November

13, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 63

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in view of recent statements by

the Roman Catholic Church I would like to clearly state government's intention

regarding the Royal Commission Report on Education. Government has completed its

analysis of the Report, and I am pleased to inform the House today that the

following position will be taken on the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Firstly, government is in substantial agreement with the

Report's direction for education, but acknowledges that implementation of

certain structural recommendations will require constitutional amendments while

many others can be implemented within the current denominational framework.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, government prefers to reach a

consensus with the recognised denominations on implementation of those

recommendations which affect the constitutional role of churches in education.

Let me clarify what we mean by recognised denominations lest someone

misunderstand what we're saying. At the time of Union some denominations had

special rights which were written into the constitution when we joined with

Canada. It doesn't mean that we don't recognise the Baptist or the apostolics as

denominations. But we're talking about the denominations that are recognised

with educational rights.

As a result I wish to inform the House that government has

appointed the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet to initiate

discussions with the appropriate denominational authorities with the goal to

reach a consensus on the churches' role in a reformed education system.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee has been further directed to

report back to Cabinet as soon as possible with an assessment of whether a

consensus has been reached, or is achievable with further discussion.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, government will proceed with

substantial implementation of the remaining recommendations of the Royal

Commission within the current denominational framework while discussions are

ongoing with the recognised denominations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated he would

like to clearly state the government's intentions. I'm still not very clear. He

indicated that there are changes that would require constitutional amendments,

and others could be implemented within the framework.

He indicated that he prefers to reach a consensus, and their

goal is to reach a consensus. He has not indicated what the government position

is. In fact, he has not made it clear today, and he has not made it clear in the

media. In fact, on October 22 he stated that it should not be forced - the

churches are into the business of education as much as governments and it should

not be forced.

On November 1 he stated that he would like for his

grandchildren to know that when their grandfather was minister there was a

denominational system and eventually there was no system based on segregation.

He stated there are recommendations which require changes to the constitution -

changes that could be made through consensus or by force.

He still has not made it clear today if it is the

government's intention to force the issue. They prefer to reach it by consensus,

and that is their goal, but we are still no clearer than his initial opening

statement: 'I would like to clearly state the government's intention'; and that

has not been done to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

have leave?

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for making available a copy of

his Ministerial Statement prior to this morning. I want to say that in general

we support the position taken by the minister, that they are following the

direction of the Royal Commission.

I do have some concern with the approach taken in having a

Cabinet Committee deal with this issue without clarifying up front what the

government is trying to achieve. In saying that they would like to achieve a

consensus, they have not made it clear on what they wish to achieve a consensus.

If they think that they are going to get the churches to all

agree to diminish their constitutional role, prior to seeking a constitutional

amendment, I think they may be whistling in the dark. I think they should make

it clear where exactly they intend to take the constitutional amendment so that

we can have a debate about that in this Province as quickly as possible.

I do commend the government on stating its firm intention to

move quickly to implement the other recommendations of the Royal Commission

study.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, on

behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the public galleries today

Mayor Gary Pittman of Rocky Harbour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's

statement of yesterday has sent shockwaves across the business community of this

Province and through employees and public servants as well, they are in fear of

what is about to come in two or three weeks time. Will the minister assure

businesspeople in this Province, and the people of this Province generally, that

the action he will be taking will not be more massive tax increases, layoffs in

the public services, continue the freeze on public service salaries? Will the

minister tell us how he proposes to deal with the very serious financial

situation that we are faced with?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we will inform the House and the

public of the Province sometime before the end of the month as to what our plan

is. Please be assured, Mr. Speaker, that we will deal with the situation in a

way that is best for all citizens of the province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell me this:

Years ago when the former minister introduced the payroll tax he made great

to-do about the fact that he will be raking millions of dollars from the federal

government because federal services and employees will be taxable under the

payroll tax. Will the minister confirm that, indeed, from the $68 million that

was collected last year from that tax only $5 million actually came from the

$80 million from what was projected to be received from the federal government

this year? Clearly that is not a very good source of revenue. Will he also

confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it is the private business sector of this province

that is paying almost $40 million of that tax? Will he not admit that that now

has been a serious detriment to this Province, it is a serious disincentive to

employment, it is seriously hampering the economy of this Province? Will he

immediately eliminate the payroll tax?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all his original number

is incorrect. The number he is using in terms of the payroll tax includes money

that the government is paying to itself, therefore the amount is not the $68

million that he refers to. Secondly, I would confirm, Mr. Speaker, that in the

vicinity of $5 million to $6 million is the amount of money that is obtained by

this Province from the federal government activity in the Province. Thirdly, Mr.

Speaker, we raise money in a variety of ways, and the money is spent to provide

services to the people of the Province. Our job is to provide services. We have

to find the money somewhere, and it is a trade-off between these services and

the raising of money. That is something that we have to struggle with during the

next two to three weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the problem that

the minister is facing. Will he take his own advice, perhaps, will he look at

the great Strategic Economic Plan that this government waves forward? You know,

we all look at it and we see words such as pursue, recommend, investigate,

review and consider. Will we now see some action? Will the minister take some

action? Will he specifically, Mr. Speaker, take some action as it relates to

corporate taxes, as recommended by the Strategic Economic Plan? Will he reduce

the corporate tax rate on small business from 10 per cent to five per cent as

suggested by the plan? Will he reduce the manufacturing tax from 17.5 per cent

to 7.5 per cent and the corporate tax rate from 17 per cent to 16 per cent, put

it back to where it was when this government took office? They raised it two

years ago. Will he reinstate, Mr. Speaker, the three-year tax holiday for small

businesses to try to get some new small businesses started in this Province?

Will he take the bold step of reducing retail sales tax to try to stimulate

consumer spending immediately?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I see things from other parts of

Canada: 'Reversal of fortune'. 'Ontario has to dig deep as tax revenues dry up';

'BC cuts back spending despite high growth rate'. Statements from British

Columbia such as: 'If we closed every hospital in British Columbia, laid off

every nurse in British Columbia, we would not balance the budget', statements

like that, Mr. Speaker. We are in a very serious situation. The whole of the

country is in a very serious situation.

I can't, on the spur of the moment. announce tax changes, as

the hon. member knows. Any changes that we contemplate will be made in the

normal course of events, and it is one of the things that we obviously have to

consider.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the hon.

member for his reference to the Strategic Economic Plan. Indeed, that plan is a

plan for the future of the Province. We will attempt to follow that plan, and if

we can follow that plan, then ten, fifteen or twenty years down the road the

people of this Province will never again be faced with the situation they are

faced with today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a final supplementary: Let me say to the minister, let me

refer to the plan and let the minister refer to the plan and let's take the

motherhood statements that have been pulled out of so many plans that have been

on the shelves for years and let's turn them into action. Let's do what the

Economic Plan says should be done. We agree with that. But in the interim, Mr.

Speaker, let's deal with this emergency situation.

Let me refer to the same

article in the Globe and Mail from

last Friday that the minister referred to relating to Ontario and BC. Let me

refer the minister to the statement from Ontario that says, 'Decline and

expenditure is considered bad news for the economy, because capital investments,

by boosting the construction industry, are a major spur to growth.' And, Mr.

Speaker, a statement by the Liberal leader of British Columbia says: Economic

growth could be hampered by cuts in areas such as forestry and highway

construction, which provide jobs and build the infrastructure for new

investment.' Will he take the advice from these two provinces, Mr. Speaker,

immediately move ahead, and put some confidence back into the economy by

announcing that the proposals announced as a capital works program last week -

which was no more than announcing that consultants would be retained to start

design work - will the government immediately announce that that $214 million,

or whatever it was, of capital works will begin? Will they move ahead from the

engineering stage to the tendering stage so that the business community will

have something to look forward to in the spring?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, nobody in this Province would

like more to be able to stand up in this House and announce huge spending

increases, huge tax cuts. There is nobody, I say, in this Province, who would

like to do that more than the Minister of Finance of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have to face the realities, and over the next

two to three weeks, we will be facing these realities and making decisions

within the limits that we have facing us. The country has a serious problem and

all parts of the country have to deal with that problem. Some will deal with it

in ways different from other parts of the country, simply because their

situations are much different. We would handle the situation much differently,

if we had a AAA credit rating, from the way we can now, hanging on by our

fingernails with, of the five rating agencies, one rating at the A level.

So, Mr. Speaker, all of these things will be taken into

account in the next two to three weeks and we will deal with the situation in

the best interests of all citizens of the Province. I would say to the Finance

critic of the Opposition that any other ideas he might have, I would be only too

willing to listen to.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier. On

November 3, not quite two weeks ago - the Premier may remember - I questioned

him on the Atlantic Provinces Procurement agreement. At that time, I was making

the case, or the argument, that Newfoundland companies would be at a

disadvantage because of our high taxes and other costs, and that some would

probably set up operations in the Maritimes in order to take advantage of this

new Atlantic Provinces Procurement Agreement. At that time the Premier said I

was wrong, and he bragged about a Newfoundland contractor that had come in at

the lowest bid in Halifax, or in Nova Scotia somewhere, on a major contract. I

wonder if he can tell us who that contractor was and what the project was?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I'd be happy to, Mr. Speaker, as soon as I

get the permission to do so. I don't know yet if the contract has been awarded.

The last time I spoke to the gentleman he was absolutely delighted. It was a

major contract, I think, an $11 million or $12 million contract. So it was very

substantial. But I will get the permission. If I can do it this morning, I'll

try and do it this morning, so I can advise the House this morning. I don't know

yet whether or not the contract was awarded. I know he came in at the lowest

tender.

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

MR. SIMMS: On a supplementary, just a quick

supplementary. I can appreciate and respect that he would want to get the

permission of the contractor. Could he tell us, however, whether or not the

contract was for work to the infirmary hospital in Halifax? Would it be that

project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when I have spoken with the

contractor concerned I will advise the House of everything to which the

contractor does not object.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Premier. Sometime during the 1992-1993 budget year there was a bill paid on

behalf of the Premier's office for $7,500 worth of liquor. I wonder would the

Premier tell this House of Assembly what subhead or what part of his budget that

$7,500 was paid out of?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I didn't hear the year he was talking

about.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I mentioned this fiscal year, Mr.

Speaker, but if there are other $7,500 bills in other years I would appreciate

that information also.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I'll get the

specific information and give it to the House. But I should tell the House, lest

the member attempts to mislead people, as he did in the last couple of days,

with his $600 doorknobs and his $70,000 vinyl. I mean, such fabrication -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: - is beyond contempt and speaks only to

the lack of credibility of the member. Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know,

when the new government took office we cut out the expenditures that were taking

place in the den down on this floor called the Premier's private dining room,

supplied with food, liquor, cigarettes and so on. I did all of the entertaining

that was done by the Premier's office - I do it from my home or my office, one

or the other. It's done either from my home or my office, Mr. Speaker. That

involves expenditures, it involves the supply of alcoholic beverages

periodically as well, but I don't know anything about this number. I will

certainly get the information and advise the House of exactly what was involved.

As a matter of fact, if I look in my desk I may be able to find some information

and table it shortly.

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

Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's easy to know

where the $75,000 for the dining room went. Ten thousand dollars, or $5,000

more, went into wallpaper. The $75,000 plus $5,000 was $80,000. Would the

Premier find out for us when he's getting that information - and I imagine he

should know this right now - the Premier does get a $20,000 allowance from the

taxpayers of this Province to do his entertaining. Would the Premier tell us if

that $7,500 liquor bill came out of that $20,000, which is his own money? He

would have to write the cheque on it, so he would know if that $7,500 liquor

bill came out of his money.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I now have more detailed

information, ready at hand. I will table it. It spells out - and maybe I should

tell the House - here's the expenditure. The last fiscal year of the former

government: on official entertainment, $45,314. This is official entertainment

here, by the premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: Mine last year was a total of $16,584.

Official entertainment during travel: mine was $1,317.80; the former premier's,

$10,971. Salary, dining room chef: $28,878. Official entertainment -

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the liquor?

PREMIER WELLS: It's all included. Everything is included

in that figure.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Official entertainment: cigars and

cigarettes, mine nil; the former Premier: $7,457.73. If you want these figures

now, Mr. Speaker, I will table them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay tuned.

PREMIER WELLS: Advertising and Promotion: mine, nil. The

former Premier: $53,100.68; mine, nil, mine, nil. Flowers etc. mine: $1,118.09;

the former Premier: $21,526.75. Aircraft charters, fixed wing: Mine, nil; the

former Premier: $68,868 going back and forth to the west coast, taking ministers

back and forth from St. John's to Corner Brook and Stephenville and so on.

Aircraft charters, helicopters: $2,000. Mr. Speaker, I will

table the list. It shows that the Premier's expenses in the last fiscal year,

1991-92, were $94,015.48 -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is yours?

PREMIER WELLS: That is mine. The last fiscal year for the

former Premier - $309,631.20. Here is the information.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for the history lesson, Mr. Speaker, but

the fact of the matter is that he did not answer the question. Obviously, when

he comes out with answers like that he is caught again. He forgot to mention

$600,000 in his expenses, in renovating two floors that had already been

renovated. I ask the Premier again, did the $7,500 come out of the $20,000

allowance that you received from the taxpayers of this Province to entertain on

behalf of the taxpayers in this Province, that you do not have to show any

receipts for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. Whatever was paid, if

anything, whatever was paid for liquor in the entertainment, did not come out of

that, I can assure the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker I am the only Premier since

Confederation who has not had a House provided for him -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - has not had the staff provided for him;

has not had the grounds taken care of totally for him; has not had everything

done for him.

The former Premier, after he moved out of Mount Scio House,

when his own circumstances changed and he moved out - the members Opposite

maintained the position, they did it, they authorized it, they authorized it;

they did it; the members Opposite authorized it, they did it - had payment of

$15,241.35 in rental, payment for electrical services of $2,244.35 and I must

explore what others were paid and I will get some more detailed information on

that. That is roughly the equivalent of an allowance of about $32,000, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) but answer his question.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, that is roughly the equivalent - I am

answering the question and I know the members are very uncomfortable with the

answer. They can dictate the questions but they cannot dictate the answers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: They are stuck with the answers and here

are the answers, Mr. Speaker. Here is the equivalent -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we are not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: That, Mr. Speaker, is the equivalent of a

$32,000 allowance for housing minus $20,000, and I use mine to entertain for the

people. I closed out the $75,000 private dining room. Now, Mr. Speaker-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: How much did you pay for the liquor out of the

$20,000?.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to

revert to the standard of the former Premier, if that is what they endorse. I am

quite prepared to do that and I will be infinitely better off but the taxpayer

will not, but the taxpayer will not. Now I know they do not like the answers but

they have asked the questions and they have to suffer the answers.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final

supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, I love the answers, unlike what the Premier just

said but, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell us then - he does receive a $20,000

allowance from the taxpayers - will he tell us how much it cost Pippy Park to

look after his lawn, and set flowers, and cut his lawn and look after his

property, which is again another expense above and beyond the $20,000? As he

said in this House before, Pippy Park works on his lawn.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it was tabled last Spring. The hon.

Member for Grand Bank remembers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you said that you did not

have it done.

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, no; I did not say any such thing.

It was tabled in this House last Spring - the information. The detail was tabled

last Spring.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Kilbride to

ask a question. Hon. members will get a chance to question, but we cannot

tolerate questioning consistently; otherwise the Chair cannot decide what is

going on. I would ask hon. members to please try to keep their questions for

when they are recognized.

AN HON. MEMBER: And short answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Exactly.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Social Services.

Can he confirm that an internal caseload analysis has been

done of the child protection services for the Province, revealing a shortfall of

sixty-seven workers in child protection, including 10.6 shortfall in the St.

John's West child welfare unit alone? Can the minister confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of those

statistics, but I will check it out and report back to the House.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Would the minister undertake to table in this

House these internal caseload analysis, which I have been informed have recently

been completed?

We have a concern that if these figures are true, that the

children of this Province are endangered. We would like the minister to tell the

House that he is going to do something about the shortfalls in caseload and the

shortfalls in child protection workers to prevent children in this Province from

being harmed by a lack of support from this government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have done

a detailed analysis of all divisions of the department, including the area that

he mentioned. I do not have it with me today, but I will table that information

showing the caseloads and the comparisons with prior years and so on, for all

divisions of the department, including the one he mentioned, and the stats that

he mentioned as well.

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

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

the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation.

Recently, because of heavy traffic volumes in the Fogo Island

run, the department found it necessary to extend the two ferry system to

November 15. In light of the continuing heavy traffic volumes, is it the

minister's intention to continue on with the two ferry system past the November

15 date?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the budget that was brought down, provision was made to

extend the operating time for two vessels on that particular run. I believe the

termination time was supposed to be September 15. Demand was such that the

vessel has remained on now to November 15, which is an extension beyond the

extension.

Obviously, as the Minister of Finance - President of Treasury

Board, said yesterday, we are in difficult financial circumstances. Resources

are very tight. We are monitoring the demand and the situation to determine what

measures will best accommodate the residents of Change Islands and Fogo Island.

We are monitoring the situation, and I will look into the

matter and report back to the House. I cannot give any definite commitment as to

how long two vessel service will last, at this time.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, since this is November 13, and

the

schedule is to come to an end on November 15, I think it is time that the

minister informed the people. When is he going to inform the people what kind of

ferry system is going to be in place?

More specifically, with respect to the ferry, the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology indicated that a tender was being prepared by the

Marystown Shipyard for repairs to the Beaumont Hamel. Let me ask the minister:

How much longer can we expect that vessel to be out of service?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The minister did not hear the question.

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

MR. WINSOR: I am asking him: How much longer is the

Beaumont Hamel expected to be out of service, in light of the minister's

statement last week, where the minister's comment in the House was that the

tender was being prepared to repair it. How much longer is it going to be out of

service?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: I will take that matter under advisement, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another question for

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Yesterday the Minister of

Finance said there was going to be an immediate freeze on hiring and they would

achieve a 1 per cent reduction in the salary budget. Let me ask the minister,

does this apply to the seasonal workers who get hired by the Department of

Highways for snow clearing and ice control? Will these people fall into this

category of an immediate freeze in hiring or will they be rehired as usual?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated yesterday by the

government, any and all options are being considered, and we are reviewing

presently the manner in which targets can be achieved without compromising

service to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few days ago, the

Minister of Forestry and I discussed the matter of importing wood from PEI with

regard to the mill in Stephenville. I am wondering if the minister could

indicate in his discussions with the company, these actions of importing the

wood, did they have to do with the mill's immediate short-term wood needs,

because they certain cost some immediate job losses in the province, or was the

company testing the waters or testing various supplies of wood to meet some

future requirements that they might have?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that

I am not aware of the exact motivation, what motivated the company to import

that 12,000 meters of wood. There was some reference in the local media, and

they were quoted as saying it had to do with their desire for fresh spruce.

There were other references that said that it had to do with their concern about

a wood supply, and obviously any wood brought in from offshore would positively

affect a wood supply problem they may have in the future. But I really don't

know exactly what motivated the company to import that 12,000 meters of wood,

because our position officially is that there was no reason, no motivation and

no justification for there importing that wood.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay on a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's comments

somewhat passing strange. This particular matter was subject to some

controversy. Why they didn't sort of pound out of the particular company exactly

why they did it is beyond me. The comment with regard to fresh spruce, Mr.

Speaker - I have a number of loggers in my area who have lots of fresh spruce,

and if it is left on the ground much longer it is going to be stale spruce.

Would the minister undertake to check with the company to find out why they

embarked on this particular course of action, because I know he has indicated to

them that they shouldn't do it again, but obviously they didn't check with him

before and they just may do it again. Could he undertake to find out why they

did this so that our logging industry can take appropriate action?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of record I

might point out that the reasons I just gave were not my reasons or this

government's reasons, they were the reasons given by Abitibi-Price through

various spokesmen. In as far as determining why they did it, Mr. Speaker, I

don't know that Abitibi will be any more forthcoming with why they did it other

than they have already indicated. Number one, it was a concern they felt would

help address their long-term perceived wood supply. Number two, it was in

keeping with their desire to have fresh spruce. But the member is obviously

right. There is lots of fresh spruce at this point in time, in some cases

sitting on the ground.

So, Mr. Speaker, it was both from the workers point of view

and from our point of view regrettable that Abitibi-Price chose to import that

particular shipment of wood at this point in time, and I can say with confidence

that they will probably think long and hard before they would do the same thing

again in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could

the minister indicate from the point of view of the estimates of his department

and their overview of the wood situation in Newfoundland, do they anticipate a

shortage of wood to keep three mills going somewhere down the road in the

future?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, shortly, I will be tabling in

the House of Assembly, the government's approved 20-year operating plan, which

will outline the wood supply situation today and what we see for the forest

industry by way of a wood supply in the future and the kinds of management plans

that we will try to implement to guarantee there will always be a supply of wood

that will sustain the operations of the three mills. But I don't, at this point

in time - if he has a specific question with regard to specific quantities of

wood, or a specific year, there might be a difficulty. If he were to direct

those questions to me, I will answer them.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And

Errors In The Statute Law".

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to respond

to the questions raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on November 9,

1992, regarding cancer services in the Province.

His first question had to do with the outreach clinics that

have been operating in the Province for twenty-one years and which he said had

been shut down for the last two months. It is true that outreach clinics have

operated since 1971 when the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research

Foundation was created. Since that time, these clinics have had attached to them

cancer care nurse co-ordinators. These clinics have evolved over the years with

these specialist nurses co-ordinating activities in consultation with local

physicians and physicians from the Newfoundland Cancer Clinic.

The regular activities of these clinics, where patients

receive chemotherapy from physicians, will continue. The clinics have not shut

down. However, regular visits by radiation oncologists will be curtailed for

November and December due to manpower and work load considerations at the

clinic. But, in line with that decision, the Cancer Clinic has reviewed all the

records of patients who have normally been seen by these specialists while

visiting the outreach clinics to ensure that their current status is fully

determined. The Cancer Clinic has assured the department that any of these

patients who need to be seen by a radiation oncologist during this period will

have appropriate arrangements made for them to be seen.

Another question he asked was: Would the minister table the

report of the review of the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research

Foundation? The report, which was carried out by three specialists in cancer

care from outside the Province, provided an objective review and some very sound

recommendations for the organization and delivery of cancer care services in the

Province. This is especially valuable, given the developments that are under way

to have a new facility for cancer care established in the Province.

I am not prepared to table the report. Because of its

in-depth nature, and the relatively small size of the Province and of the cancer

program, one could easily identify individuals from reading the report. In my

view, this would be an unnecessary infringement on their privacy.

Another question he asked: Can the minister confirm that this

external review, the report done for his department, has told government and his

department that the cancer clinic operations in this Province, in fact, need ten

oncologists - cancer specialists - five radiologists, and five chemotherapy

specialists? Can he confirm that? Is he aware of that? That was the question.

The answer: All I can say in relation to this question is

that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has misunderstood this reference, or

the person or persons advising him have misunderstood the reference in the

report. The report, in addressing caseloads and staffing norms, indicates that

1,000 new patients for radiation oncology per year would be consistent with five

active, full-time radiation oncologists, per 1,000. Similarly, based on a level

of 200 to 250 new patients per specialist, 1,000 medical oncology cases would

require five full-time medical oncologists.

However, the facts are that in Newfoundland and Labrador the

current number of new cases per year is not 1,000 but approximately 500 for

radiation oncology, and 500 for medical oncology. This means that if we strictly

adhere to these norms we would have two or two-and-a-half specialists in medical

oncology, and the same number in radiation oncology.

Presently,we have three radiation oncologists. Our approved

complement is four, recognising that some outreach services are provided. The

Foundation is recruiting a fourth radiation oncologist. The Foundation is also

recruiting an internationally known medical oncologist and expects to have him

here early in 1993. Having this person on staff will help them in recruiting

another medical oncologist.

In any discussion of cancer care services in this Province,

it would be a fundamental error to restrict one's focus only on the cancer

specialists working directly in the cancer clinic. There are a number of other

physician specialists with capabilities in cancer care in the Province who are

playing an integral role in the Province's Cancer Care Program, working

co-operatively with each other and their physician colleagues who work directly

with the Newfoundland Cancer Clinic. For example, in addition to our current

three radiation oncologists, we have two paediatric oncologists, three

haematology oncologists, one gynaecological oncologist and a number of other

medical and surgical specialists who have expertise in oncology and who have a

valuable role in the cancer care program in the Province.

In

summary, I believe the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and

Research Foundation is appropriately dealing with the recruitment issues related

directly to the cancer clinic. I might add that this is no easy task, given the

recognized shortage of specialists in this field throughout Canada.

One more question, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that

the three remaining cancer specialists wrote the Executive Director of the

foundation on September 11? I am aware that the letter was written to the

foundation, or I became aware when the member passed over the letter. I have

discussed this matter with the interim Executive Director of the foundation, Dr.

Carl Robbins, who is a family physician and a faculty member of Memorial

University Medical School. I am satisfied, following my discussions with Dr.

Robbins, that the contents of the letter are being appropriately reviewed and

dealt with by the foundation.

Mr. Speaker, we have called tenders for the first phase of a

new state-of-the-art facility to house the Cancer Treatment and Research

Foundation, an extension to the Health Sciences Centre. That facility will have

the best equipment available. We have made the administrative changes

recommended by the External Review Report I just referred to. The medical staff

we now have are highly competent. Our technical and support staff are superb. In

a few months we shall have a full complement of radiation and medical

oncologists. Attached to a great hospital and to a first-class medical school

with strong reputation for research, our facility may not be the largest in

Canada but it will be one of the best.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Health, I am

proud of the measures this government have put and are putting in place to

strengthen greatly the ability of the Cancer Treatment Research Foundation in

dealing with this very serious disease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a couple of

questions this morning, one of which related to the contract. I now have

authorization to release the name. It is a bid tendered by Cahill State Atlantic

Limited, a Newfoundland Company, 50 per cent owned by a Newfoundland

shareholder, who is the managing partner, and 50 per cent owned by a Toronto

company, State Electric. That company was awarded the contract for $12 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - directly as a result, Mr. Speaker, of

the signing of this agreement. Because, Mr. Speaker, what hon. members may not

know is that Cahill State Atlantic was prevented from even tendering. The Nova

Scotia Government refused to accept their original bid, because Newfoundland was

not, at that time, part of the agreement. When Newfoundland signed the agreement

the Government of Nova Scotia issued a change order saying: Accept bids from

Newfoundland. And directly, as a result of that agreement, this contract is now

awarded to a Newfoundland company, directly as a result of it.

I sat with Premier Cameron and said to him, `Here is an

example of what you are doing to Newfoundland.' He said, `I will issue a change

order immediately,' and he did, directly, Mr. Speaker, as a result.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kilbride asked if it were true

that a bill for some seven thousand-odd hundred - he had a number -

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred.

PREMIER WELLS: - $7,500 worth of liquor delivered to me

in this fiscal year, I think is what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did, he said 1992.

PREMIER WELLS: Paid for on behalf of my office.

MR. ROBERTS: This year.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, in fact, there was liquor

paid for on behalf of my office, between April 1, 1992 and November 13, 1992,

total $975.03. Now, Mr. Speaker, you should also know that on April 10, 1989,

there was an order to issue an outstanding offer for liquor to be provided to

the Premier's private dining room - $20,000 for the calendar year; but the more

interesting thing was the direction for delivery to various areas. What are the

various areas? Why was it not delivered to the private dining room? Where are

the various areas to which it was delivered?

Mr. Speaker, they don't like it, but the truth hurts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Opposition - and members on both sides of

the House, to please acknowledge that I have the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has called Orders of the Day.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. the

Opposition House Leader has contained his ire, he doesn't have the courage to

say openly what he says covertly here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I don't need lectures from the

Duckworth Street lawyer on having courage to do things openly.

I say to the Government House Leader that when my privileges

are being questioned, and when I am being singled out, when there was a two-way

debate from our seats between me and the Premier, it is unfair, and I don't care

who that affects or how they take it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will

again say that the honourable gentleman from Grand Bank does not have the

courage to say openly in the House that which he says covertly in the House. He

knows full well what I mean, and I will leave it at that. He does not have the

courage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ruling on a point of order, and there is no

point of order.

I call on the Government House Leader. Orders of the Day.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 20 is the Workers'

Compensation Amendment Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 20.

Somebody adjourned the debate yesterday. Is there a present

speaker?

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the minister took quite some time introducing this

bill into the Legislature. In his opening remarks, to quote him exactly, he

said: This bill contains some very tough measures.

Indeed, it does contain very tough measures, because the

impact of this bill will affect every worker and their dependant, as well as the

vast majority of business in this Province for some years to come.

Yesterday, I was telling the minister, in his analysis of

benefits, how it would impact on individuals. He used a base figure of someone

who made $26,000 a year - or $25,000. It was just a coincidence that last night

I happened to visit an individual who was working at a local fish and chips

store here in town, and was being paid $4.75 an hour, and worked thirty-seven

hours a week at that particular store.

Mr. Speaker, the result of this bill will reduce that

individual's salary from 90 per cent - I think she said, she took home about

$150 a week. In the best of times when she was working that was not very much

money - $150 a week. Ninety per cent gave her $135. I worked it out last night;

I don't have the figures. Now, you are going to, with one stroke of the pen,

reduce these benefits, as of January 1, to about $125 a week or less.

In addition to that, if an individual sustained a very

serious injury that left him permanently disabled, it would entitle him to

receive Canada Pension Plan benefits, as quite often happens. Under the old Act,

the direction was that a worker who has been injured, 'may' have Canada pension

applied against that benefit. This regulation, this bill will say, it 'shall' be

applied and, Mr. Speaker, that may work fine for an individual who is making the

maximum amount that he could make as prescribed under this legislation.

For the individuals who are at the lower end of the scale,

the combining of Canada pension benefits and workers' compensation will

ultimately mean for that worker, that they will receive no workers' compensation

benefits at all, quite likely, because the pension they would receive from

Canada pension will, in these cases, probably be as high as, or higher than the

individual would normally receive from workers' compensation. Mr. Speaker, I ask

the minister, when he speaks later, does he think that is fair? Is that a fair

assessment? What the minister has done is, he has applied the standard right

across the spectrum and it has impacted severely on those who are most affected,

at the lower end of the scale.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when this bill was - I think it was

Tuesday it was introduced, the Leader of the Opposition asked if they would

reconsider and give the bill to the Government Services Committee because it

hadn't had adequate public hearings. Now, I know the minister did a study based

on a report done by three individuals. There were two reports, one, a majority

report and one, a minority report. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a second to read

for the minister - I will summarize. I can't seem to find my report now. But the

minority report said it was a very tight time frame associated with this report;

members didn't have adequate time to address it. Most of the recommendations

that came out of the report were rushed; he also says: 'Recommendations in both

review committee reports should be read with an understanding of how the

committee had to work.' And this is the committee that did up the report for the

minister, that he acted on. 'There was a tight time frame given for the

production of the report. There was no independent or outside staff assigned to

the committee; the committee did no independent financial review. Review

committee members were only able to devote part of their time to the task,

therefore, what was done was done in a brief time period, was unfortunately,

superficial in many respects, and more work needs to be done.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what one of the commissioners,

appointed by the former Minister of Employment and Labour, had to say about the

report. It said: 'Recommendations in this report are meant to regain the trust

of working people of this Province by upgrading the prevention programs,

improving the delivery of service and retaining the present level of benefits.

The financial mess of Workers' Compensation is not forgotten, but will require

much more investigation before proposals in this area can be made.' Mr. Speaker,

that is what the Leader of the Opposition was referring to.

One of the commissioners said this report was flawed because

of inadequate preparation time and the minister, last June - May, maybe, said,

'We are going to have legislation.' When the House closed in July, the 2nd, I

think, the minister announced what it was going to be. Mr. Speaker, why did he

not prepare his bill then? Government legislation, Social Services and different

committees have already travelled throughout this Province this summer with

various other bills. Why wasn't the same opportunity afforded to members on both

sides to have this bill debated? What does it say for the Government Services

Committee? Why wasn't it done? Mr. Speaker, haste, the minister might say: I

want it introduced by December 31 or January 1. Mr. Speaker, there was still

sufficient time from July 2 up until the implementation of this bill to have

done so.

Yesterday, members on the other side tried to say it has been

the mess they inherited. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister admitted that most

of the financial difficulties of the Workers' Compensation occurred in the past

two years. Two things have happened, he said. I am quoting from the minister. He

said: Over the last couple of years in particular, the annual monies collected

by the Commission, through their assessment process, have not paid for the

annual expenditure of both injury claims and administration, and the commission

had to dip into their reserve funds that had been put aside to pay for future

costs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he said that has happened during the past

two years of this Administration, not the previous one. He says most of the

problems have occurred during that period of time. If we look at how it occurred

- Let's just look at how the benefits were paid out. Mr. Speaker, of the $80

million in 1991 that were paid out, $37 million came from TEL (temporary

earnings loss), $10.5 million from rehab, and $15 million of that, Mr. Speaker,

is in medical. These reflect increase nearly doubling what it was back in 1989

when this Administration took office.

Mr. Speaker, what has caused these problems? Why is it, for

example, that rehab is now costing $10.5 million, and in 1988, the last year of

the PC Administration, it cost $4.1. What has caused this? What has happened?

Mr. Speaker, the reason is, because the economic situation of this Province is

such that workers are unable to find jobs, they are going into longer rehab

training processes. Many people have been forced to go on two or three rehab

programs to see if they can get back into the work force.

Mr. Speaker, the economic prospects for injured workers in

this Province today is abysmal. There is virtually no chance for them to get

jobs, so they opt to stay in rehab programs for an extended period of time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I mentioned briefly the focus that

should occur on Occupational Health and Safety. I believe that is the area where

we can reduce significantly the number of injuries that occur daily. Mr.

Speaker, all of us are a bit guilty. Just last week, I was using a skill saw at

home. The safety glasses were hooked on the nail behind, and I didn't take the

effort to put them on. That is what I did, personally, at home. Mr. Speaker, the

same thing occurs in the.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the worker covered?

MR. WINSOR: Yes, the worker is covered. If I do it at

home, that is okay, I am responsible myself. At the , the worker who is careless

still receives the benefits despite the fact that it was because he didn't wear

his safety boots at work, he forgot to wear his hard hat, and he didn't wear

safety glasses.

MR. ROBERTS: He probably couldn't be bothered.

MR. WINSOR: He couldn't be bothered, Mr. Speaker. I tell

the minister, since he talks about being bothered, in 1973 I went to work in

Labrador City as a university student and I had to work in a remote area and

hardly ever saw a foreman for a day. I didn't have a very demanding job, just a

two shift hopper loading silos. The temperature was about 90 degrees, and those

god awful heavy hats - I mean, the sweat rolled down over you. I didn't wear

glasses at the time, and you had to have safety glasses, as some members might

know, with wings on the sides of them. It was almost like you were in a steam

bath all the time.

MR. ROBERTS: Side shades.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, side shades. That is what they were

called. Then, of course, you had to wear your safety boots. The job I had wasn't

very demanding. I sat down, I took my hard hat and put it aside, I took my

safety glasses off because I hated wearing them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No, it wasn't Safety John, it was the

foreman. He sent me to Safety John. But, Mr. Speaker, that company was very

concerned, and often gave infractions and would fire people who engaged in

unsafe labour practices. Now, Mr. Speaker, we somehow have to start to educate

people in the need to be safe in the workplace. We haven't started to educate

them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the minister how much safety training

(inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: I know how much safety training. The minister

announced yesterday, he hired six more people, Mr. Speaker. But that doesn't do

anything. How often have the Coast Guard or Transport Canada in the last few

days - every spring they run this commercial about the need to wear life vests

and life preservers in fishing boats. You check most of the boats and they're

not there. We can say we're doing an education program, but we have to test it.

Is it working.

I have to be frank with you and say that our occupational

health and safety has not been an overwhelming success. Because we're still

having far too many injuries on the job. In fact, last week, I heard the manager

of Abitibi for Canada talk about the number of deaths they have had occur in the

workplace this year. They have had three across the country, one in

Newfoundland. He said: We have to make our people become more aware of the need

to practice safety in the workplace. Three deaths, he said, were too many.

In my own district this year, in the forest industry, two

individuals have had trees fall on them. One of them resulted in a serious back

injury, the other in a head injury, and the individual has not returned to work

since May. That is because unsafe practices are taking place in the industry.

That is where the minister should have focused his attack, into cleaning up what

is going on in the workplace.

The minister said yesterday that we are paying the second

highest rate in the country now for premiums. Employers are having a rough time

with Workers' Compensation. In difficult economic times the rates that we're

charging in this Province are quite high. The report that the minister had done

recommended for the next three years, if I remember correctly, a 7.5 per cent

surcharge for each of the three years. Last year, we began I think it was 7.5

per cent or 8 per cent was increase. Can we look forward to that same kind of

increase again this year? And what is it going to do to employers?

MR. ROBERTS: If we don't pass this bill, it will be ten

times as high, that's the problem.

MR. WINSOR: If we pass - pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: If we don't pass this bill, it will be

(inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Perhaps we should look at other things, I

tell the minister. Perhaps we should focus on some other things. Because there

is a belief out in the community - and I have no doubt it is true - that some of

the problems with Workers' Compensation are related to abuses in the system.

MR. ROBERTS: There is that belief. Does the hon. member

believe this?

MR. WINSOR: The hon. member believes there are some

abuses in the system, as well, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: The belief is certainly widely held. I don't

know how much validity there is in it.

MR. WINSOR: There is certainly a belief out there. In

fact, the minister's own department has hired, I think, about four or five

investigators who actually go and check into the reports that they have of

injured workers who are claiming they are injured, and they find them doing

other things, and many of them have had benefits terminated as a result. So

there is certainly a belief out there that there is a fair amount of abuse, and

I think the minister should have, if he hasn't, calculated - because I am sure

they do random samplings, they check on random cases to see if an injured worker

is actually injured to the extent that he can't return to the work force.

Because that is all Workers' Compensation does.

MR. ROBERTS: The difficulty, as the hon. gentleman would

acknowledge - the belief is there - the difficulty is determining the validity,

because there are many injuries that are valid but have no subjective

symptomatology.

MR. WINSOR: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: That is the problem - with backs, in

particular. If you have ever had a bad back you know what hell on earth is. But

how do you measure a bad back? You can measure a broken leg, you can see it.

MR. WINSOR: Exactly.

MR. ROBERTS: That becomes the problem.

MR. WINSOR: That is the measure. So someone who can't

work, the minister - a constituent of mine was off work with a bad back and an

investigator found the individual riding a trike.

MR. ROBERTS: That leads one to believe the back wasn't

that bad.

MR. WINSOR: Exactly. The individual's benefits were

terminated, and rightly so. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that there is a fair

amount of this going on. But what we are doing here is we are attacking every

injured worker to perhaps recover some of the benefits. Because, frankly, I

believe it is much more widespread than we believe it is. I think we are

attacking the wrong people. The injured worker who cannot work, I think we have

to protect him. This bill doesn't do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do we (inaudible)?

MR. WINSOR: How are we going to - we are going to have to

do a number of things, and the minister wants to know. A constituent of mine has

been waiting seven months to get to see an orthopaedic surgeon - seven months.

He has made three trips to St. John's, only to find that the orthopaedic surgeon

was not there, and go back home again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he have appointments?

MR. WINSOR: Appointments.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is something wrong.

MR. WINSOR: Exactly. I am glad the minister said that

there is something wrong, because something serious is wrong.

Despite the fact that the minister said on July 2: we are

going to fast track or whatever it was - I cannot remember the term he used -

the rate at which injured workers are able to see doctors and get treatment.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) three appointments, and the guy

was not here. That is not the minister's fault. It is the orthopod.

MR. WINSOR: That is what is going on with workers. It is

a tremendous cost because the injured worker, number one, cannot receive

surgery. Number two, he cannot get treatment after - physio - particularly from

physical therapists in private clinics. They hate the sight of seeing an injured

worker coming who is going to be paid by workers' compensation, because they are

so slow in making their payments.

MR. ROBERTS: Now they are much better. They used to be

terrible.

MR. WINSOR: No, they are still terrible.

MR. ROBERTS: They are getting better.

MR. WINSOR: I will tell the minister, I had a constituent

about a month ago, who needed therapy. I said: Let me call and see if I can get

in. I called the clinic - no problem. They asked how I was paying - private

insurance. They took me right away. I said: How about an individual on workers'

compensation? - three months before they could see a therapist.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) General Hospital Board, the

biggest delinquent debtor we had was the Workers' Compensation Commission.

MR. WINSOR: And they still are today, the medical

practitioners who do this kind of thing.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) the general; I have been out of

that for a bit. The administration was (inaudible) getting an awful lot better.

MR. WINSOR: In continuing on, we have a serious problem

and there is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: We have serious delays, as the minister said

yesterday when he spoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will be

able to take

part in this debate. Now he wants to dominate it. I do not mind a

little exchange, but -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon.

gentleman. His colleague is leading me astray. I apologize.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister, in

speaking, said that all of us - every MHA - receives numerous calls from clients

who are having trouble with workers' compensation. In fact, I had a call last

night - and if the Minister of Health has not had a call already, he is going to

get one shortly - from a constituent of his who called. I do not know how I

ended up with the call, but I referred him to you anyway. He was having trouble

with workers' compensation. I gave one to the Member for St. John's North the

other day. I get all kinds of them - calls looking for advice, because they are

having trouble with workers' compensation.

I try to direct them to their members. Usually they tell me

that they have already called them and they could not do anything for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WINSOR: Usually they say their members could not do

anything for them because it was outside the confines in which they were allowed

to operate.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that it takes inordinate long

times, and it does. Whatever goes on in that system - and I do not know what

happens down in that building - we have gone through it in estimates committee

here. I think the minister was here last year when I gave him some specific

names of individuals whom it has taken inordinate long times to get a cheque

processed. The worker who has not had any income for six or seven weeks finds

himself in a pretty precarious position out there.

Then you start to call in, and they send you to the claims

department. The claims department will send you to medical. Medical will send it

back to claims again, and say that the cheque is being processed.

That is hardly ever the case until you get really upset,

sometimes even belligerent, and have to ask to get the Chairman. That is about

the only time you can get some satisfaction. Things seem to accumulate and pile

up down there, and there has been a great delay in processing claims.

Mr. Speaker, one of the factors is certainly the length of

time, if we looked at the length of time that people were on workers'

compensation. It seems to be ever increasing. It could be because of two things.

One is that the injuries are more severe. Two is that medical treatment is

slower in being provided. We have to improve on that - on both.

We can reduce the number of injuries by practising safety in

the workplace. Mr. Speaker, it has to improve and I believe one of the things we

can do to make workers aware of it is: If an individual becomes injured because

of some unsafe practice that he or she has been responsible for, then perhaps

they shouldn't be entitled to as much benefit. If a worker, for example, gets a

piece of steel in his eye and safety equipment was provided but he chose not to

wear it, maybe, Mr. Speaker, he shouldn't be entitled to full compensation

benefits. Maybe he shouldn't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MURPHY: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. WINSOR: The Member for St. John's South says I don't

know what I am talking about. Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem here. You

can have all the occupational health and safety in the world, but if we don't

have mechanisms to enforce it - we have got to make people aware, Mr. Speaker.

We have traffic laws in this Province that say you can't, for most of the

highway, exceed 90 or 100 kilometers, and if you don't obey them you get fined.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hear of companies being fined because they didn't put a

guard around a ditch. But what about the worker who does an unsafe thing? It

goes on time after time after time, where workers commit unsafe practices, and

who pays? The employer and Workers' Compensation. Mr. Speaker, it needs to be

addressed and we need to do some enforcement at the worker level as well.

Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons - and I have alluded

to some - why we have such problems. Delays in getting claims processed: If an

injury occurs on November 1, most likely that claim won't be heard until at

least December 1, a thirty-day period. By that time the person should have had

medical treatment, ongoing rehabilitation if it was necessary, and see how fast

we can get the injured worker back in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, government cutbacks have had a two-fold impact

on workers' compensation, especially as it relates to the health care sector. It

has caused two things: It has slowed down the treatment process and, secondly,

it has increased the number of people who are receiving workers' compensation

benefits because the workplace in now more dangerous. That is one of the larger

areas.

We heard the nurses' union yesterday or the day before, Joan

Marie Aylward, in a press release talking about the pressures that are being

placed on the nursing profession, tremendous pressures, Mr. Speaker. What we

have done by reducing the number of people in the health care system has a

double impact. It has reduced the amount of care that the injured worker

receives and, secondly, because there are not enough of them - everyone heard

the lady tell the story about how she was trying to move a patient who had just

came out of anaesthetic. The patient didn't want to co-operate and for three

years now this individual, this nurse, has been on workers' compensation because

of a severe muscle pull or some kind of a twist in her spine that resulted from

the injury. Mr. Speaker, these things are going to occur, but we can reduce the

number of them by increasing the number of hospital staff who have to deal with

them.

Mr. Speaker, another area where -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the hon. member was aware that I might be going to

interrupt him. We have a group of students here. The member has longer time than

usual. We wouldn't do this, but since he has longer time I appreciate the fact

of the hon. member yielding the floor. I would like to welcome to the public

galleries today fifty Grade VI students from St. Kevin's School in the Goulds in

the District of Kilbride. They are accompanied by the following teachers, Ms.

McDonald, Ms. Howard, Ms. Condon, Ms. Williams, and Ms. Galway. So, on behalf of

members, we extend to them a warm welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that we are going to have to

improve on as well is the retraining program for injured workers, so that we can

get them back into the work force, so that they will want to go back. Mr.

Speaker, the present method, the Ease Back Program, the Rehab Program do not

work well and let me tell you why they do not work well.

An injured worker who lives in Carmanville where I live, is

told to entertain or take

part in a job search, and, Mr. Speaker, there are

about three businesses or four potential businesses in the community; that is

all. So he has to go to the next large town which is Gander, some forty miles

away, sixty-five kilometres. He goes in and goes through all the business

complexes one day, now he has to go back and do five more the next day, and he

has to do five more the next day and five more the next day.

Now, besides the cost of his getting in to take

part in this

job search, sometimes he can get paid for by workers', sometimes he cannot. If

he had previously worked in Gander and that was the normal place of work,

Workers' Compensation will not pay the benefit, the travel costs. If he had been

injured on the job where he lived then they will pay the transportation. Now,

Mr. Speaker, he goes in and he goes back and forth, there are no prospects of

him getting any job there; there was no job opening but he is being made to go

there day after day after day after day, when there is not a chance in the world

there is going to be any employment and all it is doing is, frustrating the

injured worker and costing the government a substantial amount of money. It is

as simple as that. If they have to pay for these transportation costs, every

injured worker will tell you it is a farce. They just go in and do it because

the regulations require them to do it in order for them to get continuous rehab

benefits, that is what they have to do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister has to change this program, it

has not worked; we have to be able to get the injured worker back into the work

force, in an area where he can find employment, and do not just suggest

imaginary things to him. Go out on a job search? Maybe that is where we have to

do retraining and I think a major part of the rehab program should be

retraining. Not send someone out because he was a carpenter and he injured his

back and he cannot do carpentry work anymore and send him to every store in

Gander to see if he can find something. If he was a carpenter use to climbing,

maybe furniture making or something like that would be a logical thing to put

him into so he could -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier's office.

MR. WINSOR: Yes, the Premier's office. Now, Mr. Speaker,

what does this bill do, does it solve the problems, Mr. Speaker? There are some

positive aspects to this bill; some of them are quite positive.

The clause that requires compensation to be paid to an

individual entitled to a PFI because of an injury that has resulted in no loss

of earnings, that is a positive move. Somebody worked in an area where, because

of excessive noise levels they lost their hearing or whatever and it could be

demonstrated that the injury occurred as a result of something in the work

force, that is a positive move. The clause to take into account annual inflation

and the amount of compensation paid to the workers' survivors, very positive.

Mr. Speaker, clause 12 of the bill will amend the act by

removing the

section which disentitles the surviving spouse on remarriage to

workers' compensation. I assume from that, that once a spouse remarries now,

they will be entitled to the same benefits as they had previously. I ask the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, again, if he could listen for a

second, maybe when he speaks he might be able to address this clause 12, the one

that gives the surviving spouse compensation on remarriage. Is that the same

entitlement to which she was previously entitled? Is that what that clause is

going to say, that someone who remarries will be entitled to the same

compensation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question, he will answer it in

Committee.

MR. WINSOR: He will answer it in Committee? Okay.

Again, clause 13, is one that I like particularly. It is a

clause that will amend the act to ensure that payments under the act shall

continue to a child of eighteen. Mr. Speaker, that is a very positive move. I

think the original sixteen was there because at that time we did not have Grade

XII in the school system and most students finished school at sixteen. Now,

because of the changes in the education system in the Province a large number of

students are still in school at eighteen, and I think that's very positive.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure about Clause 15 of the Bill. Clause

15 is the one that reduces the amount from 90 per cent for the first thirty-nine

weeks to 75 per cent. For that injured worker that 15 per cent is going to prove

to be most devastating. That's an immediate loss of 15 per cent. All of us stop

for a second and think: if our salaries were reduced tomorrow morning by 15 per

cent we would find it a bit disconcerting. In fact we would find it mighty tough

financially, if our salaries were reduced by 15 per cent starting January 1.

Then - I've already alluded to it - it's going to go to 80

per cent after thirty-nine weeks. That's going to have a tremendous impact, more

particularly for the low income worker. The minister hasn't thought of it. The

minister thinks that every person in this Province makes $25,000 a year. If that

was the case this bill, the ramifications would not be quite so significant. But

for the low income worker this is just devastating.

Again, Clause 17, the one that changes to the Canada Pension

Plan Act. I think the minister should have another look at it. I think it's

unfair. A worker who's entitled to workers' compensation, but because he has for

a number of years paid in Canada Pension Plan, in an injury that results in his

being permanently disabled, that he'd have no right to workers' compensation. I

think it's unfair. That's what this Bill does. It says that all benefits

received from Canada Pension Plan shall be included and deducted from the amount

that a worker would get in workers' compensation. That's pretty unfair.

Whereas the old Bill said it may be applied. If the amounts

in workers' compensation benefits weren't excessively high, then they would

allow them to get Canada Pension Plan benefits and workers' too. What this Bill

will do: an injured worker who gets the minimum wage in this Province will have

to go to social assistance - under this provision - to bring it up to a standard

that a family of four would be allowed to live on. Injured worker will have to

go to social assistance to give them - a family of four on social assistance

would be entitled to approximately, during the winter months, a little better

than $600 a month.

Under this Bill he will not get that much and he or she will

have to go to social assistance. Now I ask the minister, does he think that's

fair? A worker who was injured on the job -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: You can answer now or later.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the hon.

member yielding the floor so I can have an opportunity to address it. While I

recognise that there is validity to the point he's making, I think it begs the

question that he's missing the fundamental point in the whole necessity for the

changes.

That is, that if we don't make the types of changes that are

being made to have direct, immediate financial impact on the money at the

Workers' Compensation Commission, we will not be talking about reductions of any

benefits from 90 per cent to 75 per cent or 80 per cent, but from 90 per cent to

zero. I tried to make that point clear yesterday in the introduction. The

finances of the Commission are in such a precarious position that these moves

have to be made to maintain any type of payment, because the other option,

beginning in 1996, is zero benefit for every injured worker regardless of their

income levels.

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

MR. WINSOR: The minister did very little to address the

question that I raised. I asked him did he think it was fair that an injured

worker would have to resort to social assistance as a result of this. I think

it's most unfair.

With respect to reference to the other thing, the minister

has got two things to obviously do. He's got to reduce the number of injuries

and speed up the length of time it takes for the injured worker to get back into

the workplace. Maybe we won't have all this unfunded liability that we have. If

the minister had done these things in the past three years -

Mr. Speaker, he announced on July 2 he was going to spend

$850,000 on occupational health and safety. If he just got these people in place

yesterday, what's happened in the intervening three or four months? Have the

rest been put in place?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Have the rest - that was a $250,000 portion

with the five or six Occupational Health and Safety

inspectors? Have the other parts of that July 2 recommendation been put in place

now in total? Because if they haven't, the minister has been negligent, because

he has identified potential sources of problems at Workers', he has had the

opportunity to do something about it, and he didn't do it.

Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that if we didn't do

something by 1996, there would be nothing for no one. Let me ask the minister

will he address this, then: Why did the minister then eliminate through this Act

the topping up provision for employers? Because it has absolutely nothing to do

with Workers'. It doesn't take one cent from Workers' Compensation. It comes

from employers of the Province, whether they be government or whether they be

private individuals. It doesn't cost Workers' one dime more than it ever cost.

That is an agreement that a company gives Workers', or they can negotiate it

through collective bargaining - not one penny comes from Workers' Compensation

as a result of this.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs obviously doesn't know what

he is talking about, and he should stay quiet, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to

the top up provision that presently exists in collective agreements. It doesn't

cost Workers' Compensation one cent, and the minister knows it. So why is this

being addressed in the bill? If the intent is to put some order into Workers'

Compensation, why are we attacking injured workers who had found some kind of

redress outside of Workers' Compensation to bring them to full entitlement? Why

is it there? What is the purpose of it? The minister hasn't satisfactorily

explained it. The minister said he thought it was unfair that an injured worker

would be entitled to as much as, or more, in some cases, he said, than a worker

who was working.

Mr. Speaker, if a worker could find that benefit through

collective bargaining, as a former labour union leader, the minister should well

know that these things are won at the bargaining table. Concessions have been

given in many cases. Other things have been given up so the worker could have

that right. Now, Mr. Speaker, with one stroke of the pen when this is

proclaimed, that right is going to be taken away. It has nothing to do with

Workers' Compensation, absolutely nothing, and there is no reason why the

minister included that in this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the minister

should have to explain to this House why that particular clause has been

included in this bill. He hasn't done it satisfactorily in his opening remarks.

When he closes debate on this bill some time later in the month, maybe next

month, I hope the minister will tell us why he is including it.

Mr. Speaker, I have some thoughts as to why the minister is

including it.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, could you silence the Minister

of Municipal Affairs. He is sounding just like a little crackie there: yap, yap,

yap.

AN HON. MEMBER: A big crackie.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I can agree with some portions

of this bill, recognizing that we have serious problems with Workers'

Compensation. Some of the things that are in the bill, I like, I think they are

positive. But I see two areas in the bill that are wrong. One is the attack on

the injured worker and the reduction in his benefits. I think the minister has

moved too far without examining the impact it is going to have on workers in

this Province. Secondly, I see no place in this bill for the elimination of the

top up provision. Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with Workers' Compensation,

absolutely nothing. It doesn't take a dime from the pool of money that is there.

It doesn't take anything from it. The minister had no reason and he hasn't

satisfactorily explained to this House why he chose to do that.

Mr. Speaker, with these few brief remarks, I will yield the

floor to somebody else.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am

disappointed to see that there is nobody on the other side - I suppose I should

understand it, especially the backbenchers - nobody wants to get up and defend

this drastic piece of legislation that is going to hurt injured workers in this

Province. I shouldn't be surprised that none of them would stand up. The gutless

wonders across the way will not get up and speak because they figure they are

getting too close to an election, and when election time comes around they can

walk around it because they won't be heard on this record in this House as to

what they are going to say.

Before I have a few words on this Bill 48, "An Act To Amend

The Workers' Compensation Act", I want to personally welcome to the House of

Assembly, the Grade VI students from St. Kevin's School. I visited their

classrooms a couple of weeks ago, and had a chance to speak to them. I found

them to be certainly very inquisitive young people, and very well informed of

what is going on in this House of Assembly. I might say to them that this bill

will affect them for some time in the future.

I hope when they finish their education and get to work that

there is enough health and safety, especially safety, practices in place that

they don't get injured, because if you do get injured, with this Act in place

you will have very little chance of surviving, or continuing the lifestyle you

presently have.

Some of the members over there shake their heads, but I have

some examples here of constituents of mine, on whose behalf I have worked for

the past year-and-a-half or so, and I have permission from them to tell their

story.

It is alright for members of this House of Assembly to stand

up here and talk about Bill 48, and clause such and such, and amendment such and

such; but you are talking about people. You are not talking about bills and

clauses, and you are not talking to desks and floors, and you are not talking to

only the people who are sitting here looking back and forth at each other. You

are talking about people who have been injured, through no fault of their own,

most often, through an accident in the workplace.

I always understood, when I started work at surveying, that I

would be working - and that is a fairly dangerous job. I used to do a lot of

chain saw work, out in the country, away from convenient transportation.

Injuries that happen in the survey business, although they are very infrequent,

are oftentimes fairly severe, mostly because of the chain saws.

I always understood, if I were injured on the job while I was

working, that at least I and my family would be able to continue into the

future, with a similar lifestyle. If I did cut my leg off, which would not be

unheard of if you are using chain saws, if I did happen to damage my arm so I

couldn't use it, obviously I could not survey anymore. If you can't walk, you

can't survey. If you can't use both arms you can't work in the woods and you

can't survey. I always understood - I knew I couldn't sue the employer. I knew

this was a no-fault insurance, so I wasn't getting anything except maybe the

medical insurance that we had at work. I couldn't sue that company to look after

my family from that day on, so I always assumed, not knowing much about it, that

Workers' Compensation would provide for me and my family to live at least that

modest type of lifestyle for the rest of our lives, or until I could get

retrained, or until maybe my spouse became the full-time worker, at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have found out, to my surprise, since becoming

a Member of the House of Assembly for Kilbride, that is not so. Workers'

Compensation, particularly in the last year to two years, are doing everything

in their power to disqualify people from receiving benefits. They are not there

working on behalf of the injured worker, they are working on behalf of the

credit agencies, or the loan companies, or maybe the Department of Labour, who

are telling them: You are spending too much money.

I understood Workers' Compensation should be working on

behalf of injured workers. That should be their job, to help injured workers

continue in a lifestyle that they had. They shouldn't get rich on it, obviously.

They should not get any greater benefits than they ever had when they were

working. And members are over there, like the Member for St. John's South,

smiling, with the big grin on his face now, that this is going on. This abuse of

Workers' Compensation is rampant. That is what he is insinuating with his cough

and his big grin, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MURPHY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of

order.

MR. MURPHY: I can't understand how, if you change your

expression, Mr. Speaker, in this House, the hon. the Member for Kilbride assumes

all of these terrible things. Now, he was doing alright, he was doing fine, and

he was making some sense. Then all of a sudden, because this hon. member

responded to something that this hon. member says, he turns around and talks

about something of which he knows naught. So stay to the subject of the Act,

talk about the Act. We are all listening and when our time comes we will respond

to the hon. member. But to assume things is totally wrong. The member should

apologise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The

Member for St. John's South is put in his place again and I appreciate that.

What I was saying is that by the reactions from - he wasn't

even looking at the Member for Eagle River next to him, so what he said on his

point of order obviously was completely wrong. But by the expression on his face

you could see that he was insinuating that Workers' Compensation is being

abused. If he knows of any abuse of Workers' Compensation then it is his duty to

inform Workers' Compensation of the abuse. Anyone else in this House of Assembly

should be doing the same thing, and anyone in the Province who knows that

Workers' Compensation is being abused should report it. Because it is your money

that is being spent, and money you make for an employer that goes into this

kitty that is being abused. So if any members in this House of Assembly think

that Workers' Compensation is being abused, they should report it to Workers'

Compensation. They should let the inspectors know what happens.

I haven't, in my thirteen years in the House Assembly, come

across any abuse of Workers' Compensation. I've come across abuse of workers,

because of Workers' Compensation. I've come across it quite often. I had a case

early on, when I became a member of the House of Assembly, of a young man who

was a heavy equipment mechanic, who worked on all kinds of heavy equipment. He

was working one Saturday, when somebody phoned him at his home to do some work

on a rock crusher. They didn't phone his company. They phoned him at his home -

because they knew where he was - to say there was an emergency, the rock crusher

had shut down. He went out and worked on that rock crusher, on behalf of his

company, but the company didn't know about it, and he got his arm caught in the

machine, almost pulling the arm off. He couldn't get satisfaction from Workers'

Compensation until I became involved, because of some foolish technicality, that

the company didn't know about it.

That is not fair. He was injured on the job, working for his

company. It happened to be on a Saturday. He had to go through - we were six

months trying to get that straightened out. Finally, we got him retrained. He

couldn't use that arm anymore for any heavy equipment work. He had to get out of

that business.

I say that even in their old system it isn't fair. When I was

in Cabinet I spoke very strongly in favour of the revisions we made to Workers'

Compensation. I was very supportive of it. I knew it was going to be expensive,

I knew it was going to cause some problems, I knew we would have to increase

premiums. But I figure Workers' Compensation should be there to work on behalf

of injured workers, not on behalf of the bottom line. If the bottom line doesn't

work out then you have to increase the payments. That is a problem. And you will

have people like Bill Barry around this Province who say that they shouldn't be

paying anything.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if they don't pay anything, then the

no-fault part of it goes and the companies will be in bigger trouble. If there

is no Workers' Compensation and someone is injured, and if trends go as they do

down in the United States, companies in this Province would have bigger problems

- not only companies, but governments and hospitals and everyone else.

So if Workers' Compensation is going to exist - and I hope it

will, on a no-fault insurance basis, as I understand it does; and this is going

to be changed in some of this legislation now - then it should be working on

behalf of the injured workers. That should be its function. The first line in

this bill should be that Workers' Compensation's number one responsibility is to

act on behalf of injured workers. Because when you become injured, that is when

you become most - it is harder then to fight back.

If you are injured, your back is hurt and you are laid up,

you can't get around too easily, and you have to go on job searches, you have to

go for rehabilitation, you cannot be going back to workers' compensation all the

time to say: this is wrong, you are treating me wrong in this. I have one

instance here, a person from Kilbride, a woman, who went to work for the

Department of Social Services actually; she was looking after some - I do not

know if they were delayed children or they were young people who were in

detention for behavioral problems. They were behavioral problem children anyway.

She was not a big, strapping strong bodyguard type, she is a

kind of a frail but very energetic woman, so she went to work for the Department

of Social Services to look after some behaviourially upset children, I guess is

what they call them. While she was working there, looking after one of these

children in particular, something happened as she tried to restrain the child, a

seventeen-year-old person it happened to be, and bigger than her, and she got a

serious back injury, a terribly serious back injury. So, initially things worked

out, she reported it and the process started off reasonably well; she got the

initial workers' compensation payments.

After she was receiving those payments for a while, she

wanted to be retrained, she does not want to be on workers' compensation, it is

the last thing that she wanted. So, after being on compensation for a while,

they said: Okay, you are supposed to be doing rehabilitation - after many, many

delays in trying to get to see specialists by the way, through no fault of her

own she had to wait and wait and wait and the injury did not get any better, it

never does while you are waiting, it got worse. Anyway, she was going for physio

and then she started to be retrained, but her back - now I am not a doctor, I do

not profess to be a doctor, I do not even profess to have a good first aid

course, but, Mr. Speaker, if I go to a person's house and they are humped over

like this and they cannot walk, they cannot sit down or they cannot stand up for

more than five minutes at a time, and that is continuous after four visits to

that house, I can assume that that person is not faking.

When I went to Workers' Compensation appeal with this person,

Mr. Speaker, there were the same symptoms. It was obvious to the layman's eye

that this person was injured and what Workers' Compensation said was: No, you

are okay, you can go back to work. Then they had a medical person, I do not know

who the person was, a doctor obviously, it had to be, who said it was okay. They

had another one who Workers' Compensation said it was not okay, her doctor said

it was not okay and a fourth doctor got involved and said it was not okay, so we

had one saying she could go back to work and three saying she should not go back

to work and what did Workers' Compensation read into that? That she should go

back to work. Now, that is not fair. Whether there is money there or not, cut it

off and cancel it so people's expectations that when they are working that they

are not going to be covered, their expectations are not so high, at least they

will know there is no coverage for them.

This woman is now physically impaired to the point where she

cannot sleep a full night, not that she cannot work or that she cannot do her

housework or that she cannot do any physical work, she cannot sleep for more

than two hours a night, any night. Now, Mr. Speaker, she is not getting any

assistance from Workers' Compensation. It was a well documented case that she

was injured on the job, there is no doubt about that. It is just that Workers'

Compensation and the appeal - it was not an appeal tribunal, there was a one

person inquiry when we went down to do an appeal and the appeal was done by

Patrick Brace, the hearing officer.

Now you know a thing that is even more serious in this

particular case? Workers' Compensation had difficulties with her husband on

workers' compensation five or six years before this. They had a problem with her

husband. He was pretty frustrated and probably did not conduct himself too

mannerly; I will put it as kindly as I can, but that was mentioned in her file.

That was in her file, which is illegal, I would say. I do not know why, as there

is absolutely no reason for that to be in her file, that they had trouble with

her husband. Now when I explained this to the appeal person, he said: yes, that

could be the case, there could be a bias here because of her husband, but I

asked: why is it in her file? I do not care about the biases, I do not care

about anything, why would someone put it in her file? There was no answer. To

this day there is no answer. This was in October of 1992 when I received the

report from this Commission.

Mr. Speaker, again, that is not only unfair, I believe that

to be illegal. Her husband was off work, he couldn't find work. A big strapping

man can't find a thing to do. Works in the construction industry. Nobody's doing

any great amount of construction activity, especially around this area. But he'd

work anywhere in Canada. It doesn't matter to him. So he couldn't find work. She

was off injured getting no income. Workers' Compensation tells her to go to a

lawyer. Go to a lawyer and then you'll see if this is illegal, see if we're

treating you fairly.

That poor woman had to settle for me. I pity her, to tell the

truth, because I do not know the legal ramifications of what Workers'

Compensation are doing for them. She couldn't afford a lawyer, and I'm not a

lawyer. I told her right off the bat, if she assumed that I'm a lawyer and that

I would do as good a job. I try harder. I give her more time, and it'll cost her

nothing. Well, it cost her whatever taxes she's paying, whatever part of my

salary it is. But I said: I am not a lawyer. Finally after this final refusal

she went to Legal Aid, and we haven't heard back from that since.

How is it possible that Workers' Compensation cannot look at

this person - some medical doctor can't look at this person and see that their

back is completely out of whack? It's visible. If you saw the person walking in

there right there and then you'd say: there's something wrong with your back.

Now you mightn't know if this happens twenty-four hours a day or it's just

something when you tripped on the way into the building. But it is not fair that

this person receives no workers' compensation.

Another person: I have permission to use this person's name,

Paulette Griffiths, who was under a similar circumstance. Worked for the

Department of Social Services, looking after children again, or young adults,

big people. She hurt her back on the job. Again, she's in the same position. She

can't look after her own six-month old child, to lift that child around, and

Workers' Compensation says: you have to go back looking after these young

adults. Because you don't have a back injury.

If you look at the people they can't stand up straight. They

can't carry on a full day's activity at home. They can't do the housework in the

house. They can't look after the six-month old child properly, just changing

diapers and feeding it, without extreme discomfort. Yet Workers' Compensation

tells this person: you go back to work in the system looking after young adults

and you'll have no problem. I don't understand it. I really do not understand

it. It's getting worse, it's not getting better.

This Bill is certainly not going to improve. it. There's

nothing in this Bill that will help any of these people who are legitimately

injured on the job from work-related injuries, and obviously injured. There's

nothing in this Bill that's going to help any of them. So I don't know what the

great hullabaloo is from the government if they have to pass this Act. It's

certainly not

an act to help out workers. It is not going to benefit injured

workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, nothing in here is going to fix it.

That's the problem, it's down at Workers' Compensation, if Workers' Compensation

is there to look after injured workers. But they are not there to look after

injured workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, but you can do something to help. If

you are finding - obviously I'm not the only MHA on this side, because I asked

my colleagues if they're finding more instances lately then we had in the past.

Every one of them said: yes, there are more instances.

What you need to do, one of the problems I see, and two of

the people - not these two people here - but two other people who I worked on

cases for Workers' Compensation, one was a nurse. Big problem in the health

industry in injuries, because the health industry is strained beyond capacity

right now. There's not enough people there to look after the people that they

have to look after.

Apart from the problems in the health industry, what happens

with a nurse now today?... and there was an example in yesterday's paper that I

gave the Member for Fogo, and I do not know if he is around - what a nurse will

lose - just a cutout of yesterday's Telegram. It showed an example yesterday of

what a nurse is going to lose under this new legislation.

Now if a person is injured and they are receiving

compensation at a certain rate, and they cannot go back to work to get any more

increases or raises or promotions during their working life, or their near

working life, the last thing they need is to be cut back 15 per cent to 20 per

cent in workers' benefits. The last thing they need is that. That is not going

to help the injured worker, if that is what Workers' Compensation is supposed to

be doing. If Workers' Compensation is supposed to be helping injured workers,

which I understood it to be, then they are not doing the job.

In yesterday's paper we had an example of what money - I

think it was done in a press release from the nurses' union - Aylward said that

injured nurses with benefits of $996 every two weeks, workers' compensation

currently accounts for $682 of that $996, and the remaining $314 coming from

employer top up, in the nurses' union collective agreement. Under the proposed

amendments of the act, the $314 top up will be lost in a new collective

agreement.

Why are you doing that? What benefit is that to Workers'

Compensation for you to take away that $314 from the nurse? You will not retrain

that nurse. You will not do anything to help her, apart from a bit of physio,

until that is no longer required - maybe an operation or so, if you want to

completely disable the person. But you are taking away $314 from that person in

the health care system, that does not cost Workers' Compensation anything.

So I do not know what the purpose of Workers' Compensation

is, taking away this top up. This is just one instance, the $314 top up.

Amendments would also mean that effective January 1, 1994, her remaining $682

biweekly benefits would drop by 2.5 per cent a year, until it reaches $606 every

two weeks.

Now a person is going from $996... If this is a single

parent; we will use an example of a single parent who has one, two, or three

children at home, or dependents, or whatever we are supposed to be calling them

now. If this is a single parent who cannot be retrained, who cannot go out and

find other work - there is no work around to find, but you cannot go out and

find other work if you are injured anyway - that family, especially that single

parent family, will have their benefits cut from $996 every two weeks, which is

not a big deal - I could not live on it; my family could not live on that - but

they will have their benefits cut from $996 down to $606. Is that fair? Is that

what Workers' Compensation is supposed to be doing with that injured worker? Or

is Workers' Compensation supposed to be looking after the companies who are

paying the bills?

The companies who have to pay the bills should be responsible

for putting in place the proper safety training courses so that you would not

get injured workers. If these companies want to save money on workers'

compensation, put in practices so that people will not be injured. Put safety

practices in there.

There are two members in this House of Assembly who are very

familiar with occupational health and safety - especially the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He should have had input in this legislation

when it was coming before the House. The benefit of his knowledge should have

been used a lot more, if he stood up and fought for it. He can have it when I am

finished with it, it was on page 2 of yesterday's Telegram, if he is interested.

Mr. Speaker, this reduction to this one nurse - that example

was in the paper - this reduction is a 39 per cent reduction in salary. That

could very well be. It wouldn't be unusual for that to be a single parent with

dependents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: You sit down. You will have your time to

answer this. Sit down. Sit down, you were up three or four times. You have an

hour after this. I will get you in Committee. I am being kind to you here today

so far. I will get you in committee when the time comes. You can answer all

these questions, but you won't have answers, that is the problem. You dance

around them all then you will avoid the questions and you will avoid the issue

where Workers' Compensation is working on behalf of the employer, not the

injured worker. That is what you want to put in place in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the workers, it will never be reported, you will

never hear anything coming out of this House of Assembly. Workers will not know

this until it is too late. If someone goes and breaks their leg, or a surveyor

goes and cuts his arm and he can't go to work anymore, a nurse ruins her back so

she can't even look after her own personal needs at home, that is when people

will realize what the government is doing with this, because when you are

healthy and you are active and you are not worried about this, you are trying to

put food on the table for the day, you don't think about workers' compensation

and you don't think about pension plans, and you skirt around insurances

sometimes to try to make ends meet for the day. Now, Mr. Speaker, when the

people in this Province get injured, it is too late then. It is too late when

you are laid up and you can't get up and fight for yourself. You can't fight as

hard. I know that the two examples I gave here, these two people, as hard as it

is, they are determined not to give up until Workers' Compensation comes across

with a fair settlement and fair treatment of them because they were injured on

the job.

Mr. Speaker, this also will interfere with the collective

agreements of certain Public Service Unions that I know of. This is not Bill 17,

it is not Bill 18, this is Bill 19. You are taking away more benefits from

people who worked hard to negotiate these benefits. They gave up something else

years ago to get this benefit for their injured workers. Certainly I am glad

that the unions are thinking about the injured workers. At least somebody is

interested in them. The Minister of Labour is certainly not interested at all in

injured workers in this Province. Workers' Compensation is changing its mandate

so it does not have its prime mandate of helping injured workers, legitimately

injured workers in this Province. Workers' Compensation has changed its mandate

now to obstruct as much as possible anyone receiving benefits. That is what

Workers' Compensation seems to me to be doing now.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major delays that injured workers

find is getting therapy. They can't get to see the specialists. The specialists

are too busy. Most of them left the Province since the former Minister of Health

was here. But it is difficult. We don't have enough specialists in this Province

to treat the injuries, particularly back and bone type injuries and joint

injuries. We don't have the specialists here. So Workers' Compensation will let

them stay on Workers' Compensation month after month after month without

treatment, waiting to get to see a specialist, and they are paying out all this

money. This is where the money is going. This is where the bottom drops out of

her down at Workers' Compensation needlessly. If they put that person on a plane

and sent them to Nova Scotia, if they can't do it, New Brunswick, if they can't

do it, Quebec, Ontario, right across Canada, wherever it is, if you sent that

person out there and got him or her treated then you would save, in the

long-run, in benefits if you had the person cured and back in the work force. If

you can't get it done in Canada, why not ship that person down to the United

States and have them treated? Expensive as it is, it would save Workers'

Compensation money.

Now I brought that up in committee hearings in the Budget

last year when the Minister of Labour was here. We got some kind of a

wishy-washy answer on it that they won't send them down to the United States

because it is too costly. But it is not too costly to keep someone on Workers'

Compensation for months and months waiting to see a specialist. You would save

money in the long run. The trouble with this government is they won't look ahead

a bit. If you are going to spend $5 here now to save $10 in six months time they

won't do it. They would save the $5 and then it would cost them the whole $10 by

the time the year is over.

So, Workers' Compensation has to look at its physiotherapy

department and look at how people are sitting around waiting to see the medical

experts. If they can't see them here in this Province, if they can't see them in

the Atlantic Region, ship them right across to anywhere in Canada. And if that

is not possible, get them back into the work force. You should be trying to

treat people, cure them and get them back into the work force because that is

where the injured worker wants to be. The injured worker does not want to be

sitting around on workers' compensation, they want to go to work.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried, carried!

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

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

Members opposite would like for it to be carried, but I can

tell them that it is going to be a while yet before this is carried. They will

sing out carried a few more times yet before this -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) to get them on their feet.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Government House Leader, it

probably would be nicer if he got to his feet more often, Mr. Speaker, rather

than speaking from his chair. He should get up and participate in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pretty serious piece of legislation that

we are dealing with here with a lot of implications. The minister himself, of

course, said that it contains some very tough measures and indeed, Mr. Speaker,

it does, some very, very tough measures, measures that will affect nearly every

worker, every employer and every family throughout this Province.

I am not sure that the minister who introduced this piece of

legislation, really knows the implications of what he is doing here. I say, it

is quite ironic falling on the heels of Bill 16 and Bill 17, to see what this

particular minister, who used to be, or at least wanted people to believe he

was, a defender of labour in the Province, to see what he is doing again with

this piece of legislation. A minister who was a former President of the

Newfoundland Teachers Association who, just a few short years ago, would be out

on the stumps around this Province knocking -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the ITT minister. Yes, it is

the issue. The issue is this piece of legislation that is being brought forward

here today by this particular Minister of Labour who, just a few short years

ago, would have been very critical of any government who even thought about

bringing in those amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act. Who would have

even thought about it, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, another concern that we have is: There has been

very little effort by government to give people out and about the Province a

chance, particularly people who are going to be affected by this bill, an

opportunity to make their views known and to have a voice in this reform. Now,

it is a very valid criticism, I say to members opposite. Why don't you put the

bill on hold, send the Legislative Review Committee out and about the Province

to hear what workers and other interested people out and about the Province have

to say about it? Why not do that? Take a month, two months, to do it and, then,

come back next Spring and let the House know what the committee has found, what

the feelings of the people of this Province are on this very important issue.

Another thing that is worthy of note, Mr. Speaker, is that

this particular piece of legislation was sent to the Government Services

Committee on the day it was distributed in the House, the very same day. We

heard the Premier and the former Government House Leader talk so highly about

Legislative Review Committees. It was a plank in their platform in the last

election, how they were going to establish those Legislative Review Committees.

MR. DOYLE: What a farce!

MR. MATTHEWS: What a farce it is. The Member for Harbour

Main says, `What a farce!' The very same day this piece of legislation is tabled

here in this House, the Legislative Review Committee that should be analyzing

this piece of legislation received it at the same time. Now, what is the

function, then, of the Legislative Review Committee? What is the purpose of the

Legislative Review Committee? Absolutely none, because all of us in this House,

as members, got a copy of the legislation. So there is no function for them to

perform with this particular piece of legislation, which I think is regrettable,

very, very regrettable.

Now, the minister admitted Thursday, yesterday, that most of

the financial difficulties of the Workers' Compensation Commission have occurred

in the past few years. I think he apparently even mentioned the last two years.

Now, two things had happened, he said. First of all, over the last couple of

years, in particular, the annual monies collected by the Commission through

their assessment processes have not paid for annual expenditures of both injury

claims and administration and number 2, he said: the commission has had to dip

into the reserve funds that had been put aside to pay for future costs, that is,

of course, future liabilities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a recipe for disaster, I

say to the minister, if ever there was a recipe for disaster, it has occurred

over particularly the last two or three years, despite the fact that employers

in our Province pay the second highest rates in the country. The second highest

rates in the country, now, why is this happening, Mr. Speaker, why is it

happening?

The major reason in the dramatic decrease, is payrolls;

decrease in payrolls in this Province over the past two years. Workers'

Compensation charges an employer so much as we know, for every $100 of the

payrolls businesses have in the Province. We all have known that businesses have

been particular victims of this administration; particular victims of this

government's economic and fiscal policies, and we all know of the bankruptcies,

businesses have been falling like flies around this Province. Those that have

survived this far have done so by cutting employment and cutting payrolls, and

what has that meant to workers' compensation?

Well, we all know what it has meant, Mr. Speaker, that

revenues are down to the Workers' Compensation Commission as a result. On the

cost side, the duration and therefore the cost of claims are up because there

are no alternative employment opportunities for injured workers who are unable

to return to their former jobs. The Member for Fogo made some excellent points

in debate this morning, excellent points, when he talked about the duration of

claims, and any of us who, as members have participated with our constituents in

dealing with Workers' Compensation, know full well that it takes an awful long

time to get the process completed and the medical side of it has been a big

problem. Getting a client referred from his own personal doctor, his local

doctor out and about the Province to a specialist, takes an unusual length of

time and of course that is impacting upon the cost to Workers' Compensation.

Sometimes, as the Member for Fogo said, it goes on for months

getting to see a specialist and after they do see a specialist, getting surgery

or whatever other treatment is necessary, and after that is the rehabilitation

process, so yes, and we brought that to the minister's attention several times

in the last number of years, that the process had to be speeded up, that the

medical end of things was a big factor in the rising cost at Workers'

Compensation, and I am sure that members on both sides, who have had dealings

with constituents in trying to get them through the workers' compensation

process have found that. If they do not know that, they have not dealt with

constituents going through the system.

Another reason of course that I mentioned, is the long delay

in getting medical assessments, which have increased both the cost and the

duration of claims and that as well has been worsened by the actions of this

particular government because of this cut in health services. Cuts that have put

so much pressure on the health care system that it can no longer respond

promptly and efficiently to any of our health care needs, and, Mr. Speaker, that

is the truth of the situation. There are other reasons that are worthy of note.

Increases in injuries because of cutbacks which now create

too many situations where, one worker is performing now, tasks that would

normally be performed by two workers and of course a glaring example of that,

are the nurses throughout the Province. Of course the nurses have highlighted

that over the last number of months and particularly yesterday in their press

conference where they outlined their concerns about this piece of legislation.

Many times now, where ordinarily there would be two nurses involved in a task

such as lifting and so on, there is now one and that is leading to more

injuries, which makes the workplace more dangerous, more injuries and so on,

consequently, more injuries mean more cost to Workers' Compensation. So the

government and the minister has to take a lot of the responsibility for what has

happened to the Workers' Compensation Commission, the situation in which it

finds itself.

Failure of the government to implement effective health and

safety programs that will reduce injuries in the workplace, that is another

situation worthy of note. Inadequate retraining programs; inadequate

rehabilitation programs and on and on the list goes. I am hoping that members

opposite - some of them do not seem to be too concerned about this particular

piece of legislation. I hope they realize full well what their government is

doing with Bill 48. I do not think a lot of them do realize, because I am sure a

lot of them have not taken the time to even read the legislation, to compare

Bill 48 with the other piece of legislation dealing with workers' compensation,

because if you compare a number of the clauses you will find that what

government is proposing to do in this legislation is quite startling. It is

quite startling.

The other question you have to ask is: Will the remedies in

this bill solve the problem? I suggest that none of these problems, which are at

the root of the difficulties experienced now by Workers' Compensation, are

addressed in this bill. Instead, the government is doing what it has a record of

doing, and that is cuts. Cut it back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Being responsible.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Minister of Education says: being

responsible. Well I tell the Minister of Education that government has not been

responsible for a lot of its actions in the last three-and-a-half years, and

with this particular piece of legislation. For the minister to say they are

being responsible makes one wonder really if the minister understands himself -

if the Minister of Education himself knows what is contained in this bill.

MR. TOBIN: That is some responsible.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, they are being responsible, as the

Member for Burin - Placentia West points out. Yes, they have been responsible.

When you see a contract for furniture for the Premier's office for $80,430.43 on

the eighth floor, is it?

MR. R. AYLWARD: One hundred and eighteen thousand for

furnit