June 16,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 16

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of all hon. members I am very pleased to welcome to

the Speaker's Gallery the Ambassador of France to Canada His Excellency Alfred

Seifer - Gaillardin and the Consul General of Canada with responsibility for the

Atlantic Provinces, Monsieur Grard Perrolet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am also pleased on behalf of hon. members

to welcome to the public galleries of the House of Assembly thirty-five students

and two teachers, Mr. Lester Green and Scott Collins from Bayview Heights

Academy, Gambo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. We all

realize that conservation of our fish stocks of all species is a main priority

and in view of the pressure on the survival rate of many species I wonder if the

Minister of Fisheries has any concerns about the method that is being used in

the Province now to extract the roe from the lumpfish species. It is a very

lucrative fishery that has really taken off in the last few years. I know in my

own area of the Province it has really meant the difference to fishermen and to

some plant workers. It is what has kept them alive the last few years with the

downturn in our groundfish stocks. I am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries

has any concern about the way this fish is harvested and particularly the way

the roe is removed? Really what we are doing is killing the fish. I am wondering

if the minister has any concerns about that or if his department is taking any

action on this?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I think most people who watch

the process being performed would have some concern because there is a big

demand now for lumpfish roe. It demands a high price in the marketplace and

consequently there is a lot of pressure put on that resource. Yes, I am

concerned about it. I understand people are looking at ways and means of maybe

extracting the roe without killing the fish. I do not know what success they

have had but my department has been engaged in certain aspects of that study and

it is something that we will certainly have to address.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Opposition House

Leader.

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

The minister is correct and I want to say to him that we

really cannot afford to eliminate another species looking at what has happened

to all our fish stocks. My information is, I think, Norway has developed a

technology where they can remove the roe from the fish and return it back to the

sea to reproduce again. Is the minister's department actively looking at this

concept? Has he appointed a committee or has there been any activity whatsoever

to pursue this new technology to keep this fish alive in the waters and to

reproduce. Can the minister explain that to us? I guess really what I am asking

is: are we just paying lip service to this again or are we sincere about trying

to keep this fishery alive in the Province?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not just paying lip

service, like I said a moment ago we are very much aware and concerned. We are

aware that some countries, and I believe it is Norway, either they have

developed a method whereby the fish can continue to live after the roe has been

extracted or they are working on that kind of process. My department is also,

Mr. Speaker, giving some serious thought to it. I will get the details if the

hon. member wants me to, Mr. Speaker, and maybe tomorrow I will give the House

an update as to precisely what is happening both with respect to the marine

institute, my department and maybe the University in terms of dealing with that

problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the

minister it is another situation where I think we have to take fairly quick

action. We cannot wait for another three or four years until we get some kind of

report brought back to the House to deal with this. I would like to ask the

minister, if in his investigation he finds that indeed this technology is

working elsewhere, would he and the government consider some form of assistance

to fishermen to enable them to purchase the technology and to carry it out so

that we can protect this fishery for the long-term benefit of fishermen and fish

plant workers? Would he consider either a provincial government initiative or

would he be interested in entering into some kind of provincial/federal

initiative? What I am saying to the minister is that something has to be done

about this or we are going to eliminate another very important fishery. It is

becoming increasingly more important when you look at what has happened to our

codfish stocks and our flatfish stocks. These kinds of fisheries have to be

preserved and we need to take quick action or very soon we are going to find

ourselves in the same state as we find ourselves in with the cod and the

flounder.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am not able at this point in

time to say what assistance, if any, would be available. I can only tell the

hon. gentleman that if and when it is found, there is a method whereby lumpfish

can survive after the lumproe is removed then we will be very interested in

looking at it and working with fishermen to ensure that they take advantage of

it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is

directed to the Minister responsible for Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, since 1989 Newfoundlander's and Labradorian's

have been hit extremely hard with increases in electrical rates in the Province.

It comes primarily from doing away with the $30 million subsidy on the PDD

system and the 1 per cent surcharge to float Newfoundland Hydro's bonds back in

the Budget of 1989. But to add insult to injury, Mr. Speaker, the utilities in

the Province have been installing demand meters on churches, senior citizens

homes, fire halls, all non-profit organizations in the Province, Mr. Speaker. Is

the minister aware of the problem, and what action does he plan to take to

relieve the burden placed on those organizations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the procedure by

which Hydro and Newfoundland Light and Power both charge for the use of

electricity in the Province. There is an energy component and a demand

component, that is the standard as set by the Public Utilities Board, and I am

not aware of any change coming in that. Hydro and Light and Power, as I

understand it, are not going back to the PUB for rate hearings in '93 and Hydro

is hoping that it will not have to go back to PUB for a rate hearing in '94, so

that rates should not be increasing.

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

Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Over the last eight months especially, Mr.

Speaker, previous to that but especially over the last eight months or so, I

have had all kinds of examples, primarily from the volunteer fire brigade in

Howley - $300 a month for electrical bills, senior citizen's home in Cormack

$225 to $280 a month and finally, Mr. Speaker, from the one I guess all members

got this week from the diocese of Western Newfoundland. Archbishop Payne, talked

about the $1,600 to $1,700 a month, where a demand meter on a church in Lower

Cove in the Straits of Belle Isle for which he is responsible, and that to me,

Mr. Speaker, is outrageous, not only that, it is all across this Province. The

cost is unbearable and cruel, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister consider the demand

meter to be a fair method of charging these non-commercial, non-profit

organizations for electricity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to say whether

it is fair or not. It is a system that was put in place many, many years ago,

after public hearings before the Public Utilities Board in assessing how Hydro

and Light and Power should charge to recover the cost of installing electrical

equipment, electrical systems as well as charging for the energy component, and

that is why there is a demand charge versus an energy charge. The demand charge

is there to represent the cost of putting in the physical facilities to provide

energy to these facilities wherever they may be located, and it would be up to

the Public Utilities Board in any future review to decide whether there should

be a need for a change or not.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the demand meter is different

from what the minister is talking about. It is supposed to be charged to

commercial, not non-profit organizations. Because of the demand rates that these

organizations are paying they are, in effect, paying for electricity they do not

use and will not use. Will the minister direct the Public Utilities Board to

change the way they charge community organizations for electricity so that it

will more fairly reflect what they use, not what utilities hold in reserve to

meet peak demand on non-profit organizations in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the demand charge is not there

to represent what the hon. member was saying. The demand charge is there to

represent the cost of installing facilities to recover the cost, and that is a

part of it. I am aware that this issue has been addressed by the Public

Utilities Board in previous rate hearings. I am sure that the next time there is

a rate hearing it will be an issue again from the organizations that have

concerns and it is their freedom to do so in such public hearings.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Last Monday, the Minister of Health admitted that committees were in place to

restrict - or he would set up a committee to look at restricting doctors

entering this Province. Why is the Province continuing the expense of training

doctors, only to tell them after seven or eight years that they may be

restricted in setting up practice? Wouldn't it be better to restrict the number

of students entering the School of Medicine here in the Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are two points

that have to be made. First, there is the long-term problem about the apparent

oversupply of some physicians in Canada. This oversupply is being addressed in

various ways across Canada by cutting back on the enrollments of some of the

larger medical schools in some of the other provinces. It was decided that we

wouldn't cut back Memorial at this time, on their enrollments. But we do have a

study ongoing in the Province to look at our long-term needs with respect to

physicians.

One of our problems is that while we have sufficient general

practitioners in St. John's and in some of the larger urban areas, it is

difficult to get practitioners to go into some of the more rural areas of the

Province. So they are looking at that question. Some specialties are in short

supply. So the whole question of physician resources is being examined, in the

long term, by a committee.

In addition to that, there is a short-term problem, as well.

The short-term problem emerges from certain steps that are being taken in other

provinces to limit the fee

schedule for physicians in certain urban areas.

I understand that the Province of Ontario has decided that

new people starting off practice in Toronto will get - originally, they thought,

25 per cent of the fee schedule; now, I believe they are gone up to 75 per cent.

But they will get a smaller proportion of the fee

schedule in large urban areas.

Other provinces are thinking similarly, and we were afraid here, at the time,

this would mean that a lot of physicians would come to Newfoundland and set up

in St. John's, where we don't really need them, and they would drive up the cost

of health care more than was warranted.

So we thought we would set up a small committee now, a

short-term committee, to come to grips with this and give us some advice as to

what, if anything, should be done in the short term while we are awaiting this

long-term physician resources study.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are currently 224 students in Memorial University

School of Medicine, of which 160 are from this Province. They will graduate at

the rate of about fifty per year over the next four years. Now, in light of the

need for doctors in rural Newfoundland, as the minister indicated, how many of

these new graduates does the minister expect to actually set up practice here in

this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Well, it is very difficult for me to answer

that question. A number of those graduating doctors have agreements made with

hospital boards by which they will, in exchange for some funding now, go and

work in these areas for some period of time.

I don't have, at the moment, the exact figures on those who

are under contract, so I don't know for sure how many will go, but it is

expected, because of the supply of physicians being much greater than it was in

the past, that our problems in rural Newfoundland should not be as serious in

the future as they have been in the past.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The graduates from Memorial University School of Medicine are

certainly not going to find jobs in other provinces. The minister said last week

that other provinces are putting up barriers, and he has indicated this today,

to discourage new doctors from setting up in these provinces.

It seems that we have too many medical students in Canada.

Maybe we have too many medical schools in Canada. I ask the minister, in light

of the exorbitant cost of running the school, is there a need to continue to

operate the medical school here in this Province? Does the minister have any

plans for shutting down the medical school here?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to the question is `no`. The School of Medicine

performs a number of services, perhaps the chief one of which is to train

physicians, and not only graduating physicians who start to practice, but

certain specialties are developed there for physicians. In addition, the

University provides a very useful role in attracting people to the Province

because of the teaching and research role that is there that would not normally

come to a place so remote from the North American continent as we are.

So the School of Medicine is a very important part of the

whole health care system in the Province for that reason, attracting people. As

well, it conducts quite a large amount of research up there, from which we get

grants from the Federal Government and the Medical Research Council and through

various agencies, and that also have to be taken into account.

It is true that some discussion is needed. We should keep in

mind the fact that we seem to be approaching a situation in Canada where we

probably do have too many doctors graduating.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. I want to ask a

question concerning the problems being experienced with a black market in cod

fish being sold commercially.

I want to know whether the minister and his government agree

the recreational fishery for cod. Does the minister support these efforts to

protect the fish stocks?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, what started out to be probably

a sensible thing to do, namely, to allow Newfoundlanders to maybe catch a few

fish for their own table, apparently was found to be abused, and I can

understand now why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are contemplating

taking some kind of action to put a stop to it.

One thing about it, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to respect

the restrictions that have been placed on commercial fishermen under the

moratorium, we can't be expected to close our eyes to what is going on, because

I am told, a lot of people are, in fact, fishing, selling it to various

commercial enterprises, selling it from door-to-door, and that was certainly

never intended. As I said at the beginning, it was intended at the outset to

enable the fishermen who wanted to catch one or two fish to do it, but

certainly, if the federal department find it necessary to take the kind of

action they are contemplating, I don't see how the Province could do anything

else but support it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to hear that. Would the minister agree to advise

position of his government, because the Member for Eagle River takes a very

different position and is busy attacking the government for introducing these

measures to look after this problem. So I think it may be important that the

Newfoundland is to support these measures. Will the minister advise the

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River is a

private member of this House, not a member of the government, and is certainly

at liberty to express an opinion, which he has done in this case.

I can only repeat what I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker. If

it is found that restrictions are necessary because the practice is being abused

then, of course, we will have to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Premier.

In the debate over the original budget decision to eliminate

funding for the Daybreak Parent Child Centre in St. John's, the Premier spoke

about the need to give equal treatment to the Dunfield Park Child Parent Centre

in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government reinstated funding for

Daybreak, but very disappointed that the government failed to prevent the

closure of the Dunfield Park Centre at the end of March, which was

two-and-a-half months ago. I say to the Premier, in March, I wrote him and asked

his government to provide the small amount of funding needed to keep the

Dunfield Park Centre going until the expected Federal Government program,

Brighter Futures, comes on stream shortly with the expectation that the Province

would be able to recover its interim funding. The question is, will the Premier

now respond to that request which, essentially, is just a request for a loan,

for the sake of the children and families of Dunfield Park who have so much to

gain from the renewed operation of the child parent centre there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as to matters relating to the

Daybreak or the child care centre, the minister can more appropriately answer.

As to the question about the letter, it wasn't a letter to

me, it was a public statement issued to all of the news media, cast in the form

of a letter to me. So, when somebody writes me a letter that is just distributed

to the news media in that way, I treat it as a news release and I don't answer

it.

Now, as to the other question on the details, the minister

can provide the answer better than I can.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it was a letter to the

Premier. I note, he is so thin-skinned that he can't handle the public knowing

what members representing constituents put to him in letters. I would like an

answer to the request in the letter. The request is an important one concerning

a great number of families, and children, particularly. Will the government

provide bridge funding so that the Dunfield Park Child Parent Centre may

re-open, with the expectation that the Province would be able to recoup the

interim funding from the new federal money expected shortly?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about

providing bridge funding in the event that we would get monies from Brighter

Futures. I can tell the hon. member two things, first of all that there is no

protocol in place at this moment to receive the Brighter Futures funding and

secondly, it is the opinion of government that daycare centres such as Dunfield

Park would not qualify under Brighter Futures, that is the preliminary look. We

cannot say that is definite, but as far as we know, we don't think that we could

access funding from the Brighter Futures for the Dunfield Park. In any event, we

are studying the situation. It has been assessed at Dunfield Park to see if the

kinds of services offered there equate the services of Daybreak, and that

assessment is not yet finished.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the

Minister of Social Services.

The minister's department is now providing funding to operate

the Daybreak Parent Child Centre in St. John's, 50 per cent of which the

Province recovers from the Federal Government under the Canada Assistance Plan.

Will the Province do the same for the Dunfield Park Centre in Corner Brook,

whether or not the Province may later recoup funding to Dunfield Park from

Brighter Futures? Will the Province treat Dunfield Park the same as Daybreak in

St. John's?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that

insofar as both centres are providing the same services, we will treat them

equally. That is the purpose of the present assessment, to determine whether or

not Dunfield Park is providing the same types of services that are provided by

Daybreak. With respect to funding from Brighter Futures, as I have said to the

hon. member, it has not been determined yet whether or not we can assess that

funding for a daycare centre of the nature of Dunfield Park, but hopefully, the

assessment will answer these questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology.

When Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador was established, I

believe the intent was to reach out to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and to

give these organizations and outlying communities access to resources here in

St. John's and beyond. One of the major pluses that these organizations have

enjoyed for the past couple of years - such as development associations, tourism

associations, et cetera - was that they had access to ENL through a 1-800

number. I'd like to ask the minister: is he aware of the elimination of this

1-800 number at the end of April or early May for rural Newfoundland areas? If

so, explain why the government took this action.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question

under advisement. I'll report back to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the minister is

aware that development associations and tourism associations, et cetera, play a

vital role in the development of rural Newfoundland. With the crisis in the

fishery now many associations are: number one, finding it very difficult to

operate because of lack of financial resources; number two, finding it very

difficult to develop new industries and ideas in rural Newfoundland. The 1-800

number gave these organizations an excellent opportunity to find information and

access free of charge the many resources of Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador. Will the minister when he's checking this out please, if he finds that

this is the case, would he please reconsider putting the 1-800 number back in

service to these organizations so that they can continue to develop these parts

of Newfoundland that need this service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly take that under

advisement. I should say to the hon. member that when we came to power four

years ago there were no services provided directly in the regions. It was this

government that set up five regional offices, eighteen satellite offices, and

allowed for authority with approval ratings of $100,000 per application, which

we just increased to $150,000. So we're very sensitive to reaching out these

services to rural Newfoundland.

As I said, there are eighteen satellite offices operating in

very isolated areas. There are five regional offices fully staffed. We are

hooked up to the ACOA enterprise network, which is the electronic highway which

gives them a direct feed to our business services right here in the data banks

in St. John's. So we're very sensitive, we're very cognizant. If the 1-800

number has been taken away, I said I'll take it under advisement. I'll review it

and report back to the House.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. The minister met with a

delegation from St. Lawrence a week or so ago. I'm wondering if the minister

could update the House on the status of the St. Lawrence fluorspar operation,

whether there's any possibility for reactivation? Really, what's the fluorspar

scene like now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I met with

representatives from St. Lawrence and had a good discussion. The present

situation is that our maintenance agreement with the receiver is eighteen months

into its two-year term. It expires at the end of this year. In the next few

weeks we hope to review that maintenance agreement and see where we go from here

in the future, because presently the prospects for re-opening don't look very

good. The world market for fluorspar is still quite weak. There's a huge

oversupply. We don't see any great interest in anybody coming and re-opening at

this time. There is one company that's looking at some fluorspar prospects in

the area but purely from the perspective at this time I think of exploration.

Not from the perspective of wanting to be immediately involved in a potential

development.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

minister, I read a press clipping yesterday, I think, or the day before, from a

representative who attended the meeting with the minister. They did express

optimism. There was some degree of optimism expressed in the article. So I don't

know whether that's accurate or not. So really, is the minister saying that for

the foreseeable future the possibilities of reactivation of that fluorspar

operation looks rather dim? That the prospects are not great for reactivation in

the foreseeable future? Is that what he's saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mine and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what I'm saying. In

the near future we really don't see an opportunity for a re-opening. I

personally can't see anything happening in the next six months before the

maintenance agreement expires. I see it more long-term than that. We do have a

great resource in the ground at St. Lawrence. We believe there's enough

fluorspar there to last for twenty or thirty years if mining were going on at

the previous rates. But from the interest that we've been able to detect

nationally and from international companies that are involved in the fluorspar

market, we can't see any interest in an immediate re-opening.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm

wondering if the minister could inform the House whether or not government has

undertaken a promotional effort or promotional package on that? He referred to

the significant deposit in the ground there. Has government put forward a

promotional package on that deposit throughout the world markets for possible

mining companies to see if there might be some nibble of interest out there

because I know previously that is what we did and we were lucky enough to find

Minworth at the time? Has government undertaken initiatives such as that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have done that. We have

advertised in news media, particularly mining industry related news media, but

more than that we have done individual targeting of companies that we felt might

be interested in this particular property. We have gone down the list of

companies that are involved in fluorspar and other related commodities,

nationally and internationally, and we really have not come up with any

companies that have a significant interest. As I said earlier there is one

company that has staked some claims in the area, and since that is known

publicly it does not harm anybody for me to say that Phelps Dodge is that

company and they have been doing some exploration down there, but at this time

they are not showing any interest in taking over the mine for re-activation.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if I could rise to express congratulations to

Premier Klein and his government on their re-election in Alberta last night, a

magnificent victory, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Obviously, the turning of the tide already is

beginning in Western Canada.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You waited for the Premier to get up as

he has done on previous occasions.

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You waited for the Premier but he didn't

get up.

MR. SIMMS: Actually, I waited for the Premier, assuming

he was going to get up to pass along congratulations, as he did, when Premier

Callbeck was elected, I understand.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he did.

MR. SIMMS: I was out of the House on that day. Obviously,

it must have slipped his mind, but I am sure he would want to. I am not sure if

we congratulated Premier Savage, either, on his election.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, we have.

MR. SIMMS: I certainly haven't, so I do it belatedly, of

course, but ask that Your Honour write a letter on behalf of members of the

House to all those new Premiers and congratulate them on their magnificent

victories, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Newfoundland

Offshore Petroleum Board, which is our joint management board with the

report with the respect of ministers, and I am pleased today to table the annual

report of the board for the last fiscal year. Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act".

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Law

Society Act", and lest I cause heart failure among my brethren and sisters at

the Bar, let me point out that this is a minor amendment to implement a measure

that was included in the Budget a year-and-a-half-ago - it is not Bill 55 from

the last session.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we first do Motions 5

through 11 and then,if we might have leave to do so, perhaps we could give first

reading to the two bills of which notice was given today because they are ready

and I hope to be able to distribute them to members in the House so that we

could at least look at them before we debate them.

MR. SPEAKER: I understood it to be the intention of the

hon. the Government House Leader to do third readings prior to the motions, is

that correct?

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I had called Motions but if you

would prefer to do third readings, that is fine. I thought I had called Motions.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, I misunderstood. I understood

that you wished to do those, but certainly we will do the motions first, that

being the order of business for the day. So, if you could just indicate them

again.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, perhaps then we could call

Motions 5 through 11, and then, as well, by leave, give first reading to the two

bills, one of which I gave notice and the other, of which my friend, the

Minister of Finance, just gave notice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Could you send us over a copy of that?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) you know.

MR. ROBERTS: No, the Premier is going to talk - yes, the

answer is ... There is the Law Society Act now - if a Page will come I will send

this across.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to do five?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, that is going on behind the Chair now.

If a Page will come, please - one for Mr. Harris, and two for the Opposition.

That is the Law Society bill there. It is straightforward.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce the following bills, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act." (Bill

No. 18).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act." (Bill

No. 17).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Municipal Elections

Act." (Bill No. 19).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce the

following bills, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act." (Bill No.

20).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Corporations Capital

Tax Act." (Bill No. 21).

A bill "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill

No. 11).

Motion, the hon. the Minister Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act," carried.

(Bill No. 16).

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) further Notices of Motion, if we

may have leave - and we would need leave to deal with them - just simply to give

them first reading so the bills can be made available to members and we will

deal with them from there.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I understand if the -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: It is by leave? Yes.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," carried. (Bill No. 23).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Law Society Act," carried.

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act." (Bill

No. 18).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act." (Bill

No. 17).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Municipal Elections

Act." (Bill No 19).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Retails Sales Tax Act." (Bill

No. 20).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Corporations Capital

Tax Act." (Bill No. 21).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill

No. 11).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And

Brokers Act." (Bill No. 16).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission

Act." (Bill No. 23).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act."

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps now I could ask you to

call the third readings of Orders 3 through 8. These are the bills we dealt with

yesterday.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered

passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Department of Tourism and

Culture." (Bill No. 3).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable

Television Companies Act." (Bill No. 5).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act." (Bill

No. 2).

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Department of Industry, Trade

And Technology." (Bill No. 4).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act." (Bill No.

6).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill No.

12).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Would you be good enough, Sir,

please, to call Order No. 11 which is a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers'

Compensation Act." (Bill No. 8)?

Motion, second reading of a bill "An Act To Amend The

Workers' Compensation Act." (Bill No. 8).

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few comments by way of introduction.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few comments by way of introduction to this change,

as was distributed in Bill 8. The explanatory note, Mr. Speaker, clarifies, I

think, what exactly is intended here but, for the record, and to remind people

again, it is not the intention of myself, as minister, or of the Workers'

Compensation Commission, to make any public reference in terms of a press

statement or anything else about this change. There has been some public notice

of it.

The situation is one that has been known to members of this

House since just before Christmas, that there are in the range of slightly under

400 individuals who are in receipt of workers' compensation and also by nature

of the seriousness of their injury are also in receipt of Canada Pension

disability benefits. The provisions of the legislation provide that the Canada

Pension disability benefit payment be offset as income under the act and that

that offset was always in place.

However, on January 1, 1993 the commission instituted an

administrative change whereby the offset would be calculated in a different

fashion. It would be calculated from the net earnings rather than the gross

earnings which led to some changes in the actual cheque that claimants received

from Workers' Compensation, in some cases ranging from $20 or $30 a pay period

and, in other cases, to several hundred dollars, depending upon the amount that

the person was entitled to. The government reviewed the position and it was

clear that it was brought to the attention of the House. It was a question here

that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition and others with respect to some

of the 390 or so disaffected people who had found that they were impacted in a

way different from what they were led to believe by the government. Because, in

the public statements that were made by myself, as minister, Mr. Speaker, we

made it clear that it was the intention of the government that anyone who was on

claim for thirty-nine weeks or longer should basically be non-impacted by the

legislative changes that occurred on January 1. And that again was the case

except that those changes in concert with the administrative calculation change

done by the commission caused these 390 or so people to have some fairly

significant reductions in their cheques which were not contemplated by us at

government. After we went back to the commission and we discussed the offset and

the impact it had, they continued to argue for a period of time, Mr. Speaker,

that their legal opinion was that they had to offset it in the fashion they now

are doing and will continue to do for new claimants.

So the only way we could come to an agreement that they would

feel comfortable as the commission in reinstating the people back to their

previous condition, and their previous payment method before December 31, was if

we would introduce a legislative provision to enable them to red circle those

people who had been in receipt of workers' compensation and Canada pension

disability prior to the legislative changes. We felt that was consistent with

the approach that we wanted taken. We discussed it with the commission and they

agreed that they would feel much more comfortable in having now two systems in

place. For those 390 or so claimants who were receiving workers' compensation

and Canada Pension disability benefits prior to December 31 they will be treated

as they always have been, with no changes in respect to the offset of Canada

pension disability. That is what this piece of legislation allows for.

Any other claimant who comes in receipt of Canada Pension

disability after January 1 will be treated differently in a fashion which is now

described by Workers' Compensation and which they feel is the most appropriate

offset mechanism.

The offset mechanism has always been there, Mr. Speaker, but

it now will operate basically in a two-tier system, one system for those who

were in receipt prior to December 31 and another system for any of those

receiving Canada pension disability benefits after January 1, 1993.

One last piece of information on introducing the bill, Mr.

Speaker, so that all members know, in case they are still getting enquiries from

claimants who are concerned about this matter. I contacted Workers' Compensation

Commission again today to make sure we are on the same wavelength as to exactly

what impact this will have and they assured me that they will individually

contact each one of the claimants involved in this, some 380 or 390 or so, and

they will be informed that they will be reinstated to their circumstance prior

to January 1, 1993. It will take the Commission a little bit of time to check

each case on an individual basis, but they fully expect they will have all the

files done, checked, and returned to appropriate status by the end of July and

that in fact any monies that were deducted from these people because of the

change between January and the current date will be reinstated to those people

and paid back to them retroactively in a lump sum payment that they should

expect to get some time in July.

They'll get a lump sum payment for any monies that were taken

in the January to June period in one of the July paycheques. Certainly the

expectation is that the last pay period in July or the first pay period for

workers' compensation in August that each one of these people would be back on

stream in the appropriate fashion, and then only the legislative changes that

have impact could possibly cause them to have some difference in their cheques,

not any different treatment for the offset.

There will clearly be two different systems in place, Mr.

Speaker. One for people who are entitled to Canada Pension disabilities since

January 1; and those who were already in receipt of workers' compensation and

Canada Pension disability benefits prior to January 1 will go back as if there

was no change. They will be returned the money in a retroactive lump sum payment

and then reinstated. The Commission hopes that all of that adjustment can be

accomplished certainly before the end of July.

I'll entertain and listen to the other speakers and listen to

the debate. Certainly if there are any questions I'll try to deal with them in

closing debate, Mr. Speaker, or in Committee. Thank you very much.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment

respecting Bill No. 8 is a regressive amendment in my opinion. Under the old

rules the Commission had some administrative leeway with respect to the

deduction of Canada Pension Plan benefits. The amendments you brought in last

November took away the flexibility the Commission had to decide whether they

would deduct CPP benefits at all; or secondly, if they did deduct CPP benefits,

that they would do so in a way that limited the impact of the net income or take

home pay of the injured worker.

For example: Any worker who before January 1 - and this is an

actual example from an actual case - received $824 gross workers' compensation,

minus CPP benefit, which is $181.55, the net gross is $642.51. Income tax was

deducted by the net gross. Now, under this amendment, income tax will be

deducted by the gross. The same gentleman, $824.06, income tax $299 deducted, as

opposed to $145.11. The net, the real figure, is the net take home pay. The

gentleman, without this amendment, would have received $447, but as a result of

this amendment will receive only $373.

I guess the real culprit in causing the massive jump in the

unfunded liability of the workers' compensation fund is the economic decline I

guess caused in part by this recession, and in part by the economic and fiscal

policies - or probably more accurately, the lack of policies that this

government has initiated. Workers' compensation is funded by employers based on

the size of their payrolls. Hundreds of companies have disappeared over the last

few years, and those that have survived have cut their payrolls. Fewer and

smaller payrolls mean lower expected employer contributions to the workers'

compensation fund, and a larger than expected unfunded liability.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this Act, I would

just like to suggest to the minister that he and his government should spend

more time thinking about the ways to stimulate the economy and less time

dreaming up schemes to shrink the incomes of workers, especially the incomes of

injured workers. Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly have no

objection to this Bill. Unfortunately it doesn't go far enough. The minister in

speaking didn't provide the house with the rationale for what the Commission is

doing.

In my view, there is no proper rationale. In fact, as a

result of this administrative change, which wasn't authorized by the Act or the

legislation - and the minister knows this -, as a result of this administrative

change there are now people in a situation that it's to their detriment to go

and apply for Canada Pension Plan benefits, because of the difference in the one

being taxable and the other not being taxable, an individual who obtains

workers' compensation benefits then goes and gets the Canada Pension Plan by

subtracting it from the net instead of the gross. It ends up costing people

money as the minister knows, which is why he's bringing in this Bill.

He hasn't provided a rationale for what the Workers'

Compensation Commission is doing. All he said is that they think it's the most

appropriate method. I want to know what the minister thinks is the most

appropriate method. Because in my view, what's been happening at the Workers'

Compensation Commission, they've made this administrative change which they know

will save money but at the expense of people who go ahead and apply for Canada

Pension Plan benefits. What we have seen, as the minister said, is the effect,

depending on your circumstances, depending on how many children you have and in

some cases their ages, the effects can be in fact very significant. Twenty or

thirty dollars in some cases and as much as $150 in others per month based on

whether or not an individual has gotten Canada Pension Plan benefits.

I have had cases of people coming to me asking for my

assistance and after they found out how the system worked, while in the middle

of the process of applying for Canada Pension Plan benefits all of a sudden

realize that they had better stop their application because it is going to end

up costing them money, so they stayed away. The Workers' Compensation Commission

is therefore now paying the full benefits as opposed to getting some relief by

this person getting Canada Pension Plan benefits for which he may or may not

have qualified.

In this particular case, there is some question as to whether

or not he would or would not qualify. He would be expected, in order to qualify,

to go through some fairly serious efforts to establish the basis of his claim

under Canada Pension Plan benefits but for what purpose ?... to save the

Workers' Compensation Commission the money and to take money out of his pocket

himself and his family. In fact, to a supreme disadvantage to himself and his

family. So, if the Workers' Compensation Commission thinks that is most

appropriate, Mr. Speaker, I think that they are wrong.

I do not think that the minister should be in this House

defending that change without providing an explanation as to why they are doing

it, why he defends it, why he supports it and why he is not bringing in

legislation that is preventing them from making this administrative change

requiring that any deductions from Workers' Compensation benefits be based on an

offset of the gross, not an offset of the net. The minister knows the problems,

he has had to understand the problem in order to be able to bring in this piece

of legislation. He knows that what is happening is in fact depriving workers of

money and in some cases substantial amounts of money. There is not a good reason

for it and as a result of the change in methods, what you are saying is it is

just an administrative change but it in fact deprives the workers of benefits.

If in fact, these injured workers are entitled to these

Canada Pension Plan benefits than they should get them. It is saving the

workers' compensation system money and it should not be out of their own pockets

that they are applying for - they should not be deprived of one benefit, Mr.

Speaker, in order to obtain another. The offset situation is fair enough, you

cannot be compensated twice under two plans for the same injury but it should

not come at the expense of the individual worker.

We are dealing here, Mr. speaker, with claims based on

workplace injuries. We are not dealing here with a system that exists at the

whim of the minister or at the whim of the budgetary allotments. This is a fully

funded system, an insurance scheme to protect injured workers from workplace

accidents. It is designed to offset and replace a tort base system where an

individual would otherwise have a right to sue for full damages and full

compensation but as a result of this workers' compensation system they are

limited solely to obtaining benefits from the workers' compensation scheme.

Under this system, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

should be doing everything he can to ensure that they receive the maximum amount

of compensation compatible with their previous income and in this case that

requires that the CPP offset be from the gross and not from the net. What it

results in, Mr. Speaker, is an injured worker being punished and being deprived

by some administrative rule that is unfair and is arbitrary and that the

minister and his government should not be supporting. This legislation only

protects those who are already collecting benefits as of January 1, 1993, and

deprives everybody else of the full benefit and the proper benefit of the Canada

Pension Plan, which is a federal scheme designed to provide support to

individuals, whether workers or not, who have a disability.

The government shouldn't be piggybacking on this program in

order to save some money themselves at the expense of the workers who were

injured. It's wrong, Mr. Speaker, to allow this. The minister knows it, and

shouldn't be here justifying it by saying that the Workers' Compensation

Commission think that's the appropriate administrative way to do it. That

shouldn't be allowed and the minister should not be bringing in

an act like

this. He should be bringing in

an act that ensures that all injured workers who

are entitled to Canada Pension Plan benefits obtain the full benefit of them.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just

want to have a few words on this particular Bill, Bill No. 8. The minister talks

about this being an administrative change to allow for a smoother operation of

workers' compensation. Of course what we're seeing here is an establishment of

two types of payments to people who are injured on the job. This is tremendously

unfair to workers. It's a discriminatory action on the part of this government,

on the part of the department, and it's tremendously unfair to people who have

already paid in the work place.

We see that what they're really attempting to do, it was

pointed out last Fall, was to place the complete burden of these so-called

reforms that the government brought in upon the backs of the injured workers who

have already paid through the pain and anguish that they had to endure, and the

loss of the ability of going to work for extended periods of time. They have

paid and their families have paid.

We're expected to support this Bill. I find that I cannot

support it because of what it does to these workers. This particular Bill allows

a discriminatory payment to workers. It establishes two classes of people who

are receiving workers' compensation, and that to me is tremendously unfair. What

was fair before January to my mind should be fair after January. That's what

should have been addressed. We all recognize in this House that there had to be

certain things done within the workers' compensation system to protect the

unfunded liability. I don't think that anybody wants us as legislators to

promote that the way to protect this unfunded liability was to do it on the

backs of the injured workers. We pointed out one of the things that would occur

in this Bill back in last Fall, and we were told by government members that this

would not occur. It wasn't there, they said, it couldn't happen.

It did happen. Now while they're correcting the mistake there

- they said it didn't happen because they wouldn't do that - while they

corrected so-called this mistake, they don't recognize that it shouldn't

continue for the people who are injured after the date. That's what bothers me

about this particular piece of legislation. It's something that we shouldn't be

doing because we all expect that we would all be treated in a similar fashion,

treated equally. Those injured workers shouldn't be treated any differently. If

somebody is injured on the job after a certain date they should be treated

exactly the same as those who were injured on the job or received compensation

before January 1, 1993, Mr. Speaker.

That's why I find that I cannot support this particular piece

of legislation, and I will not. Thank you very much.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to have a few

words to say on the legislation.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I guess this is really a case of

the minister wiping the egg off his face. That is what he is doing here today.

He is wiping the egg off his face, and about time.

Seven months ago in this Legislature, November and December,

during debate on this piece of legislation - seven months ago - we told this

minister then that what he was doing to the people who were on workers'

compensation was a disaster. All he was doing was inflicting more pain and

suffering on those who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in this

kind of a situation, having to access workers' compensation benefits. Yet he

stormed on. In fact, this piece of legislation was rammed through the House of

Assembly during one of those infamous all-night sittings when people do not

properly scrutinize and pay attention to legislation, and when people do not get

the chance to properly scrutinize legislation because the government continues

to force closure or keep the House sitting all night long for twenty-four or

twenty-five hours.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trying to wear them down.

MR. SIMMS: Trying to wear them down so that you do not

pay attention; but, Mr. Speaker, in this particular instance the legislation -

that draconian legislation - brought in by the Member for Exploits, the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, he was caught then, that night, and he knows

he was caught.

We said then that what he was doing with that legislation,

the amendment he was bringing into the House in particular that dealt with the

Canada Pension Plan benefits was a terrible thing for him to be doing. Oh no, he

says, no, nonsense -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not true, he says.

MR. SIMMS: Not true. That is his famous expression. Not

true, not true, not true. You can hear him shouting across the House,

continuously interrupting members on this side when they were making terrific

speeches in most cases, and he said: No, that is not true.

Now, seven months later he crawls in through the House, tail

between the legs, head down, and makes this mild little speech to introduce this

Bill No. 8, and he says - he tries to give the impression that oh, this is only

a minor little change. It is something that came to our attention, and now we

are the great people. We are going to change it to make a correction. Never mind

the fact that they were told about it seven months ago. Never mind that. Never

mind the fact that there were questions in this Legislature to the same

minister, asking him to make the changes then, and he says: Oh, no, no, no.

Do you remember the answer? I still remember the answer. In

case the minister forgets, I still remember his famous answer. He said: No, Mr.

Speaker, this problem was not created because of the legislation we brought in.

He said it was caused by the Workers' Compensation Commission. Remember his

answer? It was the Workers' Compensation Commission, the bureaucrats down there.

What nasty, dirty, rotten people at the Workers' Compensation Commission. That

is what he said, in essence, in so many words. He blamed it all on the Workers'

Compensation Commission. Now he will have to confess. He must confess, that was

his answer then. It was not because of the legislation, he said. You said that.

That is right. He nods. The minister nods in affirmation, just to get it in

Hansard, and he said it was the Workers' Compensation Commission that made this

decision.

We argued that it was because of this amendment, this change

to the legislation, where it dictated that they must do this. No, no, no,

nonsense, not true, not true, not true. That is all I heard him say for days.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All night.

MR. SIMMS: All night long for twenty-four hours, not

true, not true, not true.

We argued that under the old rules the Commission had the

flexibility and the leeway to deal with problems with respect to the deductions

of Canada Pension Plan benefits, and the amendments and legislation that the

minister brought in last November took away that flexibility. Now he is coming

back confessing - basically confessing - in his own inimitable way that he made

a drastic error, a terrible mistake, an error in judgement. So, Mr. Speaker, it

is a bit of a humourous way to describe what happened, but you know something,

Mr. Speaker, as a result of that terrible mistake made last November and

December, and we can joke a little bit about it now in attacking the minister,

there was unnecessary suffering and pain inflicted upon a number of people. I

think he says it is something like some 390 people, unnecessary pain and

suffering and I hope when he gets up to speak to close this Bill, that he

apologizes, apologizes in the strongest possible way that he could to those

people, because the reality is he could have made those changes last Fall when

we asked him to make them, he would not do it because it would have given the

Opposition a bit of credit, so for purely political, partisan reasons, he would

not acknowledge the case that we were making last Fall, he could not give in.

There is no way -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hobnailed boots.

MR. SIMMS: Hobnailed boots are what my friend is

referring to now. There is no way that he could have given in, I say to my

friend the Opposition House Leader, there is no way that he could have given in

to the case that we were making. He would not do it for purely political reasons

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, but we have seen him having to

back down before.

MR. SIMMS: - but, because of that partisan approach,

there has been untold suffering and pain inflicted upon 390 people who

unfortunately had a serious problem and their families have suffered and that is

something that this minister will forever wear and I hope that when he stands to

close debate he will apologize to all of these people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what my friend from Menihek was saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is your friend Garfield, I have not

seen him for a while?

MR. SIMMS: My friend Garfield is not here today. What my

friend from Menihek was saying, is that in essence and in principle, this entire

legislation that the minister brought in last November and December, is

legislation that we could not support then, basically it is what he is saying.

As a result of this being a part of that, he has trouble accepting this entire

legislation. That is what the Member for Menihek is trying to say. It is not

that he opposes this specific amendment, because obviously we support the

amendment, it is an amendment that we wanted brought in and asked for last Fall,

but in terms of the overall legislation that you brought in last November and

December, the Member for Menihek said it in the strongest, most passionate way I

have ever heard anybody in this House express themselves.

He, as a member who represents a working constituency, a

labour oriented constituency, knows that a lot of people, through no fault of

their own have to access the social safety net that is available to them, in

this case, the workers' compensation program, and the Member for Menihek is one

who deals with people like that on a daily basis and he understands, he has more

compassion in his little finger than the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations has in his whole hand; more compassion, Mr. Speaker, than anybody I

have ever seen for people who suffer and have pain inflicted upon them, like the

Member for Menihek often sees in his constituency. So what he is saying in the

debate is that the changes you brought in in November and December, really are

not acceptable because all they have done is hurt people, inflicted pain and

inflicted suffering.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to support the bill?

MR. SIMMS: We are all supporting the amendment -

AN HON. MEMBER: Just a minute now.

MR. SIMMS: I just - Are you deaf? Is the hon. Minister of

Education deaf along with everything else, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of

Education would be serving the people of this Province in a much better way if

he went back to reading his newspaper. He has not even been listening to the

debate and all he is trying to do of course, is get me to raise my voice knowing

full well that I have a sore throat here -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have Kimmie Campbell laryngitis.

MR. SIMMS: I have Campbellitis, yes, Campbellitis.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious piece of business. The government members

opposite can sit back and laugh and joke and make fun of this all they want, but

I tell them the reality is that in the last six months, in the offices of the

Opposition, no one issue, honestly, quite honestly, no one issue has caused as

many people to call our offices as workers' compensation. I say that quite

honestly.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is one.

MR. SIMMS: There is one other issue?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Which one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Housing.

MR. SIMMS: Housing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In St. John's.

MR. SIMMS: You get more calls on housing than you do on

workers' compensation. The minister might, but I can tell you, while housing is

a serious problem it's not the problem that we see and that we hear about in our

offices in Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of touch.

MR. SIMMS: We're out of touch? No, Mr. Speaker, I say to

the Minister of Finance, if there's ever a government out of touch it is this

one over here that's out of touch. This one. There's only one government here.

This is the one that should be there.

Anyway, the Minister of Finance, go back to Florida. Go back

to Florida, I say to the Minister of Finance, that's where he does his best

work, down in Florida. Stop interrupting a good speech when it's being delivered

here in the House of Assembly.

MR. ROBERTS: It's only (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I don't expect the Government House Leader to

acknowledge a good speech coming from this side of the House.

MR. ROBERTS: There are so few.

MR. SIMMS: He wouldn't know a good speech if he walked

into one and heard it anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, he thinks he's given good

speeches, but I tell you, if you go back through Hansard, read Hansard from back

in the mid-sixties, the speeches the Minister of Justice has given, not only

have they been boring, they've been absolutely the same speech decade after

decade after decade. The very same speech over and over. I haven't heard any of

his new quips. All I ever hear are the old ones. I'm hoping he's going to give

us -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You should know that, because you went through

that route yourself, I think, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) listen to it.

MR. SIMMS: No, this was before my days in the Chair. I'm

talking about the days when Joey usurped power from the Minister of Justice.

Remember that?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I'm not talking about those twenty-two years,

I'm talking about the 1975 election.

MR. ROBERTS: When the hon. gentleman was carrying bags

for (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, when the hon. gentleman approached me to

run for him in Grand Falls, I'm talking about, (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Same period of time. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I

digress.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, you can tell the people what I wanted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, how interested you were.

MR. SIMMS: How interested I was? I can tell the people of

the Province how interested I was. The minister knows how interested I was. I

wasn't very interested at all. Let me tell you the tactics he used. He brought

out - who was it? Freeman White and Roger Simmons. If ever I needed an excuse

not to run for the Liberals, there it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: My cousin.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, that's not true.

MR. ROBERTS: Freeman got elected, he beat (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but I sat here a lot longer than Freeman

did, and a lot longer than Roger did as well.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, but he left voluntarily. The hon.

gentleman hasn't done that.

MR. SIMMS: Who left voluntarily.

MR. ROBERTS: Freeman White.

MR. SIMMS: Left voluntarily?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, is that right? Why?

MR. ROBERTS: He didn't run (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Why didn't he run?

MR. ROBERTS: I can't tell you, ask him.

MR. SIMMS: You weren't talking to him either. You were

the Leader of the Party. You weren't talking to him either, were you?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I wasn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Because he served for ten years. Why did

Freeman White resign?

MR. ROBERTS: Freeman was here for ten years? Two terms?

MR. SIMMS: He wasn't here for ten years.

MR. ROBERTS: Eight years, whatever the two terms were. As

long as Mulroney's been there.

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I digress. The important

issue is workers' -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The important issue is the issue of workers'

compensation, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make the point in the hope that the

minister when he closes debate he will apologise to those people, those hundreds

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who have gone through an unnecessary period

of suffering and pain for them and their families, and it is no joke. The

minister knows that, I'm certain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: If the Minister of Mines and Energy doesn't

know what we're talking about when we talk about the calls we get on workers'

compensation, perhaps the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations could call

the minister along down by his side, have a little chat with him, explain to him

how much pain and suffering people are going through in this Province as a

result of the changes that he and his own colleague, the Minister of Mines and

Energy, made back in November when they brought in these original changes.

Because it's caused nothing but grief and despair for a lot of people.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought one of my

colleagues back there wanted to jump into the fray here since the Leader of

Opposition made such a great speech and a little history tied into it. A little

history lesson, he did very well considering the state of his throat where he -

MR. SIMMS: - and the interruptions from members on all

sides of the House.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - where he was cheering wildly this

weekend. I was a bit worried at times this weekend when I was looking down at

the hon. gentleman afraid he might just end up on compensation, I say to members

opposite. He was in such a frenzy with that thing

MR. SIMMS: You think I was in a frenzy, you should have

seen him!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But having said that, the Member for

Menihek, I think it was very appropriate that he spoke because he has a job to

walk, his back is gone, I say to the minister. So, I do not know if this clause

is going to apply to him or not. That is why he is so upset because he got

injured since January 1st, 1993 so this provision will not apply to him. Of

course that is one of the bones of contention about this Bill 8.

MR. TOBIN: Snow will find a way around that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We are pleased to see that the provision

comes into effect prior to January 1st, 1993 but as the Member for Menihek said,

the big problem is that you are really setting up two classes of injured

workers. Those who were injured prior to January 1st, 1993 will be affected by

this Bill and anyone who gets injured today, they will have a different

equation. The other thing I want to say to the minister, the other alarming

point about this is that if someone who was injured prior to January 1st, 1993

goes back to work and has a recurrence of the injury than this Bill does not

provide for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is not true, that is not true.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, really and I know that a lot of

members opposite do not delve into the legislation -

MR. SIMMS: They do not even read it

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - they do not read it. The minister's

over there yesterday -

MR. SIMMS: - let alone delve.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There were ministers over there

yesterday who got up to introduce their own bills, that really were not familiar

with them. That is awful and very important pieces of legislation -

MR. SIMMS: Name one, name names.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, the auditor generals - MUN Act

yesterday -

MR. SIMMS: From the Minister of Finance?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the Minister of Education got up and

he treated it so lightly that it was embarrassing.

MR. SIMMS: He did not have a click, I suppose.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No but anyway, what I say is, you really

need to read the legislation because one of these days - because you see, when

we first brought this issue up to the minister, the minister denied that there

was a problem and most members believed the minister because they did not know

the implications. Now one of these days your phone is going to ring from a

worker that has recurred an injury, there has been a recurrence of an injury -

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I was talking about him to give him

time to get back. He wanted to know how long I was going to be, I said I will

talk until you get back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So I said I will talk about him in a

derogatory manner.

Just to get the point through to members, that before too

long you are going to get phone calls from your constituents who were injured

and went back to work and now there is a recurrence of the injury.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes and they are going to fall outside

the provision of this Bill for something that happened to them -

MR. SIMMS: Tell him that is not true.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay now - I just hope members realize

what I am saying here. How in the name of God are you going to explain that to

them?

AN HON. MEMBER: To who?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Someone who has a recurrence of an

injury that they may have had five years ago or a year ago or six months ago,

who went back to work. That is pretty significant stuff. It is bad enough that

someone who gets the initial injury after January 1st falls outside this

provision, that is bad enough, but when you have someone who was injured prior

to and there is a recurrence of the injury, how can the minister bring this in,

I have to ask you?

MR. SIMMS: They are not covered, he said that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How can he bring it in? What are you

going to say to them? Are you going to blame it on Roger Grimes?

MR. SIMMS: Keystone Cops Government.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is not going to resolve it because

that is what we have here and right from day one when the minister made the

initial blunder, which he would not admit, which he is now admitting today, he

is now making another blunder I say to the minister. He should have gone all the

way and cleaned up this mess. I do not know what he is going to do. Like the

Leader of the Opposition said we saw him slip in today and try to get this

through and repair all the damage he had done previously. I say this will be a

bill that will be somewhat like that utilities bill, I suppose, we finished

yesterday. Three times they brought it to the floor of the Legislature, Mr.

Speaker, trying to make it right. I expect this will be back the Fall because

like anything else that happens in this House it takes time before the impact is

felt out and about this Province. Until the cheque is cut, until they get the

cheque and see it is cut there is usually not much uproar about anything. We all

know that, those of us who deal with the public. Until they are affected

personally they do not get upset about it, but once they get the cheques and see

what has happened, particularly those people who were injured before, all of us

are going to try and answer for it. It is going to be easier for me than it will

be for members on the government benches, I say. That is all we have seen from

this government, this kind of action. The Minister of Finance over there is so

gleeful about this again. I have never seen a man so gleeful as he has been

during the last three or four months.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not only does he have the boots, I say

to the Leader of the Opposition, the big boots, but he has the long coat and the

fur hat to go with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is my pocketknife?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I do not know where your pocketknife is,

but do not go and get violent. I gave it back to you this morning. I am being

distracted, Mr. Speaker. I was just paying a few compliments to my good friend,

the Minister of Finance, who was a far better biology teacher, I say once again,

than he is a Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knew nothing about biology either.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, he did not know much about the

spray but he knew a bit about biology. We all know in Opposition what a racket

he kicked up. We used to call him Bt Baker for awhile. Remember?

MR. SIMMS: As if he knew something about it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, he did know a little bit more about

it than the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, which I hate to mention

because he is not here. He still knows a little bit more about it than him.

DR. GIBBONS: It is better to have no spray.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is better to have no spray I say to

the Minister of Mines and Energy. He is certainly right about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Walter wondered if MCP would pick up the

tab for providing a caesarean on a lumpfish.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Fisheries is bringing up

the lumpfish. It will have to be relevant, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. It

would be no good of us debating compensation for the poor old lumpfish because

it is game over for the lumpfish if we keep on doing what we are doing, because

they are cut so deep, thrown overboard, they sink, and that is it.

MR. SIMMS: Just like the people on compensation.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, there is a similarity. It is a

very serious concern. I am sure today was not the first time the Minister of

Fisheries heard about that. It is something that has been bothering me for some

time. I hope when the minister rises to close debate that he addresses at least

those two points and trys to justify it. There is no way of justifying it. There

were two points raised. The Member for Menihek raised one and, I believe, the

Member for Kilbride mentioned the other, and those two points are very important

I say to the minister. There is going to be a backlash about this. This is not

going to go away quietly I say to the minister. We will be back here the Fall, I

am sure, making another amendment to straighten this whole mess out once again.

MR. WOODFORD: Who is the chairperson of the Workers'

Compensation?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I do not know who the chairperson of

Workers' Compensation is. Who is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Penny Rowe is the chairperson.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The chief executive officer, I guess, is

the other. Is that the question you wanted? The executive director, I guess. He

is acting, is he? Does the minister know when that is going to be filled? We

should ask that tomorrow, I suppose, in Question Period and see if he has any

candidates in mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For the executive director of Workers'

Compensation. Maybe we should ask the minister in Question Period what is

happening there. There are a lot of rumours rampant in the city, Mr. Speaker,

about who might be filling that. I saw a gentleman a couple of weeks ago going

through his hockey and baseball cards. I do not know if anybody saw that or not,

a great collection of hockey and baseball cards. Did anyone see it? He said his

mother found them up in the attic or something and called him and asked him what

MR. TOBIN: A great Montreal fan.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, a great Canadian fan.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was hurt on the job.

MR. SIMMS: The minister will have nothing to do about the

appointment anyway.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am sure the minister would not

even consider that, but maybe the minister might tell us, before we close on

Friday, what is happening there and when we might expect that important position

to be filled, because it is all related to what we are talking about today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What was the Member for Fogo swearing

about? The Member for Fogo is cursing down there about something. I thought I

heard you swearing down there then.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I thought I heard you say `Liberal`. I

thought you said `Liberal`. I thought you were swearing.

MR. SIMMS: They figure they owe Gullage a job at workers'

compensation because he was hurt on the job.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, that is terrible. You heard the

line, did you?

MR. SIMMS: When is that announcement coming, tomorrow, or

the day after the House closes?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well if that is the case, this Bill will

not apply to him because it will be after January 1st.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: I was listening to your speech. Do you

have a problem (inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I am really upset because you once

told me that you listened to every word I said. I found that hard to believe, I

say to the Member for Fogo.

I would like for the minister to address those points that

have been raised by all of us here - very legitimate points, I say to members,

and I am sure some of them have listened. They understand the concerns we have,

and they are going to have to deal with it very soon because they are going to

start getting phone calls.

I just want to say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, he

mentioned housing. That is a very serious problem. I get a fair number of

housing calls, I say to the minister, a fair number of them even from the

district I represent, people looking for housing and not enough units available.

In the city it must be one nightmare.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it must be one nightmare, and

something that has not, I guess, been helped in any way with the recent budget

cuts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is a very serious problem. As a

matter of fact, just before I came to the House I had a call from a person who

has a housing need. It is a very serious thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is a very serious need, so with

the workers' compensation and the housing, there are two or three main problems

that you pick up as MHA's. Those of us who have fishing districts all know the

nightmare that NCARP caused those of us who might have some people on it, and

those who do not have NCARP and are running out of UI, we know the problems that

causes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you also know that (inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They have cancelled it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 1-800 number now, so you

cannot call them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That would not surprise me. Nothing

surprises me. I say to the Member for Fogo, nothing surprises me because I have

never been involved in anything - well maybe I should not say this, but it is

very frustrating. It is a very frustrating experience for me, that process.

I had my first meeting last June, I say to the Member for

Fogo - last June when this whole issue of fish problems developed, sort of, what

are we going to do about it, and what is going to keep people alive? Back in

early June was the earliest time that I ever had a meeting on the fisheries

problems, because every year if the fish fails, you know you go looking for

fisheries response in the Fall, but I have never had it as early as June.

I have been dealing with some people, seriously, who have

been trying to qualify under the NCARP program since last June and some of them,

I say to the member seriously, are not sorted out yet. It has been nothing but

a... but I do not want to take away from the important issue we are dealing with

here, and I look forward to the minister addressing some of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) witch hunt.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well -

AN HON. MEMBER: Something like trying to get into the

hospital.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Something like trying to get into the

hospital. Now that is a very good point. Can you imagine being an injured worker

trying to get into the hospital? But that is another issue for another day, so I

will finish my remarks on that and I look forward to the minister responding.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to... What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Sure I could not care less if we are here

until midnight or not. It does not bother me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stand in this House to oppose this

piece of legislation on behalf of the people of the district of Burin -

Placentia West in particular. I cannot see how anyone in this Legislature - how

any man or woman in this Legislature - can support a piece of legislation that

attacks the sick or the suffering of their constituents. How can members

opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: You should read it.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I can read it. It is correcting what we

fought about last year, but where is it going? - back to January 1st. As my

colleague pointed out, what about recurring injuries? What about everything

else?

What is happening here is that every constituent in this

Province who has to depend on workers' compensation will be attacked by this

government. How can new members coming in this House, after going up and

knocking on doors and asking people to give them their trust and confidence to

represent them in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: You're supporting this. Your Leader's

supporting this.

MR. TOBIN: I know what we're saying, I know what we're

saying. I know that it was our Leader last year who caused this to happen, as a

matter of fact. This government brought in a piece of legislation that was a bad

piece of legislation, and as a result of our Leader and this Party the minister

has decided to change it. But he hasn't gone far enough, I'd say to the members

opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, no, he likes that amendment, but it

doesn't go far enough.

MR. TOBIN: It doesn't go far enough.

MR. SIMMS: Right.

MR. TOBIN: It doesn't go far enough.

MR. SIMMS: But we agree with this one.

MR. TOBIN: What's here is as a result of our Leader and

our caucus. There is nothing here. This is only affecting a bungled job that he

did last year. Someone had a picture the other day of a history book, and on the

front page of the history book regarding the Second World War there was a

picture of Hitler. I've never seen anyone looking more like Hitler than the

Minister of Employment and Labour. I tell you something else. I've never read of

anyone who acted more like Hitler than the present minister. Because what

happens, as my colleague for Grand Bank pointed out, if there's a re-occurrence

of an injury that goes back prior to that date? What happens? What happens to

your constituents in this Province that goes back beyond that date, I'd ask

members opposite?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say about

the member, he looks like a fellow who fell and hit his head. Why is the

minister not going back and doing what we asked him to do? He's only gone part

way, I'd say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it's not next time. He's only

gone part way and there's more work to be done. I would suggest that all of this

is done for one reason, and that's the bottom line. The financial line. I would

think that the Minister of Finance had his say in this. We always thought that

the Member for St. John's West was the worst Minister of Finance in this

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. TOBIN: No, St. John's West. But he passed the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Centre!

MR. TOBIN: St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no, you were the former Member

for St. John's West as I - you were the former Member for St. John's West.

MR. SIMMS: Hal Barrett was there for a month (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes. He was the former Member for St. John's

West for a couple of months if my memory serves me correct.

MR. SIMMS: Would you mind asking him while you have the

floor, the minister when he closes the debate, how much this is going to cost

his department and the government now to compensate those 390 people? I forgot

to ask that question. Roger, did you hear that?

MR. TOBIN: Okay, I'll ask the question. How much is it

going to cost the government or his department to compensate these people who

you made reference to? Who are in that, yes.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

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

doing with the workers' compensation. It's in a total mess. It's in chaos since

this government - the whole compensation system. I mean, for all members it has

to be frustrating, the whole division of the department, the compensation board.

Now you can't even appeal a claim without waiting for months and months upon top

of months. I saw my colleague the other day for Baie Verte - White Bay was up

there and totally frustrated, trying to deal with the Workers' Compensation

board on behalf of a claimant. All this minister and this government have done

is throw obstacles in the way of people who are trying to get straightened away.

So I ask the minister to do something and to explain to this

House what happens to people who have a recurrence of an injury prior to the

date that's set out in this. Will they be taken care of? I'd suggest they won't,

Mr. Speaker. They will not, as a result of this piece of legislation that's

here. I ask the minister to deal with it, and I don't think that we should

support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. minister I would

like to, on behalf of all members, welcome to our gallery today, the Mayor of

Gambo, Mr. Peter Lush, and the administrator of the James Peyton Memorial

Hospital in Gander, Mr. David Lewis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly

appreciate the expression of support from the members opposite for this

amendment, and I certainly do expect that it will receive unanimous consent in

second reading and when the bill is passed in third reading. There are a number

of points that were raised that I will try to deal with and if there are further

questions, certainly at the Committee, if I don't give appropriate answers today

or complete enough answers, we could deal with them then.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, a couple of people have brought up

the point again as to the legislation and the history of the development of

this, and it is true, I am quite serious and I think all members should know

that, when I do very seriously express regret at the inconvenience that this has

caused these 390 people for the last six months. Because it was not intended to

happen, and it was clear that when the question was raised in December, when the

rest of the amendments and this one were introduced in the House, that we

checked it out, and I think all hon. members opposite and everybody in the House

recognize that the Workers' Compensation Commission sent a second letter to

these 390 people explaining to them that the changes were not as a result of

legislation passed by the government, but they were in fact, decisions taken by

the Board of the Commission in the July previous to that, that they had delayed

implementation of it until January 1st, because they wanted to bring in all the

changes at the one time rather than have some changes in July and some in

January.

Everybody knows - and we are not here to try to cast blame -

what happened was that there was an unfortunate mistake made in which something

that was not intended to happen and in the public announcements made, that we

did want to show the compassion that people who were injured longer than

thirty-nine weeks, who were in the position that they had gone through the

workers' compensation system and the Canada Pension disability system - and

members opposite, as well, would know that anyone who has to go through the

Canada Pension disability system to qualify, goes through some rigorous testing

and there are great demands to prove the severity of the injury and it often

takes up to a year to qualify. So these are seriously injured people, with a

long-term disability and for Canada Pension disability, the basic presumption is

that you will not work again, otherwise, you don't get entitled to that

particular benefit. You will not work again, certainly not at the job you used

to work at when you were originally injured. So it was clear, Mr. Speaker, that

we didn't intend for that to happen. But, the administrative change - one of the

speakers, in speaking to the bill, I think it was the hon. the Member for St.

John's East, said: rather than talk about why the Commission did what it did,

how do I feel about it, personally?

There is no question in my mind that if the offsets were to

be done as contemplated by the legislation which has been existing since 1953,

with an offset provision always there, it would be done in a different way than

is being done today. So it was being done in a certain way up to December 31st,

it is being done in a different way right now, which the board decided. Because

I will take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to point out to all hon. members

again, that we respect the decision-making autonomy of the Workers' Compensation

Commission Board of Directors.

There are two employer representatives, two employee

representatives, two public representatives who debate the issues, and there is

a Chair. They have debated the issue about offset. There has always been an

offset of Canada pension disability benefits. They decided a year ago, in July

of 1992, that it should be done in a different way, because they thought they

were being overly generous. They delayed the implementation of the new system

until January 1; but then, the other part that I regret is that, our powers of

persuasion in talking to them and saying that the government understands what

they are going to do - but the government's preference was that they would red

circle the existing claimants and leave them as they were and introduce their

new method of offset for new claimants.

We did not argue with their right to make a decision in terms

of a new administrative method of offset, and I still don't. I still do not

argue with their right, as the board, to determine the administrative method in

which the legislated offset provision is going to be applied. If I were sitting

on the board, I would argue a completely different offset than is there now

because the intention, under the legislation, is that a long-term injured worker

- and you would have to be injured long-term beyond thirty-nine weeks to be

receiving, Mr. Speaker, both workers' compensation and Canada Pension disability

benefits. You would be long-term injured before you qualify for both systems.

The intention clearly, is that, that person, by law in this

Province, is entitled to, presently, 80 per cent of their net pay before they

got hurt. That is the provision in existence today for long-term injured

workers, those beyond thirty-nine weeks, 80 per cent of their net pay, and the

thinking and the legislation that reflects it, Mr. Speaker, clearly says that if

you get that money from somewhere else, if you have an amount of money that is

equivalent to 80 per cent of your net pay, and you got it from other sources -

one of them being Canada Pension disability - then the Workers' Compensation

system doesn't owe you anything. You don't get money from three or four sources.

You get a guarantee, by law, of 80 per cent of your net pay. If it comes from no

other source, you get it all from Workers' Compensation.

If you earn some income - the only thing we didn't offset was

private insurances that the person paid for themselves, and we contemplated that

in our debate last year and decided not to proceed with offsets of privately

purchased individual insurances. A group insurance plan like the Canada Pension

disability, always has been offset and still is. The administrative manner is

determined by the board and that is in effect.

The other serious question that was raised is the notion of

making sure that everybody understands what would happen to a person who was

injured some time ago - a year or two or three years ago - returns to work and

then gets injured again. A recurrence is the phrase used in the legislation. If

it is determined to be a recurrence of the previous injury, then, in fact, the

legislation that we passed last December said that every single incident,

regardless of what type, every recurrence will be treated as if it is a new

injury. So you don't go back and get back as if you had gotten hurt in 1985 or

1989, even though the current injury might be related to your prior injury.

Every recurrence, by law, will be treated as a new injury, which means you will

start at 75 per cent of benefit, going up to 80 per cent. You don't go back to

90 per cent of benefit. Nobody goes back to that again. That is pass. That is

finished in this Province. That is over and done with as a result of the

measures that we had to take to protect the plan itself and to protect the

compensation system.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the recurrences will be

treated as new, and then those people - so that the members opposite understand

Canada Pension disability - will have to go through a requalifying period for

Canada pension. If they qualify for Canada pension they will be offset under the

new administrative arrangement as a new injury, not as they would have been

previously.

A final question with respect to cost, it is expected by the

commission - we did a rough estimate - that they will be able to reinstate all

of these people. It will take several hundred thousand dollars, but certainly,

all of them will be reinstated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven hundred?

MR. GRIMES: No, several hundred, but they expect to be

able to reinstate the whole works of them for less than $500,000, because there

are six months of payments due. Some of them are only due $20 or $30 a pay

period, but some are due as much as $300 or $400 a pay period, and for the 390,

that payment will go back to those people.

With that, Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to move

second reading of the bill. Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 8).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we call the next order,

just so that there is no possibility I will forget, may I move that the House

not rise at 5:00 p.m., and this reflects the understanding between the House

leaders. Perhaps Your Honour could put the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House not rise at

5:00 p.m. All those in favour of the motion, `aye', those against, `nay',

carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would you please call, Sir, Order 12, Bill No. 9.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Schools Act." (Bill No. 9).

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this is just a minor amendment

to The Schools Act.

Now, hon. members will know that we are about to see some

fairly major reforms to the education system in this Province, some badly needed

reforms. I think one thing which all members will agree, and certainly the vast

majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians agree, is that we do need some

reforms to education and I am glad to announce them and reiterate that we are in

the process of making these reforms which will, in the long run, benefit

education for the children, the young people of this Province. That is what it

is all about.

As a result of our desire to make these reforms, we will

probably see a different number of school boards as early as September 1994. I

say a different number - it could be more, it could be less; most likely there

will be fewer boards in September 1994.

Now, Mr. Speaker, under The Schools Act, an election of

school boards is due this November. When the municipal elections take place, the

school board elections are to take place. So, if we are going to have a

different number of school boards in September 1994, then it seems needless to

waste the cost of running an election this coming November, only to have to do

it all over again a few months later. So, government have received requests from

the Newfoundland and Labrador School Trustees Association to defer the school

board elections. We have also received requests from the churches, the

denominational education committees, asking that we defer elections. The purpose

of this bill is to allow me to defer the election of school board members. At

the moment, we are required by the act to call the elections in November; this

would allow the Minister of Education to defer the election, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I have received some complaints. If you are to follow

the strict letter of the law of this amendment, we can defer the election for up

to four years. I want to assure hon. members that we have no intention of

deferring it that long but we are not sure if we have to defer it twelve months

or thirteen months. So, what we have done is, we have given the flexibility

there to defer it up to four years, if necessary. There is no intent on our part

to go beyond a year or a year-and-a-half or whatever it takes, Mr. Speaker, but

it would seem to be pointless to ask to have this amendment made, only to

discover twelve months from now that we need fourteen months and then have to

come back. So we have given ourselves lots of leeway in the event that we do. It

is a very minor amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I ask hon. members to go a second

reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, with the general thrust of the

reforms that are taking place in education in this Province, in the primary,

elementary, the junior high school and senior high school systems, we, on this

side of the House, want to give our co-operation to the government so that they

can more easily facilitate the changes that are going to take place.

Mr. Speaker, in doing that, the issue is not the deferral of

the school board elections this particular Autumn. School board elections are

held on the same day as municipal elections. Therefore, the cost of conducting

the elections are relatively minimal. So this is not an issue of saving great

numbers of taxpayers' dollars. In fact, I am told that the cost of conducting

the whole school board elections for the whole Province is probably less than

$50,000 in total.

So, Mr. Speaker, the issue is whether or not it makes good

sense to give the government the authority to postpone the elections for a

four-year term. We believe that a one-year postponement of the school board

elections would be quite satisfactory. We have heard the minister, we have heard

the Premier, we have heard other members of Cabinet, we have heard the comments

of officials of the department, at the hearings we had, to say, in effect, that

the government intends to move fairly quickly with restructuring and reforming

the educational system. However, is it reasonable to give the minister the

authority to double the mandate of the school board officials in this Province?

We, on this side of the House, say that the mandate that the school board

members have was given to them by the people, by the parents, not by the

government. It was given to them by the people, by the electors and primarily by

the parents. For the government to say that they are going to postpone that

election for up to four years is in itself I think just too much to ask for our

consent on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the need for change. We recognize

that the minister needs to have some flexibility. We recognize that the issue

here is not primarily one of saving money, because money is not the big issue

here. Although $50,000 saved is appropriate if we're going to spend it on

education. What we have here is a situation where there is too much an

infringement of the democratic process. There is too much of a compromise being

asked. I just want to say that I cannot support the amendment as written. At the

appropriate Committee stage I will be proposing an amendment to it.

We believe that the government can restructure the school

board system of this Province in one year. If they can't do it in one year

therefore they should come back to this House and ask for a further

postponement, a further permission of the Legislature when there is a date

certain. But to suggest that people who were elected in November of 1989 would

hold office potentially until November of 1997, that becomes a bit outrageous,

and very much is an offence to the democratic system. Members will note that

when the Premier was elected in 1989 he made it quite clear that even though he

was elected for a five-year mandate he had said that he would seek a mandate

from the people after four years.

We have people who were elected in 1989 to the school boards

of this Province in November of that year. They are due for re-election. They're

due to go back to the people this November. Therefore to tell them now that they

are going to be told that they may have to stay in office for one year, two

years, three years, or maybe four years, in itself becomes anti-democratic and

becomes an offence to what we believe to be proper procedures in a democratic

Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the government needs some

flexibility, and we're willing to admit to that on this side of the House.

However, we cannot support an amendment that takes away from the parents the

right to pass judgement on their school boards and their school board elected

officials and to postpone that judgement from the parents for a possible four

years. We can't support that, and therefore at the appropriate stage I will be

proposing an amendment to the Bill that's now before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to

the Bill for just a minute or two -

MR. SIMMS: You can't control your own members, boy, you

can't control your own members.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Am I out of order, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The minister will have opportunity to

close the debate imminently.

MR. SIMMS: But you will cause more people to get up and

speak (inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Will I do that? We'll wait and see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I just -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) see how nice you are.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Nice to see you up.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Well, it's nice to see you down, Bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I have to say that I do enjoy it when

you're up. I just want to speak for a minute, Mr. Speaker, and respond in

support of the comments that the minister made on this Bill, and also to a

couple of the comments made by the education critic, the hon. Member for

Waterford - Kenmount.

I guess I should support the Bill, number one, because at the

time the request came from NLSTA, which is the association of all school boards,

and I was vice-president of that organization at the time and I was party to the

decision to make the request that the school board elections be deferred. It

seemed as though it was the right and proper thing to do then and I am certain

it is the right and proper thing to do now. In that context I want to support

the Bill that is before us at the moment. Secondly, of course, as a member of

this side of the House I believe it is the right and proper thing to do in any

event. I thought it was right then and I think it is right now to ask for a

postponement of school board elections.

The school board elections as contemplated by the NLSTA would

be in the order of one year and that is what has been suggested by the

legislation with the proviso that if it has to go slightly beyond that, of

course, there is legislation in place to accommodate that type of thing. To

answer the couple of criticisms, or veiled criticisms, because there did not

seem to be much spirit to the criticism that the minister or the critic, I am

sorry, for education was offering, to say that it is a hardship to delay the

elections or to say that it is an infringement upon the democratic rights of the

electors, I think, is stretching it a bit much beyond what the legislation

envisages.

I am not aware of what his position was, Mr. Speaker, a

couple of years ago when the same type of thing was done for municipalities when

the amalgamation process was going through, but I can say this, that the mayor

then of Mount Pearl, who is now the critic for education, did not resign from

his council in Mount Pearl at that time in protest over the legislation which is

very similar to this. If it is wrong today to extend school board elections then

it was wrong then to extend the elections of municipalities. I do not think it

was wrong then to do that and I think the mayor was happy to get the extra year

on his mandate without having to face the electorate. I am not sure if he was

really running scared because he resigned before he had to go again, but I do

not think that was the reason why he resigned. I think he was popular and

prominent and he would have been a successful candidate for the mayoralty.

In any event I want to add my voice of support, Mr. Speaker,

to this. I think the point that should be made though, is that traditionally in

school board elections it has been very difficult to get people to come forward

and run for trusteeships on school boards. I think to ask the people of this

Province who are interested in education to offer themselves for election,

knowing full well that their term of office will probably just be a year and

then they would have to run again for re-election, I think it would be a greater

disservice to the people who have an interest in education to postpone the

elections and ask the present trustees to serve an extra year. So, I believe, in

all fairness and in all commonsense it is the right thing to do, to have this

piece of legislation, to postpone the elections for a year, allow the trustees

that are there to carry on, if they will, and not to put the people who are

interested in education to have to run and then run again in a year's time.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the support of the

House for this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a

few words to say about the principle of this Bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools

Act." When I first saw this Bill and discussed it with the Member for Waterford

- Kenmount, the official opposition education critic, I felt and the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount agreed with me, that there was an error in the drafting of

the Bill and actually leading up to today I understood, incorrectly I now

realize, that the government acknowledged the error. I heard about a discussion

on the part of one of our members with the Government House Leader. I understood

the government acknowledged the error and undertook to correct it.

Mr. Speaker, a number of questions are in my mind that I want

to raise. First of all, the basic question of whether it is correct, by

legislation, to extend the term of office of a school board, or a municipal

government for that matter, of a local government. Is it acceptable for this

Legislature to delay the election of a local government - in this case a school

board?

I find arguments on both sides of that question, given the

stated intention of the government to consolidate school boards and reduce

significantly the number of boards. I believe the number is now twenty-five. It

was thirty-five a few years ago when I was minister, and through co-operation of

boards, church authorities and the government over the years since, the number

of boards has been steadily diminishing. Of course, that has mainly been

prompted by declining enrolments.

At any rate, the government appears to have made a policy

decision to reduce the number of boards. If that is a safe assumption, then I

can see the argument in favour of extending the terms of office of the current

boards and delaying school board elections beyond next November, but it is not

an easy decision because, after all, it is an interference with the democratic

process.

The case in favour has to do with avoiding unnecessary cost,

avoiding the administrative work involved with school board elections. Now the

Member for Waterford - Kenmount has pointed out that the cost actually is very

low. If the cost is that low - if the total cost of running school board

elections is only about $50,000 - then really I do not think this interference

is warranted.

Now the reason the cost is likely to be low is that through

legislation which I introduced when I was education minister in the mid-1980's,

school board elections are held concurrently with municipal elections, with

voting on the same day every four years, in the same place. Sharing is built

into the arrangement. That was intended primarily to induce more participation

in school board elections, a higher voter turnout and more involvement of

voters, but it was also designed to achieve economies of scale and keep down the

administration costs.

So when I look at the arguments for and against a delay, I

have to come down on the side of sticking to the original

schedule and

proceeding with a round of school board elections with municipal elections this

November.

A delay by one year is not all that bad, but in the back of

my mind I have the thought that this government has never done anything

significant on

schedule yet, so it is not likely to end up being a delay of just

one year. It is likely to drag on for two years or three years.

I come back to my original observation about the way this

Bill is worded. You see, originally I thought the government's intention was to

legislate a one year delay, but the Bill is worded in such a way that the

minister is empowered to delay school board elections up to four years from

November 1993 to November 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I grapple with the issue of a one year delay,

and as I explain concluded that that is unwarranted. The cost is not

significant. The interference would be great. After all, voters elected school

trustees, school board members, back in November of 1989 for a four year term.

People offered to serve and ran in those elections for a four-year term. It is

significant for the Legislature to interfere with that arrangement and to extend

the mandate of school board members by one year. The possibility of a four-year

extension is absolutely intolerable.

It seems as though the government set out to allow as much as

a four year delay and that really shocks me. I knew they were bad. I knew the

Wells administration has little regard for negotiated contracts, for tax

legislation, for municipal funding legislation. I've seen much evidence of that.

But this really is an unwarranted intrusion into the school board democratic

process.

Having made those two points, let me go on to make some

observations about democracy and school boards. The process of democratizing

school boards has developed very slowly and incompletely in this Province. When

school administration was re-organized in the late 1960s the government of the

day - the government of which the Government House Leader was a member -

legislated school boards being composed of a majority of appointed members, and

allowed for a minimum of just one-third of school board members having to be

elected.

Under that arrangement school board elections were held

piecemeal at odd times with no synchronization. The result was that relatively

few people ever knew about school board elections. There was a low turnout for

public elections. Some elections weren't even held by general election. They

were instead elections at public meetings poorly advertised. So from 1969 until

the mid-1980s school boards really were not chosen through a democratic process.

In the mid-1980s as I mentioned I introduced legislation

which was passed to try to more fully develop democracy in the process of school

board elections. That legislation, which is still in force, provides that school

board elections be held concurrently with municipal elections. It also required

that a minimum of two-thirds of school board members be elected by popular vote,

allowing for the remaining one-third to be appointed by the churches or

handpicked. That was a compromise. My own personal preference would have been to

have 100 per cent elections. The intention was to in later years amend the

legislation to require that all school board members be elected.

The previous Minister of Education in the Wells

administration indicated that the government would be legislating 100 per cent

public election of school board members, but that has not been forthcoming.

In the mid-eighties, after the legislation to increase public

involvement in school board elections, curiously the churches retreated.

Evidently they felt threatened by the prospect of the general public choosing

school board members. The churches asserted what they claimed to be their

constitutional right to restrict eligibility for school board elections. Now

previous to that, citizens who do not subscribe to any of the eight

denominations who operate schools in the Province with negotiated or

constitutional rights, had in fact stood for election and been elected but after

the mid-1980's legislative reform, churches basically put on the clamps and

refused to allow people other than adherents to their particular denominations,

to stand for election to their particular board. That had the very regrettable

result of excluding taxpaying citizens, people whose taxes are used to support

the school boards, from even standing for election to those school boards.

We have a situation in the Province where christians of

several denominations, Baptist, Unitarians, Lutherans are not allowed to stand

for election to school boards. We have a situation where non-christians; Jews,

Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists are not eligible to even have their name on a school

board election ballot. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable. Why has the

Wells administration been slow in acting to correct that? There has been lip

service paid to the discrimination. The previous minister at least voiced an

intention to reform school board election law to allow everyone in the Province

to stand for election, at least I thought I heard him say that but that reform

has not been forthcoming.

We now witness the church leaders and an elite Cabinet

committee meeting secretly, making decisions about administration of schools in

the Province. Others involved, parents and school board members, school

administrators, teachers, other taxpayers are not privy to any of those

discussions. We have to wonder whether the end product is going to involve more

discrimination instead of less discrimination. Whether the end product will

yield a school board election process that will be less democratic, less

inclusive, instead of fully democratic and all inclusiv