Government Services Committee — Department of Justice — 6 May 1992

1992-05-06

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 6, 1992 GOV. SERVICES

ESTIMATES (EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR

RELATIONS)

Pursuant to S.O. 87, Mr. John Efford, M.H.A., (Port

de Grave) substitutes for Mr. Douglas Oldford, M.H.A., (Trinity North), and Mr.

William Ramsay, M.H.A., (LaPoile) substitutes for Mr. John Crane, M.H.A.

(Harbour Grace).

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m., in the House of

Assembly.

On motion of Mr. Ramsay, seconded by Mr. Efford,

the hon. the Member for Humber West, Mr. Dicks, was elected Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Dicks): Thank you. Mr. Clerk, I

guess, as the order of business, perhaps, at this point we should elect the

Vice-chairperson, or perhaps we can wait a few minutes before we proceed with

that. In the meantime, in the absence of anything to the contrary, I would get

on with a few of the formalities.

Tonight, there have been a couple of substitutions.

The Member for Harbour Grace is unable to be here, and the Member for Port de

Grave is attending in his absence and in his place. Similarly, the Member for

Trinity North is unable to make it, and the Member for LaPoile, Mr. Ramsay, is

here. Both consents and designations have been filed with the Clerk and I

understand they are in order. Is that correct?

I think the Hansard people recognize the voices of

the members, so I won't ask members to introduce themselves - this Committee is

on record. If I could hand over to the minister, as the first order of business,

he could introduce the officials attending with him so that the recording people

can get to know your voices in the event that we need a record of these

proceedings.

Mr. Minister, at this point, I ask you to introduce

your officials and make any opening remarks you wish.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Chairperson. With me,

this evening, I have the Deputy Minister of the Department of Employment and

Labour Relations, Ms. Debbie Fry. Also a Deputy Minister equivalent in the

service is Mr. Wayne Mitchell, the Chief Executive Officer at Workers'

Compensation. He is attending because of the fact that Workers' Compensation

responsibility, the enabling legislation for that, is within this department.

Mr. Mitchell advises us from a departmental point of view with respect to

Workers' Compensation and also acts as the Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Linda

Black is the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for Labour Relations, and Ms.

Cathy Gogan is the Assistant Deputy Minister with responsibility in the area of

employment services and career support; Mr. Gerry Crocker is the Manager of

Financial Operations.

Our Minister of Finance is on vacation and we are,

unfortunately, without the services, this evening, of Mr. Mike Dwyer, who is out

of town on business. He is our Assistant Deputy Minister, responsible for

Occupational Health and Safety. Because the meeting was rescheduled, he was

scheduled to be here at our originally slated time next week, but he is not

available this evening. We feel confident that between us somehow we will be

able to manage to answer your questions, hopefully, to the satisfaction of the

Committee.

Being a first experience for myself, Chairperson, I

would like to make a few opening comments if that is the order of procedure, and

then we will try, to the best of our ability, to answer the questions that the

Committee have for us in terms of the departmental budget. Perhaps I might take

five or ten minutes, if you don't mind, at the beginning, to just make some

initial comments.

In the Estimates, themselves, on page 181, just for

purposes of the record I wanted to point out again the basic functions of the

Department of Employment and Labour Relations, and in the three main areas, I

guess, make some comment on where, in fact, we feel we have made some progress.

We are proud to say that there are some improvements and advances being made in

the budget for this department this year and the stakeholders who are affected

by it and the public, generally, seem to be very pleased that we are making some

progress and some advances during very tough economic times.

As the

summary in the Estimates on page 181

indicates, this department is responsible for labour market activities related

to employment and career support services. It is responsible also for the

promotion and maintenance of labour and management relations through the

provision of conciliation and mediation services, labour education programs, the

adjudication of unfair labour practices, the establishment and enforcement of

labour standards and procedures, and, thirdly, for inspection and educational

programs to improve occupational health and safety conditions and practices in

the workplace. As well, individual rights are protected by the Human Rights

Commission, which is now funded by this department, a change made just recently

from the Department of Justice.

As I noted, in introducing Mr. Mitchell, the

department answers in the House of Assembly, as well, for The Workers'

Compensation Commission, which is an independent, separately funded

organization, but the enabling legislation, and so on, is handled through this

department.

So, looking at the three main functions within the

department, itself, and then we have, of course, Workers' Compensation, I guess,

and The Human Rights Commission sort of separate and semiautonomous, an arm's

length removed from government, but at least, placed here for various good

reasons.

In the area and in the order, Chairperson, as they

appear in the Estimates, Labour Relations and Labour Standards as referenced

beginning on page 185, the area where Ms. Black is the Assistant Deputy

Minister, cover the areas of industrial relations, as you can see, where Mr. Joe

O'Neill directs the groups that have been involved with the services of

conciliation mediation. It is in this area that we are very proud of the efforts

that have taken place in preventive mediation, in particular. Only recently, in

the House of Assembly, I gave a statement indicating the appointment of Mr.

George Joyce to the first full-time position in the area of preventive

mediation. This has been very well received and very much used, to the point

where we are even now considering the possibility of having to put additional

resources to that area because it is having the desired effect, and if members

choose to question we can certainly give additional information as to the

program and its effects later in the evening.

The Labour Relations Board is also funded in the

Estimates under this particular

section and division of the department. Our

understanding now is that the caseloads are well in hand, with Mr. Noel as the

Executive Director and Mr. Brown as Chairman of the Board. Our view is that the

board is very well established and very credible despite occasional public

opinions being expressed from time to time to the contrary.

In the matter of labour standards, which is

referenced in the Estimates on page 186, only recently, as well, Mr. David Kerr

was appointed as the new Director of Labour Standards, and there are a series of

legislative initiatives in this area as a result of the last review undertaken

by The Labour Standards Board, I guess it is called, the group that meets and

reviews basic labour standards in the Province. Again, we are making progress in

the area of new legislation with respect to minimum standards for workers who do

not have the benefit of protection in a collective bargaining or an organized

union setting. These people, from time to time, are often in a situation where

they make appeals because of lost wages, improper payment of overtime or

vacation pay and so on. Now, with the new director and the new appeals group in

place, and so on, we feel we are making some progress, as well, in terms of

getting up-to-date on caseloads and making sure that people are not

disadvantaged in any way.

In the area of Occupational Health and Safety, Mr.

Dwyer has been the ADM there now for a period of time and we are very pleased

with the things that are occurring in that area. The inspection of work sites,

and so on, as it occurs in the

section on page 187, funded under

section 3.1.01

- increasing efforts have been made in that area.

I might point out to members of the Committee that,

as a result of the attention paid to Workers' Compensation, arising from the

five-year statutory review which we received last October and which is now in

the final stages of consideration and decision-making with Cabinet and

government, I think one of the positive outcomes is that the political will

crystallized and came to bear so that, in fact, we could increase our efforts in

these areas in terms of trying to make workplaces in Newfoundland and Labrador

safer from a point of view of trying to eliminate and reduce the number of work

site injuries and, unfortunately, in some cases, fatalities, so that we have a

better, safer environment for the workers, and a more productive workplace

which, in turn, benefits the companies, themselves. We are very pleased that in

two or three sections of this part of the Budget, there are increases in

funding. These show government's commitment to some of the recommendations in

the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review Committee report, suggesting it was

time for people to put much more emphasis on inspection and enforcement,

education, and the notion that we would, in fact, promote safer work practices,

and also that we have expanded our capabilities in the area of research and

policy development so we would know which were the most appropriate areas and

the most appropriate workplaces to target our increased efforts. So, there are a

number of very positive initiatives in this

section relating to all aspects of

Occupational Health and Safety.

The

section also provides for the funding of the

Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal. We are pleased now that they have

informed us they are pretty well on

schedule to making sure that when people do

an outside external formalized appeal of decisions at Workers' Compensation,

they can come very close to guaranteeing that they can turn around the

decision-making process within a three-month time frame. They even notify

appellants of that, in most cases now, once they go to the external review

process, the appeal process. And there was an report tabled in the House just

recently indicating the caseload, the number of decisions made, how many

supported the decision of the Commission, how many supported the appellant, and

so on. That was tabled in the House of Assembly just recently and I am sure

members have had an opportunity to review that for their own purposes.

In the Employment and Career section, the area in

which Miss Gogan has been working for a period of time now, we are pleased, as

well, that we have made some progress, that government has recognized the needs

in this economic climate, and that, under a number of programs, we have either

maintained funding from previous years' levels or secured increases, and that,

again, it reflects the wish of this government to try to focus its efforts on

initiatives in the employment creation that have a longer term, a longer-lasting

effect, rather than short term. But we do reference it, as you see in the

Estimates, that there was a need last year to resort to an emergency employment

response program which appears in the revised figures.

There is no funding for such an emergency type of

program presented in this Budget, at this point, in this year, and again, it

reflects the view that, if at all possible, we hope we would not have to do

that. Everybody has his own assessment as to whether or not the economic climate

will permit that. We have been questioned on that a number of times in the House

of Assembly and are prepared to deal with it at an appropriate time. But, in

terms of a planned budget item for the government, there is no money. We do not

plan for emergencies, we deal with emergencies as they arise, and we feel, from

our experience last year in showing the capability to deal with what we

determined to be an emergent situation, that we will be able to show that

capability and capacity again this year.

In terms of the different employment programs - the

Graduate Employment Program shows increase in funding, and it is very valuable

for graduates seeking a first job.

The Student Summer Employment Program maintained at

last year's levels and the application process is drawing to a close this week.

We have the Youth Employment Strategy Program, funded jointly with the

Canada/Newfoundland Youth Strategy, maintained again at last year's levels; the

Women's Employment Programs show increased funding again this year to maintain

the two WISE programs, one in St. John's and one in Central Newfoundland in

Grand Falls-Windsor, as well as additional funding for the Job Bridges Program

to provide opportunities for women to enter the work force in non-traditional

occupations.

The Older Worker Programs - we are looking at the

Power Program, as it is known - the federal/provincial agreement for older

workers who have been moved out of the work force because their situation or

place of employment has closed down. There is also a special version of Power,

the P.W.A. program, The Plant Workers Adjustment Program, both funded under this

heading, and again, budgeted amounts just there to indicate preliminary

estimates of what may be the uptake in the programs for this year. Then, there

is the Employment Generation Program, which is this government's sixty-week

program to try to encourage employers to add additional staff to their work

force for the long term, with increased funding again this year.

The Hibernia training item is referenced in the

Estimates, as well, Chairperson, from the point of view that the government,

with a heading here and in the Department of Education, recognizes that Hibernia

training will continue, that there was funding available from federal sources

for people who were in receipt of unemployment insurance, who are on social

assistance. But there was a group of other people who deserved and required the

training but did not get covered. So, between the two departments, the Province

is making available the money for other people who fall through the cracks from

the federal funding, to access the offshore development fund for them to be

or recipients of social assistance.

Those are the points that I wanted to highlight.

The other reference on page 193 - as I mentioned at the beginning, the budget

for the Human Rights Commission is listed here in the Estimates for this

department because recent change has occurred whereby responsibility for the

Human Rights Code has moved to this department from the Department of Justice to

come in line with what is fairly common practice in several jurisdictions across

the country. Those are my opening comments and I certainly welcome an

opportunity to answer questions from the Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I believe there is another order of business, Mr.

Clerk, the election of Vice-Chairman, that we have to deal with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have conducted that, thank-you.

As Chairman, I ask for nominations for the position of Vice-Chairman?

MR. RAMSAY: I nominate Norman Doyle, in

absentia.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I second the nomination.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further

nominations?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Harbour Main, I

believe the record will show.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was supposed to be here

(inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: It shows the danger of

non-attendance. I believe it might have been suggested at one point that the

Member for Kilbride be Vice-Chairperson. But I will certainly take the wisdom of

the Committee as a Whole, and, in the absence of further nominations, declare

the Member for Harbour Main elected, and thank him for his contribution to

tonight's proceedings in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your statement. I

don't know if I overlooked that, but perhaps we could agree before we start, as

to how we would propose to go through the Estimates. My inclination to keep a

little order, unless someone is violently opposed, would be to ask if there are

any questions with respect to each general heading, heading one, heading two and

so forth and then give each member of the Committee an opportunity, in turn, to

ask any questions on that before we move on to the next heading. If anybody

objects to that, we can allow for general questions but in the absence of any

other suggestion, I would probably plan to proceed in that fashion.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have a comment, if we are

going to do it by headings. Usually, what we did - the minister's office was

pretty well wide open, discussion on the department, generally. And if we get it

all out of our systems, when we are finished with the Minister's Office, we can

go through the rest of it fairly quickly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't have any objection, if we

deal with the Minister's Office initially, if someone wants to tie in any other

part, but I was just thinking, to make sure we give everybody an opportunity to

direct attention to the appropriate headings, we would just ask you to consider

whether you have any questions in that area that you might want to raise. And,

of course, we are not really limiting. If, at the end, anything comes up that we

want to go back through, that is fine, as well; either that or we will just have

general questions, but rather than flip from page to page and back and forth

trying to identify these things, I always find it a little easier if we are

trying to go through it in a sequential manner. However, if you don't want to do

it that is fine with me.

MR. WINSOR: This is the third or fourth year,

or longer, that I have sat on these Estimates Committees, and we have generally

had a back and forth exchange, because one flows from the other and sometimes

you have to go back to something you had previously done, and at the end of the

night we just go through from, say, 1.1.01 to whatever is at the end and approve

all of the different departments. And usually, in the past, we have had - I am

not sure of the time, it seems to me it was ten minutes, wasn't it, Larry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten and ten, yes.

MR. WINSOR: Ten and ten, and back and forth

from one to the other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, if you want to proceed in

that fashion.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, in the past, it has been

practised to give each person approximately ten minutes to ask questions on the

whole of the headings. What I am suggesting as an alternative is to take each

heading and try to run through it and give each person an opportunity, in turn,

to ask questions, but if you would rather follow the other practice, it is fine

with me.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was about to make

the motion that we pass all the subheads right now - I am quite serious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we have to give an

opportunity for debate. I don't know if there is a vote on the motion at this

point.

MR. RAMSAY: Well, certainly, if it is moved and

seconded, there is an opportunity for debate then, anyway - that is

automatically assumed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let me call the first

subhead.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Has the member moved that? Is

there a motion before us?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you putting a motion on the

floor to that effect, Mr. Efford?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if Mr. Efford was

saying in jest, or if he was serious, that he wanted to bring the proceedings to

a close.

MR. EFFORD: I wanted a seconder.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I see, very well. Well, I don't

hear a seconder, so -

MR. J. NOEL (Clerk): Subhead 1.1.01.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Aylward.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Sam, you are the Labour critic

- do you want to have input here?

MR. WINSOR: Well, actually, the one with which

I have greatest concern is the employment sector.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I just want to make a general

comment, I suppose, on maybe part of the minister's statement, but more

specifically, towards the Workers' Compensation division of your department.

We all know the problems we have at Workers'

Compensation. We all know there is quite an outstanding liability, I believe, in

the millions of dollars. I guess, if it were a private business, it would be

bankrupt now.

One of the problems I have often come by, as an

MHA, for people contacting me about workers' compensation problems, is that of

people have who have been legitimately injured on the job and who need either

medical attention or medical rehabilitation to get well, either physiotherapy -

back operations, spinal operations is the one that usually comes up. And, with

anyone I have come across, there has always been a major delay in trying to get

that attention. Some of the minor injuries - a couple of them that I have come

by were fairly minor; well, none of them are minor if you are off work, but for

a couple of them, some physiotherapy would have rehabilitated them fairly

quickly and they could have been back to work and been productive. And that is

what they wanted. Most people I come across want to be back to work and want to

be productive employees, but there never seems to be enough opportunity to get

that medical attention.

I was just wondering if there is a lot of this. I

know I have come by a fair amount of it just from my district, but if there is

quite a bit of it, would it not be practical for Workers' Compensation to take

it upon themselves to move these people around different parts of North America?

Even at that expense, would it not be cheaper to have them treated somewhere

else and get them back in the work force, rather than sitting here and waiting

and waiting and waiting, and receiving benefits and becoming more frustrated?

Then they get out of the work ethic or whatever happens to them, I don't know,

they become more depressed for not being able to get back to work, I would

imagine.

Is it practical, or has Workers' Compensation ever

taken a look at the medical services needed for a certain patient or a certain

client to be done maybe in Halifax if there is room to do it, maybe in Ontario

somewhere if there is room to do it, and maybe even in Florida if that is where

you have to go? Would it not be cheaper to have these people working rather than

on long-term waiting lists? I don't mean long-term pensions or disability

pensions, but just strict waiting lists to get some kinds of therapy. Does the

minister have any comments on that, or have there ever been any studies done in

that light?

MR. GRIMES: I would certainly appreciate an

opportunity to comment on it. A couple of the things in the

preamble, just as

reminders for the record, if not for anything else - you mentioned that you

understand there is a significant unfunded liability. I think the most recent

report that we tabled had the number pegged pretty close to $160 million of

unfunded liability, and that if it were a business it might be bankrupt; not

just yet, but the projections are, if there aren't corrective measures taken,

that within four or five years - and I will ask Mr. Mitchell, if you don't mind,

to comment a little further in a second on the question you asked - but I think

the latest report that was done from the actuaries was that by 1996-97, in that

range, unless some corrective measures were taken it would be bankrupt. So the

comments you make are well taken.

The problem in getting access to medical attention

has been identified through the statutory review process as one of the major

ones, because the fundamentals of it, I guess, are that the number of new

claimants have decreased over each of the past two years. Part of that can be

explained by less economic activity in the Province and less people working, but

the indication, the statistical analysis, as well, if you discount the lack of

activity due to increased unemployment, even with that there is still a further

5 to 8 per cent decrease in the number of new claimants.

The problem on the other side with that, though, is

that the people unclaimed - and this is the

part I will ask Mr. Mitchell to

speak about briefly - the duration of time unclaimed, on average, is increasing,

which is the point you are making. Part of the problem is accessing appropriate

medical treatment. The notion of maybe moving them someplace else where they

might be able to get more immediate attention, that and any of the other things

that have been attempted, probably if the Committee doesn't mind, Chairperson,

Mr. Mitchell might better be able to inform the whole Committee as to a number

of things that the Commission, itself, has considered in terms of trying to

shorten the duration of claim, because that is one of the major problems, and

ask Mr. Mitchell to comment on that item.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mitchell.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess,

one of the underlying causes of the financial dilemma Workers' Compensation

faces, to which the minister just referred, in our recent annual report to the

House of Assembly, the unfunded liability, as of the end of 1991, now stands at

$160 million. That has developed primarily because of duration that we find in

claims. Duration is not alone a phenomenon in Newfoundland. I have had occasion,

in doing work with the minister on changes to the Statutory Review Committee, to

assemble a press clipping from many other jurisdictions throughout the country.

The other jurisdictions of note who are experiencing financial problems - and

there are only three in this country which, by the way, are in a surplus

position - have all earmarked duration as their problem. But, to my knowledge,

there is not a jurisdiction in this country that has a good handle on all the

multiple variables that go into contributing to duration.

In answer to the minister's proposition, obviously,

people who would look at the total spectrum of services available to injured

workers would have to conclude that the delivery of medical care to injured

workers is obviously a variable leading to increased duration. The Commission,

itself, while not knowing in exact magnitude how much of the problem is created

by that, is embarking now on a claims tracking system, an information management

system within our organization to better identify the range of claims that are

contributed to prolongation by virtue of waiting for medical or hospital

referrals. That would give us a stronger information base to better measure what

we think is a problem, and hopefully when we have a better sense of how

important the problem is we can design the necessary responses.

Getting back to the minister's point, we have,

within our resources, attempted to try to expedite the access of injured workers

to medical care. We have an arrangement wherein doctors, orthopaedic specialists

in this Province, have an opportunity to send in over the telephone line their

diagnosis and we type it up for them so that it gets it moving in that regard.

We've worked out with various institutions, notably James Paton Memorial

Hospital and the Health Sciences Centre, a means of accelerating patients for

diagnostic tests in those facilities, and we've concluded an arrangement with

St. Clare's Hospital for the very important area of knee surgery as it relates

to injured workers.

So we have made modest attempts to try to improve

access. Notwithstanding those, duration still shows to be a major problem at the

Commission, for which we're hopeful that the improved information tracking to

better capture that as a problem will be able to help us in the design of

appropriate solutions.

A final comment, Mr. Chairman. In response to the

member's question as to whether referral to other institutions throughout North

America has been examined, no it has not. Indeed, in the one area where in my

exposure to the Commission we were referring people outside the Province, that

is in the area of chronic pain, we felt it was desirable, given the numbers, to

marshall that resource within Newfoundland. As a consequence now, at the Miller

Centre, we are delivering for injured workers suffering from that malady access

to treatment here within the Province. Again, the final point I would make is

that all the other provinces are having similar problems with duration, for

which medical access is I'm sure an important variable in their areas as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Mr.

Aylward.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Have you considered accessing

the American health system rather than the Canadian health system? Which is more

accessible if you want to pay the price.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A big price.

MR. MITCHELL: No, we have not.

MR. R. AYLWARD: There's one interesting

statistic that the minister gave. That the number of accident or injuries have

been down - well, I think he said 6 per cent to 8 per cent over the last two

years. Which is encouraging.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) 6 per cent to 8 per

cent was the amount that you could attribute to some combination of improved

occupational health and safety measures. The totals, I guess, there was at one

of the years, I think the reduction was as high as 12 per cent. But part of that

at least can be attributed to reduced work force.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. It certainly sounds

encouraging. Is there a statistic of reductions or increases just in the health

care sector alone? Have there been decreases in accident or injuries in the

health care system? I listen to the media and I see the ads in the paper, where

the nurses seem to be very concerned about more, and they seem to be giving the

impression that there are more injuries, particularly back injuries, in the

nursing profession. They say that it is because there is not enough staff to do

the work and give a lot of reasons. But would the reductions also be in the

health care system? Particularly in the nursing profession?

MR. GRIMES: We've looked at different sectors

and different areas, and I know that Mr. Mitchell has brought it to my attention

in meetings that we've had over the past couple of months. But I couldn't tell

you right now. Maybe Mr. Mitchell can provide that information for you. Because

I know he has updated me on that very issue in terms of which sectors seem to be

up, down, and so on.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd have to look at the numbers,

to get them for you, but I'll undertake to do that in my material and get back

to the minister before the end of the evening.

MR. R. AYLWARD: If you can. There's one other

issue, and this is my final comment on it and I'll pass it on to someone else.

This is probably more a question for the Department of Finance, but it has an

involvement for Workers' Compensation, so maybe you can explain it to me,

because Finance couldn't explain it. They tried but I'm just too thick, I guess,

I couldn't get it.

Last year there was a woman who worked in the

Public Service here, one of the departments, I forget which one - Mines and

Energy I believe it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: From your district?

MR. R. AYLWARD: She doesn't live in my

district, no, she lives in Ferryland district. She had an accident. Slippery

floor or something. Whatever it was, she had a fairly serious accident to her

hip and she was off on Workers' Compensation for a while. Anyway, by the time it

was all over she got rehabilitated and got back to work, and on the T-4 slip

that she got at the end of February it showed - I'll just use examples of

numbers, because I can't remember the numbers - but it showed that she paid,

say, $8,000 income tax on her T4 slip. She paid $8,000 income tax for that year.

That was what was deducted from her cheques even though she received some

workers' compensation.

No, okay, it was $8,000 on her T4 slip. On her last

pay stub it was $9,000 deducted. So that was a $1,000 discrepancy right there.

Then she got a revised T4 slip a month later in March which showed it about

$1,500 difference than her last pay cheque stub. Now, can Workers' Compensation

explain the reason for that to me? Someone tried to explain something to me that

you make more money on workers' compensation than you do working, but it didn't

make the least bit of sense to me at all.

If it was deducted from a person's cheque, income

tax was deducted from a person's cheque, when you do your T4 slips, whatever is

left over, you either pay in or get some back. But the fact is, she had two

revised T4 slips, and the fact that her last pay stub showed at least a $1,500

difference in what was deducted and what was on her last T4 slip, doesn't make

the least bit of sense. They blame it on Workers' Compensation. Now, that's the

simplest explanation I can give for it. Finance does that, I mean. Blames it on

Workers' Compensation - or being on workers' assistance, or whatever you call

it, being on workers' compensation.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I would have to

look. I couldn't venture to offer any better explanation than Finance has, and

obviously that hasn't met your approval. Maybe with the Chair's indulgence if I

could talk to you after and get the details of that particular case, I might be

able to pursue that further and get you the necessary answer. But I'd need to

look at the details of the particular....

MR. R. AYLWARD: There have been four such cases

brought to my attention, over the last month and a half. Still Finance gives the

same reason. But I don't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell, Mr.

Aylward. I'll move on to Mr. Winsor.

MR. WINSOR: I have some great concerns about

Workers' Compensation, particularly in the medical and rehab area. It is not

uncommon in the past year and a half or two years to discover someone who's had

some preliminary diagnostic work done that indicated they would have needed

orthopaedic surgery, particularly with backs, and some sixteen months later

still be waiting for a bed at one of the medical institutions, either Health

Sciences or James Paton.

Despite what you say that there are some attempts

to improve it, I don't see any indication that it is improving at all. To the

contrary, I'm finding that it might even be slower than the three or four years

that I've been elected. I know certainly at Gander recently in one of the areas

that you refer to there's been an ongoing exodus of surgeons. There's one in and

one out. I know myself, I've been waiting knee surgery there for four years now.

There is certainly no continuity to the type of service that we have there.

I just find that people with back injuries -

particularly the back; that seems to be the one that... they can't get

myelograms done, they can't get diskograms done. If it's diagnosed as a bad back

you wait months. Finally you will probably get sent to St. John's to see Dr.

Perkins. That seems to be the route that everyone gets that I talked to. Then

you're sent back again. Finally you'll get sent to see Dr. Shapter who's

apparently got a new diagnostic tool. All of this takes about fifteen or sixteen

months, usually. It's ongoing.

Once that's done getting rehab services -

particularly in central Newfoundland; I don't know what it's like anywhere else

- but the area that I live, you'd be mighty lucky if you were injured today to

get rehab services provided in a three month period. It takes that long from the

time that someone has a surgical intervention until they can get rehab services.

I'm told, for example, that part of the problem is

we don't have enough - James Paton Memorial has salary allocations for two full

units that they haven't been able to fill. This has been ongoing for months now.

I am just wondering if Workers' itself in areas where it does this corrective

and rehabilitative surgery, has ever looked at hiring a rehab worker itself, and

then any time that it has left over then I am sure the hospitals could certainly

avail of that service.

I understand that the reason why we can't get

rehabilitation or physical therapists in this Province is that our salary is

some $10,000 to $12,000 lower than other ones, but it certainly would seem to be

in workers best interest if we had some physical therapists around that Workers'

themselves hired who would be able to go into the hospitals where we have all

those places. I think you mentioned St. Clare's where they do knee work. If we

had a physical therapist there it could possibly save Workers' Compensation

thousands of dollars.

My second concern, and my colleague here referred

to it, is a situation here with nurses in this Province. I have looked through

this report on the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review and nowhere in it do I

see reference to the change that just came about with respect to the training

program that was in place for injured nurses. Previously it was my understanding

it was up to a three year period that nurses could be retrained. I see no

mention of it in this report. I am wondering where this recommendation came

from. Maybe I will stop there and let you respond to these before I go onto my

next concern.

MR. GRIMES: Okay, if you don't mine,

Chairperson, I have a couple of comments myself, and again I might ask Mr.

Mitchell to answer one of the specifics at least.

Pointing out the whole area again of medical access

being a big problem for a start and then the physiotherapy and so on, the

rehabilitation delays following it are all part of the medical treatment

required. I would just like to inform the committee that in the presentation

that the Federation of Labour representatives made to the Social Policy

Committee of Cabinet, that meeting was also attended not only by social policy

but by the Premier and the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury

Board because they were interested in hearing what the federation had to say.

One of the biggest concerns they brought to our

attention at that meeting was the one that you just raised. In their opinion,

while there are a myriad of problems they felt that one of the greatest ones is

access, and they encouraged government in its decision making with respect to

Workers' Compensation to do anything and everything humanly possible to try to

find some solution to the dilemma that injured workers face when they can't

access appropriate medical treatment and/or rehabilitation services afterwards.

Also in reference to the notion of hiring physios

and so on, in a couple of meetings that I have had with the Association of

Allied Health Professionals who represent that type of health care professional,

they indicate as you do that they do have some difficulty attracting and

maintaining an appropriate number of these professionals in the Province. That

is a problem that we have in health care generally, and they would hope as well

that maybe we might consider doing something to entice some people in their

areas of expertise to locate in the Province, stay in the Province, and maybe

even dedicate themselves to Workers' Compensation claimants to try to help their

recovery.

I will ask Mr. Mitchell to comment shortly on the

idea of whether or not the commission has actually entertained the notion or is

actually in the position now of having some health care professionals actually

hired on certain staffs or monies allocated to certain of the health care

centres to dedicate some extra attention to Workers' Compensation claimants who

need the service.

In terms of the retraining and the nurses issue it

escapes me again as to whether any one of the forty-five recommendations

directly talked about, whether or not there should even be a review of

retraining at the commission. It's possible that it wasn't addressed because of

the fact that the board itself, the current board - which has been in place now

I guess, Wayne, since 1989, this board has been there, since 1989 - one of the

first things that they did upon assuming their mandate was to conduct a thorough

assessment and review of the retraining options that were available within

Workers' Compensation, and to try and make sure that the retraining provisions

for all categories of injured workers were in line with the basic objectives and

the basic mandate of a workers' compensation system. Which is to try to provide

an opportunity for the injured worker to return to some kind of work that would

enable them to replace their lost wages. Because it is a wage loss system.

The idea is that you are to be compensated for your

lost wages. The idea in the beginning, in terms of the theory and the research

and the principles that went into the development of a wage loss workers'

compensation system, wasn't to say that you had to go back to your current job,

or a job just like it. But that the idea would be to try to enable you to go

back to a job where you would have equivalent earning power.

The nurses had been in a position where the

previous policy had given them the opportunity to train for up to three years.

Most of them had retrained into some kind of a professional capacity, many of

them also doing maybe a BN course and so on, that might enable them to do

supervisory nursing duties rather than the bedside type of nursing, the floor

work, that they might have been doing before. The difficulty found was that all

the supervisory positions were filled. So they might be retrained and able to

take a supervisory position but there is none for them to take.

So the problem, that whole issue, and the injured

nurses association, representatives of the Newfoundland Nurses Union and so on,

all of these people were contacted. This would have been well over a year ago

now in terms of the research and the review that the board of the Commission

itself took with respect to the whole issue of retraining. They had a new

retraining policy ready to go I guess last fall. At that time, because the

Statutory Review Committee was reporting and did submit its report to myself as

the minister in October, they kindly delayed, because we were hoping to present

all of the changes at one time. Once it got past April this year and looked like

it might take us another month or two to make the rest of the decision as

government, the board itself felt that they could no longer hold off on their

new retraining policy that they had researched, reviewed, and adopted as the

board. It was implemented as of April 1.

Certainly the views of injured nurses, along with

all other categories of injured workers, were well known to the board of the

Commission when they reviewed, reconsidered and revised the retraining options

of the Workers' Compensation. The current new retraining program, as I

understand it, is fully in line with the original mandate of the Commission,

which is to try to retrain people so that they can earn an equivalent wage

level. It might not be the same kind of job, but it would enable them to work in

some kind of job that would give them the possibility of replacing their lost

wages.

So if there are other questions on that, fine, but

I'd ask Mr. Mitchell to address specifically, then if he wants to elaborate on

the retraining thing that the board did find, but also specifically the idea of:

had the Commission contemplated hiring physios and others specifically and

placing them in health care institutions specifically to deal with Workers'

Compensation claimants, and then in any extra time, to deal with other people

who needed their service as well.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman. On the issue again

of health care delivery, as I had mentioned earlier it is something we're

striving to find better ways of improving the access to. As the member had

indicated, especially for people who have bad backs or have had knee trouble,

the distribution of medical supply and demand in this Province is such that

access becomes a problem generally. The last count, I believe there are

something like twelve or thirteen people in the orthopaedics area in this

Province, and not all of those orthopaedic specialists are involved in backs,

which is an important one - it accounts for one-third of our total claims.

We looked and we have considered the option of

hiring an orthopaedic specialist within the Commission, but that is an expensive

proposition from the point of view - they're highly trained, well-qualified

people. The old story, one is not enough but two or three may be way too many.

So we're struggling with this business of trying to get the access to what

exists in Newfoundland in the normal supply-demand situation, and we really have

difficulty in seeing that the solution to our problem at this stage is to have

extra orthopaedic specialists on the staff of the Workers' Compensation, which

is a very expensive proposition. However, that is something that, as our claims

volume continues and if we can't find solutions elsewhere, is something that we

would have to come back and revisit.

As for the other areas of medical manpower and

assistance, we are moving and have moved over the last several months in hiring

within our medical services department an occupational nurse to be able to

relieve the function of the doctor to do - the three doctors who we have on

staff - to be able to deal with the volume of referrals that we're having. So

we're experimenting with that internally within the Commission.

The third thing I might say is that in terms of the

delivery of medical services to injured workers throughout the Province we have

recruited part-time medical consultants - those would be general practitioners -

who are serving one day a week - in the case of one individual out of Corner

Brook - and we are hoping to conclude an arrangement with another doctor to

deliver that service in Gander - Grand Falls. So that the injured workers

throughout the Province who now have to come to St. John's for medical attention

will have that delivered closer to their home communities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Mr.

Ramsay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Do I have any more time? A couple

of more areas. One of them is the ease back program. Unknown to most workers in

this Province it suddenly got changed within the past thirty days or so. That is

a change in regulations whereby people normally I think could have up to six

months at 100 per cent compensation to the employer to allow an injured worker

to get back into the workforce. Then subsequently I think it has been cut back

to six weeks, and then there is a sliding scale of 75 per cent and 50 per cent.

I don't know, I don't have the exact details. They've been pretty difficult to

get because I think many of the workers involved in the program were in

conferences after the program was announced. All the rehab workers suddenly had

a conference. I guess to explain the new program to them. Which made it very

difficult to seek out the information.

The point I want to make in this is that many

employees were out on a job search for - I had a constituent for example who was

engaged in his seventh week of a job search. Paid for by the Commission. On the

eighth week he found employment, telling his employer that he could get up to

six months. He was supposed to work on a Monday and on a Friday the field worker

called him from the Grand Falls office and said: there's been a regulation

change. What was going to be six months is now only going to be six weeks.

I find that this kind of direction coming at - I

see if you implemented the program it should apply to anyone who was now going

to start. But someone who had already gone through eight or nine weeks of the

program, submitting rsums and filling out the questionnaires and all that kind

of thing, suddenly to have an opportunity to have employment given to him taken

away because he had given the employer false information, I find that kind of

action regrettable. I'd like to know where the Workers' Compensation board is

coming from in implementing that policy right in mid-stream.

Secondly, I am wondering how much use does Workers'

make of chiropractic services? Will they pay for chiropractors because it is not

recognized by Medicare, some private insurance companies will do it; generally

speaking it seems to be quite favourable. We have a number of MHAs who regularly

make use of chiropractic services and they find it quite helpful.

MR. EFFORD: Most MHA's have bad backs.

MR. WINSOR: A number of people avail of it

throughout the other sectors of the Province, I am wondering if workers use it

and if not, why not?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, in response to the

first question, as the minister had indicted, the change of ease back is part of

the change in rehabilitation policies that the board itself had looked at rather

exhaustively, and had a set of policies ready to go a year or so ago. I am

intrigued however by the circumstance relayed by the member that the

implementation of those new policies have a retro-active effect to somebody that

was in place. I would find that that is somewhat inconsistent with the

introduction of new policies and maybe, if I could again at the recess check

into that, I would be glad to do it for the hon. member because this is not the

intention of introducing new policies.

On the matter of chiropractic service, the position

of the Commission has always been that once chiropractic legislation was

proclaimed in Newfoundland, we would recognize those services in Workers'

Compensation. The legislation, as I understand, is yet to be proclaimed and we

are now discussing with the chiropractors an arrangement for acknowledgement and

recognition and utilization of their services, once that legislation is

proclaimed. So that is where we are with chiropractic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Winsor, anything else or, Mr. Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: There is only one subhead in the

budget estimates that I wanted to single out, it is one that decreased. The

Graduate Employment Program: I am wondering what is the reason why the budget

amount was $1 million and the expenditure, the revised figure of $750,000, why

was that $250,000 either not spent or not allocated last year?... 4.1.02, page

190?

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Chairperson. The

Graduate Employment Program is one which offers, I think the details are 60 per

cent subsidy to a graduate of a recognized diploma or degree granting program,

who is seeking first employment to use the skills, the abilities and the

training that he or she has so acquired in the area of their expertise, and if

they can demonstrated that their own efforts failed to provide successful

employment for three months, then there is an inducement given to employers here

to take the graduates on, so that they can remove themselves from that catch 22

of: you cannot work here unless you have experience and you cannot get

experience unless you get some work. The program works very well.

At a point in time last year though, because it is

a full year type of program that runs for fifty-two weeks, I think the maximum

becomes $10,000 in subsidy. They have to be paid the rate that they normally

would have started in the profession or trade in which they are trained. It was

obvious that because there are only two or three times in the year I guess, when

people will likely avail of this program, that they will graduate from

institutions usually in the spring, but there are others who will graduate at

certain times when a semester ends. So at the end of a semester and then after,

you will get a rash of applications some three months following that.

It was clear that the total amount would not be

used in the Graduate Employment Program area last year, and it was also close to

the time of the year when we were considering finding funds to put into the

Emergency Employment Response Program and money was transferred from this

sub-head because it was clear at that point that there would not be full

utilization.

We made an estimate of how much would be needed for

the applicants that we expected between then and the end of the year. Seven

hundred and fifty thousand was considered to be enough to meet the need for the

graduate employment program, and in the meantime the rest was transferred into

the emergency employment response program to create immediate job relief for

people who were in desperate straits at the time.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay. Mr. Minister, I have two more

matters. One concerns the government's position relative to the unemployment

insurance fund, and I mentioned it today in the House of Assembly in debate. It

is something that I know we are going to have to deal with somehow or other, but

I just wonder if there is anything further as to how the Province will choose to

deal with the fact that the unemployment insurance fund now will preclude, I

suppose, the government of this Province and the federal government from

utilizing funding for - not to have a better term - make-work type projects,

that things will have to be different in the future because of the makeup and

composition of this fund and how it will be managed. I think we are going to get

a very quick lesson in how to deal with make-work as a problem because it is

just not going to be in existence. That is my estimation of it. I do not know if

you see it and the department has analyzed it in that way. I just wonder what

kind of conclusions you have come to and what some of the efforts and

initiatives may be in that role that we are going to have to undertake with the

possibility of 15,000 workers in the fishery being out looking for some kind of

response over this next six months.

MR. GRIMES: I certainly appreciate the question

because it is an area of considerable concern, and it has been an area of a lot

of discussion in the recent past.

There is no doubt from the meetings we have been

involved with, with Minister Valcourt and also with Ms. Gogan, in meeting with

the provincially based representatives here of Employment and Immigration

Canada, that the federal government is expressing a view that they have

increasing difficulty with the notion of using taxpayers dollars to move people

into receipt of funds that are no longer funded publicly, with the changes with

UI, with the federal government moving out of the UI system. They find it - I

guess the expression they are using - they find some moral difficulties with

using taxpayers dollars to off-load people onto a system for which they are not

paying for any more.

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible) court type challenge or

otherwise by the groups that run that fund, the labour unions, et cetera?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Tell them to pay for some of

it, that is all. If they want to pay for some of it, let them go right ahead.

The employers and the employees would not mind.

MR. GRIMES: Well you never know. There are

other options, I am sure, that they will explore in due time, and you might have

more influence over whether they do something than I might.

In any event, it does raise the whole issue of

income support. There are a number of initiatives occurring. There are a number

of references to the whole area of income support in the strategic economic plan

which will be, I guess, the final version of it. The final version of the

strategic economic plan is likely to be released within a couple of months.

There are a number of references, and there was a lot of discussion in the

public consultation with respect to income support and what it is that people

are going to do. Is there going to be a continuing cycle of short-term job

creation, unemployment insurance, or is there going to be some structured,

planned approach to making sure that people access as much work as they can but

are also guaranteed some kind of annual income?

I know that the Economic Recovery Commission is

working with the federal government to try to develop some pilot projects in

that area to look at income support from a guaranteed annual income type of

notion. They are hopeful that they will be able to pull together a couple of

pilot projects, maybe one on the Island and one in Labrador to try and deal

creatively with that new issue. Within our own department, in our consultations

and discussions with the federal minister and with the provincially based

representatives of his department we have indicated that we will entertain

discussion on any type of notion that sees us working in a complementary fashion

with the federal government to access all the different pools of money that

people use to sustain themselves through the year whether it be unemployment

insurance, social assistance, some earned income and those kinds of things.

There needs to be some kind of meshing of all of those sources of revenue to

make sure that people have income on a year round basis without interruption if

possible.

We are in the midst of some exploratory talks again

now. We are not at liberty at this point to really discuss the details of it

publicly because it would take some decision making on behalf of the provincial

government to agree to enter into certain new types of arrangements. Currently

though it is clear, as you would be aware and as Mr. Short would be aware,

particularly on the southwest coast with the fishery again, that there is going

to be a very urgent problem very soon in the sense that we have another failed

fishery and a group of people who will no longer qualify for UI, and what are

they going to do for income support?

The federal government has given every signal and

every indication through Minister Crosbie and Minister Valcourt that they really

do want to say no to short-term job creation. They will look at the training

allowances and other types of things. They don't mind giving money, but their

intention to date seems to be that they would like to say no to short-term job

creation for the purposes of qualifying for UI.

There is no doubt they are getting quite a bit of

feedback from other centres. Ontario now, for example, is now experiencing some

version of what Newfoundlanders have experienced for years and those types of

things. There will be some political pressure brought to bear from the people

generally. The provincial government will have to decide what position it is

going to take with respect to that whole issue.

There is nothing that we can see at the present

time that would preclude the Province from continuing its own efforts as it did

last year although a great part of what we did was done with the co-operation of

the federal government from the point of view of maybe at least being somewhat

lax in terms of whether the money could qualify as short earnings and whether or

not you could actually let one person go and another person enter the workforce

and so on.

So there was some co-operation no doubt, and if

that level of co-operation disappears it would make it even more difficult for

the Province itself to continue its efforts. We always have the continuing

debate as to whether or not the Province will enter into the area of job

creation with respect to the fishery because we have always maintained it is a

federal jurisdiction and a federal responsibility, and would we enter into

something on the southwest coast even if the federal government doesn't?

So there are a number of questions that may get

answered quicker than we think because of a position that the federal government

may take very shortly with respect to the southwest coast in particular.

MR. RAMSAY: I have two more points, Mr.

Chairman. One, in last years program my understanding is that in overall the

provincial government spent more than the federal government in the response to

the problems associated with the fishery and also the non-fishery related.

Didn't we spend about $2 million more than the federal government in last years

response program? Am I correct in that assumption?

MR. GRIMES: Certainly in non-fisheries related

our effort was the effort. We also complemented much of the effort done within

the fisheries response by allowing for top ups and providing materials and so on

for projects that were designated for federal response.

MR. RAMSAY: What I was getting at was total

dollars. I think I saw the figure as around... we spent somewhere around $10

million to $11 million, they spent something like $8.5 million, or something

like that. I suppose it's not apples and apples, but it's worthy of note that

the Province did -

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible) fishery, $39 million.

MR. RAMSAY: Throughout Atlantic Canada.

MR. WINSOR: That's in my district. I had 300

people.

MR. RAMSAY: Maybe the minister or Ms. Gogan

could provide us the information.

MR. GRIMES: It's possible Cathy may have some

information relating to that breakdown, because she does work very closely with

representatives of fisheries - both our provincial Department of Fisheries, DFO,

and Employment and Immigration Canada.

MS. CATHERINE GOGAN: With respect to the actual

expenditures last year for emergency response, both the federal and provincial

government were about equal. We were $13.5 million, and I think the feds were

just under $14 million.

MR. RAMSAY: Okay. So it was very close then.

MS. GOGAN: Yes.

MR. RAMSAY: Alright. The final point relating

to -

MR. B. AYLWARD: Wrong again, Bill.

MR. RAMSAY: I beg your pardon?

MR. R. AYLWARD: You're wrong again.

MR. RAMSAY: Well, but not by much. The final

point relating to Workers' Compensation. How was this unfunded liability that

sort of like reared its ugly head, how was that allowed to be kept, I suppose,

from being a public issue for so long? That's one. As a second part of that, I'm

under the impression that there are some severe problems with something that

happened relative to some decisions made in the mid-eighties, or early eighties,

in so far as benefit amounts and that sort of stuff with Workers Compensation?

That it caused us a lot of concern, and possibly it caused a lot of the problems

associated with the unfunded liability.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, the Ocean Ranger disaster, but

I just wanted to...

MR. GRIMES: Maybe just to give... probably I

could start and give my version of the history of it and Mr. Mitchell by either

nodding or shaking his head in another direction can indicate whether or not I'm

close, right or wrong or indifferent, and can help me along the way.

MR. RAMSAY: It'd be good to get this on the

record, I feel, Mr. Minister. That's my reason for asking.

MR. GRIMES: A couple of things. With respect to

the unfunded liability and why it had not been a public issue for a number of

years - and all of a sudden has become a rather major public issue to the point

of almost convincing everybody that something has to be done to the system - my

understanding is that there is no requirement for anybody, when they are

presenting an audited statement of the function of the Commission, to put in

your annual financial statement and indication of what your future funding

liabilities may be. That it's not required. And that the previous boards of the

Commission, in tabling reports in the House of Assembly and so on, chose not to

make any reference to liabilities for the future.

Again this board, the current board at the

Commission, when they examined the books and had the whole thing explained to

them, made a decision that they felt that everybody should know that there was

an annual problem in terms of meeting the ongoing expenses of the Commission,

but that there was also a growing unfunded liability position for future

liabilities, for people already on claim. And that it was a conscious decision

of the board to ask for the statements to reflect the true nature of the future

liabilities that the existing claimants brought into the system.

So because that kind of a decision was made, it's

not that the information wasn't there before, it's just that it wasn't made part

of the annual statement. Therefore it didn't draw a lot of attention. But it is

my understanding that the board of the Commission would have been aware that of

course one of the things that happens when you have somebody who is a potential

claimant for a number of years is that you are supposed to be putting aside some

money to pay for what it is going to cost you in the future, and part of the

whole financing and commission is an annual investment fund to do exactly that.

One of the difficulties that has surfaced, if you

examine the annual report closely again as well, is that for a year or two now

the commission, because revenues have sort of levelled off and claims

experiences due to increasing duration have deteriorated a bit, they have

actually had to borrow from this investment fund to meet current year's costs,

which is causing some cash flow problems from time to time within the

commission.

MR. RAMSAY: There is a negative cash flow

already then.

MR. GRIMES: So there is there annual difficulty

of making sure that they maintain cash flow for purposes of keeping funding

available to all existing present claimants, and then any time you dip into that

investment fund it exacerbates the problem of trying to make sure that you are

adding to the fund to put aside some money for your future liabilities; so every

time you dip into that it increases your future unfunded liability.

What has happened in the last couple of years is

that there has been, for a couple or three years in a row now, in the range of

the high twenties or close to $30 million a year of increasing liabilities that

have not been able to be covered by appropriate allocations to the investment

fund to cover them all. So they know that the liabilities are there, but the

financial position of the commission on an annual basis has been such that they

have not been able to make adequate contributions to the investment fund to

offset those liabilities, so the number is increasingly getting larger. The

latest actuarial report that the board of the commission had done indicated

there needs to be some rearranging done in the financing to level off, if not

reverse, that type of trend.

The reference you made to the mid-eighties - in

1984 this system changed to a wage-loss system where you were compensated at a

percentage of the lost wages instead of being given any kind of a payment for

the actual physical damage that was caused to you. In the previous system I

think the common terminology - Mr. Mitchell can correct me if I am wrong - was

that there used to be what was called a meat chart system; that if you lost an

arm or a leg or so on there was so much money depending on the severity of the

injury. So it was the severity of the injury previously that determined what

kind of payment you got, versus how much money you were disentitled from earning

as income.

In switching systems there is some speculation that

it took several years before the proper administrative and other financial

planning systems were put in place to fully account for that change in funding

and that may not have been fully taken into account and may not have been fully

factored into it. Therefore, because a principle and a policy change was made

but the necessary accommodating financial changes were not made at the same

time, which caused the annual funding of the commission to be in the position

where it is now, it is only through a complete financial review which the

commission conducted itself - the board had conducted itself - not related to

the statutory review, that they are now putting in place themselves, even while

they wait for final decisions from government, proper financial management

decisions to correct some of the difficulties that were ongoing on an annual

basis.

So, Mr. Mitchell, if there is something that should

be added to that by way of clarification I would certainly welcome it.

MR. W. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, just as one

elaboration of the minister's very apt description of the situation, the 1984

changes had to be estimated, and the actuaries will tell you that they need

anywhere from seven to nine years of good experience to come up with reasonably

reliable projections. So the 1990 annual report of the workers compensation,

which would have shown our unfunded liability going from $34 million to $113

million, reflected in part the very early five to six year time frame that the

actuaries had to estimate the impact of the change.

What you are seeing in our annual statements for

1991, is a further update by the actuaries with two additional years of

experience which now give them a greater confidence level to project estimates

into the future, so in short, it is the maturity of the time frame of the 1984

changes that now are leading to more reliable estimates of future projected

costs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Mr.

Efford?

MR. EFFORD: I will pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. (inaudible). Mr. Aylward

(inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The minister might want to take

out a copy of the salary details, 1992-1993 estimates, page 135. The headings

there under Minister's Office, the second heading, Temporary and Other Employees

is zero for your office, so I guess that heading is put there for temporary

employees only, I would imagine. The next one is overtime for the Minister's

Office, $8,000, what overtime is the minister to get paid for, for $8,000?

MR. GRIMES: None that I know about.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible), $8,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much (inaudible) you used

to get Bob, $48,000 (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I got a free car, $25,000;

$20,000.

MR. GRIMES: As far as I know and Gerry may

correct me if I am wrong, I think that is the location under which they chose to

list the car allowance that is available to the minister.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So that is other headings, no

over time?

MR. GRIMES: I think so.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You do not get paid overtime,

that is what I am trying to make, I hope not anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you should.

MR. GRIMES: Some of the other ministers

probably should; I would not feel entitled to it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, I would question that

because one of the other minister I know get $10,000 under this heading, so that

could quite be and you may want to check that for your own (inaudible) -

MR. GRIMES: I will (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: -and then the next heading is

Permanent and Other Adjustments, what is that?

MR. GRIMES: I will ask Mr. Crocker if he could

answer that for you.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Sick leave benefits maybe for

minister's who are off sick.

MR. CROCKER: Yes, under other adjustments, that

includes if there are any sick progressions or any rounding adjustments.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So the ministers will get an

increase of $1,085 this year I would say, increase in salary?

MR. GRIMES: No. I would expect that it is

possible though that the departmental secretary and the minister's political

secretary are probably both entitled to step progressions and that would account

for that. I expect to earn the same money as last year but take home less as a

result of some changes that this government made.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So the step progressions would

have to do with your executive assistant or your secretary to the minister or

the departmental secretary; one of those would get that $1,000 and, do we know

who will get it? Would it be the executive assistants who are going to get this,

do they have step progressions?

MR. GRIMES: Yes, they do. Executive assistants,

clerical secretaries and departmental secretaries.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Are executive assistants on a

step progression scale?

MR. GRIMES: As far as I know they are, yes; I

have seen a scale for executive assistants ranging from thirty-something

thousand dollars to forty-something; I expect that they are on a progression.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So between the three of them

they get about a $1,000 - will that $1,000 be divided among the three of them

somehow?

MR. CROCKER: Yes. It depends I guess if you are

trying to top the scale, when, naturally, they would not be entitled to a step

then, you would have to look at the three or four positions that are there.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Very good. Anything more, Sam?

MR. WINSOR: Yes. I want to come back to the

workers compensation for a couple of moments.

The way that the department or the commission

presently receives its remuneration I guess, from the employers in the Province

is based on a scale depending on the category of employment. I am not sure which

province it was that abandoned this type of a system when they were moving to a

unified scale for all employers across the province. How does this board intend

to address that problem? I know you have looked at a recommendation for 7.5 per

cent or in the Randell Report it is a 7.5 per cent surcharge. Is there any

consideration being given presently to the change and restructuring of these

rates?

MR. GRIMES: I don't know. I am interested in

the question, but part of the question made me think that you maybe -

AN HON. MEMBER: Too difficult was it?

MR. GRIMES: In reading your article, I am not

aware from anything I have read with respect to Workers' Compensation that any

jurisdiction or any province is looking at common rates for everybody. One of

the things that was done here in this province this year, which is again

different and something that the board will probably not do again depending on

the changes that the government agrees to, was to institute an across the board

increase in assessments for everybody of 8 per cent because there is normally an

assessment based on your experience and so on. There are references to that in

the statutory review that the experience rating system should be examined more

closely and that the board should look at it and so on. I am sure that they have

already done their own review of that.

The notion though that the rates - I think in

Newfoundland our lowest rate is probably down to maybe in the 30 cent range per

hundred for some categories and it goes up to $13 and some odd for the trawlers.

That is the same everywhere. There are different categories in every

jurisdiction that I am aware of and will probably continue to be so.

There are usually different increases for the

different categories in a year depending on what their experiences have been.

But this board while they were waiting for ourselves as government to make our

final decisions with respect to the statutory review put in place on January

1st, 1992 and across the board assessment increase of 8 per cent for every

category regards of experience. That is not the normal way increases are done. I

am sure that in the future that probably won't be the way it is done either. It

is done as a stop gap measure while they are waiting the final outcome of the

governments deliberation on the larger issues. So the whole notion of the rates

and so on that is constantly under review. It gets constant attention from the

board of the commission, and there are always representations being made from

different categories of employers, particularly when they have had a good

experience, to continually remind the board of that to see if they can't get a

lowered assessment for a coming year or to have no increase supplied and those

types of things.

The employers are usually not as anxious to come to

the board if they have had a bad year, if they have had a couple of bad

experiences and if their safety record hasn't been good for a year they are not

that anxious then to knock on the door of the commission because under normal

circumstances they would know that their increase in that year in assessments

would probably be higher than any other rate group. So that whole issue does get

discussed regularly in an ongoing fashion, and it is one that was brought to the

attention of the board and for government to consider as a matter with the

statutory review. I don't know, again, if there is anything else you would like

for Mr. Mitchell to add to that.

MR. WINSOR: What kind of impact - obviously

part of the problem that the board experiences is that in some cases costs

continue to the Workers' Compensation Commission and the employer can no longer

contribute. For example a good case in point now would be the virtual shut down

of the deep sea fishery in this Province. These were the per $100, they were the

highest contributor in the Province. They are also obviously high because there

are a fair number of injuries associated with that type of work. Now that that

has come to a standstill the employer will no longer be paying. So for the short

term for people, especially many of these are probably on long term payments

through Workers', what kind of impact, are there any studies being done, and to

the potential that that sector of the fishery could disappear for a while? I

know there won't be as many new claims coming on, but then there is no funding

at all for the ones that are ongoing and will be ongoing maybe for forever and a

day. Is there any kind of study done in areas like that particular one or a

mining industry for example in Baie Verte or in Daniel's Harbour? These people

were injured on the job, the employer no longer has an obligation. How much

unfunded liability results from these types of occupations where the employer

will no longer be making contributions to Workers' Compensation.

MR. GRIMES: You've touched on one of the major

areas of concern for Workers' Compensation Commissions in the world. That is one

of their very serious actuarialized considerations when they set rates in the

first place. Because there is always some estimation or guesstimation taken in

setting the rates to - one of the assumptions has to be that the existing

employers will not always be around, all of them, forever.

So, in establishing the initial rate structure in

the first instance, the actuarial valuations and so on that are done and the

consultations that go into that, they try to take a certain percentage. Mr.

Mitchell might be able to tell you a ballpark figure as to what the range is.

But there is always in the rate setting an understanding and an acceptance of

the principle that today's employers are not going to be there 100 per cent to

pay out for the life of the injured claimant; there will be, through attrition,

companies that will close that would have had workers who were injured while

they worked for them, who will continue to draw from the workers' compensation

system, but the company they worked for when they were injured will no longer be

making a contribution.

When you point out a very high rate category like

the trawlers and so on, it is obvious that there is a lot of money in terms of

the annual assessment, the annual revenue for the Commission, that disappears in

the short term, and the claimants who are on system still stay there. So it

really does, in any one year, cause tremendous difficulties with their cash flow

positions, their financial projections, and they are put in the position of

having to constantly rework them.

One of the things that has happened with the

projections again for this year - last year's annual report, as tabled,

indicated an unfunded liability position now approaching $160 million. The

assumptions that were made when the assessment rate was set this year at an 8

per cent increase for all categories were based again on the assumption that

most of these companies would be here as revenue contributors again this year.

Already - what is this, now? We are into our fifth month - we have had a

significant number of major contributors who are no longer contributing.

So the board and the financial people at the

Commission already recognize that their projections on which they built this

year's budget may need to be reworked soon in terms of being more realistic

about whether or not they are going to be anywhere close to a balance this year.

Because a number of the contributors have moved out of the system. The

claimants, some have moved out of the system because they've gone back to work,

others are still on the system. So their whole analysis in terms of preparing a

budget for this year is under constant review, particularly when you have an

economic decline such as we're now experiencing.

The actuarial assessments, and so on, and the

studies that go into it, do account for some percentage of disappearing revenue

contributors. Maybe Mr. Mitchell can give you a ballpark figure as to what that

is because he's had more experience in dealing with the actuaries than I have.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, as the minister

says, the actuaries would incorporate factors to account for entry and exit

within an industry. However, in the unique circumstances in which we find

ourselves, i.e., the offshore fishing industry in this Province, the

contribution of the total deficit facing the Commission, coming from that

sector, is very high. So, in a year such as we're now facing, with downturn in

that particular industry, the Commission is faced with two choices, either to

continue the very large deficit of our total from that particular industry, or

to recover the costs through other rate groups.

That has not been a decision that the board has

taken. It will obviously have to be a decision that will have to be taken as we

move along into rate setting. But it is of concern, particularly in the offshore

fishing sector of this Province where the deficits are already very high. And no

amount of actuarial forecast could take care of this extraordinary event we find

ourselves in, in the Province at the present time.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I believe Mr. Winsor was last speaking and shall

finish shortly, I'm sure.

MR. WINSOR: I don't know about finishing shortly.

I would like to ask the minister and maybe Mr. Mitchell, what would be the

normal period of time involved before the Commission establishes a PFI for an

injured worker?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, it would depend upon

the appointment being arranged with our medical practitioners, of whom we have

three. It would depend upon the complexity of the case, so, from the point of

getting them put on to the roster for examination, and then the complexity and

then the decision taken, and I would not be able to hazard guesses as to what

those averages are, although I could arrange to get that for the member.

MR. WINSOR: I have a constituent for whom it has

been two years in November past, over twenty-four months, since surgery. I spoke

to him recently and asked about PFI and he didn't know what I was talking about.

Subsequently, I made some contacts and they said normally it would be done

within a sixteen-month period; and I don't know if it is because you have a

backlog, but it is two-and-a-half months ago and yet he has not heard anything

as to whether or not an assessment is going to be done on his case. That is an

area where I find there is certainly an element of difficulty, in that many

workers are not aware that they are entitled to PFI. What kind of education

program is there for injured workers to make them aware of this? Because many of

these people who are injured on the job, some of whom are in the functionally

illiterate category, have no idea what services and benefits are available to

them?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, we have brochures at

the Commission that describe the full range of programs that we have, and those

are constantly being updated; we are in the process, subject to the changes that

will be forthcoming, dealing with those in probably more precise fashion, but

for those people who, as you say, are not able to grasp the written brochures,

the job of our counsellors and the job of our adjudicators is to advise the

injured worker, when he comes on to our system, of the full range of benefits.

So, I would have to say, there is both the written material available and it is

also the obligation of our professional staff to counsel and advise the

employees or the injured workers of the total range of programs the Commission

has to offer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Winsor.

Did you have any questions, Mr. Ramsay?

MR. RAMSAY: No, the only thing I was interested in

doing - permission of the Committee would be needed to move the subheads. It

seems we have had substantial discussion from 1.1.01 through 5.1.01 inclusive,

covering the Minister's Office, under Executive and Support Services on through

to the Labour Relations and Labour Standards Division, Occupational Health and

Safety Division and Employment and Careers Division, included in those numbers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Before we do, though, Mr.

Aylward, have you any comment?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I don't know, Mr. Chairman, why

the hon. member is in such a rush.

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible); we had discussion on the

motion.

MR. R. AYLWARD: As far as the Minister's Office is

concerned, I can start going through the subheads. I don't want to do them in a

block, I would like to do them bit by bit. I don't know if my colleague is

finished with his general questions.

MR. WINSOR: No, I have some questions in the

Employment

section that I would like to address before we move on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. I was just checking - I

thought Mr. Ramsay had some personal questions, but normally, we give you about

ten minutes and I think Mr. Winsor is probably beyond that, but if there are any

further general questions, go ahead, perhaps Mr. Aylward or Mr. Winsor, either

of you. You had a few others left, Mr. Winsor?

MR. WINSOR: Yes, in the employment section, the

Student Employment Program, $600,000, which I understand is subsidized to a

maximum of three dollars per hour. The federal government have, for the past

number of years, had a student employment program, as well. Has the minister any

indication what amount of money is going to be in the federal program this year,

in light of the fact that there seems to be an ever-increasing number of

students at the post-secondary and secondary level? Does he really feel that

$600,000 is an adequate amount, down some $60,000 from last year? It was

budgeted at $600,000; $660,000 was actually spent, and it's back down to

$600,000. In view of the demands on the system because of the inability of the

private sector to provide employment in any substantial way in a depressed

economy, does the minister feel that this can do justice to all the number of

students who are out there seeking work?

MR. GRIMES: Chairperson, I think it is obvious to

all of us that between both levels of government, both the federal contribution

- and Ms. Gogan can correct me if I'm wrong; but I understand, in their efforts

again this year, Challenge '92, which is a version again of Challenge '91, that

their expenditures in our Province are expected again to be in the $10 million

to $11 million range for student summer employment.

The Province has never really attempted to try to put

an amount of money into the Budget to meet all of the needs of students at the

post-secondary level. We might not have the capacity to do that. It is a

laudable objective. Really, the idea of the Province running student employment

programs is to try to plug some of the obvious gaps that occur, whereby the

federal government, through its Challenge program, may not be able to deliver

employment opportunities for students in certain locations, for whatever reason.

When we do our applications, one of the things we try to assess and determine is

whether or not there have been areas of oversight or non-contribution from the

federal program where we can fill in the gaps with our $600,000.

We are making plans right now to see if we can't make

a special consideration, for example, this year, for Labrador West where the

normal summer employer of the students would be the Iron Ore Company of Canada

and Wabush Mines. One of those potential employers, which used to employ most of

the students for the summer, the Iron Ore Company of Canada, have indicated they

will be shut down for the summer and will not be employing student summer

replacement workers. We are looking at the possibility of putting a concerted

effort into Labrador West to fill that gap which normally would have been

handled through the company by picking up the subsidy. We are looking at

alternate ways that we might be able to fill in, in that case.

There are severe limits as to what the Province can do

with its contribution, and, in fact, we haven't tried to match, in any way,

shape or form, the federal program. The federal government is to be commended

for taking a strong lead in continuing to make considerable amounts of money

available for student summer employment, to assist people in meeting some of the

cost of their post-secondary education. We recognize that our efforts pale by

comparison, but they are designed to try to plug some of the gaps whereby

federal funding may not reach certain areas and we might be able to contribute

from our provincial funds.

MR. WINSOR: So is it out of the $600,000 that this

special allocation is being looked at for Lab City?

MR. GRIMES: Yes. If we do that, it would mean that

we might take a certain amount of the $600,000 and earmark it for Labrador West.

Because we know that the normal summer employer there will be shut down. If

there are other situations, that's the kind of area that we have capability to

move into and would like to address.

MR. WINSOR: So, obviously, the second part of this

naturally follows then. Now that we have seen a virtual shutdown of the deep-sea

fishery, which is also a fairly significant - at least, a casual employer of

many students throughout the summer, will there be any attempt to address these

areas? I look specifically at Catalina, at Arnold's Cove, areas where some of

the big companies such as FPI and NatSea traditionally employ a fair number of

students. Does that mean they will be looked at and have special consideration,

as well?

MR. GRIMES: What it means, exactly, is that these

would obviously be areas that might get increased consideration this year over

what they would have in previous years if the regular employer had been up and

operating and functioning at full capacity. As I indicated in my remarks, it's

the kind of thing that we certainly try to factor very highly into our

decision-making. It is not the only consideration, but it is one of them,

because of the fact that we recognize that if there were only the provincial

student employment program in place, then there would be very little done in

terms of financial assistance for students at the post-secondary level. Our

program, of and by itself, would be totally inadequate for the Province. But we

have not tried to duplicate or copy, or in any way replace the federal effort.

We recognize and appreciate it, and we are just trying to have some money

available on a continuing basis to complement and supplement it.

In situations like we have discussed with Labrador

West, and obviously in areas in the fishery, this year, if the federal program

is not able to deliver money for students to be employed in those areas, then we

will certainly look at it ourselves from our own very limited resources.

MR. WINSOR: Heading 4.1.07, the Employment

Generation program: I questioned the minister earlier on this and he has

indicated that about half that $3.1 million is to fund existing programs - I

think that was the figure the minister used some time ago - that these are

ongoing commitments left over from programs that were initiated last year. What

is the total number of new jobs that would be created - I am talking about

1992-1993 - out of that $1.5 million?

MR. GRIMES: Maybe Ms. Gogan can give you the

estimate. We are expecting, as you can see in the Budget heads, that the final

revised numbers again for last year, while showing $1.3 million, when the actual

numbers are finally in, it will probably be very close to the $1.5 million that

was budgeted, that would have been expended and attributed to the last fiscal

year. There will be about the same again, $1.5 million or $1.6 million of new

dollars available for contracting out under this program through this fiscal

year. Maybe Ms. Gogan can give you the estimates as to the number of jobs that

can be created with that range of money.

MS. GOGAN: Chairperson, we would hope,

approximately 1,000 new jobs under this program. I should add that we have had a

very good success rate with employment retention under this program. Our

statistics indicate that 78 per cent of the employers who hired people under the

Employment Generation program kept them on once the subsidy ran out.

MR. WINSOR: And that was at the end of the sixty

weeks?

MS. GOGAN: Yes.

MR. WINSOR: Okay. Under the adjustment program for

fish plant workers there was $7.7 million allocated. Only about half of that

amount was spent. Was there some reason that $4 million was not spent last year?

MR. GRIMES: Yes. This heading, Chairperson and Mr.

Winsor, was set up a couple of years ago when the three fish plants were to

close in St. John's South, Trepassey and Gaultois, and the contractual

arrangements were entered into whereby the money would be paid directly to the

companies for them to provide extended notice and stay open for another period

of time. The $7.7 million was put into the Budget as an estimate of what that

could cost if the full extended notice were availed of by the companies under

the contractual arrangements.

As the plants geared down and eventually worked

through the period of time that was covered by these contractual arrangements,

it was realized that the actual cost to government to pay them for that extended

notice was going to come in about close to $4 million less than had been

budgeted for, but that those were the detailed arrangements that were agreed to

by the two companies, FPI and National Sea Products, and the government. When

they met all contractual obligations it was clear that the contractual

obligations for extended notice were going to be met and could be met for close

to $4 million less than was budgeted. So, in the beginning, because there was

some uncertainty as to how the actual contractual arrangement was going to turn

out, and what would be the actual volumes of money, it was decided to estimate

at the outside maximum limits of what could be possibly a liability for the

government, of $7.7 million. It turned out to be a real liability for the

government of $3.7 million - in the $4 million range. The rest of the money was

reallocated to other employment efforts.

MR. WINSOR: Under the Emergency Response program

last year, there was $2 million put in last fall. And, with an unemployment rate

in the Province of about 18 per cent, seventeen point something, I think it is -

we are now looking at 23 per cent. I think, the last one I saw was 22 per cent

to 23 per cent; certainly, the indicators are that we will be worse off this

summer from an economic perspective than we were last. Why hasn't the minister,

in his budgeting, made some provisions to initiate programs similar in scope to

the ones we had last year? Is there intention of having any? Will the money be

extra money or will it be a reshuffling of money that is already in the

department? And, just when is the Department of Employment and Labour Relations

going to initiate some response to the ever-worsening employment crisis that is

out there in the Province today? - because there is nothing in this Budget that

addresses it.

MR. GRIMES: The government looked at this whole

issue when deciding upon budgetary considerations. While it is clear, as the

Estimates show, that there was a $2 million allocation for Emergency Response

last year, which was moved into this category after our announcement of October

4, 1991, we still believe that the role of government, in terms of employment

and job creation,

is to provide for an economic climate that will enable

private enterprise and private investors to create job opportunities for

Newfoundlanders; we believe the role of government is to provide the services

that people require, need and desire, and are willing to pay for through their

tax effort; and that, as the government, we will employ the number of people

required to provide those services. But it is not a role of government to try to

create jobs or make work that government, itself pays for.

We might enter into some schemes, as we have here with

employment generation and so on, to try to attract and induce private employers

to add positions to the work force that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can

avail of. But the idea of directly creating the jobs ourselves and paying for

them from tax dollars is not one of which this government is highly supportive.

We did move into that area last year, in October, in the fall, because, as you

indicated, there was what we deemed to be a very serious and, I guess, emergent

employment problem in the Province at the time. At the end of a fishing season

that wasn't successful for climatic reasons and other, I guess, a resource

reason, as well, and because the construction industry didn't produce work that

was expected and anticipated, people who normally would have accessed work

during a summer fishing and construction season didn't get work and were left

with the prospect of no source of income through the winter except for social

assistance.

We made the decision at that time that we should enter

into some useful job creation on a short term basis, which spawned the Emergency

Employment Response program. We entered into discussion, as I indicated before,

with the federal minister, Minister Valcourt, and also through the Department of

Fisheries with Minister Crosbie, as to what kinds of plans they may have for the

Province for this year, and have expressed a willingness to participate in a

complementary fashion. While there is nothing budgeted here, just as there is

nothing budgeted in the federal Budget - if you recall, one of the things about

the federal Budget, of which the federal Opposition complained, was that,

recognizing the employment difficulties in the country, as a whole, and the

continuing economic conditions and so on, the federal government had not

earmarked any specific initiatives in their Budget for job creation for

Canadians.

They are in the same position we are in. We are

entering into discussions. We have both expressed a willingness to find the

necessary money, provided we can agree to a suitable and appropriate mechanism

by which to deliver realistic, useful, constructive employment opportunities to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There is no amount - we didn't even bother to

put in a line heading of a dollar to keep the item alive. But, as I have

answered in the House of Assembly, in Question Period, we have expressed a

willingness - and we believe our experience of last year will show that we will

also demonstrate the capability to find the money if, as and when necessary, to

participate in a complementary fashion in any program with the federal

government, provided both of us are willing to enter into any form of short-term

job creation opportunities, for the residents of the Province. So it is not in

the Budget.

We made a conscious decision not to put a heading

there, but once we find ourselves in a position where we have some agreement

with the federal government, we feel quite certain that we will display the

capacity to find the money, even if we have to go and access additional money

that is nowhere to be found in the Budget at this point in time. There is

willingness on the part of government to enter into that if and when it becomes

appropriate, but we certainly didn't feel it was prudent to budget for what

might be a possible emerging situation in which we have no idea yet what the

level of our contribution might be, in terms of the level of contribution by our

federal counterparts in Ottawa.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Grimes.

Mr. Aylward.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I hear federal people, on occasion

- the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Employment and

Immigration keep referring to a guaranteed income and replacing such other

safety nets as unemployment insurance and social services, I guess, and the baby

bonus that used to be around - the family allowance, I think it was called. Are

there any discussions or meetings ongoing between the minister's department and

the federal authorities on establishing a guaranteed income rather than the

other things?

MR. GRIMES: Not directly, but I can point out to

the member and to the Committee, it is not that we wouldn't enter into

discussions with them in a serious way, if approached. The topic has been

broached on a number of occasions. I know there is some work, as I mentioned

earlier this evening, being done by the Economic Recovery Commission, to try to

find a way whereby the Province can participate with the federal government in a

pilot project along those very lines. It is also one of the mandates of the

Fisheries Task Force that Mr. Cashin has agreed to chair, that they are looking

for possibilities of targeting a couple of areas where they can pilot that very

notion, as well, to access available monies from all different sources, from job

creation in fisheries, from ACOA, from federal/provincial agreements, from

social services, from employment training initiatives, from any source where

people now access money, to see if they can't make a combined effort and move in

the direction of some version of a guaranteed annual income.

So the notion is being explored in some depth both by

the Economic Recovery Commission and the federal government, and it is part of

the stated mandate of the Fisheries Task Force that Mr. Cashin has agreed to

chair. They are hoping to actually pilot that very notion in one or two areas of

the Province. I think they are looking to pilot the notion in one or two areas

of Atlantic Canada, since that Task Force covers the Atlantic Provinces and the

eastern shore of Quebec for the fisheries. So it is not a notion that is not

being explored, but it is not being explored directly by myself as a minister of

the government and this department. We have had some preliminary discussion

about the notion, but it is not front and center on the agenda at this point.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Is Richard Cashin's committee that

you just mentioned - I forget the name of it again now - is that looking at this

guaranteed income from a fisheries perspective only, or are we talking single

mothers, construction workers, seasonal workers? Are we looking at this

guaranteed income as a safety net for the country, and for our Province, I

guess, but for the country generally, from a federal point of view, or are we

looking at it for a specific area?

MR. GRIMES: My understanding of it right now is

that they are looking at it specifically in response to a fisheries problem, but

also recognizing that the pilot could be evaluated to see whether, if it were

effective in addressing a problem in the fishery, it could then be expanded to

address other sectors.

In any discussions we have had, as a department, with

respect to that notion, I think it would be fair to say that the discussions

have always started out using the fishery as an example. One of the points that

we consistently raise is that we would not be hesitant to enter into more

detailed discussions with the federal government, but it would have to be

broader in range. It would have to demonstrate that it could be used for the

much broader sector and could have general application in the Province, rather

than just be earmarked for areas affected by a downturn in the fishery.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just to go on to a different topic

now - I have only a couple of more questions and then we can do this all in a

hurry.

The Labour Relations Board under Labour Relations and

Labour Standards: Over the last week or two, there has been much debate in the

media, particularly by Mr. Bill Barry, a fish plant owner and business

entrepreneur in our Province, and there have been some supportive comments from

Jim Pitcher, an executive assistant to one of the employers' groups. Both of

them were criticizing the Labour Relations Board, or that act, or whatever they

operate under, and they said it was weighted towards one side - I guess they

were arguing it was weighted towards the union side.

Has the minister had a look at what these people's

complaints are? Do you feel that the legislation that governs the Labour

Relations Board is weighted to one side, the employees' side, or the labour, the

union, side of it, rather than the employers' side?

MR. GRIMES: I appreciate your raising the topic.

It is always useful to discuss that notion publicly. I met with Mr. Barry, and

months prior to that, with Mr. Pitcher, in his capacity as President of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council. I think it would be fair to say

that the Employers' Council probably proposed in meetings with myself, and Linda

Black, for sure - and probably in some where the deputy minister, Ms. Fry, was

present, as well - that their feeling was that the two points of view put

forward by Mr. Barry - number one, that the labour legislation favours unions

over employers; and secondly, that the Board, in its operation, has gotten into

the habit of approving applications from the union without going through a full

analysis and process and so on, therefore, their view is that the Board, itself

favours the unions.

I took the opportunity in meetings with both those

gentlemen, with Mr. Pitcher and the Employers' Council, and with Mr. Barry and

his group, to remind them, while that is a point of view they may hold and that

they may support, any time I have met with representatives of the unions,

whether it be the Federation of Labour or individual unions when they have come

to meet with me, we have gotten the exact opposite view on both issues. The

union representatives in the Province have presented the view that the labour

legislation needs to be reviewed because it is biased in favour of the

employers, and it is very difficult for union representatives and so on to go

out and organize and get certification orders. They also take the view that they

have been having a very tough time before the Labour Relations Board. Their

feeling is that the Labour Relations Board makes decisions without due

consideration to the union side and sometimes favours the employers.

Our own assessment of it is that while there may be

reasons why the labour legislation in the Province should be reviewed, the

notion of imbalance one way or another is not the basis for either one of them.

We feel, from our assessment of it, that the labour legislation does what it is

supposed to do. It provides an equal opportunity for both to present their case,

and to leave it to the workers through a democratic process to determine whether

or not they want to be organized and have a union representing them, or whether

they are willing to work in some other fashion and some other relationship with

their employer.

So our assessment of the legislation is that it is

fair at the present time, and also, that the Labour Relations Board, by

assessment of its record, I guess, its decision-making, makes fair decisions. We

have had no reason that we can measure in any way, shape or form to suggest that

either the legislation should be changed because it's unbalanced or biased, or

that the Board, itself should be disposed of, replaced or whatnot because

they're making a series of decisions all one-sided. We get the opposite view

depending on which side you're speaking to on the issue.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will give you an example of a

small company I am familiar with, which operates in the Mount Pearl area, a

small distribution company, or trucking company more than anything. They had

three permanent employees, and at busy times, four temporaries. One of the

unions wanted to unionize them, so they wined and dined the employees, both the

temporaries, who were laid off at the time, and the permanents. It came to a

point where they were going to have a vote or sign cards, whatever they do.

The union had treated them pretty well and given them

good explanations as to why they should join. Then, the employer tried to do a

similar thing, to wine and dine them, and he was accused of being threatening,

but he was giving his point of view, he thought. He was charged by the Labour

Relations Board for unfair labour practice, for trying to do the same thing that

the union did, to dissuade them from joining, no doubt, a union. It was he who

brought it to my attention that he considered this to be - a small company. The

vote happened to be, or the cards happened to be, four to three. Now, nobody

knows who voted which way. But there were four temporaries and three permanents,

and it was kind of a coincidence, I guess, that it worked out that way - to join

the union, by the way.

But he considered it to be rather unfair that he

couldn't put his point of view forward,

whereas the union representative or

whoever was doing the negotiations for the union's side could pretty well do

what he wanted. Now that's where he figured the unfairness was. And it comes to

mind now when I see Bill Barry and Jim Pitcher and I hear the same types of

arguments, from a broader scale, I guess. But it does happen to smaller

companies so I imagine it can happen to larger companies, too.

MR. GRIMES: Not to make light of the issue, but

there was a TV program some years ago, when I was growing up, where they used to

have a saying at the end, 'There are 10 million stories' - was it The Naked City

or something? - and this has been one of them.

We have heard a lot of these, and there are a lot of

similarities in them. The basis, though, of the whole notion here of the

employer/employee relationship and why these unfair labour practices get laid

and why they get supported, is that, by very virtue of the fact that you are the

employer and you hold the power of the paycheck, you exercise a considerable

influence over the decision-making of your employees by virtue of being in that

position; and that it's unfair and you shouldn't have to, and you shouldn't be

permitted to, do other things to influence their decision as to whether or not

they want to organize themselves to work for you, or work for you in their

present situation.

Labour relations boards and courts consistently,

throughout the land, have always ruled - and that's not new to Newfoundland, it

is not unique to Newfoundland, it is not different, it is the basis of labour

law throughout the country - that by virtue of being the owner, employer and the

person who signs the cheques, you already have considerable influence, power and

authority and whatnot over the type of thinking and the type of decision that

your employee is likely to make, and that you shouldn't be allowed to take other

initiatives in terms of convincing them to make one decision or the other as to

whether or not they want to organize collectively or stay together in a

non-collective bargaining situation.

So the courts across the land have ruled that to be

fair. Employers, I guess, from time immemorial, too, have argued that they think

that is unfair, but the standard labour law of the land supports that

contention, whether the company is small or large.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is hard to consider it fair in

the example I used when, in the case of four of the temporary employees, the

employer did not have the power of the cheque, at the time, at least, because

they were not working for him, but they did have the opportunity to vote on the

future of that company. That was the unfairness of it, not whether he could hold

a threat over them, which is certainly not to be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: There are a hundred different

arguments to it, I guess, and the courts have heard them all, but it raises its

head in bad times. In tough times, all of these issues seem to come forward.

MR. GRIMES: I just might add, too, the other

reality that I think all of us recognize is that, in times of economic downturn

like now, again, in my personal opinion at least, the advantage goes to the

employer, because it becomes increasingly tough for union organizers to convince

workers that they should organize into a union to try to get additional benefits

from an employer in an economic climate such as we have today. So my personal

view is that in these tough economic times, the employers hardly need any

legislation, that the economics of the time dictate and make it very tough for

the union organizers to have success.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Those who had success before, who

are going to put them out of business, are the ones they argue about in these

times.

Apart from that, on just another issue, a quick

question: At first, when the Hibernia Bull Arm site started up, your predecessor

had some problems on the reporting procedure for accidents on the site. There

were a couple of accidents there that were late being reported and there were

some problem for awhile. Is the reporting procedure put in place now so that the

minister's department can keep track of the accidents on site, and can the

minister give us some idea of what the safety record is out there? Are there a

lot of accidents? Is it a good safety area? Do you have any idea one way or the

other of what has happened?

MR. GRIMES: A couple of things - I think, because

of one of the incidents that did occur at Bull Arm, the ensuing investigation of

the disappearance of that person gave rise to the institution of the twenty-four

hour reporting line so that there would always be somebody within the

department, with responsibility for occupational health and safety, available

twenty-four hours a day to receive a report that an incident had occurred. That

line is in existence now and operating, not only for Bull Arm, but available for

all work sites in the Province, and is acknowledged to be a tremendous

improvement over what happened before. Because one of the difficulties in one

incident there was that some considerable time had elapsed between the time the

incident supposedly occurred and the time when people went out and began to

investigate. It was hard to then determine exactly what had happened.

The system we are still using at Bull Arm - we have

now had NODECO and so on supply their most recent detailed safety plan for the

work site. My understanding is that their latest version of it does meet with,

pretty well, approval of the department and the Assistant Deputy Minister for

Occupational Health and Safety, and that our inspectors go to the site from time

to time to audit the plan rather than to do actual safety inspections at the

site. So they go out and make sure that the company has done exactly what it

says it will do in terms of safety.

All of the safety standards that are in their plan at

the site meet or exceed the provincial standards for safety at a work site, so

we are very pleased with that. Actually, they can probably be held up as pretty

close to a model of what we would like to see at most work sites in the

Province. With respect to some of the education programs that will go on

afterwards, that site very well may be referenced in terms of the mechanisms

that are in place and the standards being used there, as a model for other

sectors of the industries in our Province to consider.

In terms of the rates of incidents, I don't know the

numbers, offhand. By virtue of the fact that they haven't been brought to my

attention as anything that we should be concerned about - because I think that

is the basis on which we agreed to work, that if, at any point in time, the

Occupational Health and Safety Division felt there were any reason for concern

at this work site, they would bring it immediately to my attention. In the

absence of that occurring, I go on the continuing assessment that the

performance levels and the incident levels at the work site are at or above the

standards for the industry - above the standards meaning that there are less

incidents at the size of the work site than for comparative work sites in other

parts of the Province and the country, and that their record, in fact, is very

good to date.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Could the minister's office

provide us with some figures so that we may compare them? - if there is one

accident per 1,000 person hours worked, or whatever rates you use.

MR. GRIMES: We will undertake to do that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: We would like to have a look at

them so we can compare them to others.

MR. GRIMES: Sure.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Finally, your Employment

Generation program, which my colleague for Fogo mentioned, your 20-20-20, I call

it, certainly has a favourable long-term effect on employment for - I think 78

per cent was mentioned at continuous job.

One of the problems I saw with that program

immediately, and I continue to hear concerns or complaints about it from

specific parts of our economy, Newfoundland certainly has a very seasonal

employment economy. There are a lot of seasonal jobs in our Province: the

construction industry, fishing, agriculture, probably mining, at least, mining

explorations, all would be seasonal, and there are many other. This program

completely ignores any kind of employment created in a seasonal-type operation.

Has the minister reviewed the possibility of having

maybe a different program? You wouldn't want to interfere with this one if it is

so successful, but maybe there could be some other program with some amounts of

money to stimulate or to allow these seasonal-type operations to create a few

jobs also. These are creating 1,000, I think you said, this year, under this

program. But for the seasonal ones, I think if you had as much money in it you

could probably create 2,000 jobs with the same amount of money. Because you're

not going for the - you wouldn't need 20-20-20. You might go 10-10-10 or

something, I don't know what figures you would use. But has the minister or the

department considered tailoring an employment generation program to fit our

seasonal industries in this Province?

MR. GRIMES: That is a good point, and I appreciate

the question, because there are a couple of things with employment generation

that we have under review. As was indicated, the potential with the $1.6 million

this year is around 1,000 jobs. Through last year with the $1.5 million, I think

the exact number was 956 actual positions approved and created under that

program.

Two things came to our attention, though. One was

that, as you mentioned, there are certain employers who would like to avail of a

similar-type program but were excluded because there is no way they could sign a

document saying: I can provide sixty continuous weeks of work. The second -

because of the nature of our Provinc

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1992-05-06
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_govservices_ga41session4_1992-05-06_gsc-elr_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a0c3374293724a634d51c16d7126f04299a99143

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).