that equipment.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. It's pretty apparent the

minister doesn't know what's going on in his Department. Let me ask him this.

Can he confirm that equipment which broke down during recent snow storms had to

be taken out of service because there were no mechanics to do the necessary

repairs? Is he aware of that?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that as you go

through a Winter season equipment will fail. That's an unfortunate fact of life.

I'm sorry that there is a law of mechanics which states that the useful energy

in the universe does run down and breakdowns do occur. That's a sad fact of

life. I cannot alter the law of physics. But the system is in place to provide

safe travelling conditions to the general public. As I indicated in my answer

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the number of dollars spent on snow and ice control has

increased every year since this Administration took power, and it was more than

that Administration spent on snow and ice control.

So, if the hon. member is alleging that the system is

deficient now, how much more deficient was it when they had it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, how silly can the minister be!

Everybody in the Province knows that because of inflation and because of

hundreds of kilometers more of roads in this Province, with four lanes in some

places, that naturally the cost of the snow clearing and sand and so on is going

to increase. That is silly.

Let me ask him this question: Since he doesn't know anything

about the operations of his department as it applies to safety - I assure him

that some of the things he is saying here today will come back to haunt him,

when I get a chance to table that letter. His department has been told now by

the Minister of Finance to cut 3 per cent in their operational costs,

operations, and 1 per cent of their salaries. I want to ask the minister: How is

the minister intending to cut his budget to meet those reductions? Can he tell

us how he is going to save that kind of money over the next four months, which

are the peak winter months for us to be operating, and can he guarantee safety

on our highways if these cuts are made?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question on

Tuesday. It was the same question on Tuesday and the same answer today. Mr.

Speaker, I intend to instruct, and I have instructed, my officials to achieve

the restraint objectives set forth for my department with a view to maintaining

service levels with as little impact as possible and, in particular, for the

snow and ice control division to achieve the restraint objectives, bearing in

mind that the ultimate consideration has to be the safety of the travelling

public -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: - bearing that in mind, Mr. Speaker, to

achieve that objective with the minimal or no impact on snow and ice control.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, I would like to

ask a question of the Acting Minister of Fisheries. There have been a number of

areas around the Province that have experienced severe catch failures this year,

not including the area covered by the northern cod moratorium benefits package.

I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Fisheries: There have been

discussions ongoing with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans - Will

the provincial government be participating financially in a fisheries emergency

response program for those areas not included in the northern cod moratorium

package?

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

MR. ROBERTS: What I have to do, Mr. Speaker, to get the

hon. gentlemen up to ask me a question! And they said they never would

(inaudible). I don't speak as the Acting Minister of Fisheries. What I shall say

is that the Minister of Fisheries is on his way to Ottawa, even as we speak, for

meetings in the morning with the hon. Mr. Crosbie and the Ministers of Fisheries

from the other three Atlantic Provinces. I understand - I will put it that way,

Mr. Speaker. I am sorry my friend from Kilbride is having some difficulty - can

I help him?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite would be

good enough - the hon. the Member for Kilbride, Sir, is deliberately, flagrantly

and repeatedly trying to interrupt. Not only is it rude, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members on both sides of the House to co-operate.

Hon. members know they are not supposed to interrupt another member except by

way of a point of order, and then, the member speaking could yield if he wanted

to; but that is the only way under which a member is supposed to interrupt

another member.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank you. I am sorry that

Your Honour has to become involved with this rudeness, this deliberate, childish

rudeness of the gentleman from Kilbride. Now, I was answering the question -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) he doesn't know how to answer.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I may not know how to answer a

question, but the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know how to ask one, so we

are even there.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back, because I take the question as

being a serious one and I am trying to respond to it in that way.

I understand that the subject the hon. member raises is one

of the areas that the five ministers will be dealing with tomorrow. I can't go

beyond that. The hon. member may know more than I do; I only know what my

colleague told me before he left, a half or three-quarters of an hour ago, for

the airport. The hon. gentleman obviously has a direct pipeline to John Crosbie.

The only thing we don't know is whether it is the end that goes in or the end

that goes out, to which he puts himself. What I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that

the information I have given you is what I have been given by my colleague. We

will deal with it further when we have more that we can give to the House.

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

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

It is absolutely amazing, Mr. Speaker, that on asking a

question, trying to get fishermen who have had catch failures, and fish plant

workers through the winter, and this is what we get from the Government House

Leader. It is absolutely despicable.

A supplementary to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. Does the minister know if the Province will be participating

financially this year in a fisheries emergency response program? Will they be

cost-sharing a fisheries emergency response program in areas other than those

covered by the northern cod moratorium benefits package?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. In

the meetings that we were involved in recently in Ottawa and the meetings that

are continuing tomorrow, up to this point in time while the areas other than

those covered by the moratorium have been discussed, there had not been, in any

meeting that I was involved in, any request from the federal government for the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to participate financially in a fisheries response program for areas

outside the moratorium area. The need for such programs was discussed at length

and the indication is that serious consideration was given, but a request to the

Province to participate financially has not been made, to my knowledge, at this

point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: I have a question for the Minister of Health,

Mr. Speaker. The minister confirmed yesterday that each hospital and nursing

home board in the Province had been given a specific amount to cut from their

budgets for the balance of the fiscal year, for the next four months. He

promised to tell the House today what these amounts were, how much they were

going to be cut for this year. Does he have these amounts available for us and

can he give them to us today?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't do my homework. I have

to say that I will bring in the total amounts some other time. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely amazing, that

the Minister of Health would get up and give that type of an answer. When

hospital boards in the Province are being asked to cut to the bone, the Minister

of Health gets up and makes a big joke out of everything, that he didn't do his

homework. He hasn't been doing his homework for years. It is about time he found

out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the boards have to respond to the

Minister of Health by tomorrow, and he will be told what he already knows, that

there is absolutely no way that the hospital boards in the Province can come up

with the amount of money that the minister is asking them to come up with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. member knows the rules of the House. He knows that

he is not to debate an answer. He is now into a supplementary and should have

had the question asked.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Let me ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: How does

he intend to deal with what the hospital boards are going to tell him tomorrow?

Is he going to press on and implement these cuts even though the hospital boards

are going to tell him that there is absolutely no way they can put up with these

cuts that the minister has asked them to make?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, when I receive their responses,

I will then know how to address them. Until I receive their responses, I won't

know how to address them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of

Health: Is it true that the hospital boards, on a request from the minister,

have been asked to come up with between $6 and $7 million, and are there more

budget cuts to come? This is what the minister has asked for, between $6 and $7

million. Are they going to be hit with an extra amount from the Minister of

Finance when he brings down his mini-budget at the end of the month?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the critic for Health on the part of the

Opposition is forever trying to frighten everybody in the Province. He tried to

frighten them not long ago about the mammography scare and then the report was

released and most of his scares are just a lot of nonsense. So he is at it

again.

All we have asked the hospital boards is: What would you have

to do to cut 1 per cent and 3 per cent off your budget? Let us know, please. In

the meantime, lay nobody off and don't take anything that will affect patient

care. When the Minister of Finance brings in his budget, if he is going to bring

in a budget, then these things will be revealed. There is no need for the member

to lose much sleep over this, this is our problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one in the

Province losing sleep over this.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not losing much sleep, either.

MR. DOYLE: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador want

to know from the Minister of Health how much the health care system is going to

be cut as a result of the minister's Draconian measures.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question! Question! Question! Not a

speech.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister:

Shouldn't the people of the Province know how much they are going to be expected

to cut from the health care system. The fat is gone, let me say to the Minister

of Health, and he's asking the people of the Province, the health care system

and the boards to take apart the skeleton now, bone by bone. Now, Mr. Speaker,

let me ask him again. How much are they going to be expected to cut?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Gone back in his shell again.

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

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

a question to the Minister of Education. Two weeks ago in this House I indicated

that the Province was gypping the students of this Province on the grant portion

under the Newfoundland Student Aid program. In light of the increasing burden

placed upon students by this Province I would now ask the minister would he

confirm that beginning this year for the first time his Department has

instructed the Student Aid division to consider income received by students

under the survivor's benefits of the Canada Pension Plan?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the regulations that govern the

Student Loans Act have been laid down by the federal government and they've been

adopted by the Province. We have not made any changes to the student loans

administration that I'm aware of. Income has to be considered. If the hon.

member is talking about something that was not done in the past I would

certainly have to take that under advisement and get back to the hon. member. I

have not given any specific instructions that anything would be done

differently.

The government recognises that it is an extremely difficult

time to be a student in Canada today. We have a very conservative, very

right-wing federal government which froze the student loans back in 1984 and

have not considered inflation. So this administration is bending over backwards

to accommodate students who require student loans and student aids. However,

like every other citizen in every other branch of government, this government

cannot break the laws of the land, and those laws are laid down by the Student

Loans Act. We have no authority to break those laws. But specifically as to

whether or not some sort of an income is not supposed to be declared I'll

certainly take it under advisement. My guess is that all income has to be

considered, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

the minister, prior to this year those survivor benefits for the children of

widows and widowers was deducted, including parental income. Their income was

too low to require parents to contribute. This year this Province - the only one

in Canada that I'm aware of, and I've checked with three others - has been

taking that from students. The Secretary of State indicates that it's 100 per

cent provincial responsibility. I'll ask the minister: will his department and

the government get off the backs of the students of this Province and stop

inventing obstacles to prevent them from getting an education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in the previous time allotted to

the hon. member he asked me a question. In the supplementary he gave me the

answer. I would have to ask why he's wasting the time of this House to ask that

question if he knew the answer?

MR. TOBIN: He's exposing you! That's what he's doing!

Exposing you!

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, why is he wasting the time

of this House to ask questions that he knows the answers to? I suspect though

that the hon. member is following in the footsteps of the other fearmongers over

there and is trying to create an issue which does not exist. Therefore I will

take the matter under advisement and get an answer back to the hon. member.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason I asked

the hon. minister the question is because the answers can't be obtained anywhere

else. It took me great lengths to obtain them. So I'll ask him again, will he

admit that this Province - the only one in Canada, to my knowledge - has changed

the method that they contribute to students and they deduct this directly from

the student contribution, because this Province is going to save money that they

give the students in grants? In other words, they're transferring the burden

from federal to provincial. Will the minister admit this and do something for

the students of this Province to help them get an education in a very struggling

time?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, one moment the hon. member

claims he has the answer; then he talks about all ten provinces in this country

which are doing something differently. Yet he knows for sure that three did it,

so he generalizes that all ten did it. The hon. member is on a fishing

expedition.

I have told this House on many, many occasions that there is

not enough money per student, in the student loans program and the provincial

grants program, for a student to pay for the full cost of a year in

post-secondary education simply by borrowing and receiving a grant. Now that is

the unfortunate thing about it. The responsibility for that lies solely in the

lap of my friend's cousins in Ottawa. It is this neoconservative, right wing,

callous, Tory government that we have in Ottawa - trying to balance the budget

of the federal government on the backs of the students. Quite the contrary to

the approach that the hon. member has taken, this administration is trying our

best, within our limited means, to make available as much assistance that we

possibly can to assist the students.

So the focus of the hon. member's argument is wrong. If he

has a problem, let him direct it to his Tory colleagues in Ottawa, who are

riding roughshod over the students of this great country of ours.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I ask the minister is: Will he make a report back to this

House that he has used, in his department, a different method for contributing

and calculating student contributions this year than they have done in the

previous three years of their administration?

AN HON. MEMBER: Provincial.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and provincial.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will admit no such thing. I

would want a better basis on which to establish my admission than some

clamouring and blaring from someone on the Opposition who is out to make

political points at no matter what cost.

Just because the hon. member puts forward a premise is no

basis for me to admit that the premise is correct. I have already told the hon.

member that I will take his first question under advisement. All the other

questions were exactly the same thing. I will take the question under

advisement, and if there have been some changes made, I will report that to the

people of this Province.

I am not going to get up and admit something simply because

some hon. member gets up and tries to make political points in this House. That

would be irresponsible. That would be grossly irresponsible, and if that is the

kind of answers he is looking for, I would suggest to him to either stop asking

questions or find someone on his side to ask questions to, because I want to

tell the people of this Province the truth. I do not want to be talking on

hearsays and make-believes, and perhapses. That is not my style.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Last week in his statement, the Minister of Finance indicated

that all government departments would have to have a 1 per cent salary saving

and 3 per cent in its overall budget on expenditure. Could the minister

indicate, or give some idea, where the cuts are going to come in his department,

and will they have any effect on the MOG's given to municipalities?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any indication

at this time.

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

MR. WINSOR: I am not sure what the minister said there.

Did he say: No, he could not give an indication? Is that what he said?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Okay. Anyway, the minister can answer when he

gets up again.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has had a report done for him by

the Federation of Municipalities, which recommended a number of changes to how

MOG's are financed in this Province. In view of the announced budgetary

restraints, what implications come from that for the dispersal of funds for the

next fiscal year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: There are no implications that I know of, Mr.

Speaker. The report that he speaks of is in the system and being studied by

officials, and will take the normal course to be either accepted or rejected. At

this point in time it has no implications on next year.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most municipalities are in the process of preparing their

1993 budget. Their calendar year is from January to December. None of them that

I have been able to contact have received any indication from government as to

what level of funding they are going to have in MOG's for the next fiscal year.

When can these municipalities expect to receive their notifications?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I would suggest to the municipalities in the

Province, at this time, to act upon the existing information and the existing

criteria to establish their budgets. If there is a change to be made, it would

be an improvement and a plus on their side, which they will be readily able to

accept.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill 48?

It is order No. 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 20, continuation of the debate

adjourned yesterday.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned the debate on Tuesday afternoon with just a few

minutes remaining in my allotted time. I will now summarize the main points I

was trying to make in opposing the principle of this Bill.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the workers'

compensation program in Newfoundland and Labrador is in trouble and there must

be reform, but, Mr. Speaker, the reform must not be rushed, it must be

undertaken in consultation with the people affected, with employers, with unions

and with injured workers. Therefore, there should be a six-month delay in our

Legislature's considering proposals for reform and we should assign a committee

of our House the task of conducting public hearings and getting input from the

public so that together we can put forward the most appropriate, the most

sensible and the most compassionate changes available.

The principles that should guide reform of our workers'

compensation program are: No.1, the assurance of fair and reasonable

compensation to workers who are injured on the job; No.2, the assurance for

injured workers of prompt and thorough response from the health care system and

of reasonable assistance in returning to work. When workers may not return to

their former jobs, then there must be assistance for them to train and qualify

themselves for alternate employment. No. 3, there must be incentives for

employers to put in place effective occupational health and safety programs and

appropriate penalties, there have to be positive encouragement and negative

discouragement. I am looking at the Member for St. John's South as I am saying

this. I believe he appreciates the importance of an improved occupational health

and safety effort. No.4, government, as the largest employer in the Province,

government as the operator of hospitals and nursing homes where the accident

rate has risen so sharply, have to be a leader in providing safe workplaces and

preventing workplace accidents. No.5, the premiums charged employers who support

the program have to be reasonable, have to be bearable.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years premiums have become oppressive

for several reasons that I outlined when I spoke on Tuesday. The reasons include

the significant increase in claims and lengthening of the period of claims but

also the decline in the provincial economy; the loss in the first three years of

the Wells administration, from May of '89 to May of '92, of 20,000 jobs. The

decline in the size of the workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador in that short

three-year period from 202,000 jobs to 182,000 jobs and that was before the

northern cod moratorium which put over 20,000 other people out of work.

So, Mr. Speaker, finally the government has to stimulate the

economy and bring about the creation of more jobs, the restoration of jobs, so

that the business base, the payroll on which workers' compensation premiums are

levied, is made larger. What has been happening in our Province is that more and

more workers' compensation premiums, heavier and heavier workers' compensation

premiums, have been loaded on a smaller and smaller business base, and this has

become oppressive. Some employers in the Province are threatening revolt.

Mr. Speaker, Workers' Compensation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the

opportunity to speak on this Bill, to the hoist that my leader has proposed.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be more consultation with the

people of this Province and, indeed, with people throughout this country on

legislation that affects the people so much.

One of the things that has occurred in this country over the

past couple of years, is the complete dissatisfaction of the general public with

politicians and political parties. And the forum that we participate in, such as

we saw here today during Question Period, leaves, I guess, a very bad impression

on the general public of how we behave as politicians. Some people, when asked a

question in an attempt to get some information, feel it is being done purely for

political reasons, that the questioner is being crassly political about it and

doesn't have the interest of the particular subject matter that is being

questioned; they are just attempting to ask a question to embarrass a minister

or government.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think the issue of something such as is

being discussed here today - and we saw how the minister behaved -is also

relevant to what the Government did on this particular piece of

legislation.

This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, affects every single

individual employed in this Province. And there was very little consultation

with people, with the ordinary working man and woman in the plants, or in the

shops, or in the boats, or in the mines throughout this Province.

There has to be more consultation with people. I believe one

of the reasons why the general public is completely dissatisfied, disillusioned,

and disgusted with politicians is that there is, one, not enough consultation;

and two, even when they go through a charade of consultation with the general

public, political parties at all levels don't listen to the public - they are

not listening. And I think that we, as politicians, should start listening to

what some of the people in the streets are telling us.

The people in the streets and the people in the workplace are

telling us we should have another look at this piece of legislation and see what

it is going to do to the ordinary working man and woman in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I don't know how many people in this House read The Evening Telegram

yesterday and saw the full page advertisement that the Newfoundland and Labrador

Nurses' Union had taken out. It is one of the most effective ads I have ever

seen, Mr. Speaker, very, very effective; and it is honest, it is to the point.

It tells you the history of what happened to a person, it tells you the history

of what is happening at the present, and also mentions what is going to occur in

the future, Mr. Speaker.

There is a concern in the general public about what this

particular Bill is going to do and why the government is doing it. The general

public, the ordinary working man and woman of this Province, can't believe that

this administration continues to be governed by a bottom-line mentality. They

don't have consideration for individuals, for people, and especially when you

look at this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking

about people who have huge amounts of assets or a lot of money to withstand

several years off work. We are talking, in a lot of cases, about people who have

lost a job. These are ordinary men and women, who, along with the physical pain

they have to endure and the mental anguish they are going through of not being

able to work because they have been injured on the job, we see this

administration attempting to get on their broken backs in order to be so

concerned about a bottom line.

This balancing-the-books or bottom-line mentality, Mr.

Speaker, I firmly, firmly believe has stifled the economy of this Province, has

actually hurt the economy. Because that is really, really the problem with

Workers' Compensation, that because the economy is so bad and we have had so

many companies going broke and fewer companies providing opportunities for

employment, that really we have not been able to get the revenues up versus the

payments going out. That is really what the problem is, and I think that the

minister recognizes that.

So, Mr. Speaker, they should stop attempting to use that

bottom-line or balancing-the-books-at-any-cost mentality that they have used

since they were elected in 1989, and attempt to create a more hospitable climate

for people to invest and participate in the economy, and to allow entrepreneurs

to be able to invest more money and to create more employment opportunities and

more economic activity.

They have to realize that apart from laying off the nurse at

the Janeway - when that nurse got laid off at the Janeway several things

occurred. One is that the nurse who remained there ended up taking on an

increased work load and that may have contributed to the reason why she had to

take time off work with a bad back. She had increased her work load because of

what this government did. But in the larger picture of the economy, Mr. Speaker,

that nurse that you laid off, that you turfed out of a job down at the Janeway

also participated in the economy. She just doesn't add up on the ledger side of

expenses, Mr. Speaker, she also participates in the economy. All that salary

that she was paid, that salary that she earned, when she went out and bought a

car, bought groceries, bought clothing for herself or her children, went to a

movie or helped furnish her house, that money went around in the economy of this

Province. So that created an economic activity.

But with the bottom-line mentality of this group, since they

were elected, Mr. Speaker, they think that she was only a total expense. In

their simple, bottom-line mentality economics they look at her simply as an

expense, that she doesn't participate in the economic picture of this Province,

Mr. Speaker. That is completely untrue and I believe it is one of the reasons

why we find we are worse off, and have been worse off, than any other province

since this recession started, because of what the reaction of this government

has been.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some people think that you can balance your

books by laying off all your government workers. It isn't that simple. They

aren't merely an expense. They participate in the economy. When that nurse buys

furniture, or used to buy the furniture, or cars or groceries, she actually

participated and helped drive the economy of this Province. That bottom line

mentality has created more of the mess in this Province than what the global

recession has caused.

Because that's truly what the real problem is with workers'

compensation. The other problem that's occurring in workers' compensation when a

nurse is being injured, or a worker in the mines in Labrador is being injured,

because a nurse was laid off in several hospitals we've now found - and this is

really also driving up the cost of worker's compensation - that people aren't

getting treatment fast enough because of shutting down hospital beds and not

having access to health care.

I keep returning to the problem with laying off the nurses,

that simple bottom line mentality that this regime has created since they were

elected in 1989. By laying off the nurses they stifled the economy, created an

unsafe working situation in that nurse's environment, but they've also created

another problem, in the miner's case who was injured in the mines in western

Labrador and now they can't have as quick an access to health care facilities

and health care treatment in this Province because of all these cutbacks. So

that's increased the burden on workers' compensation. Again we're seeing that

the knee-jerk reaction of this administration, this regime, has created a larger

problem.

A lot of my constituents have a lot of concerns about this

Bill. I've often wondered why - and maybe the minister, I know he's taking notes

while I'm speaking and listening very intently - but I want to - some of the

questions that they're wondering about are: why the government has such a

concern over the top-up provision? I'm hoping the minister will respond. I don't

know why it is. You're making it a law that an employer cannot top-up the wages

of an injured worker in their compensation.

I can't understand the reasoning behind it. If an employee

works out an arrangement through collective bargaining with an employer, that

employee sells a service to that employer. Would this employee be able to

purchase, as an example, a plan outside the arrangement? The minister nods in

the affirmative. Then what's the purpose of making it unlawful for the employer

to top it up? Can the employee through some co-op program opt into and be able

to get the compensation increased? Those concerns have been raised in my

district.

There's also a concern in my district over the compensable

earnings allowed by workers' compensation. A lot of the people in my district

earn high salaries. They produce a lot of wealth for this Province, they produce

a lot of wealth for the company they are employed with. When they lose their

earnings their expenses are still going on. The cost of living is very high.

They find it unreasonable that they cannot be adequately compensated. They feel

that they should and they would like to see this addressed, and that is one of

the reasons why they would like to see more public consultation. They want to be

able to tell this government what they feel should be in this Act. They don't

want this government not listening, or to pass a regulation and then come back

and say: Well, that is the law, it is very difficult to change it now. They are

suggesting that we should have more consultation with them so that we can, when

we enact this legislation, do it for the benefit of people working, Mr. Speaker.

That is what we have to be really concerned about, that we are doing this for

their benefit and for the benefit of all the workers.

There are some positive things in this legislation; one of

them is the dependence age being increased from sixteen to eighteen, and the

other, I think, is the index with the cost of living?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that is not there, it is taken away.

MR. A. SNOW: Is that being removed?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is being removed for the next four

years.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, there are some positive aspects

to this legislation, but there are too many negative aspects affecting the

ordinary working man and woman of this Province, to persuade me to vote or to

support this legislation as it is.

One of the things that has to be addressed is the idea, I

believe, that especially for somebody who has lost his life in an industrial

accident in the workplace, the survivors have to be adequately compensated in

the survival benefits. It is very tragic, very, very tragic to see somebody lose

his life on a job and then to see that the surviving members of that family are

not adequately compensated or looked after, if you want to look at it in that

sense, especially when they leave children to be educated. And there isn't

enough - I don't think there is enough coverage to allow a complete education

before benefits are restricted or cut back.

I think that benefits to surviving children should not be cut

off at eighteen, they should continue, I would think, up to probably the age of

twenty-three, twenty-four or twenty-five, while they are attending

post-secondary institutions. For these children who have lost a parent in an

industrial accident and now find that they cannot afford post-secondary

education, I think it is important that workers' compensation benefits continue

until an age - I don't know the average age of a student finishing

post-secondary education; I would say it is probably about twenty-three or

twenty-four years of age, by the time one finishes high school and gets a degree

at university. So, for at least one degree, Mr. Speaker, that would be say,

twenty-four years of age. But my understanding is that we presently would not

allow child survivor benefits past the age of eighteen. I don't think that is

being realistic. It doesn't represent what is occurring out in the real world.

We all know it is becoming very, very expensive, for a younger person to get a

postsecondary education, especially in the universities. I think we should be

doing whatever we can to ensure that these people who have lost a parent - that

is tragic enough, but to hit them again with another tragedy, that of not being

able to get access to a postsecondary education is another tragedy, and we

shouldn't be doing this to these people. Mr. Speaker, we have to consider that

the disability benefits and the death benefits are completely different, and we

have to treat them as such.

Mr. Speaker, the people in my district have a lot of concerns

that they would want this government to address before changing legislation to

workers' compensation. They feel that the accidents that occur, and they do

occur in the workplace, can be greatly reduced if their employers were to spend

more time and effort in creating a safer environment, and not take the

bottom-line mentality of reducing benefits, drive up the cost and just look at

the bottom line. You have to invest money into specific programs - specific to

being more safety conscious - educational programs in the work force.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on the motion to table this bill for six

months and bring it forward then again, the bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers'

Compensation Act," Bill No. 48.

I think this is a very worthwhile motion because it will

allow time for the people of this Province - and not just those who made briefs

to the committee or who were already in touch with the government, but would

allow time for the people of this Province, the workers, themselves, the

individual workers who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of this system, and,

indeed, those people who are injured workers and are out of the system and

dependent on this system for their sole livelihood and that of their families,

those who are on extended earnings loss provisions, those who are receiving

benefits for deceased spouses or family members for whom they are dependent -

all of those people have a right to know in detail the consequences of this Act

on them.

There has been, yes, some discussion on the bill, and the

players -the unions, the Federation of Labour, the employers' council and these

types have had their say at an earlier stage. That was prior to this legislation

being brought forward, and I think the government has an obligation to allow

time for the people who are to be so seriously affected by this legislation to

have a good, hard look at what the government's plan is, and determine whether

or not it is necessary.

We have seen a great deal of criticism of the Workers'

Compensation Commission, and perhaps they don't deserve it all; but I do know

that workers' compensation, as an issue, is one of those issues that members of

this House are constantly and consistently being called upon to try to help

resolve. It involves getting answers from Workers' Compensation; trying to get a

claim approved; trying to find out what exactly the Commission is doing on their

case; determining whether they can get medical aid; trying to get their claim

straightened out - all of this leading to enormous delays which were identified

by the Workers' Compensation Review Committee, the Statutory Review Committee,

as being part of the responsibility and the major factors, Mr. Speaker, in the

responsibility for the increased costs of assessments and the increased costs,

of course, to the system, resulting in what has been referred to as unfunded

liability, which obviously needs to be redressed at some point in time.

We don't expect the system to be perfect at all times and to

assume that the impossible and the unlikely will happen. What the government has

said is that: if we had to continue to pay out claims based on the money that we

have in the fund right now, we wouldn't be able to do it. That's what they're

saying. But that is not reality. The reality is that the Workers' Compensation

system is continuing, and that this year and next year and the years after,

employers who are covered by this and get the benefits of this legislation -

because that's what it is, Mr. Speaker, it is legislation designed to benefit

employers as well as employees - those employers who get the benefit of the

legislation will continue to pay assessments. And as long as the system is

continuing, it will be able to pay out the benefits that are already accounted

for.

So this notion of unfunded liability is a problem, yes, but

it is not a problem of today or next month or six months time, it is a problem

down the road that can be addressed now in ways other than by taking apart the

system and threatening the security and the futures of injured workers and their

families. That is what this government has chosen to do.

I say that deliberately. This government pretends in this

House day after day, week after week, month after month, that it has no choice.

We must cut back services, we must cut back benefits to workers, we must rip up

collective agreements, we must lay people off, because we have no choice. That's

the constant theme of this government. We have no choice, we cannot govern, we

can't make decisions, we can't do anything, the deficit made me do it. The devil

made me do it. That's the only excuse that this government has for its inaction,

its incompetence, and its lacklustre ability to give any hope to the people of

this Province that they can bring us out of the mess we are in.

They respond constantly by looking for: How can we take apart

the system? How can we take apart the security that an injured worker will have?

How can we do something that is going to make things a little bit less secure

for people and remove some of the hope that they have? It is almost that way. I

don't suggest they do that deliberately. But I do suggest that they are perhaps

not unhappy with the results. Because, deep down, they think that the people who

are on workers' compensation are malingerers. Deep down, they think that they

shouldn't be on workers' compensation at all. They figure that: We will make it

a little more unpleasant for people to be off work, and maybe they will go back

to work.

I say that if there is somebody who is malingering, if there

is somebody who is abusing the Workers' Compensation system, go get him. Check

it out. If somebody is abusing the system, go and do a proper investigation. If

somebody is defrauding the Workers' Compensation system, well, then, they should

be made to pay. They obviously should be taken off the system and perhaps

prosecuted. Government would receive the support of all members of this House

for doing that. But they are not doing that. They are going ahead and removing

the benefits for injured workers and making them pay.

Now, I have no difficulty in saying that, because if they

were aiming this at people who ought not to be on the system, then they would be

doing something different. There is a lot of people who ought not to be on the

system. All those who are victims of accidents that should never have happened

shouldn't be on the system, because the accidents should have been prevented by

the Department of Employment and Labour Relations doing a proper job in

occupational health and safety, doing a proper job in prevention, making sure

that workplace injuries were reduced by having programs in place that would have

prevented it.

It is not too late. They have introduced some programs now.

Why don't they let them work and make more stringent the rules for workplace

safety, make more stringent the fines for violations of occupational health and

safety, take it seriously, about treating workplace safety with as much

importance as they do highway safety in terms of enforcement? - perhaps not in

terms of keeping the roads clean but, in terms of enforcement, they go head and

they have very serious fines. They have a new system for removing people's

licenses. Highway safety, they say, is uppermost in their minds. I am not so

sure about winter ice clearing. We are trying to figure it out right now. But,

Mr. Speaker, workplace safety is of the utmost importance and, by improving

workplace safety, some of the people who should not be on workers' compensation

would not be there, Mr. Speaker, causing injury to themselves and hardship for

their families and also, of course, an expense to the system.

So they won't let that work. They won't wait, Mr. Speaker,

and see how valuable and efficient their programs of workplace health and safety

can make the workplace and decrease costs. They won't, Mr. Speaker, rely on the

measures that should be taken, and were advised to be taken, to improve the

efficiency of the system by getting people's claims responded to more quickly

and by getting people's rehabilitation programs started more quickly, so that

there is a possibility of reducing the duration of an accident claim and

reducing the duration of a worker's injury.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that if a worker receives an injury

that can be assisted by physiotherapy, that physiotherapy should start

immediately. The sooner you start physiotherapy to help repair damaged ligaments

and muscles, the quicker it will work. I see the former Minister of Health

agreeing with me. He know a lot about this and how important it is to get early

service and early treatment for injured people, whether they be injured workers

or people injured in other categories.

So it is important, Mr. Speaker, for us to realize that there

are ways of keeping the system under control by, in fact, providing a better

service, quicker treatment, quicker rehabilitation, shorter claims resulting

from that, Mr. Speaker, less hardship, less room for people to try to see if

they can take advantage of the system, if there are, indeed, people who try to

do that, and with that, Mr. Speaker, a more efficient system. I know the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations agrees with me in his own heart. But

Clawback Clyde has told him he must cut back benefits to workers. It seems to be

part of the theme of the government of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

So what they have done is they have cut back the benefit to

the injured workers, the ones who are deserving and needful of workers'

compensation to look after themselves and their families. So I say, Mr. Speaker,

take the people off workers' compensation who shouldn't be there. Take the ones

off who should never have had the accidents, by making sure we have a good

prevention system in place so the accidents will not happen and they won't be

there. Get them off workers' compensation by making a safer workplace. That is a

good idea. The next idea, Mr. Speaker: If there are people on it who are

malingering or who shouldn't be on it, get them off by having a proper

investigation system. Don't say in the back of your minds, `Yes, we know they

are all taking advantage of the system, so we will rip them all back by 10 or 20

per cent or, in some cases, up to 40 per cent loss in their income. That is what

we will do instead, Mr. Speaker, we will treat them all alike.' It is called

collective punishment, I think. I am not sure what they used to call it in

Germany, but it was collective responsibility when they decided they would

punish everybody. They would punish a whole group of people for what they saw as

the wrongs of a few.

That is what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is

time that they woke up to the realities of what they were doing at the behest of

the Premier of this Province. I think, Mr. Speaker, the workers are recognizing

this as unfair and they are recognizing it as the work of a government that is

does not truly care for their interests.

We see, Mr. Speaker, the second part of this clawback program

is once again there is interference with existing collective agreements and the

collective bargaining process. Now why are they doing that?

They may tell us, I suppose, that if we lower the amount of

compensation, and that some employer has agreed to top it up to 90 per cent or

100 per cent, it might say that we do not want to give them an added

responsibility by having agreed to top it up to the top, because when we take

the middle out their contribution is going to get bigger. They might say that,

but what they have really done is gone further. They have outlawed any future

agreements, so that if I, as an employer, want to say to my employees: Look, as

part of our package of benefits we are prepared to provide you with additional

remuneration if you happen to be off work because of a legitimate workplace

accident. This government has outlawed it. What is the rationale for that? Who

are they trying to let off the hook? Themselves? Private employers? Why are they

interfering with collective bargaining in this way? They have not answered that

question. It can only be because they are using this as a backhanded way to get

at the workers and to get at the unions who have negotiated agreements.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows anything about collective

bargaining, whether it be in the public service or in the private sector - even

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs knows about negotiating

contracts - when you make an agreement, you do not get something for nothing.

The Member for Harbour Grace knows that too. You do not get something for

nothing when you are making an agreement, when you are making a deal, when you

are making a contract. You put your proposals on the table, and the other side

puts their proposals on the table, and you trade off, and you give up this and

you get that, and you get something else. Those workers who negotiated

collective agreements wherein they got a workers' compensation top up, what did

they give up? They had to give up something. I cannot tell you what it was, but

I know they gave up something in order to get that top up. Now, the question is,

what does this legislation offer and replace?... zero, Mr. Speaker. In fact,

they take away whatever is there and offer nothing in return.

So once again the collective bargaining process is given a

body blow by this government, which obviously has no respect for the institution

of collective bargaining and no respect for the democratic organizations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) disincentive to work.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs says that top ups are disincentives to work. Now I think we have gotten

to the nub of the problem here.

That side of the House believes that people are on workers'

compensation because they do not want to work. That is what the government side

of the House really believes, so what we are going to do is take away from

everybody because there may be a few people who will not go back to work because

they are getting the top up; they are getting full salary.

Mr. Speaker, top ups are a disincentive to workers, is what

he said. I politely listened to him, and I understand that is an argument that

can be made; but it just confirms my point that the government side of the House

believes that the reason the system costs so much is that people who are

collecting workers' compensation should really be back working and they should

not be on compensation at all. I agree with him in one respect - that there are

a lot of people on workers' compensation who would not be there today if we had

safer workplaces. They should not be on compensation.

There is another group, and there are probably a few - I do

not know how many. There are people on social assistance who should not be there

because they are cheating the system, or they are abusing the system, or they

are defrauding the government. I am sure there are. There are people on

unemployment insurance who we see being charged in the courts, week in and week

out. Yes, there are people who abuse that system, but that does not mean that

the system ought to be gutted, Mr. Speaker. I know that there are some people

over there who want to gut it out, the Member for Carbonear wants to gut the

system. The Member for Carbonear said it should be gutted.

We know there are people who commit crimes, we know there are

people who even abuse social assistance or government members who abuse their

privileges, that happens, Mr. Speaker, and that should be dealt with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - that is something that should be dealt with

and the hon. members over opposite would deal with it by cutting everybody's

salary in half, they would cut everybody's salary in half and that will solve

the problem, and that is the kind of approach that this government takes. They

do not identify people; if there are people who should not be on workers'

compensation, get them off, get them off and when you get them off, the system

will be cheaper. When you have workplace safety looked after and you beef it up;

when you have the system more efficient so that people are getting treated as

soon as they need the treatment, when they are getting decisions from the

Workers' Compensation Commission in a timely way so they can organize their

lives and their futures, and when you can get the system straightened out that

way, you will not have the same problems as you have now, Mr. Speaker. You do

not have to gut the system in order to do that.

But I think the reason we have this legislation is really

based on what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has said, that

they really believe that workers' compensation, the system is too good for

Newfoundlanders. It is too good for Newfoundlanders; Newfoundlanders cannot take

it, you give them a system like that, sure they will stay home, they won't work,

that is what the government believes. They do not want to work, is what they

think; that is their attitude, that is why they have the clawback. Why do you

think, Mr. Speaker, there is a clawback on the package, why is there a clawback

on the package? Because this crowd over there thinks that Newfoundlanders do not

want to work. That is their attitude.

Why is there a clawback on the fisheries compensation, Mr.

Speaker? Because the Government of Newfoundland, clawback Carter and clawback

Clyde, they think that the people of Newfoundland do not want to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want another one now.

MR. HARRIS: Now they want another one; that is the logic

and the logic of the cuts of workers' compensation is what the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs said: top ups are a disincentive to work so we

will take them off. We cannot have a person adequately compensated for workplace

injuries because they won't go back to work. They won't go back to work. So the

logic of that, Mr. Speaker is really (inaudible). You have some poor worker who

is lying on his back in a hospital for two years - I know how we will get him

back to work, we will rip back his compensation, we will cut him back to 70 per

cent, that will get him up off his back, that will get him out of traction, that

will get him back on the job; no problem, give him an incentive -

MR. GRIMES: Why don't you read the bill?

MR. HARRIS: Ah, we are getting to him now; we are getting

to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. He says: Read the Bill,

don't be silly. I am just quoting him, what the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs said. It is obvious the Cabinet's policy is that top ups are

a disincentive to work and so I am saying to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, perhaps when he gets up he can tell us how cutting back the

benefits to a worker who is on his back in the hospital to 75 per cent, how is

that going to get that man up off his back, back lifting and working in the

warehouse or driving a truck, how is that going to get him up? Cut him back to

75 per cent, make his family suffer, make his wife and children suffer because

top ups are a disincentive. There is no answer to that question, Mr. Speaker.

While I have the attention of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

perhaps he can tell us when he gets up to speak and closes - well I don't know

how many other people are speaking. Perhaps he can tell us why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps he can tell us what the government is

really doing in Clause 9. I'm prepared to listen. But I really for the life of

me can't understand what the government is doing in Clause 9. The previous

section 45 of the Bill - called the 'Ocean Ranger' amendment when it was all

completed - allowed a worker to receive compensation and also sue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now the Member for St. John's South knows all

about it. I'll tell the Member for St. John's South that I know about it because

I was involved in it. Alright? I was involved in it. So was the Minister of

Justice and his law firm, they were very much involved in it.

MR. ROBERTS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman misspoke himself. He

said: the Minister of Justice and his law firm. He may mean my former law firm,

or he may mean some other law firm which I'll be associated -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) work for Enterprise

Newfoundland?

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Is that firm still doing work for

Enterprise Newfoundland?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have no law firm.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have no law firm, I say to

the rude gentleman from Kilbride. Now let me come back to the gentleman from St.

John's East who has the floor.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I wonder how much (Inaudible) -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: I say to the hon. gentleman from St. John's

East that he may have misspoke himself. I have no law firm. I was formerly

associated, I was the senior partner, in fact, with Halley, Hunt for many years.

If I ever go back to the practice at the Bar I may or may not become associated

with a firm. That remains to be seen. But I would ask the hon. gentleman please

to acknowledge that I have no law firm.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking to the point of order? Because

the Chair is ready....

MR. HARRIS: The Chair can rule on the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. member

was taking the opportunity to clarify a statement made by the hon. the Member

for St. John's East.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Neither the Minister

of Justice nor I have a law firm. Both the Minister of Justice and I have former

law firms that we were formerly partners of. So I take the minister at his word

on that.

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

of Justice and I, and our former law firms, were involved in the Ocean Ranger

case. So we have a familiarity - you know, being a lawyer is not always a bad

thing. You do pick up a bit of knowledge along the way, particularly of the law.

I'm telling the hon. member that

Section 45 of the Act allowed the individual to

collect compensation and sue when you were involved with third parties. The

third parties in the Ocean Ranger case, for the benefit of hon. members, were

the manufacturer of the rig, the United States government, the United States

Coast Guard, all sorts of people who did not have employees covered by workers'

compensation.

That allowed the individuals, the families of these victims,

to collect compensation on a month-to-month basis and be able to feed their

families and look after their obligations, and at the same time to pursue

whatever legal rights they might have. That's similarly the case now. It was

done at the time but it still exists, that you can collect workers' compensation

and you can sue when there are third parties involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk about the Pearcey case.

MR. HARRIS: The Pearcey case. Mr. Speaker, the member

doesn't now what he's talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know what you're talking about?

MR. HARRIS: I was in the Supreme Court of Canada when the

Pearcey case was being argued, so I do know what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker.

What happened was -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It was dismissed from the bench, exactly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Pearcey case, Mr. Speaker, was about

whether or not you could sue your employer and collect compensation. The Supreme

Court of Canada decided, as did the Newfoundland Supreme Court and the

Newfoundland court of Appeal, that the Workers' Compensation Act acted to

protect employers from law suits. Right? But not third parties. So what I want

to know is, why did the minister take away the word "and" and replace it with

"or"?

Now, you have to do either one or the other. So, if your

spouse, Mr. Speaker, is killed in a plane crash, or you are an injured worker as

a result of a possible third party action, you have to lie on your back or

suffer it out and decide: Well, am I going to sue or am I going to go to

Workers' Compensation? And the very act of applying for workers' compensation,

in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, means that you have lost the right to sue.

Now, why are they doing that? There may be some

administrative reasons why the Workers' Compensation Commission needs to know,

Mr. Speaker, because the Workers' Compensation Commission, itself, may wish to

take action, and I have no problem with that; if they are taking action and

taking away the right to sue at the same time - they can take action to collect

what they have paid out, that is fair game, but why would they deprive someone

of the right to sue, on the very day that he applies for workers' compensation?

It is not right, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know where this has come from. It

seems to be coming out of left field, somewhere.

It seems to me that it can be done some other way to ensure

that the Workers' Compensation Commission has some idea what is going on, so

that it won't miss limitation periods and be subrogated to the claims of the

individual. There are other ways of doing that without destroying the right to

sue. Because, Mr. Speaker, I think, once you have taken away that right, and the

Workers' Compensation Commission is subrogated, there may well be a

responsibility on the part of Workers' Compensation to take an action, and that

doesn't appear in the bill. But if an injured worker or dependents apply for

workers' compensation, all of a sudden, there is no right to sue, and if the

Workers' Compensation Commission doesn't get around to doing it, the right to

sue could well be lost, and the opportunity for the Compensation Commission or

for the claimant to get greater benefits than workers' compensation, would be

lost, too.

So it seems, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that

provision. There is some woolly thinking going on in the minister's department

when it comes to this particular provision, and he didn't really explain it in

his opening remarks. I ask him to redress it in his closing remarks and also to

go back to his officials and ask: Do we really need to do that? Isn't there some

administrative way we can find out, within a reasonable period of time, whether

the individual is going to sue or not, that still gives us time to do the

investigative work and get the legal work done to start an action, without

having to do what is being done?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: Question!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

On motion, amendment defeated.

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

West.

Is the hon. member on a point of order?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We are now speaking on second reading of the

main Bill. The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor, or does the

Government House Leader?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: I wasn't aware the Chair had recognized

anybody, but I will gladly let the hon. gentleman, if he wants to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Chair didn't recognize Halley

Hunt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: He is sitting right next to the fellow

who is paying his bills there - Enterprise Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: A low blow.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity to say a

few words to the hoist that was introduced.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh, my, I wouldn't expect that from a

House Leader.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Government

House Leader is attacking my colleague from Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: We have to kill twenty-nine minutes for

him.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, if they will be quiet and

listen, I will certainly speak to this debate. I want to say I am a little

disappointed - I am not surprised - that government has once again decided not

to go to the public of this Province and let them have some input into this

piece of legislation.

Actually what I was looking for in my file, and I do not have

it there, is the statement that the Premier made to the House where he confirmed

to this Province that he spent in excess of half a million dollars redecorating

his office, and spent another $118,000 on furniture, I say to the Government

House Leader. I want to make the comparison of how this government has thrown

money to redecorate the government offices when at the same time they are

prepared to roll back the wages, to claw back what people on workers'

compensation are getting. That is what I wanted to get.

A man, with a family today on compensation is getting cut up

to 40 per cent when the Premier of this Province can install $600 door knobs.

That is what I was looking for in my file. When people in this Province today,

who are on compensation and other things, have homes that need repair, when the

Premier of this Province can spend $80,000 on wallpaper for his office. That is

the kind of research I was looking for. That is the comparison I want to make.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pippy Park doing his lawn. $20,000 for

entertainment, and he (inaudible) spend it.

MR. TOBIN: What was that?

MR. R. AYLWARD: $20,000 for entertainment, and he

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And the list goes on. People on compensation

today, and people who cannot work, for whatever reason -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Look! Look! The poor fellow fell down. You

got knocked down.

He almost got compensation.

MS. VERGE: We almost had a workplace injury on the part

of a politician.

MR. TOBIN: It is interesting to note that the expert on

safety, the former safety officer, almost had an accident in the workplace. That

is what we have. The safety officer, the man who boasts and blows off in this

House about all he knows about safety, almost broke his leg - an accident in the

workplace, Mr. Speaker. That is what we had. And he gets up in this House and

says: Listen to me. I am twenty-five or thirty-five years as a safety officer,

and he cannot even walk on the floor. We will never take advice from you again.

Go up and rub your hands on the knobs and see if you will rub something off. Go

up on the eighth floor and start rubbing knobs and see if that will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am referring to the $600 door knobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were talking about

peppermint knobs.

MR. TOBIN: I find it difficult to speak when I am

constantly being interrupted.

I say to the members opposite, and I say to the people of

this Province, that we have gotten involved in this debate, and we have tried to

highlight to the people of this Province the injustice that has been inflicted

upon those who depend upon workers' compensation because of this piece of

legislation. We have a responsibility -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to work or starve.

MR. TOBIN: Well that is the attitude.

We have a responsibility, as an opposition, to let the people

of this Province know exactly where government is going to place them; and the

decision right now is that they are going to have clawbacks and rollbacks, and

it could be up to 40 per cent reduction. So what the government is saying to the

person today on compensation is: Go back to work or starve to death.

I want to say to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, if I could get his attention for a minute I would certainly

appreciate it, I say to the minister responsible for this piece of legislation,

that when he gets up to speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: He never listened to what teachers told

him all the years he was President; he is not going to listen now.

MR. TOBIN: No, I am serious. The Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations, I want to get his attention because I want him, when he

gets up to speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I can say to the gentleman opposite that I do

care about all of the people in this Province who are on workers' compensation,

and other people who cannot work.

I am sure that my friend and colleague from Placentia, the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who has a lot of experience in

safety, and who, I understand, from time to time trained people in the work

force in safety. I believe that the Member for St. John's South is a former

trainee of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in the field of

safety. So it is unfortunate that he never advised him to open his eyes and

watch out for steps, but I think he did train him.

I want the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I want - what did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said put them together to make several

safety officers.

MR. TOBIN: I must say that wasn't a bad line.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Don't say that too loud.

MR. TOBIN: I won't say who said it, but someone said

across the floor that the two of you together would make several good safety

officers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the Minister of Employment, I'd

like for him to address the annuity, when he gets up to speak, that annuity

clause. Because I'm after having from my district, I say to the minister, and

from the district of Fortune- Hermitage in particular, I'm after having several

calls from Fortune - Hermitage district and my own district regarding that

clause. I'd say to the minister that a lot of the calls that I've received on

this annuity program were people who were involved with Fishery Products. Two or

three of them were actually captains with Fishery Products who had invested

heavily and had a significant dollar invested into the annuity program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Up until such time as they made the - I'm

speaking to the minister. I'm not speaking to you. You only think you're the

minister, or wish you were the minister. I'm speaking to the person who is the

minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the Member for St. John's South, if

he wants to find out something through the Cabinet process, to consult with his

colleague, the Minister of Tourism, and he'll help him out.

The trawlermen, I say to the Minister of Employment, who had

paid into a very significant retirement savings plan over the years, who were

involved with the company pension, or whatever it was. As a result of injuries

they did not make any further contribution, I guess, is what I'm saying. Did not

make any further contribution to their pension plan. As a result of the program

that was set up with Workers' Compensation they continued to pay into this

annuity program. Now I understand from speaking to them - and I know the

minister will certainly address it when he gets up, and I'd appreciate that,

because I want to get back to those people who called, and I did say I would

raise it in the House.

And other people such as the Shipyard employees, I received

calls from a couple of them as well as it relates to that annuity program. I say

to the minister that I do have somewhere in my file letters - the statements, I

guess, that were sent out by Workers' Compensation to these people. Several of

them, Mr. Speaker, had several thousands of dollars. As a matter of fact, some

of them had in the high 'teens invested in this program, and it's now not

available as I understand it as of December 31 unless they are sixty-five years

of age.

The other question I'd like for the minister to speak to when

he gets up as it relates to my concerns is that I spoke to someone the other day

in my constituency. He has to travel back and forth to St. John's for therapy.

He gets his way paid in and he gets his accommodations looked after. I've been

told that the same type of therapy can be made available to him in Marystown

through the chiropractor. He says that Compensation for some reason will not

recognise or will not pay that person.

So I'd like for the minister to address that as well. Because

if that is the case - and I don't know if it is the case or not - but I say to

the minister, if that is the case, can he imagine how much money he would be

saving around this Province if people could avail of the therapy back home in

their own areas, rather than have to come to St. John's and pay accommodations?

So I ask the minister to address that as well when he gets up to speak.

We all know that Workers' Compensation is finding itself in

difficult situations for a lot of reasons. But we must realise that in this

Province today there are some forty-some thousand less people working than there

were when this government came to office. Now I say to the minister, when he

gets up, if he wants to address it, that when you consider the people who are on

this fisheries compensation package, 21,000, they do not show statistically as

unemployed. The fact of the matter is that they are not employed and while they

are in that situation they are not contributing to the workers' compensation

plan. While they are not contributing, Mr. Speaker, to that plan it means that

the Workers' Compensation Commission is receiving less money because of the

economic conditions that this government has brought the Province to. So when

you have 40,000 people who were contributing three years ago that are not

contributing now, obviously the revenue has to be down by a significant portion.

What's happening in this Province is that the government now

is saying that they're finding themselves in this dilemma. (Inaudible) workers'

compensation, the biggest contributing factor to the situation that Workers'

Compensation finds themselves in, is based on the poor economic conditions in

this Province. The poor economic condition is something that is going to cause

problems not just for the Workers' Compensation Commission but for everyone who

is depending on social programs.

MR. MURPHY: Foolishness!

MR. TOBIN: Foolishness? I'd say to the Member for St.

John's South, the self-imposed safety expert, Mr. Speaker, the former trainee of

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I'd say to him that it is not

foolishness. That as long as this government brings 40,000 unemployed people to

this Province, as long as it takes 40,000 out of the work force that are not

contributing to the economic conditions of this Province, that are not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: What are you talking about?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, every day there are companies

going bankrupt in this Province since this crowd came to office. Doesn't the

member know that? As a result of the economic conditions, with companies going

bankrupt in this Province, Workers' Compensation is receiving less money, I'd

say to the Member for St. John's South. When they're receiving less money then

they find themselves in the situation that they are now in.

The fact of the matter is that the economics of this Province

and this country is today playing a role in this piece of legislation that's

before the House. The Member for St. John's South told me himself that he does

not agree with the annuity aspect of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's right. I'd say to the Member for St.

John's South -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Are you going to vote against that in the

Bill?

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the Member for St. John's South

that -

MR. DOYLE: You'll never get to the front bench like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the Member for St. John's South

that these people who have paid $16,000 for example into an annuity program, to

see it all gone, come the 31st of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the minister is going to address it. The

minister assured me that he will address it, and he will. I have raised other

issues that I have asked him to address.

The people of this Province today who are on workers'

compensation are being forced to go back to work or starve. How can members

opposite stand up in their place today and say to the men and women who are

their constituents that depend on workers' compensation that: we are going to

reduce your rate, that we are going to put you and your families in a situation

that we will force you back to work?

I'd say to the Member for Harbour Grace, have the courage to

stand up in this Legislature and tell the people of Harbour Grace, your

constituents, the men and women out there, who are on compensation, whether you

are supporting them, this minister and this government hauling back. Halted

their cheques. Reducing it up to 40 per cent, I say to the Member for Harbour

Grace. Stand up and let the people of Harbour Grace know where you're coming

from. Let them know whether or not you support it, I say to the member. Never

mind shouting across the House at someone who is trying to make the people of

this Province aware of-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. Well you stand up and let us know what you

are going to say about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You do not have the courage to stand up and

tell the people of Harbour Grace how they should vote I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Carbonear, if I were

you, I would turn back on to because he has great difficulty in looking ahead to

see the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island in Cabinet. He has even greater

difficulty looking ahead to see the Member for Placentia in Cabinet and that is

the problem with the Member for Carbonear, you are back over there, a sooky

baby, sooking all the time because some of your colleagues were invited to

Cabinet, that is the problem with the Member for Carbonear, I would say to this

hon. House. I will tell you something, you will never get into Cabinet with that

attitude. It is better for you to stand up and to accept the fact that the

Premier did not choose to invite you to Cabinet and that he invited other

people.

MR. DOYLE: What about the night after the election, he

said he was going to Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. DOYLE: Right after the election, he said he would be

in Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He told everyone.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I do not know, Mr. Speaker. My colleague

for Harbour Main and my colleague for Grand Bank tell me the night of the

election, he told his constituents that he was going to be named Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Well I do not know that and I do not know if

that is true or not.

MR. DOYLE: That is right, because he happened to be in

the Federation of Municipalities.

MR. TOBIN: That is wishful thinking, but I would say to

the Member for Carbonear that if he wants to get involved in this debate, to

stand up as the Member for St. John's South did. The Member for St. John's South

got up and told his constituents that he supported the government's rolling

back, claw backing, cutting them by 60 per cent but the Member for St. John's

South I would say had the courage to get up and say that, I say to the Member

for Carbonear, that he had the courage to get up and tell his constituents that

he supported the roll back and the claw back of up to 60 per cent, that he

supported the government saying: go back to work or starve. That is what the

Member for St. John's South had the courage to do but the Members for Carbonear

and Harbour Grace stay over there and mumble something, that is what I would

say.

It is time that the Member for Fortune - Hermitage brought

the case of his constituents to this House of Assembly as I have done today on

behalf of the people of Fortune - Hermitage who called me-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say to the member, that there will be

someone and when election night is over, either I will be elected or I will be

defeated, and whatever the wishes of the people are, I will graciously accept

it, that is what I say to the member.

MR. DOYLE: Hear, hear! What a member. They will elect you

forever, speak up on their behalf.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What choice do you have?

MR. TOBIN: That is what I say to the member opposite.

MR. DOYLE: But the people of Shea Heights, the people of

Shea Heights will have that Hansard.

AN HON. MEMBER: Allow me.

MR. DOYLE: The people of Shea Heights will have that

Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is some kind of a

statement coming from the Member for Harbour Grace.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that.

MR. TOBIN: Did you hear what he said?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope there are more women in

the House of Assembly; I will be glad, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for

Harbour Grace. This House has lots of room for good women -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Especially on that side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: If I could have the attention -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: It is the first time ever I was shouted down

in the House. The Member for St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All hon. members know that they are not to interrupt the

member when he is speaking, so I ask them for their co-operation, please.

MR. DOYLE: That is all they have been doing, is

interrupting, Mr. Speaker, that is all they have been doing.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that because for

those of us who stand on our feet and speak in this Legislature, we realize that

it is difficult when there are people constantly shouting. I want to say - and

I'm just about ready to clue up, Mr. Speaker - that we as a party and as a

caucus felt -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for St. Barbe that I hope

I don't have to borrow any from him. What is that, what's that he (Inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I might not be a PR dream, Mr. Speaker, I

might not be the public relations dream, I say to the Member for St. John's

South. I will never pay a PR person $50,000 a year to write it about me either,

I say to the Member for St. Barbe. The taxpayers of this Province paying $50,000

while people on compensation have to starve. Paying PR people $50,000 to write

that he's a PR dream? A public relations person's dream.

Yet that minister will stand in this House and he'll vote to

claw back a few bucks from the people who are depending on workers'

compensation. That's the type of waste we've got, and filth, in this government.

Six hundred dollar doorknobs, $80,000 worth of wallpaper, $1,000 chairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it took thirty years for

renovations to be made on the eighth floor, and it took this Premier three years

to spend more than was spent after thirty, I'd say to the Member for St. John's

South. That's what took place in this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's the truth, and those are facts. What's

that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes. Mr. Guy. I happened to watch it last

night, I don't watch it very often. I don't watch it very often. But....

Mr. Speaker, this caucus has pointed out I hope, as the

Member for St. John's East, I would suspect, has tried to point out to the

people of this Province, that this piece of legislation is going to hurt the

people who for some reason or other find themselves on workers' compensation.

For those people who find themselves on some sort of a long-term disability from

workers' compensation, could be hurt even more.

MR. MURPHY: The fund won't dry up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What fund?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South

says the fund won't dry up. I'd say to the Member for St. John's South that this

government better do something for the economy, if that fund is not going to dry

up. Because I say to the Member for St. John's South, in all sincerity, that

this government in the past three years has done nothing for the economy.

Nothing. It took the Premier three years to realise that there wasn't enough

light on the eighth floor for him. Where was he? If it took him three years to

find out there was not enough light in his office, where was he? He wasn't in

his office for three years or he would have known it before now, if that was the

problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: He was galivanting around this country

preaching the Constitution.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Crosbie said he wasn't galivanting

(Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: Preaching -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could take his seat while I

inform the House of the questions for the Late Show?

Question one: not satisfied with the answer of the Minister

of Environment and Lands with respect to the emissions at the Holyrood plant.

That's the hon. Member for Harbour Main.

Question two: not satisfied with the answers from the

Minister of Health on the cutbacks in the health care system. That's the hon.

Member for Harbour Main.

Question three: not satisfied with the answers given by the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in answer to my question on the

MOGs. That's the hon. Member for Fogo.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat a little bit for the

Minister of Education about the Premier's office, the $600 doorknobs, the

$80,000 worth of wallpaper and the $1,000 chairs. It took him three years to

realise that there weren't enough lights in the office because he was beating

around this country preaching on the Constitution. What was it he was referred

to as? The hero of Meech Lake and the turncoat on - I heard him referred to the

other day by a commentator - the hero of Meech Lake and the turncoat of

Charlottetown.

I say to the minister in conclusion that we hope the people

of this Province will see the injustice that's been done; that they will see the

lack of economic development by this government has caused a major decline in

the amount of money that is being paid to workers' compensation.

We hope that the people of this Province, when their cheques

are being clawed back, and when they are being forced to go back to work with

back injuries or leg injuries or neck injuries, whatever the case may be; when

their salary and cheques are being cut by up to 40 per cent and they are unable

to support their families, and have to try to limp out and try to crawl to the

workplace because of injuries that they have sustained as a result of accidents

in the workplace; when people have to go to work because of the cutbacks; when

they are forced to go back to work or to starve, that they will realize the

injustice that has been inflicted upon them by this minister and this

government, and that the people out there in rural Newfoundland in particular,

who have elected members like the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, and LaPoile,

and Baie Verte - White Bay, and Harbour Grace, and St. John's South, and

Stephenville, and Lewisporte, and Trinity North, that they will show them that

they never stood in this House to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who never?

MR. TOBIN: I never mentioned you.

When people in Fortune - Hermitage had to call me and ask me

to stand to bring their case before the minister in this Legislature -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. TOBIN: That is true.

The Member for St. John's South did stand, Mr. Speaker. I

will give him credit for that, and I said that when I was speaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I do not have time. I have one minute left,

and I cannot get into the Member for Port de Grave. I will leave that to another

time.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. TOBIN: I only have one minute left, and it would take

an hour.

MR. EFFORD: I did not say anything.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is right, exactly. That is what he is

saying. You said nothing.

MR. TOBIN: That is what he said. You said nothing, and I

said, well it would take me an hour to get into that and I only have a minute

left.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we have pointed out to the people of

this Province the injustices that have been inflicted upon them by this minister

and this administration, and that when they are forced to go back to work in

this Province, when they have to go back to work still injured, that they will

realize the injustice that has been brought upon them by this administration.

I would suspect that when the public servants of this

Province, when the nurses and teachers and policemen, in the next election,

decide -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: - decides the future of these gentlemen,

decides the future of this government, that those who have been affected by the

atrocious attack upon them in workers' compensation, will join them as well.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, that has to be the sincerest

speech I have heard in the House of Assembly in a long time, really, and the

most factual speech I have heard in a long time too, as a matter of fact - the

most factual speech I have heard in many, many years, and I have been here a few

now, I must say. It is getting up there, as a matter of fact, and I expect that

the people of Stephenville will, one of their days, hopefully in their wisdom,

do the same again.

I was listening to him. I listened intently to all of the

constructive criticism that he gave us on the workers' compensation bill - very

constructive criticism about how they would deal with this problem if they were

over here. Now we know how they dealt with the problem while they were over

here, because that is not too long ago. We should all understand that.

What they did when they were over here was zero - nothing -

zero. Very simple, ignore the problem, ignore the problem, ignore the problem,

and then hope one day that have not will be no more, and then deal with it. That

is how they wanted to deal with the problem. Have not will be no more. The

problem is that the time has come to deal with the problem. It came a lot

faster.

Now, your know, the hon. members opposite, especially in the

loyal opposition, the opposition, who were the government - and most of them on

the front bench were Cabinet ministers in the previous government. Now we have

to remember this. They were Cabinet ministers in the previous government.

MR. ROBERTS: They were the driving force.

MR. K. AYLWARD: They were the driving force, as a matter

of fact. And they were the driving force behind zero and zero wage freezes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The members opposite. They were driving

forces on a whole range of things that they don't want to take credit for. It is

too bad the Member for St. John's East is leaving, the leader of one, the leader

of me, myself and I, who is now the Leader of the NDP party.

Now, the only thing about it is, if they are going to

criticize, I wish it would at least be a bit credible. I mean, he is now leader

of a party, he is not just a sole member. He is representing, supposedly, a

political party in this Province. What I hear from him is: You shouldn't do this

and you shouldn't do that, but he doesn't say what he would do if he were over

here and how he would pay for it. Because the time will come in politics in

Newfoundland and Labrador - the electorate was always intelligent but now it is

more educated, and they have decided that if you are going to say something,

then back it up when you say it and explain how you are going to do it. Now, the

thing with the Opposition right now, the problem they have, is that they are

over there criticizing but they haven't got any backup as to how they would fix

the problem, not a word, as a matter of fact.

Occupational health and safety: We are spending way more

money now in these budgetary times than they did in the seventeen years while

they were over here. So we have more emphasis on occupational health and safety

than they ever did and they are not saying a word about it.

So, you know, you get there and you are listening to the

wonderful criticisms, and they should criticize in their capacities, but the

problem is that there is not a solution offered, not a one, especially from

members opposite who were Cabinet Ministers not too long ago and who put this

Province in the financial mess it is in. The reason that the Member for

Exploits, who is now the very good Minister of Employment and Labour Relations,

has to come in with legislation to deal with a major financial problem, and also

clean up a lot of other things that need to be dealt with in workers'

compensation, is this: They never did anything about it, they ignored it. And do

we ever remember that, when I was in the Opposition, do we ever remember that!

The other thing is: In 1989, do you know what the hoist was

about? This motion on the hoist was to go to the public, from them now. Your

motion was to go to the public with this bill. They are the same group that were

in government that never opened the House of Assembly in a fall session, at

least four years in a row that I can remember. They never even opened the House

for public debate. Never opened it! There weren't even legislative committees

that you could put legislation to when they were in government, because they

didn't believe in it. So now they are saying: Well, let's go back to the public.

That is the same crew. So, I mean, let's be credible if we are going to talk

about this. Let's deal with credible criticisms. Let's deal with how you would

solve the problem, instead of talking about things you never did, never would

do, and you know you wouldn't, if you were in government. So, let's get real.

I know this is a bit embarrassing, because they were here

before and they left it in the mess they did. I have to read a couple of quotes

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Oh, that is too bad!

I have to read a couple of quotes. Brian Peckford was the

Premier of this Province in 1987. "Newfoundland is heading for a 1930s style

financial disaster within two years, unless Ottawa fundamentally redefines the

Province's place in Confederation." I mean, he was predicting that we would be

1933 all over again in 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) except doorknobs.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, except doorknobs.

So, in 1987, their former, former leader was talking about

the bad state it was going to be in with the federal government. Then we get in

government and we find out what the financial state is. Do you know what we have

been doing for three-and-a-half years? We have been trying to fix up the

financial state, so that the people of the Province and the future generations

will have something to look forward to. They are over there saying: Well, you

shouldn't do that. You shouldn't fix up the financial state of the Province. You

shouldn't try to keep the credit rating so at least we can borrow our money to

keep the services going.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Socialist.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, I see a Socialist. The Socialist is

there.

They are saying: Don't tax this and don't cut this service,

and here is big Ottawa, Mr. Mulroney - remember co-operation and consultation?

Remember that one there, the one where they were holding hands, the federal

Tories, Mulroney and the provincial Tories, helping them get elected?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much were the rest of the doorknobs.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, I am going to get into that now.

They helped get the federal government elected. They are

still big supporters of the federal government, who have wiped out $800 million

to this provincial government in three-and-a-half years over four budgets. Eight

hundred million is our total health care budget wiped out in transfer payments

that these people over here opposite, support. Now, they are talking about

renovations. Let me tell you about renovations. I have a file this thick of

renovations over fifteen years. But what do you do? Do you give this

credibility? is my question.

This Chamber we are sitting in - at the same time that Mr.

Peckford was predicting a financial disaster for this Province in 1987, they

were planning the Chamber, an $8 million expenditure. They went ahead with the

expenditure anyway. The ninth, tenth and eleventh floors had to be done, so they

made plans for these expenditures and went ahead with them anyway. The financial

state of the Province didn't matter, it never mattered one iota.

Now, this is one set of renovations, not including the

$125,000 for the Member for Torngat Mountains when he became the Minister of

Northern Affairs, $125,000 for his office. Now, that is one minister - they had

twenty-three ministers when they were in government and if they had a larger

caucus he would have made them all ministers, I suppose, at the end, because he

was extending it and it was growing larger all the time. So, if we are going to

get criticism on this side, you know, it would be awfully nice if it were

credible, or at least it were a state of affairs where you could say: 'Well,

that makes sense, we will consider that.' but when you look at what was done and

the party that the former government was on with the taxpayers' money, you have

to say to yourself, 'Let's be a bit real and show a little credibility.'

It is unreal to hear those types of criticisms coming from a

crowd who spent money like it was going out of style, never even worried about

the public pension plans, the study on public pensions that we had to do when we

got in because they were in such a mess. Nobody had worried about people getting

a pension in the year 2005 and whether they were going to have any money,

whether they were going to get a cheque. Nobody bothered with that - who cares

about that, who is worried about it?

Well, all of a sudden we have to start worrying about it

because the pensions are coming due; therefore we had to have a study done and

now we have to try to fix up the pension plans in the middle of this financial

crisis that Mr. Peckford talked about two or three years ago. So, if you are

going to criticize the government, go right ahead, because that is your role.

But I have been listening for a number of weeks to what the Opposition - both

oppositions have had to say about how they would fix it if they were over here.

Because it is not that complicated and most of them know that over there. Most

of them were senior levels, senior ministers of government, that front bench

over there, senior ministers of the former government, and what gets me is, they

know what it is like, but they saw what was coming.

The only thing is, I figured out why they didn't have a

Budget in 1989 before they went to the people. It was because they knew what was

coming and if they had gone with the Budget they would have been wiped out for

sure, because it would certainly have shown the mess it was in.

MR. A. SNOW: That is the reason why you had a surplus.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The only Budget we had a surplus? I say

to the Member for Menihek, thank you for that surplus; that was some surplus.

Thank you for the $4 billion debt; thank you for the pension plans that are in

the state they are; thank you for the workers' compensation fund that you did

nothing about. I mean, I can go on thanking you about what you left us with:

thank you for the Mulroney federal government; thank you for the mismanagement

of the fishery from Ottawa, thank you very much. You know, if we want to get

into thank yous, we have a long list like that, that we don't want to thank you

for and, unfortunately, the Member for Menihek can share no blame in that

because he was not a member of Cabinet in the former government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: I do not know. But he has the interest of

the people at heart, I know he does, and he is trying to present options for

this government so that we can correct the problems. However, I say to him and

to the Opposition, let's be a little bit realistic here when we are talking

about how we would fix the problem. I mean, the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, has brought in a number of recommendations to try to resolve,

not only the financial problem but also resolve the other problems with workers'

compensation. He is legitimately, and diligently working to deal with those

problems. He has a number of recommendations there, after consultation with

everybody concerned in the process, and is trying to deal with these problems.

And I think he is doing a good job considering the circumstances and considering

what he was left to deal with and what this government was left to deal with -

there were major financial problems to be dealt with.

So, when we hear the other side, all we ask is - a bit of

partisan politics is good stuff, but some legitimate criticism as to what you

would do if you were here would go a long way, and, as a matter of fact, help

the government. Then, it might even make your criticisms a lot more credible

with the people who are out there.

Nobody who gets into politics likes to reduce a benefit or

take away something or make it a little less than it was, but I tell you this, I

would rather make it safe. I would rather go home at night knowing that we are

doing something to save the process in the future, than going home every night

worrying about it all. So my mind is a lot more settled that way, I must say,

because we are trying to deal with the problem instead of avoiding the problem

and running away from it as the former government did.

I was listening to the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and

when you hear the criticisms you are saying, 'Well that is fine; make fun of

this and make fun of that; but what would you do if you were here?' I think that

is the question that people out there should ask the Opposition: What would you

do if you were here?

We know what they did. They did little or nothing, so you

avoid a problem and finally it comes home to roost. This government has decided

- and even if you didn't want to decide, even if you wanted to be a politician

who says, 'Well, as a group, let's not worry about this problem,' we can't even

afford to do that anymore, so even if you didn't want to deal with it, you still

have to deal with it now. They know that over there, and they saw it coming, but

it didn't matter anyway. The thing is, they don't want to admit to it now,

either.

When you look at what is happening across Canada - I am sure

the minister, in his final remarks, will talk about other governments in Canada

right now who are dealing with workers' compensation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: On that note, I have been having a good

say here -and I have been wanting to get a few things off my chest. But I want

to say to the Opposition, Let's have some credible criticism. And we will take

notes over here. The minister has been taking notes and trying to figure it out,

and I am sure he will tell us the good criticisms that were given by the

Opposition.

I commend the minister on doing what he can to make the

workers' compensation fund a safe fund for the future for everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were a couple of points that I did want to make at this

point, while closing debate and moving second reading. Some of the other points

we will leave and I am sure we will address as we go through the Committee stage

of this debate; but there are two or three, in the ten minutes or so that are

available to me now, that I thought I should address for the record. Maybe I

will try to work backwards by dealing with some of the comments made by some of

the speakers from the side opposite.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, when

referring to some of the problems that we are trying to address here, and

painting a particular picture, suggested for the record that there are presently

40,000 less people working in the Province now than there were at the time when

the previous administration left office, and that that is part of the problem

with workers' compensation - there are less people working, less people able to

pay into the fund and so on.

I just wanted to point out again, in case the hon. member and

others might be labouring under some misunderstandings, it is not necessarily

the number of employees that have impact on the funding of the Commission, but

the number of companies, the number of employers, who are in place, because it

is the employers who pay the full assessments, as I pointed out in my opening

remarks, for workers' compensation. They pay for it totally. There are no tax

dollars, there are no employee contributions. It is totally, 100 per cent an

employer contribution.

Just for the record, because the Opposition members opposite

are sometimes known to use numbers selectively for effect more than anything

else, and the number used this time was that there were 40,000 less people

working in the Province now than there were then.

The fact of the matter is, if you want to look at numbers,

and you can be very selective with numbers, which is why I prefer not to deal

with statistics a lot, but I just want to point out this number for comparison.

When the former Premier, Mr. Rideout, called the election at the end of March,

1989, statistics showed that at that point in time there were 181,000 people

employed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, after going through a couple of

years of recession and economic difficulties, in the last numbers that were

released and debated in this House, and discussed just a week or ten days ago,

there are 190,000 people working in Newfoundland and Labrador in the last month

recorded. So, if you want to pick numbers, you can pick numbers.

Now, members opposite, if we were in a Question Period and

debate, would look at that and say, `But that is not a fair comparison,' and no

more it isn't. But I used the example just to point out how ridiculous it is to

try to pluck a number out of the air like 40,000 and say it as if there is

something real about it. It is an absolutely meaningless number. So if you pick

the numbers that I just used - but I will be honest about it, I won't try to kid

anybody. I just used the number that, when the former government left office, in

the last month that they were in office, there were 181,000 people employed in

the Province. In the last month recorded for this year, which is October past,

there were 190,000 people working. Now, if you take those numbers, how could

anybody stand up with credibility and say there are 40,000 less people working.

It doesn't make any sense. I am not trying to fool anybody. I will tell the

world that I just selectively used some numbers, which is what the members

opposite do quite often. I used a number that happened to come from March month

in 1989 because that was the last month that Mr. Rideout and the Opposition were

in office, and the last number that I used came from the month of October in

1992. So we would normally say, if you are going to be fair let's compare one

equal month with one equal month.

We recognize and we have admitted that we have gone through a

recession and the numbers are down slightly. If you compare March to March in

1989, it was 181,000 and this year it is 173,000, 8,000 less. We will admit that

there are 8,000 less people working and that that is part of the problem, but we

don't like to hear exaggerations and numbers thrown about, like they were just

recently, in the last little bit of discussion by the hon. member opposite. It

is that kind of thing that I have seen in some of the debate from members

opposite that, for effect more than anything else, they have exaggerated some of

the points of