November

12, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 62

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going into our routine proceedings, the Chair feels

obligated just to make a couple of quotations from Beauchesne, and I think,

without any

preamble, hon. members will appreciate why I do this today. It is

related to the Speakership and, without any

preamble, I just want to quote them.

Beauchesne, page 48,

section 167 and I am just going to read

appropriate quotation about the Speaker: "The Presiding Officer, while but a

servant of the House, is entitled on all occasions to be treated with the

greatest attention and respect by the individual Members because the office

embodies the power, dignity and honour of the House itself"; and continuing on

section 168, again just a quotation: "When rising to preserve order or to

give a ruling the Speaker must always beard in silence. No Member may rise when

the Speaker is standing. Reflections upon the character or actions of the

Speaker may be punished as breaches of privileges. The actions of the Speaker

cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding

except by way of a substantive motion." I just wanted hon. members to know that

and simply to say that I think that particular quotation from Beauchesne is

fundamentally integral to the successful operation of any Parliament.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some provinces have made statements in the past

few days relative to their fiscal positions. These statements have been made

necessary because of the effect of the continued recession upon their revenues

and expenditures, and by the receipt of mid-year re-estimates of federal

transfer entitlements and income tax revenues. As hon. members of this House are

aware, about this time in each fiscal year, provinces receive from the

information, the first significant re-estimation this fiscal year, was received

last week. Our analysis of that re-estimation has now been completed. Mr.

Speaker, it indicates that we now face some very serious problems.

I wish to advise the Honourable House that, as a result of

these re-estimates, the Province will now experience a significant decline in

revenues from these sources in both the 1992 and the 1993-94 fiscal years. For

the current fiscal year, the federal re-estimates mean a decline of $80.4

million. Coupled with a decline in provincial own-source revenues of $16.1

million, this results in a total revenue shortfall of $96.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, our current account expenditure projections for

the current fiscal year will also exceed our expectations at Budget. These extra

expenditures have caused a total expenditure increase of $28.3 million. Attached

to the statement, Mr. Speaker, you will find an outline of the major variances

both in revenue and expenditure.

If left unchecked, these variances in revenues and

expenditures would result in a major increase in the projected Current Account

Deficit for this year from $29 million estimated in the Budget to $153.8

million. If left unchecked, these variations would result in a projected Current

Account Deficit of much more than $250 million for 1993-94. This, Mr. Speaker,

is unacceptable to Government.

It is worthy to note, Mr. Speaker, that over the four-year

period from 1985-86 to 1988-89, when the national economy was performing well,

average rate of 8.1 per cent. If that rate of growth had continued for the last

four years, we would be receiving this year $362 million more in Equalization

and EPF payments than our current estimate, and over the four years, Mr.

Speaker, we would have received an extra $800 million.

Now, in spite of this shortfall, over the four Budgets

presented by this Administration, considerable strides have been made in

controlling the deficit so as to maintain the confidence of the international

capital markets and, in doing so, Mr. Speaker, preserve our ability to provide

essential public services to the people of this Province. If we do not, now, act

decisively, our ability to provide these essential services will be in extreme

jeopardy.

The government is not willing to take that risk.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, today we are directing the

departments and agencies of government to immediately freeze hiring and achieve

a 1 per cent reduction in their salary budgets for this fiscal year, with the

exception, of course, of the front-line Social Services workers. They have also

been directed to achieve a 3 per cent reduction in their operating budgets, with

any special problems to be dealt with by Treasury Board, and also, Mr. Speaker,

to immediately freeze the hiring of consultants that is done through their

current account expenditures.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I will be presenting to this Honourable

House before the end of the month a revised fiscal plan for the current year.

Although I cannot be more specific at this time as to the measures we will take

in that plan, it will be designed to reduce the expected deficit in both current

and coming fiscal years, and, because of its magnitude, will impact on all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I call upon all those in a position to influence Government

expenditures - all public servants, all public service unions, all groups

receiving revenues directly or indirectly from the provincial government, to

co-operate fully in the difficult months ahead. Working together, we can

overcome these difficulties, continue to provide, with dedication, the essential

services necessary in this Province, and emerge from these difficulties stronger

than ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some time ago I called the former Minister of Finance 'The

Grinch who stole Christmas'. We now have a new grinch, because this statement is

certainly going to take the shine off Christmas trees for this particular year,

and probably next year, as well.

It is a very serious statement. I don't want to make light of

it at all, because obviously, the Province is in a very serious financial

position. I can sympathize with that, but I have to say, there are some things

in here with which I have to find some difficulty.

First of all, we find our increase in the current account

deficit now projected to be 500 per cent of what the former minister predicted

in his Budget of last March. That is an incredible variance, Mr. Speaker.

I understand all of the factors that it impacted over the

past year, but I said to the minister when be brought in his Budget last year

that he had overestimated the revenues from federal sources. I told him also

that he had underestimated his expenditures in certain areas. I think that has

been verified here now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: We see here expenditures have increased

$28.3 million over and above what had been predicted. I say to the government:

That certainly was within the government's control.

Now, they will try to tell us that they had emergency

programs of $13.5 million - employment programs. We told them they needed

employment programs. These were the employment programs this government said,

'... we will not use. We are going to have great economic strategies to create

permanent jobs. We are not going to use make-work programs'; so there was

nothing in the Budget for it.

So they come back in the middle of the year and bring in an

Emergency Response Program. We had some discussions about that with the minister

last week, and we will have others as well, to see where exactly that money is

going and for what emergency purposes it was used.

Personal income tax is not something this government can

blame on the federal government. They try again to say that everything is a

problem, or a lot of it is caused by variances in federal funding, in transfer

payments. A lot of it is, Mr. Speaker, but I know how these numbers are worked

come Budget time, and I say that this government over-estimated. They'll try to

tell me that: we only gave you what the federal government gave us. But as it

relates to personal income tax, Mr. Speaker, that's a direct impact of the

economy of this Province, and I say that's a result of the mismanagement of the

economy by this particular government.

There are many things one could talk about in here. The

impact on all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, yet the immediate impact again

is on the backs of the public service. We're delighted to see that at least

social workers will not be reduced. They should be increasing the number of

social workers, because of the state of the economy and the number of people who

are forced to look to that for assistance this year.

A revised fiscal plan for the current year. All we've heard

since the House opened is the great economic strategy, Challenge and Change.

Maybe it's time, Mr. Speaker, to forget about constitutional change, forget

about long-term strategy, and let's deal with the emergency situation that's

faced by this Province as evidenced by this particular statement.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the

announcement by the minister I'm not sure that I really want to ask this

question. More unemployment, more people going on the Social Services caseloads,

and not enough social workers to do anything about it. The only thing they've

been freed from is a reduction, they have not seen any new increases.

We all in this Province know the plight of the workers

employed by the Department of Social Services. Not only are we aware of the fact

that they're overworked, we know now that the work is not being done by the

Department of Social Services, because there are not enough workers to do it.

The minister some time ago acknowledged that there was a

crisis in this field, that it had reached crisis proportions, and that he was

going to re-align the offices throughout the Province to do something. I'd now

like to ask the minister: how many workers have been transferred from the

regional offices and headquarters to the front lines of his Department in

district offices?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as the member has said, in

answer to a question in the House I did say that we were in the process of

re-aligning our front lines and making sure that people came down from the

regional offices to assist and to work in the district offices and to help us

with this problem. That process is on-going. We have union agreements in place,

as the member knows. We have the Public Service Commission and competitions and

procedures that have to take place. Because in many cases job functions are

changing. That process is on-going.

As to the numbers that have already been affected and have

taken place I'd have to get those numbers for the member. But I can tell you the

process is on-going on an urgent basis to effect the changes that are necessary

as quickly as we can.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister, then:

How many of the workers to be transferred to the front lines will be transferred

without any responsibilities being transferred with them?

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

MR. GULLAGE: I am not sure what he means by that

question, Mr. Speaker, but I assume he is making the point that some workers

will be transferred to positions that are different from those that they

presently occupy, and that is to the point I just spoke to, in that if that is

the case and duties have to change we will have to have competitions for the

positions and so on.

In all cases, of course, the workers are qualified for the

positions they are going to but, because of seniority and because of

competitions and procedures that have to be followed, it is not just a simple

matter of making a transfer from one position to another, as the member knows.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister doesn't know what is

going on obviously. What I am asking the minister is: In his announcement of

realigning offices there will be district offices that will become larger and

will become satellite offices. Now, if you are going to transfer an assistant

district administrator or an assistant regional director to an office with the

same responsibilities that he already has, he is not going to be a front-line

worker who is going to be out meeting the clients.

So let me ask the minister this: Will he give his word today

that in the realignment of these offices all of the positions that presently

exist in the regional offices will become positions in the district offices with

no strings attached, that they will become front-line workers.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the intent is to have regional

offices with an administrative function only. The speciality positions that are

in those regional offices now would be located in the district offices. We have

positions other than social workers and financial administrative officers on the

front lines, if you like. Other than those people, we have other specialty

workers in the district offices. Of necessity, we are going to have to add to

those numbers by way of people coming down from regional job functions. In some

cases they will become social workers, in other cases, financial administrative

officers, and in other cases they will remain in the specialty job that they

occupied in the regional office. The intent is to downsize the regional offices,

leave the regional offices with strictly an administrative function with a

responsibility for x number of districts offices. They will not have the numbers

of people at the regional office level that they presently have.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: What the minister is saying is they will be

transferred to the district offices with the same responsibilities that they

already have, and we won't see any front-line workers in this Province. That's

what the minister is saying.

Now, Mr. Speaker, despite this statement that was made today

about the layoffs and the 1 per cent reduction in budgets, every regional office

in this Province, including the one in St. John's which I understand alone has

requested an additional fifty new workers, can the minister tell me today

whether or not they will be receiving the numbers of people that they require to

carry out the policies, programs and responsibilities of his Department?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I said in answer to the first

question I would get the numbers of the changes that have already taken place

and the numbers involved. We are making sure that the offices most seriously

affected by caseloads are addressed on a priority basis. As to the exact number

of workers that are going to be required, I can't tell the member at this point

because we are making sure we do the downsizing first, and we move the regional

office people into the district offices.

The priority is to give emphasis to the front lines where the

interaction takes place between the client and our workers. That will be the

priority. I can't say, Mr. Speaker, that we will take all of the regional office

positions and make them either social workers or financial administrative

officers. That will not be possible, because we certainly have specialty areas

where we still require workers in place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister how many

offices should have priority, all fifty-three offices throughout the office, but

particularly in the St. John's region. The Mount Pearl offices and others are

priorities, because there are people screaming out for workers in my own

district.

Let me ask the minister this: The minister admitted the other

day there is a 50 per cent increase since this government came to office in the

number of people who are on social assistance. We also know that the social

workers throughout the Province are not able to meet their commitments to those

workers, particularly those in the field of child welfare, as well as those on

social assistance. We have child welfare people who are wards of the director,

or whatever the case may be, who are expecting social workers to visit their

homes. The visits are not being made because the time is not there, nor the

numbers. There are people in this Province starving to death, day-in and

day-out, unable to have visits from the social workers, or people from the

Social Services Department. Whose neck is on the line, let me ask the minister?

Will it be his, or will it be the social workers if something happens because

they're not able to do their work?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said

in answer to an earlier question, that we're moving as quickly as we can to make

sure that the numbers of people necessary will be in the district offices. Some

district offices have more serious increases in caseloads than others. He

mentioned the St. John's offices. Quite true. The increases are more dramatic in

the St. John's area. There are other parts of the Province that have increases

that are greater than the average, if you like, throughout all fifty-two

district offices.

We recognise, Mr. Speaker, that over all we have a serious

problem and we are addressing it. It does take time. We have the Public Service

Commission to deal with, and the unions, and agreements that are in place. And

making sure that competitions are done fairly and people are placed in

positions, giving recognition to their background, to their training, and to the

need of placing people properly in offices where the caseloads have to be

addressed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask

the minister this question. It's fairly simple. How many new social workers can

we see put in place in this Province as front line workers before Christmas? How

many can we see before Christmas?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the third time

I'm going to answer this question, the same way. I can't possibly give numbers

today. The process is on-going, we're working as quickly as we can.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) process!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: As soon as we know the numbers that are

needed -

AN HON. MEMBER: You asked the question, wait for the

answer.

MR. GULLAGE: - and as soon we're able to answer that and

give specific numbers, I will do so, Mr. Speaker. But we're following the

process that we feel is necessary at this point, and that is to make sure we

move as many people as possible to the district offices and onto the front lines

to assist us with the caseloads that we have. That is on-going and happening

right now, Mr. Speaker. As to the numbers that will be needed, if more are

needed at that point, I'll be able to answer that question when that first

process is complete.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions I'd like to

ask the Premier dealing with a couple of different topics.

The first one deals with a matter of extreme importance to

workers in this Province as well. Specifically I am talking about the

legislation dealing with the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act, Bill

Now the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has said

publicly that he intends to deal with this legislation in this sitting; so

presumable some time in the next three weeks or so he intends to have this

legislation through the House. I think that is his expectation.

Since the government has not held any public hearings on this

particular piece of legislation - none of the committees of the House have held

any public hearings on this particular legislation - and because of its extreme

importance, not only to the business community but to the people of the Province

in particular, and since this has already been a piece of legislation that has

been sat on for a considerable period of time, I would like to ask the Premier

if he would not give some direction from the government, to ask that a committee

of the Legislature be charged with the task of travelling around the Province to

hold some public hearings to give the people of the Province an opportunity to

have their say, and perhaps even more importantly to understand exactly what it

is that is being proposed and how it is going to affect the workers of the

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why

we would not do that - good, sound, logical reasons.

I think the Opposition House Leader, if not the Opposition

Leader, knows, or was told a couple of days ago that the legislation was being

called today. If he did not know it, his House Leader did not tell him, I guess.

I think the House Leader has been advised that the legislation was going to be

called today.

MR. ROBERTS: Called the workers' compensation, today.

PREMIER WELLS: Workers' compensation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: A couple of days ago; that is right.

PREMIER WELLS: A couple of days ago. Okay.

So I do not see much point in - you know when it is going to

be discussed. It is going to be discussed this afternoon. That is the House's

business. That deals with the first question raised by the Leader of the

Opposition. Now let me deal with the second question.

Will we cause public hearings to be held? No, for several

good reasons; one of which is, all of these proposals stemmed out of the

commission - the Committee of Review - the review committee of the workers'

compensation legislation. That committee had views expressed, and there has been

public expression of views. The government announced its intentions with respect

to workers' compensation proposals. I believe some four to six months ago we

announced that we would be bringing forward legislation - some time during the

last sitting, in the Spring or early Summer at least.

AN HON. MEMBER: July 2.

PREMIER WELLS: July 2 - I am sorry; the House was closed.

It was July 2.

Now we have been sitting again for a week or ten days, and we

are now bringing the legislation forward, so it could not be brought forward any

sooner than that. There is no need to hold public hearings. There is a very

clear and substantial indication as to what should be done to deal with the

incredible workers' compensation mess that the former government's policies left

us with. Those intentions were announced on July 2, and we are now following

through with them. There is no need for further public hearings at this stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there is not much point in

pursuing the question with the Premier. He obviously has his mind made up, so I

will move on to another item; but we will continue to push for it and deal with

it ourselves. His answer, by the way, had totally nothing to do with my question

- the answers he gave.

I want to ask him some questions related to another issue. On

last June 5 - since the Premier's memory is serving him fairly well today - he

will recall that he was asked by me in this Legislature to provide a breakdown

of expenses associated with the constitutional talks. In fact the Premier

himself, in the Legislature on that very day, said: Yes, he would table all of

the expenses - June 5.

Despite that, a few days after the referendum vote, on

October 30 - only two days before the House of Assembly opened - a breakdown

appeared in Bill Callahan's column in The Evening Telegram. I would like to ask

the Premier first of all: Who provided that information to Bill Callahan?

Secondly, and more importantly: Why was that information not provided to the

elected representatives of the people in the House of Assembly, as promised to

me by the Premier on June 5 - five months ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will check and see what I provided, if

anything, and I do not know with certainty at this stage that I provided

anything before the House closed. When did the House close? The House closed on

June 10?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: June 10. You asked for it on June 5 and

the House closed on June 10. Obviously there was not time to provide it to the

House.

Mr. Speaker, we have responded. But the answer is very

simple. We provided it to The Evening Telegram because we were asked. I was

asked in an editorial board meeting with The Evening Telegram.

MR. SIMMS: You were asked it in the House on June 5.

PREMIER WELLS: The House adjourned on June 10, before the

information could be provided. What did he want to do - reconvene the House to

give him the answer to the question? We are not hiding it. We gave it to The

Evening Telegram, a newspaper published in the province. Mr. Speaker, I gave it

to the Evening Telegram for the simple reason that - I think it must have been

early October, perhaps it was even in September, at an editorial board meeting.

MR. SIMMS: No you didn't.

PREMIER WELLS: I tell him I did! At an editorial board

meeting with the Evening Telegram, in early October or September, I was asked to

provide a breakdown of the expenses, and I said we will get them together as

soon as we can and pass them on to you. We were living up to that commitment by

a respected member of the public media in this province. I see nothing wrong

with it. Now the fact is I don't see there was any need to wait until the House

opened necessarily when we had the information. We were requested to provide it

by the Telegram. We had no desire to hide anything. We gave it to the news

media. I see nothing wrong with it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I'm not the least bit surprised, Mr. Speaker,

that he wouldn't see anything wrong with it, but that isn't the point. The

people of the province through their elected representatives see something wrong

with it. If you gave it to Bill Callahan on October 30th, why didn't you give it

to the House of Assembly on November 2nd. Two days later the House of Assembly

opened.

Now let me ask him this: According to Mr. Callahan, the total

cost was $532,000. Will he confirm that those are the actual costs, in excess of

half a million dollars? Are these figures, figures for just this fiscal year

since the first of April? For example, does the $532,000 include the cost of the

Premier's 'Householder' that was sent to every household in the Province, as he

knows, just before the vote on the referendum? Finally - I have asked this

question before - will he table all expenditures related to national

constitutional issues since the fiscal year beginning April 1st 1990? That

question has been asked before and not answered either.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't recall ever seeing the question

before. Maybe it was asked, but I will table all expenses in relation to

constitutional issues since April 1st, 1990. I have no hesitation. It may take a

little while and a little bit of cost to dig it out, but I will certainly dig it

out.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the

government of this province providing to a respected public news media in this

province information such as that, and it was provided. Not with the point of

view of depriving hon. members of it, but to make it available. I should say,

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't provided to Bill Callahan personally. It was requested of

me in an editorial board meeting with a variety of news reporters from the

Evening Telegram, and we provided it to the Evening Telegram. Whether it went

directly to Mr. Callahan or somebody else is more than I can say, but we were

responding to the request and happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Premier wasn't

as happy to respond to the request in the House. That is my point. The House

opened two days after, on November 2nd. He could have provided the information

in the last two weeks, but he didn't do it.

Now I want to ask him one final question, Mr. Speaker. Even

though the Premier, over the last couple of years, has hired a constitutional

advisor for his government - for example, the first one I believe was Deborah

Coyne, full-time, and now I believe the individual's name is Ken Tyler. I am not

quite sure, but I believe he is from Saskatchewan. If that is correct, I'm not

sure. Anyway there is somebody else there. During this recent process in

addition to the lawyer that he hired as a constitutional adviser to the

government, and, of course, we all know that at these talks and during these

talks he had himself, an esteemed constitutional lawyer, as other people say. I

don't say it, and he doesn't say it, but other people do. He brought in his

constitutional superman, the Minister of Justice. Nobody else here could handle

the department because they had the constitution to deal with. He had the

previous Minister of Justice with him, the Member for Humber West, on all of

these things. But in addition to that, we understand that he hired yet another

firm, a firm known as Blake, Cassels and Graydon, I think is the correct name.

Can he confirm then, in fact, that this company was paid some $160,000 for

something? Who are the principals of the law firm, where are they from, and what

was the $160,000 for, and over what period of time were they paid this $160,000?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I believe the figure was something like

that, but I will have it shortly, so I will be able to provide it specifically.

If that was the figure in the newspaper, that was it. I have no idea who the

principals of the firm are. The individual with whom we worked was a superb

constitutional expert; his name is Neil Finkelstein. And this wasn't just a

recent thing, Neil Finkelstein worked with us, as well, in 1989 and did a superb

job. He really provided yeoman service and provided the service at far more

reasonable cost than one might expect such services to be provided. He provided

only the service we specifically asked for. Now, you have to remember, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the numbers - and I had my esteemed colleague, the Member

for Naskaupi and all his constitutional ability; I had my esteemed colleague,

the Member for Humber West and all his constitutional ability - I discount

myself - and the Member for Pleasantville; and do not discount the soundness of

the political, constitutional judgement of the Member for Pleasantville, it is

very sound. He and I may disagree on some points here and there, but I greatly

respect his judgement and the dedication with which he tackles these things.

Now, Mr. Speaker, people must remember that these meetings

and discussions were going on with an intensity unknown in the past in these

kinds of discussions, meeting virtually every single day, day and night, from

last March right through until the end of August. Now, that is essentially what

was happening. There were times when we had far - we did not, we were not able,

to participate in all of the discussions. We should have had more people there

than we did but we simply couldn't marshal the forces. It was necessary to have

the professional expertise that we had.

Mr. Speaker, I say, this Province was well served by

everybody who participated, and I commend them, particularly the public servants

of this Province. Fred Way and Barbara Knight - I will name them gave superb

service. Ken Tyler, the Director in the Constitutional Law

Section in the

Department of Justice, gave superb service. I could only wish that his services

would be available to us in the future. Unfortunately, they are not going to be,

and that is going to be our loss. He was a superb performer. We got great

service out of all of them, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier.

On Tuesday, when the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, he will do it afterwards.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Table it?

MR. SIMMS: We are under Answers to Questions.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, when the Premier was asked questions

about the renovations to his deluxe suite of offices on the eighth floor, he

tried to leave the impression that most of these eighth floor renovations were

done because of fire safety needs, turning a stairwell to the floors above his

office. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that when the eighth floor was renovated a

couple of years ago, the office in the southwest corner, formerly the office of

a press secretary as I remember, was designed to accommodate these safety

features, and particularly the stairwell, so that the rest of the office suite

would not have to be torn up?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: It sure was.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The answer is clearly

known. I intended to table all of this information today and I have not, but I

will table it in response to questions for which you have had notice and I will

give the complete detail. But the simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, the real problem,

was that when the decision was in the process of being made, after nearly thirty

years in this building, to do the necessary renovations because certain of the

structural aspects of the building needed to be addressed, including the

electrical and the heating system, and so on, instead of working with the system

to go from the bottom up, the Premier of the day couldn't wait, so he had

$504,000 worth of renovations done to his office right then and there that were

of no value because most of it had to be torn up to do the essential

renovations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Not true.

PREMIER WELLS: That is right. The total expenditure, at

the time, was $652,000. on the eighth floor: $504,000 on renovations, $148,000

on office furniture, Mr. Speaker -

MR. GRIMES: What?

PREMIER WELLS: - not just for the Premier's Office, for

the whole eighth floor. Mr. Speaker, not only did they jump the gun and put all

of that money into redecorating - all it was, essentially, was redecorating -

but they moved the conference room, the Cabinet room, off the floor, eliminated

the conference room, drove them upstairs into the newsroom on the eleventh

floor. Mr. Speaker, when, in the ordinary course of time, the building

renovations progressed beyond the sixth, seventh and eighth floors, going up to

the ninth, tenth and eleventh floors, when that other essential work had to be

done, all of that was a waste because, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the day

couldn't wait. Now, Mr. Speaker, as nearly as we can judge - and I will provide

the detail - the total cost of renovations that are taking place to the eighth

floor now is about $275,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: What! What!

PREMIER WELLS: The total cost, the vast majority of which

would have been made necessary solely, Mr. Speaker, to address the things that

had to be done anyway with the heating, electrical and structural system in

order to meet the requirements, all of that resulted from an incredible waste by

the former government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a

supplementary.

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

I am surprised that the Premier would give such an answer. We

had $600,000 spent on the office just three or four years ago and we have

another $250,000 being spent on it to satisfy King Clyde, to make a castle for

King Clyde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: We had the statement today saying that

the Province is bankrupt, yet we get $250,000 to satisfy his wallpaper and

doorknob needs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member is on a supplementary and should be

speaking to that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier not confirm

that the majority of the renovations that are taking place on the eighth floor

right now are not where the stairwell is going, which is on the western side of

the deluxe office suite, but are taking place on the eastern side of the eighth

floor deluxe suite of conferences?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when they took the Cabinet

floor, the conference room that was available on the Premier's floor was gone.

It was put on the upper floor and left was a little cubbyhole that was about the

size of two of these desks, as far as here, no windows, no nothing, to meet

people in. Ten, fifteen, twenty people sometimes come in, and this is what was

left there. To satisfy the urges of the Premier of the day, this is what was

done, Mr. Speaker. The Cabinet floor is up on the eleventh floor.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was done at that time without taking

into account that all of those ceilings would have to be removed and, not only

that, Mr. Speaker, but they redid it, put new lights up there and then covered

it over - I said bamboo because that was it looked like, but it was oak, strips

of oak through which it was impossible to penetrate anything. So they covered

all the lights with oak. You couldn't see anything in the office. It was oak

shaped to look like bamboo, Mr. Speaker, as a result of an incredible waste of

some $650,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the time, it

wasn't two or three years ago, it was in 1985 it was done. I can give you the

breakdown of the cost and I will provide the answers shortly, when the time

comes.

Mr. Speaker, these renovations that are being done on the

eastern side now, restore only a meeting room. I checked with the officials this

morning and they told me - the minister estimated it for me, and I don't know

what the basis of his estimate is - that more than 75 per cent of the cost had

to be spent anyway. Our office was told by the officials in Works, Services and

Transportation, `If you are going to adjust any of the space, now is the time to

do it at the lowest cost, because we have to remove the ceiling, redo the floor

covering and redo much of the walls anyway. So if you want some changes in your

space, now is the time to do it at the lowest possible cost.' And that is

exactly what we have done, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

If the Premier is so sure, Mr. Speaker, that he is right, why

would he refuse to allow the media, the cameras in particular, to go to his

office on the eighth floor to take pictures of the renovations that are taking

place now? What is the Premier trying to hide by not allowing the media to visit

those offices?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have nothing to hide, but I run an

office, I don't run a media circus. I don't pull the kind of stunt the

Opposition did the other day when they brought poor Mr. Bailey into the gallery

in a wheelchair. I don't pull those kinds of stunts. I don't run my office in

that way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, not to get into some picky little

point like that, that the Premier often throws out, but let me say to the

Premier, he does himself an injustice by accusing us of bringing in that

particular gentleman. That gentleman came in here on his own, believe me. I

think that is below you.

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

Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the events of the other day

speak for themselves, and what the Premier says speaks with the ring of

veracity, because it is true. Let me also say while we're at it that hon.

gentlemen opposite are making precisely the point that I am about to make, Mr.

Speaker. They have consistently throughout Question Period been allowed to

address their questions without being interrupted, but will not extend to the

Premier or my other colleagues here the courtesy of letting them answer the

question without being interrupted.

In addition, what we are hearing is unparliamentary language

from gentlemen opposite who know full well they are not allowed to make the

kinds of statements that they make repeatedly. I say, Mr. Speaker, they ought to

ask their questions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: My response is to the hon. gentleman's point

of order, and mine is a better point of order than his, Mr. Speaker. If they

want the answers to questions they should let the truth make them free.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition took

the opportunity to clarify a point.

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a report today

from the Government Services Legislative Review Committee on the proposed

changes to

An Act To Amend The Shops Closing Act.

That particular committee, of which I was Chair, also had the

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, as Vice-Chair; the Member for Carbonear; the

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay; and the Member for Torngat Mountains.

The Legislative Review Committee called for hearings in St.

John's, Gander, and Wabush. There were four presentations in St. John's; one in

Gander, and three in Corner Brook. Since there were no presenters indicated for

Wabush, the committee and the Chair decided against holding a hearing for it,

because it would have meant an extra cost. In addition to these hearings, the

Chairman spent an hour on CBC Crosstalk.

On the proposed eliminations of the named holidays from an

Act To Amend The Shops Closing Act, all presenters, without exception, felt that

Thanksgiving Day should be reinstated as a shops closing day. The presenters

were assured that it was not government's intention to eliminate holidays, but

that the stores would be permitted to be open on these days.

There was considerable support on Crosstalk for the proposed

changes to the legislation. The business community also expressed strong support

for the proposed changes. There was, however, opposition to this from the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, Nape, and the two other

presenters.

All presenters except one felt that the government should

eliminate Clause 2 of the draft bill, which would amend the act to allow a

non-Christian owner to open a shop on Sundays. There was also concern expressed

about the exempt shop.

The recommendations - I will not go into all of the report -

from the committee were that the government would place Thanksgiving Day as a

shops closing day in the holiday schedule, and that Clause 2 regarding Sunday

opening would be omitted. There was also agreement from the proposed change to

fines and penalties.

Finally, there was majority committee support for the

proposed elimination of four days from the shops closing

schedule - namely St.

Patrick's Day, St. George's Day, Orangemen's Day and Discovery Day.

At this time I would like to thank the members of the

committee for their indulgence and for their support in making this

recommendation to the government and to the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a point

of order.

MR. HEARN: St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. SPEAKER: St. Mary's - The Capes. I am sorry.

MR. HEARN: For the record.

On the point of order - I will tell my learned friend that

there is such a thing as a point of order.

On the report as submitted by the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage, in the latter part he said that there was majority approval of having

the other four days removed from the Shops Closing Act.

The agreement, I understand, from our meeting when we

prepared the report, was that no consensus was arrived at, and was to be

reported as such - that there was no consensus on the removal of these days.

There was disagreement among the committee, and it was to be brought back to the

House. Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. the

member had a point to express about the report.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I was asked in Question

Period earlier this afternoon about why the information respecting the

constitutional cost was given to The Evening Telegram.

I am happy to table the information given to The Evening

Telegram with full detail, together with a letter to The Evening Telegram, of

October 29, which reads: At the last editorial meeting with Premier Wells you

enquired as to how much money the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had

spent on constitutional negotiations. The enclosed statement lists all the

expenses recorded as of October 29. That's the reason, the basis, behind it.

Now by reason of having answered certain questions relating

to office renovation expenditures during Question Period I can shorten greatly

what I would have otherwise had to provide. But there were certain specific

questions raised by the hon. member that I will now answer.

References made to a doorknob costing $600 - it doesn't

exist, Mr. Speaker. What it is, is the security entry system that under their

management they started to put in. You see it out in the front building. You

have to put in a card to enter. There's no doorknob costing $600.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that was part of the design

of the system and it's there and we're now stuck with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: That's part of the building security

system. Here's the other one. Seventy thousand dollars worth of wall vinyl to be

placed in the Premier's personal office. That's his allegation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: That's what I'm told.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The present contract, Mr. Speaker,

specifies vinyl for much of the walls throughout the eleventh floor and

throughout the eighth floor. The total cost of all wall coverings - vinyl,

paint, wood, everything combined - for both floors in total is $80,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, sure, most of it's going in my little

cubbyhole.

The $3,000 for chairs for the boardroom. Utterly false, Mr.

Speaker. The boardroom chairs are thirteen chairs ordered at a cost of $780

each.

Were tenders called for the ninth and tenth floor?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: It's $780 each. They're boardroom table

chairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Each, each!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: E-A-C-H. Each. Now, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Three thousand dollars.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds hon. members again about interruptions.

Members aren't to interrupt a member when speaking. I've told hon. members there

is a procedure. If an hon. member wants to ask a question of a member, the

member knows how to do that, and if the minister concedes then the question can

be asked. I ask hon. members please not to consistently throw a barrage of

questions while somebody's speaking.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The other question, Mr. Speaker: were

tenders called for the work done on the ninth and tenth floors? Yes. The

contract was awarded to the lowest bidder.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, I don't know, a year or so ago, I

suppose, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, no. All of this, Mr. Speaker, was done

when the former government decided to move the House of Assembly down here. Now

we tried to stop it! We tried to stop it, but it was gone too far and it would

have been a waste of money, so we couldn't. So now we were left with the House

of Assembly on the ninth floor and the tenth floor. What do we do with it? With

a need for office space, and the government renting space all over the city, we

decided to renovate it to use it. So tenders were called and it was done.

The next question was: what were the costs associated with

renovations for the eleventh floor, and is the work on the ninth and tenth

floors part of the contract? The eleventh floor was publicly tendered, along

with the work for the eighth floor. They were tendered together. The lowest

tender was received from Eastern Contracting Limited in the amount of $598,000,

total, for both floors. The portion of the price that is associated with the

eleventh floor is estimated, on the basis of square footage, at about $323,000.

The next question was: installation of $100 per foot

replacement for a countertop. Complete and total fabrication. There's no

countertop anywhere costing $100 a foot. So far as I know there's no countertop

costing fifty dollars a foot; so far as I know there's no countertop costing

twenty-five dollars a foot. So it's a total, complete fabrication, like

virtually everything else that he said.

I will table the rest of the information, Mr. Speaker, which

provides a

summary of all these costs and also provides a breakdown of the cost

done in 1985 as well.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point

of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise on a

point of order, because the Premier avoided answering the question that I asked.

The question that I asked on the tenders, was to see the dates when the tenders

were called for and awarded and could the Premier have stopped them? That was

the intent of those questions.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that even

the hon. gentleman should know that is not a point of order, but I will say that

any member of the House, who is at least a bit familiar with the rules of this

House, knows that there is no point of order. All he is doing is debating with

the Premier. The Premier has made an answer to the questions the hon. gentleman

asked, and we did not interrupt the hon. gentleman when he asked the questions

even though he asked them in a very improper form. Now he does not like the

answer, but again I say to him, Sir, the bible says: The truth shall make ye

free. He should sit and listen to the truth.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) read the bible.

MR. ROBERTS: No. You do not read the bible, I believe

you.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will confess at the outset that

this is not a point of order, but I wanted to use the opportunity -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: - to ask the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - is he going to respond to the other

questions I asked today in Question Period?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that he cannot get on

the floor that way, saying it is not a point of order. The Chair might say it is

not a point of order, but the hon. Leader should at least state his point and

then the Chair will make the ruling.

There is no point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to make a point of order then,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: The Premier today in the Legislature indicated

that he would table answers to other questions I asked with respect to the

constitutional talks and he has not done that. Does he intend to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do

not know where the member was, if he was here he was not with it. If he was out

of the Chamber, then I advise him that I tabled the information as to the costs

up to October 29th. Now, Mr. Speaker, there may have been some other costs

coming in over the last few days that I do not know about.

The other question he asked: was it for this year only? That

is there too. If he looks in there he will see the expenditures you see.

1991-1992, 1992-1993, so it covers both years.

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not know what that means.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in the House today to present a petition from 1,043

residents in the community of Ramea in my district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, and

I suppose this is the oldest forum people have of addressing a grievance in a

British democracy, in the British parliamentary system which we follow, so I

will read the prayer of the petition now and I will make my comments as I go

along.

To The Honourable House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in

session assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Ramea,

Newfoundland, now avail themselves of the right to present a grievance common to

your petitioners in certain assurances that your honourable House will provide a

remedy.

As I said, it is an honour for me to be able to stand here to

represent the people of Ramea to present this petition, but I feel that the real

sin is the fact that they felt they had to go this far to get a solution to this

problem which could very easily have been remedied if the correct procedure had

been followed.

WHEREAS, The fish plant in Ramea has been in the deep sea

fishery since 1856;

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is showing I suppose, that the

community of Ramea has been actively involved in the offshore fishery since 1856

by virtue of the fact that John Penney and Sons operated a fishing business

there that started in 1856 and it was an offshore business. Now if you want to

there is a letter in it to Lord Burleigh, on September 14th, 1591 which states

the coast of Newfoundland, so I do not think there is a community in

Newfoundland that can show a longer history or tradition of having been involved

in the fishery than the community of Ramea.

WHEREAS, the plant in Ramea has processed northern cod since

the inception of Enterprise Allocations; and, Mr. Speaker, that can very readily

be found because anyone who wants to can check with the Department of Fisheries,

because when they started the Enterprise Allocations, indeed, John Penney and

Sons were given a part of the Enterprise Allocation to fish northern cod, and as

a result in the mid-70s and the earlier '80s, the firm of John Penney and Sons

did prepare for this by having one of their trawlers reinforced in Marystown for

the northern cod fishery. They spent $4.5 million on a trawler called the Penney

Hope and, then, they had another one build in South Africa called the Penney

Smart which cost something like $15 million. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, the

place that developed it, the plant in Ramea, were integral and traditional in

the northern cod fishery when it started.

Now, the third

Whereas: Fishery Products International have

admitted that 22 per cent of Ramea's production was northern cod up until 1990

at which time less than 10 per cent of its production was northern cod due to a

federal and provincial government decision to operate Gaultois, Grand Bank and

Trepassey for an extended period of time.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the plant in Ramea had a

northern cod allocation from the time it was first given out, and we know

Fishery Products had written to the Department of Fisheries and Mr. Crosbie on

September 24 of this year and again on October 9 and pointed out that, indeed

yes, from 1989 as far back as they have records there was a significant amount

of the production from the Ramea Fish Plant that was northern cod. For the last

five years of its operation, which were the only figures they had available, 22

per cent of the production of the Ramea Fish Plant was northern cod until 1990.

Again I will quote from a letter that Mr. Young sent to Mr.

Crosbie on September 24 of this year: "In conclusion," he says, "there is no

doubt had there not been an extended notice program and had Trepassey and Grand

Bank not operated in 1991 then Ramea would now qualify under the Northern Cod

Response Program." So I think that proves the point that there is, without

doubt, a precedent for the Ramea plant.

The fourth

Whereas: Fishery Products International has

formerly announced that due to these decisions Ramea will qualify for the

Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program, but yet the federal government has

denied this support.

We know now that they have given them the precedence for it,

and Fishery Products gave the federal government the precedence for it and the

reason to change it. The people in Ramea didn't get out in protest, they didn't

occupy any buildings, they didn't try to hang anyone, they didn't try to throw

anyone over the wharf, they very civilly asked that they be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GILBERT: By leave, to finish?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you.

The fifth

Whereas is: They now say, by virtue of the fact

that the federal government decided they are not going to take the precedent

that was given them by Fishery Products and which was their right, by virtue of

the fact that the Fish Plant in Ramea was a northern cod plant - the fish was

taken out by an executive decision of Fishery Products at the request of the

governments of the day and this fish was taken and processed in Trepassey and

Grand Bank. Those plants now qualify for the Northern Cod Response Program and

Ramea doesn't. So now, in conclusion of the prayer of the petition, they are

calling upon Fishery Products International to change its decision to operate

fish plants that qualify for the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program

and reopen the Ramea fish plant so that the residents will have a means of

survival until after such time as the moratorium has been lifted.

What they are basically saying now is that they sat back and

let Fishery Products cut the work term in Ramea from thirty weeks a year, they

let them take the trawlers out of Ramea and put them into other plants, they let

them take the fish and put it into other plants to keep them open, to be good

neighbours, to keep the other plants open so that those people would qualify for

an extended notice period. Now, the irony of this whole situation is that Ramea,

which was the good neighbour, the one who sat back and didn't protest and didn't

cause any commotion, said: Okay, we will do this. They saw their work term cut

from at least thirty weeks a year to ten weeks a year and are now the ones who

are left out to fall through the cracks in this program.

They feel, Mr. Speaker, that indeed a grievance has been done

to the community of Ramea and the fish plant in Ramea. So they are asking now

that Fishery Products be directed to take the fish that they are going to use in

one of the plants that they plan to operate this year, one of the plants that

does qualify under the northern cod. I understand that the Fishermens' Union

were in Ramea and made an announcement that they would ask their workers in

those communities, the ones that are going to be open, to stand aside and let

this happen so that the people in Ramea would be given a chance to make a

living.

What they are asking is that Fishery Products be directed to

take the fish out of one of the plants that they are going to operate this year,

albeit Fortune or Marystown or wherever it is, process it in Ramea, let those

plants go on the northern cod because it is established that they do qualify for

the northern cod, and let Ramea be given a chance to carry on until such time as

the moratorium is lifted and we will see then what direction is going to happen,

and where the fishery is going to go in this Province after the moratorium is

lifted.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I point out that in the agreement

that was put out by Mr. Crosbie, one of the things on Page 6, one of the

criteria, the eligibility criteria, says that both fishermen and plant workers

may be deemed eligible for the program if they can demonstrate, through a

historical attachment to the 2J+3KL fishery before 1990, that they would have

met the eligibility criteria were it not for extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, on the strength of that I do not think there is

any doubt that there were extenuating circumstances. I do not think there was

any doubt that there was a historical connection to the northern cod before

1990; and for that reason I am asking for this House to support the petition of

the people of Ramea and give them a chance for a life until such time as the

moratorium is lifted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, and

Opposition House Leader.

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

I take pleasure in rising today to respond to the petition

put forward by the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir about the plight of the

people in Ramea - a very serious situation in which they find themselves.

No one can argue too much with what the member said. We all

know the history of Ramea, as I am sure most of us know the history of the south

coast, particularly those of us who were born and raised on the south coast. We

know the history of the south coast fishery, and we know what a turn of events

has taken place in our south coast fishery.

On the south coast of the Province we did not know what it

was not to work twelve months a year, I say to members in this Chamber. We did

not know what it was not to work twelve months of the year. We did not know what

it was to work three months and five months and six months and eight months. We

always worked twelve months. What has happened to us over the last ten or twelve

years is almost unbelievable, to see what has happened to our south coast

fishery and what has happened to our people.

People now are grateful to get their six months work or their

five months work - to get twenty weeks so they qualify for UI. You hear the sigh

of relief come out of them once they get that magical number of insurable weeks

earnings. What a change for a people who all of their lives worked twelve months

a year. They were very productive and contributed very much to the economy of

the Province and to this nation - and to see what has happened to them.

The member is so right about Ramea. To have the people of

Ramea now have to plead for someone to include them in a compensation package so

that they can put bread and butter on the table. It is a sad, sad reflection on

what has happened with the fisheries all around our coast, really. It is a sad

reflection.

I look at - the first Newfoundland community, I suppose, in

the deep-sea fishery was probably Burin; and they were the first ones to come

out, I say to the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. Burin was the first one shut

down by FPI, but were lucky enough to get the secondary processing plant.

Then it was the others. Then it was Grand Bank and Trepassey

and Gaultois, in that order. Now we see Ramea that seems to be finished with

regard to deep-sea.

The member has made some good points, and I totally support

the people of Ramea in their call to be included in the compensation package. If

they are not going to be included in this compensation package, it won't be long

before someone is going to have to include them in some kind of a compensation

package, whether you call it the Northern Cod Moratorium Benefits Package or

NCARP as we all call it now, but if they are not included in that, they are

going to have to be included in something else and a lot of other communities

like them around the southwest coast of this province. This is a very, very

serious situation.

Now the member went through some of the criteria that was

announced by Mr. Crosbie. Now to be designated as a plant under the program, I

think it was 10 per cent of the fish processed through the plant had to be from

the northern cod stocks. Then there was a minimum weeks requirement per year in

1990-91. I think that is probably where Ramea is in the difficulty. I am not

sure, but I am sure the member knows full well after probably just coming back

from there. It seems to be the number of weeks that the employees have worked

over the last couple of years, particularly this year, that they fall short on

the requirement of the criteria for the program. But there is no doubt, Mr.

Speaker, that this is an exceptional case. I just hope that the powers that be

certainly gives due consideration to the people of Ramea. We all know the

history, and I hope that there is due consideration given it.

It brings up the question of the need for other special

response for areas not covered by the Northern Cod Moratorium. We have a number

of failure areas in this province this year where people are not covered under

the Northern Cod Compensation Program. The big question is what is going to

happen to them? Will we see the minister there? Will the province be

participating in a Fisheries Emergency Response Program in those areas, a

cost-shared program hopefully with the feds? Because I know in my own area, just

like the Member for Ramea is here today speaking out on behalf of their

concerns, which he should and which I support, that right along that south coast

- I know in my own area I get calls every day: Is there going to be some kind of

program to help us, because this year I didn't catch enough fish to qualify for

UI, or our inshore fishermen didn't catch enough so I could get enough weeks

working in our plant to qualify for UI, so we have that all over the place.

I want to finish by saying to the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir that certainly I am pleased that he has brought this issue on the floor

of this Legislature. I totally support it, and I only hope that in the final

analysis there is a reconsideration to the plight of the people of Ramea, and

that indeed they are considered and compensated under the program.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, the Chair apologizes. I was remiss in welcoming a group of students.

I expect they are gone now, but we can welcome them in absentia. Please welcome

to the galleries today, twenty-four level III students from Garrigus Collegiate,

St. Lunaire and Griquet. It is too bad that these people came all the way from

St. Lunaire and Griquet and we didn't welcome them to the House. They were

accompanied by teachers, Mr. Brad Sheppard, and Mr. Ellis Pope. I am sure hon.

members would want to extend them the normal welcome in absentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the

petition so ably presented today by the hon. Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. I

commend the member for the interest he is taking in the problems in his

district, especially as it relates to the town of Ramea, and to a lesser extent

maybe Burgeo, and the effort that he has made in focusing public attention on

the problem.

Mr. Speaker, Ramea occupies a very unique position in the

troubled fishery. Unique in that from 1986 to 1989 inclusive, northern cod

constituted 22 per cent of the landings that were processed in Ramea. Twenty-two

per cent of the total put through that plant from 1986 to 1989 inclusive

constituted northern cod.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, because of a corporate

decision made by Fishery Products International and supported by the government

to land this northern cod elsewhere in 1990 and 1991, Ramea's participation in

the northern cod moratorium program is now being questioned. Of course that is

what led the hon. gentleman to present that petition today. That is quite

unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, based on that, the Premier and I have both made strong

representation to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans requesting him, in light

of the circumstances, to insure that Ramea would be included in the Northern cod

compensation area.

Mr. Victor Young, who is the Chief Executive Officer and

President of FPI, wrote Mr. Crosbie, as well, to the same effect back earlier

this summer. And, of course, on August 7, I wrote the minister supporting Mr.

Young's suggestion that Ramea be included. Then, on November 4, again the

Premier wrote Mr. Crosbie to the same effect. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that,

in the circumstance, the plant in Ramea deserves to be part of the Northern cod

moratorium.

There are a number of inequities in the present system as it

relates to the Northern cod moratorium areas. For example, in Anchor Point, a

plant that employs - how may people? -

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and fifty people.

MR. CARTER: - one hundred and fifty people - has been

excluded from the moratorium area. Yet just to the south of Anchor Point, in

Brig Bay, that plant is included, and on the other side of Anchor Point, in

Flower's Cove, that plant, too, is included in the Northern cod moratorium area.

So it makes one wonder sometimes what is the rationale, what is the criteria

that is being used by Fisheries and Oceans in determining what plants are

included and what plants are not included.

The answer, of course, to the Ramea problem - maybe it is not

a long-term answer, but certainly it is a short-term answer - would be to have

the Ramea plant and the workers in that plant included in the Northern cod

moratorium area. If that were so, then, of course, like other plants in the

Northern cod moratorium area, they would have a breathing spell in order for

them to take a new look at their plant and what, in fact, the future might hold

for it.

So, Mr. Speaker, the government has already put itself on

record in the strongest terms possible to ensure that Ramea will be included.

Now, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I think very unwisely, has decreed

that Ramea is not going to be included, as, of course, he decreed that Anchor

Point would not be a part of the Northern cod moratorium compensation package. I

think the minister is wrong. I think my friends opposite should make

representation to Mr. Crosbie, their political soul mate in Ottawa, and ask him

to give further consideration to the request coming from FPI, from the town, and

from the Province, that Ramea be included in the Northern cod compensation area.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And

Safety Act," carried. (Bill No. 53).

On motion, Bill No. 53 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Order 20, Bill No. 48, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 20, Bill No. 48.

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

Workers' Compensation Act". (Bill No. 48).

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is

always a pleasure to rise in the Legislature, although, with the particular

topic we are dealing with today there isn't a great deal of pleasure in terms of

some of the things that are contained in this bill. Because there are some very

tough measures involved here that I'll spend some time in the next period of

time spelling out for the hon. members assembled.

While there's no great pleasure attached to it, it certainly

is something that we, on this side of the House, see as a necessary duty that

has to be performed. To put it into context, before I move into some of the

specifics of the bill, I point out that since the government has changed in 1989

there have been a number of items of pressing concern that have had to be dealt

with.

The accumulated debt over the years has placed some

continuing strain on the public treasury, and there was further reference to

that here again today.

The pension funds were discovered to be in a state of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members again about the noise level

here. The Chair doesn't want to intervene, or interfere with the person

speaking, other than to say that the Chair finds it noisy. I want hon. members

to know that it would help the Chair to know, if hon. members were uncomfortable

when they are speaking, because I don't know whether the noise level is making

members uncomfortable. I just happen to hear it. It might not be uncomfortable

at all. Hon. members might be proceeding very well under the circumstances, but

I inform hon. members that if they do find it difficult, to ask the Chair to ask

for order. Then, of course, hon. members have to give that order.

Under the acoustic system that we have here, the Chair might

be noticing the noise level and hon. members not, so I just want to make it

straight to hon. members here that if they are finding it difficult to speak,

then, of course, they can ask at any time for order, and hon. members are

obligated to give that order, and the Chair is obligated to call for it.

The hon. the minister may continue.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the intervention, but I was just into

some preliminary remarks.

I understand the gravity of the matters in this bill before

us, that as we get into the actual substance of the matter relating to workers'

compensation, if members would choose voluntarily to pay some considerable

attention - because I know that in discussion with members assembled, they have

taken this matter very seriously, and they are looking forward to participating

in this debate over the next few days and/or weeks.

I was mentioning, however, by way of introduction, that upon

assuming office, this administration found, as well, that the publicly

administered pension funds in the Province were in some peril, and that certain

actions had to be taken. We are at a point now, I think, where everyone, the

public servants affected, all of the different groups that are expecting a

pension in years to come, agree that the changes that were made were necessary

changes, and that for the long-term viability of those funds, they have seemed

to be definitely pointed in the right direction. I think the continuing reports

to the Legislature on an annual basis show that to be the fact.

However, in the early days of those changes there was great

concern because they were the kinds of decisions and kinds of approaches that

the members opposite would not take in the last days of their Administration. As

a matter of fact, I think the public record clearly states that the Premier of

the day resigned rather than deal with some of the issues that he and his

Administration had before them. He quit office instead of tackling the

difficulties that arose, and trying to come forward with some practical

solutions to the problems, bailing out when the best leadership was needed.

Not to overplay the issue, but the protection for injured

workers in the Province came to our attention to have fallen into that category.

It is in that context that I would like to spell out for members today, Mr.

Speaker - and I have been doing this on occasion now for the public - the kinds

of changes that we are proposing, and why we feel it absolutely necessary to do

these things.

There is no doubt that the injured workers' fund,

administered through the Workers' Compensation Commission, is in serious

financial trouble. Everyone who has asked for it has had access to the financial

statements and the documents at the Commission, and it is clearly and readily

evident that two things are true: that is, that in the last couple of years, in

particular, the annual monies collected by the Commission, through their

assessment process, have not paid for annual expenditures of both injury claims

and administration, and they have had to dip into reserve funds that had been

put aside to pay for future costs of injuries that people know are going to last

for years, and from which injured workers are expecting to collect benefits in

the years to come - much as they expect to collect a pension when their time

comes.

The real disaster is in the fact that once that occurs, not

only is that reserve fund to provide for future injuries not growing - it is

diminishing. The projections provided to the government, to members of the

Opposition and to interested parties, indicated that if the trend of the last

two fiscal years, as reported here in annual reports, continued, that the

Workers' Compensation Commission in our Province would be bankrupt in 1996, and

there would be absolutely no ability to pay injured workers in a current year or

in the future - someone who was injured and was going to be long term, expecting

some provision, some comfort, some protection.

Further to that, we asked them to look at it and say: Well,

that sounds very serious, and it is obviously distressing and kind of desperate,

but is there any other scenario that might prevail? They said: the last couple

or three years have been the worst experience for the Commission because of the

economic times, because of the fact that companies are closing, there are less

contributors, all of this, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the number of

claimants in the last couple of years has been diminishing, that there have been

fewer new injuries reported during that same period of time than there were,

say, over a ten-year period before that.

So we said: even if we could look at a rosier picture of the

previous decade, what would happen to the finances of the Commission? And we

were guaranteed in all the assessments that were done that even if the best

possible scenario applied - that if the number of accidents continued to reduce

and that the current economic condition were to pass and become brighter - this

plan was doomed with the current rates and so on that are involved in it. It was

doomed that it could last no longer than the year 2002, at the absolute outside.

So we are looking at a scenario where, if the experience of

the last couple of years were to prevail - which I think the indications are

today that that's more likely than not, something along similar lines - than

this whole protection mechanism would be defunct, bankrupt, totally useless to

anybody in four years time. Even if there were a great turn around in the

Province, it was still going to go bankrupt if we didn't make major changes. It

would just take a little longer.

So with that kind of information, in all of our

deliberations, we felt that we could not risk losing the protections available

to injured workers in the Province and we had to take the types of necessary

changes and the necessary steps to ensure that there was going to be a

protection system in place in the Province for injured workers for the long

term. It is from that background and on that premise that I will introduce the

things we are outlining in Bill No. 48, which is before the Legislature, "An Act

To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act."

I will point out, as well, that there is a statutory

requirement in the Workers' Compensation Act that every five years the whole

system has to be reviewed, anyway. Because people understand that, over time,

circumstances change and certain aspects of protection for injured workers need

to be adjusted. To make sure that it didn't happen on an ad hoc basis or didn't

get ignored, there is a statutory requirement that it be reviewed at least once

every five years.

With the information that we had available to us upon

assuming office in 1989, it was clear that we couldn't wait for that five years

and we ordered, through the minister of the day, who is now the hon. the

Minister of Environment and Lands, that that review happen a year earlier. It

was initiated in December, 1990, even though it wasn't required under the Act

until 1991. We felt that we had to have it looked at, and the Statutory Review

Committee was put in place, which held hearings throughout the Province - all of

the Island and Labrador - and everyone who had some issue he wanted to bring

forward in terms of how the Workers' Compensation system was functioning in the

Province, was provided an opportunity to do so before the Statutory Review

Committee.

That committee reported just about a year ago now, in

October. Then we went further with the consultation. They came in with some

forty-two recommendations on a wide range of things. Several of them are already

being acted upon, because they didn't require any legislative provision. They

could be done. I will spell that out in just a few minutes. Other require

legislative approval to make the changes, which is why this bill is here before

the House. I will go through them in some detail in the time available to me.

Upon receiving the recommendations of the Statutory Review

Committee, I again initiated a consultation process with all the stakeholders

and all the affected groups. I indicated to them that they had had an

opportunity to have input in the statutory review, but they had not had an

opportunity to say what they thought about the recommendations of the Review

Committee. Normally, when that kind of process was followed in the past, two

things happened. Firstly, the groups were not given an opportunity to deal with

the recommendations. It was done directly by the Cabinet of the day without

further consultation. Secondly, history has shown that the majority of them were

left unattended to. Like many reports they were just put on the shelf to gather

dust, and it was hoped that they would go away.

We decided to give everybody an opportunity to look at the

recommendations and talk to us in the government about whether they thought the

directions pointed out by the Statutory Review Committee had merit or not.

Then, on July 2, after that consultation process, we

announced publicly the intent and the direction in which the government planned

to go, and provided opportunities since then for again stakeholders, affected

individuals and groups to come forward and look at their concerns or point out

what their concerns would be. Granted, the finality of it, in terms of the

actual wording, the legal wording of the change, the bill, that which required

legislative change, was not available until a couple of days ago, and was tabled

here in this House on Tuesday before we closed in honour of Remembrance Day.

There is still opportunity for individuals and groups and so

on to come and talk to us about the actual wording. The Bill, the wording, is

available to anybody. If they can point out to us, as has happened at various

stages before, that we've missed something or that the intent that we've spelled

out to the public is not covered by this Act, we can still have time to

reconsider. But we've done a lot of work in a year. We think that this Bill 48

which I'll talk about today for a little while is true to what we have said are

the directions of government publicly, and will go a long way toward making sure

that the Workers' Compensation system is here for the long-term, viable, and

making sure that there is some level of protection for injured workers in the

Province.

I point out, as well, Mr. Speaker, that in the very beginning

of this debate, we went back to one of the basic premises as to: since there was

going to be a review, should there be a Workers' Compensation system in the

Province? Because the other option, of course, is to go back and have individual

employers provide insurance and protection for their workers. On balance, in

examining that option, it was clearly evident to us that was not desirable. It

left the workers of the Province open to a wide range of different protections

and coverages. It left the employers of the Province open to escalating costs.

There are some who still would argue that they think they can get insurance more

cheaply than if they're in the Workers' Compensation system and paying

assessments. They can, in some instances, but it would also be cheap insurance,

and it would cover very little, in terms of the types of things that are covered

now. On balance we felt that it was clear that we should maintain the same as

they do in every other province in Canada, and in almost every state in the

United States, to commit to having a workers' compensation no-fault protection

system in place for injured workers.

Then we looked at the approaches that were to be taken. A

number of them obviously had to do with those things that would have direct and

immediate impact on the funding at the Commission, itself, to make sure that it

was going to be a stand-alone, viable financial entity. A number of those I will

spell out in the next few minutes.

Others had to deal with representations and respond to

representations that all of us agreed with from those people who represent

workers in the Province - through the Federation of Labour, the nurses' union,

the teachers' association, and so on - which indicated that one of the real

thrusts in our approach had to be a commitment to be making sure that there were

safer workplaces; That you shouldn't just deal with the money paid out and paid

in, in terms of assessments and claims, but that somebody had to be serious

about trying to make sure that every employer and employee in the Province gets

serious about trying to reduce and minimize, if not eliminate altogether, lost

time, accidents, and injuries arising from duties in the workplace.

So we looked at, on balance, a four-pronged approach, if I

might put it that way, to the whole problem. The first one, which is already

being actioned, because it didn't need legislative authority to do so, was

increased emphasis on occupational health and safety. Because everyone involved

in the discussions bought clearly into that argument and understood it to make

sense on face value. It was common sense. While I indicated earlier the numbers

of accidents have declined in the last couple of years, somebody is doing a good

job. Because while part of the decline can be attributed to a decline in the

number of people working, the decline in accidents is greater than that. So

somebody is doing something right already in terms of paying attention to

matters at the workplace. There are less accidents being reported, in each of

the last two years and so far this year, for ten months now than there was in

the previous year. So it is going in the right direction, and it is going in the

right direction for more reason than just the fact that there is an economic

downturn and maybe less activity in the workplace. Somebody is doing something

right.

Within the department itself, in the occupational health and

safety division, it was only about two weeks ago that I was at a session where I

was welcoming the six new staff members who will operate in the occupational

health and safety division, to do their two things. Number one is to encourage

employers and employees jointly to make sure that they are aware of, and doing

everything possible to respect regulations aimed at a safe workplace; and

secondly, when violations are found, to enforce the law.

There are six of them currently added to the staff. Three of

them will be located here in the St. John's area. One will operate out of the

office in Grand Falls - Windsor and cover central Newfoundland as additional

staff, and two will operate out of the Corner Brook office and provide

additional services on the west coast and the Northern Peninsula of the Island

part of the Province.

That action was taken right away. It was the first thing that

we could do. It was the first thing that we did, and everybody agreed that there

had to be an increased emphasis on occupational health and safety in the

workplace.

The second thing that became clear in the statutory review in

all of our study was that there were some organizational difficulties at the

commission itself in terms of dealing with claimants and delivering their

programs. I am sure that every single member in this Legislature - bar none -

has had calls from constituents who have had difficulty trying to sort their way

through what they find to be a bit of a bureaucratic maze at the Workers'

Compensation Commission.

We dealt with the staff at the commission. They brought in

outside consultants to look at a structural review - an organizational review.

They met themselves, and they acknowledged that they too could probably do some

things a little better. They are already in the process because that did not

require legislative authority to change. They are in the process of reorganizing

delivery within the system, and the intent is clearly this: They have made some

changes. They are implementing others now, even as we are here debating this

bill in the Legislature, but the intent is to try and make sure that an injured

worker who makes contact with the Workers' Compensation Commission is then

tagged to that person so that you have much better and more expedient claims

management, rather than getting bounced from one

section to the other.

They do not have all the changes in place yet, because

everybody here too can relate to somebody saying: I was in on temporary earnings

lost; then I was put on medical for awhile; then I went over in rehab, and every

time this happened my file changed and I got a new person. It is frustrating. I

start over again and I get cut off and so on.

Those kinds of things are being addressed, and they recognize

that when they are finished their organizational changes at the commission, they

should be able to eliminate most of that frustration, because it was also

pointed out to them by the outside consulting firm that it may be that those

kinds of things, too, might have been contributing to some injured workers being

frustrated and maybe even have to spend longer time on claim than was necessary;

and that some people were in the position where they were trying to get

permission to go back to work and, because they were delayed at the commission,

they ended up being in receipt of benefits longer than was necessary and so on.

They are also making the necessary approaches, in

consultation with the medical community, to try and make sure that access to

medical services, both in diagnosis and treatment for physiotherapy and the

like, is expedited so that injured workers can access the kind of treatment and

diagnosis that they need so that they can spend less time trying to recuperate,

and be less frustrated in their own efforts to try to get back to work as soon

as possible.

So those two types of things are ongoing, Mr. Speaker, and

they do not need any authority from this Legislature for them to happen, and

they are proceeding even today.

There is one other issue that I want to mention before I look

at the specifics of Bill 48, and that is that it came to our attention as well,

that just like any system whereby a benefit is paid to some people, over a

period of time from when it is first established, as it grows and different

things come to the attention of the system, the criteria for entry into the

system changes significantly. Workers' compensation systems have been in place

in North America since the turn of the century. It has been in Newfoundland

since 1953, in some form or other, and the basic rules of the system are that

there is no fault to be ascribed to anybody. That would be except if there is an

accident, it is at the workplace and it is an accident that was actually caused

and arising out of the duties that the person was expected to perform at the

workplace. So the two criteria in terms of being recognized as a compensable

injury would be that the injury happened in a particular location, being the

work site the workplace, and also that the injury occurred as a result of

performing a duty that was required as part of your work.

That has been fairly consistently applied for the almost

forty years that the system has been in place in our Province, but in our

Province and in other jurisdictions throughout the country and throughout North

America, a number of twists have come into that entitlement, that basic

entitlement legislation, based on appeals to cases, court decisions and

decisions made with respect to individual cases over the years. Most people now

agree that there are a number of different things entering into that situation

where maybe people are accessing the system today, somewhat beyond the

parameters of what it was designed to be in the first place, and comparisons are

made to such things as the unemployment insurance system which has changed

drastically over the years. It is used and utilized completely differently now

than when it was first introduced and those types of things.

This system is used significantly differently now than when

it was first introduced and as a result of that there are compounding pressures

on the financing of it, because the arrangements for financing have not changed

significantly from the point in time when they were financed to deal with these

two basic premises. Now you have a wider range of things occurring and there

have not been adjustments made in the financing of it so there is a strain on

the financial capability of the system to survive.

We have asked, Mr. Speaker, that the commission undertake,

through some kind of a study group, a major study into the whole entitlement

issue and that we work back to the basic definition of workers' compensation and

what is defined to be a compensable injury to see how far it has been expanded

over the years and whether or not it is time to redefine it in language that

makes sense and fits the case in the 1990s and into the next century. We are

trying to make sure that there is a system here that fits today and lasts into

the foreseeable future, and I just might point out by way of example a couple of

things so people will know what I am talking about.

The one that causes probably the greatest concern in terms of

the capability of any insurance system to fund it at this point in time is

stress, and presently there are cases being determined in other jurisdictions in

our country where workplace stress is being awarded as being compensable under

the workers' compensation system. So it is being deemed to be an injury arising

from your duties at the workplace and many people are very concerned that

because stress is fairly prevalent and it is more prevalent today than it was

twenty years ago, because of the changing times and circumstances and the

society and the work environment in which we operate no one argues that, but

whether it should be compensable or whether it was ever even thought of or

dreamed of, in terms of the original definition and the original funding

mechanisms to fund injury at the workplace, is something else.

Some provinces have dealt with it by saying that stress will

be compensable provided the stress is the result of a traumatic incident; so

that if there was an accident or some tragedy and you are stressed as a result

of that, then that would be compensable because it is understood that that

stress would be relieved in fairly short order. But there are many people today

who are stressed because of their work environment, who could be compensable for

undetermined amounts of time, and there is a great fear that if stress generally

becomes one of the things under which entitlement is granted that there might

never be enough money in any compensation system anywhere to pay for it, if it

becomes generally acceptable in a compensation system.

So because those types of things are relevant in the '90s and

will be with us for awhile, we felt it was very, very necessary to go back to

the basics again, and have a study done of the whole definition of compensable

injury and the basis on which an injured worker gets entitled to compensation

under the system and that will be in the process very soon. I understand that

they are about to make some kind of proposal calls to have someone do this type

of study in a major way and to point out to all of us, the kinds of things that

might need to be done in terms of the basic access to a workers' compensation

system.

Then, Mr. Speaker, with those three things covered there was

one other component that we dealt with lastly but we could not avoid, and that

was the actual finances at the Commission itself. We found ourselves with two

sets of information. One being that our assessments for the employers - because

I should point out again for the record, because many of the people who contact

me individually don't understand the clear distinction. There are no taxpayers'

dollars in workers' compensation system. There are no employee contributions. It

is a system by its very design, since 1953 in the Province, that is paid for by

the employers, because of the fact that the employers are then taken off the

hook in terms of anybody taking them to court and suing them because they're

responsible for an injury or an accident at the workplace. So the trade-off is

clear in the basic underpinnings of the system.

The assessments over a period of time in our Province have

been at the point now where they are the second highest in the country. On a

daily basis you will hear any number of employers complaining that it's one of

the great costs of doing business - some people suggesting that they should stop

paying, and so on. Thankfully, most people ignore those types of irresponsible

and irrational approaches to solving a serious problem. We've recognised that

regardless of what else is done, the assessments in this Province in all

likelihood will have to continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

Hopefully, they won't be exorbitant increases. In our neighbouring province of

Nova Scotia a week or so ago they announced publicly, for the first time, that

their unfunded liability had now reached $400 million, and that they were going

to increase every category, regardless of experience, by 15 per cent for next

year. That was only to cover current year costs. They were saying that would

make no contribution whatsoever to the unfunded liability. It was only hoped

that it might cover current year costs. So they had to increase 15 per cent.

Last year in our Province, to put that into context, the

Workers' Compensation Commission, which has that responsibility to do the rate

assessment procedure and so on, increased every category in Newfoundland and

Labrador by 8 per cent. That followed increases in double-digits for two or

three years before that, and got us in a position where we are the second

highest in the country.

We also have a situation where our unfunded liability for

future costs that we know will be incurred because of people who are injured now

and will be expecting payments for the long term has reached $160 million in our

Province. Four hundred million in Nova Scotia. Several other provinces in the

country are now in the process of disclosing the difficulties that they're

experiencing with workers' compensation and spelling out in their provinces what

their approach is to try and deal with the problem.

We decided again that on balance you could not solve all the

financial problems of the Commission just by increasing assessments. The

assessments might have to double or treble in almost every category, and that

was just not a plausible type of thing to even consider. Understand, there will

be some increases, but they couldn't be of that magnitude, because it may even

then be part of the impetus, but it might cause some businesses to close their

doors, along with other difficulties they have and cost in running a business.

We don't need any other employers closing in Newfoundland and Labrador for any

reason, let alone it be this one.

So the balance was to look at putting employers on notice

that there are likely to be increases. The new board of the Commission, which

was announced last week, one of the first duties that they will take upon

themselves at this point in the year is to set the new assessment rates for next

year. They like to do that around this time of the year so they can notify the

employers, because they have to set their budgets, and most of them work on a

calendar year, January to December, rather than the fiscal year of government.

They need to know what their assessment rates are going to be so that they can

plan their budgets for next year. They'd like to know now. The board of the

Commission will try to complete that process as soon as possible and get the

information to them within a month or so, so that they can have it available to

them as they plan for next year.

With the assessments increasing it was determined, though the

use of the actuaries who advise the government in all of this work, that this

was the first serious review as well of the benefit entitlements since the

changes that occurred in 1984. That this system could not sustain - this wage

loss system - could not sustain a 90 per cent of net benefit level on an ongoing

basis, even with increasing assessments.

If I might spend just a minute or two on that, Mr. Speaker,

to clarify. Prior to 1984 compensation was based on the severity of the injury.

I think the vernacular that was used, that many members here and stakeholders

would be familiar with, is that the system was based on a meat chart. That

depending on how seriously you were injured or maimed, that determined how much

compensation you got. Minor injuries, very small compensation; major injuries,

more compensation, up to certain maximums. In 1984 the system in Newfoundland

changed, as it did across most of the country, to remove itself from that to a

wage loss system. So that it didn't depend upon the severity of the injury, it

would depend upon your ability to earn income. If that ability was taken away

from you then the Commission would try to replace your income. So it changed

from the previous system to a wage loss.

The number picked across the country - the previous number

used to be 75 per cent of gross. That you could get a certain amount of money

depending upon the severity of the injury up to 75 per cent of your gross pay.

The new system said: let's move from that altogether and we will go to 90 per

cent of net. So you would take out your Canada Pension, your Unemployment

Insurance, and so on, and then 90 per cent of that would be paid as a wage loss

to the person for the period and duration of their injury.

That notion as to whether or not 90 per cent - that was their

best guess in 1984 as the number that made sense, didn't unnecessarily penalise

or burden the injured worker, could be sustained and would be able to maintain

into the future. The first serious assessment as to whether or not that number

could be sustained was done in the last year and a half. The actuaries who

looked at that - not only here, but in other provinces in the country - have

indicated to the various governments, ourselves included, that that number is

too high, and that you'd have to look at across the board major increases in

assessment for every category for the foreseeable future in order to maintain 90

per cent. That the type of levels that are probably maintainable on an ongoing

basis is closer to 80 per cent. Eighty per cent of net pay.

Recognising as well that in some situations there are some

certain tax benefits available to the injured worker, but only for the first

number of weeks - if you go into any kind of extended injury, that disappears.

There's no doubt in anybody's mind that an injured worker, particularly anyone

who's injured for a long period of time, if they have to depend only on the

workers' compensation system, will experience some financial difficulty and

financial loss. Some of that has been picked up by other things that have been

negotiated over the years, and I will address that before I finish today as

well.

On balance again then we felt we had to look at the

assessment side and the benefit side, and the changes in respect to that are

spelled out in Bill 48, in this Act.

I'll get to that when I get to the relevant sections in the

Act, which are basically clauses 15, 16 and so on. What I would like to do now

for the next little while is to walk through the explanatory notes with the

members assembled, and point out the impact of the changes under each heading.

So that you'll see the full series of changes that are outlined here that need

legislative approval to give them cause and effect.

Clause 1 arose as a result of review by the board, and this

is a completion of the changes in terms of language that's needed to be adjusted

since the changes in 1984. Because the idea of "disability" and so on is not so

much a functioning word now as "impairment" and so on. The idea of disability

and impairment have to be properly defined in terms of how it's applied in the

Act now. These will be done. The deletion of the word "annual" from subparagraph

2(v)(iii) refers to looking at the reports from Revenue Canada, which are more

useful to the Commission if they can be used as they're issued, every four

months or six months, rather than annually. Those are a couple of housekeeping

changes.

Clause 2 is here and gives affect to changing the board of

the Commission. The current legislation calls for a board of up to eleven. We

indicated, and went through it with all the stakeholders, that we felt that a

board of seven could appropriately function. We are operating on the basis that

we believe that this move to a board of seven has general consensus as being a

move in the right direction, even though some people would like to see a(???)

slightly different representation of the seven who are now appointed. But the

notion of moving from eleven to seven has general acceptance as we understand

it.

The second clause also adds the assistant deputy minister

with responsibility for occupational health and safety as an ex officio member

of that board, along with the chief executive officer of the board, and the

chairperson of the workers' compensation appeal tribunal. So it would be seven

voting members who are now appointed and these three ex officio members who will

sit in on the board meetings.

Clause 2(3) repeals subsection 4(5) because that made

reference to a Vice-Chair, which is in the current act, which would no longer be

designated in the legislation that is before us. We will go with a board of

seven, with a Chair named, and one of the board members will act as Chair in the

absence of the Chair on any occasion.

Clause 3 points out that it is our intent, clearly, to look

at the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer of the board - the process

that we are going through right now - because the former Chief Executive

Officer, Mr. Mitchell, has recently been reassigned and reappointed as the Chief

Electoral Officer for the Province as of October 19. There is a gentleman in the

acting capacity now, and we are in the process of soliciting indications of

interest in people who would like to take on the challenge as Chief Executive

Officer of the commission. But once this Chief Executive Officer is put in

place, through a Cabinet appointment, future such appointments would be done

with the work being done by the board of the commission itself to find an

appropriate Chief Executive Officer, subject to prior approval of the Cabinet.

Clause 4 is a housekeeping matter. It indicates that once

expenses are approved by the board, they do not have to come to Cabinet to get

any approval for them. That was a clause, actually, that had some merit and

worth up to several years ago, and is no longer necessary. It was placed there

previously to restrain the board of the commission from running off and

expending any number of millions of dollars on buildings and property without

the approval of Cabinet, but with the current structure and facilities in place

it is deemed to be no longer necessary.

Clause 5 allows the board of the commission, until the first

of June, to submit its annual report, instead of the first of April, as

previously, to give them a bit of extra time to do a proper report for tabling

in the Legislature and public release.

Clauses 6 and 7(1) talk about impairment and so on, and they

reflect the changes that have been in place since 1984, whereby there is now a

system of lump sum payments for partial and functional impairment versus the old

system that some people are still under, of partial permanent disability

pensions that people injured pre 1984 still receive.

A very positive move in Clause 7(2), to put some pressure

again, and the onus, on the commission - that if, in fact, payments to a

claimant are delayed beyond 30 days, due to some kind of administrative

difficulty at the commission, -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Thursday, and it being 4:00 p.m., I must inform hon.

members as to the topics for debate at 4:30, the motion to adjourn.

The first one is submitted by the Member for Ferryland, who

states his dissatisfaction with the response to a question given him by the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, related to reduction in MOG

grants.

The second one is submitted by the Member for St. John's

East, who states his dissatisfaction with answers given by the Minister of

Education to questions related to student aid.

The third one, submitted by the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, states his dissatisfaction given by the Minister of Social Services re

front-line workers.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was pointing out that in Clause 7(2), if there is some

negligence on the part of the commission itself in terms of getting the proper

compensation, the proper monies owed to a claimant, then the commission must pay

the monies owed, plus interest. So we are hoping that will be a point to

guarantee that the commission staff exercise proper diligence in processing

claims.

Clause 8 looks at

Section 44 and removes statutory bar and

provides that the person can act against liability insurance covered in the case

of automobiles. It is a significant change.

Clause 9(1) allows action to be taken against a third party,

and an option to be exercised by the injured claimant within six months. These

are two significant changes in terms of looking at other sources whereby payment

can be properly received for the injured worker, other than having to rely only

on the workers' compensation system.

Clause 10 is also a positive change, Mr. Speaker, in the

sense that permanent functional impairment lump sum payments can now be paid

even if the person does not lose any time at work. Previously, a person would

have to lose at least one day on the job in order to be considered for a

permanent functional impairment, and the tie into loss of earnings is now

removed, so that if a person unfortunately becomes permanently functionally

impaired to any degree, even though they do not lose the full day at work

because of it, they can get the entitlement to the permanent functional

impairment award.

Clause 11, says that the compensation will be paid and

adjusted using the CPI index on a yearly basis for those categories of claimants

who are entitled to indexation.

Clause 12, is a positive change in the sense that it removes

a current provision that says: that if a surviving spouse remarries, they lose

their entitlement to any dependency coverage from Workers' Compensation. That is

being removed as it is seen to be in violation of the Charter of Rights, and

there will be no tie in to remarriage if there is an entitlement under the act

from this commission, it will continue.

Clause 13, Mr. Speaker, is also a positive change in that,

currently dependents are paid up to the age of sixteen, that will move to the

age of eighteen to reflect current school-leaving ages versus what it previously

was in the old act.

Clause 14 (1), again is an '84 clean-up in deleting

references to disfigurement and using references to impairment, which is the

currently operative language used at the commission. The same thing in 14 (2),

Mr. Speaker.

And then Clause 15, spells out in the act, the new benefits

that will be available to injured workers, and it spells it out, Mr. Speaker, in

three different categories because there are three different categories to be

dealt with.

First of all, if we look at the actual words in Clause 15 in

the bill, it points out that after December 31st 1992, a certain set of

circumstances will prevail and those circumstances prevail for all workers

injured after that date, so these would be new injuries occurring after December

31st, and the rate for those newly injured workers would be 75 per cent for the

first thirty-nine weeks and then moving up to 80 per cent if the person is still

on claim and injured and unable to return to work after thirty-nine continuous

weeks.

The reference to the thirty-nine weeks is new and the change

in entitlement, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with the kinds of change that are

about to occur in New Brunswick and also in Manitoba along the same lines, that

the thirty-nine weeks from the actuarial and from the accounting point of view

is the maximum period of time under any set of circumstances where there can be

any kind of a tax impact or tax benefit for any injured worker in any category.

Beyond that period of time, it diminishes to a negligible and a zero

consideration factor, but in the first thirty-nine weeks of any injury it can be

shown in most categories of injury, that the non-taxable, the tax-free 90 per

cent with any taxes that may have been paid previously in the year, can actually

give a benefit above 75 per cent and closer to 80 per cent, and the actuaries

indicate to us that in all categories of injuries and in all circumstances, the

75 per cent in the first thirty-nine weeks will probably indicate or equate to a

benefit of 80 or 81 per cent where there are taxes being deducted.

In the second part of Clause 15, Mr. Speaker, it points out

that for workers who are injured prior to January 1st '93, those who are already

on compensation at the time of the change, if they have been on the system for

less than thirty-nine weeks, they too will be reduced to 75 per cent of their

net pay versus the 90 that they would have been on before and the expectation in

our analysis of the current bank of claimants that are on file at the

commission, is that there could be as many as 1,500 currently receiving benefits

from the workers' compensation system, whose cheques from the commission could

be reduced by 15 per cent, from 90 per cent to 75 per cent and that would be a

category of workers who were injured prior to December 31st and have been on

claim for less than thirty-nine weeks.

Any of those who were injured prior to December 31 of this

year, Mr. Speaker, and had been injured and had been on claim for thirty-nine

continuous weeks or more, will be maintained at the 90 per cent level with no

reduction in benefits. So the intention clearly is for those people, who have

been long-term injured claimants, to suffer no reduction of benefit from

compensation and to be maintained at 90 per cent.

Two other provisions relating to that, because those people

then fall into two categories, as well - some of those longer-term injured

workers, Mr. Speaker, are in a category where they do not have any indexing

applicable to their benefit and, in that case, they will be maintained at 90 per

cent for all of the next year, the fiscal year for the commission which is

January 1, 1993 to the end of December, 1993. Then beginning January 1, 1994, if

they are still on claim for another full fifty-two weeks, which means they would

have then been on claim for at least ninety-one weeks, if they are not, at that

point in time, moved to any different category that provides indexing they will

be reduced at the rate of 2.5 per cent a year until the 90 per cent benefit

becomes the equivalent of 80 per cent over a period of four years, five years

counting the first year in which they will remain at 90 per cent.

So the hope and expectation, Mr. Speaker - and this will be

reviewed from time to time - is that the workers in that category, if they are

already on claim for thirty-nine weeks or more and if they are going to be on

claim for another full year, by that time they, in all likelihood, would

probably move to a category that will enable them to have indexing applied to

their claim. If that is the case, if there is indexing applied to their claim at

that point in time, they will then move to a new category which is referenced in

Section 74 which is Clause 16, Mr. Speaker, whereby the group that has indexing

applied will be frozen at 90 per cent but will not have the indexing applied to

them until the benefits that they will forego provide for the equivalent of the

90 per cent to move down to 80 per cent. So they will not see any reduction in

their cheques, Mr. Speaker, but neither will they see any increase until the

current 90 per cent benefit becomes the equivalent of an 80 per cent benefit.

Because, over time, we are committed to a process that, in the best information

available to us, can sustain an 80 per cent benefit for injured workers for the

long term.

The reason we have to move to 75 per cent for the initial

injuries is so that we can maintain some money in the fund to make sure that we

red circle the people who need to be maintained at 90 per cent for a longer

period of time. The monies taken off one end will be used to maintain the

longer-term injuries and claimants who are already beyond thirty-nine weeks and

may be on the system for life. So those types of considerations are there.

In Clause 19, Mr. Speaker, it then says that any monies

received under the Canada Pension Plan will be considered earnings and wil