June 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 58

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to inform members of the hon. House of Assembly that

we have reached a tentative agreement with the NAPE/CUPE coalition. Details of

the agreement cannot be released at this time but I'd like to point out that

this is the result of several months of intense negotiation between both sides.

I'd like to particularly thank the negotiators from the Hospital Nursing Home

Association, the negotiators from Treasury Board, the negotiators from the

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees and the negotiators from the

Canadian Union of Public Employees for the tremendous effort they put in, in

these rather difficult times to come together and reach an agreement through the

normal collective bargaining process.

Over the next while - because there are over 15,000 employees

involved in twenty-four different bargaining units, it takes some time to have

the vote done. I understand that both unions are going to carry out the vote in

due course and it will take a few weeks before we know whether, in fact, the

membership have accepted this tentative agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and the people on this side of the

House are also pleased to see that the government and the unions have reached a

tentative agreement. We hope that the membership of the unions will accept the

offer if, indeed, it is a good offer. I don't know what it is, the minister

didn't say and he hasn't released it. My understanding is that the leadership of

the union are recommending the acceptance of it, but we'll have to wait and see

exactly what occurs when it is presented to the membership, because we recognize

that a deal that was negotiated or cooked up before -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: - was not acceptable to the membership but

was acceptable, though, to Treasury board, to the government and to the

leadership of another particular union, the NLTA. It wasn't acceptable to the

membership, I hope this one is, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Briefly, I would just

like to say that I'm delighted that the efforts of collective bargaining have

shown positive results and it should encourage the government to be more

appreciative of the collective bargaining process and not take actions which

detract from that. I hope that all members of these unions can accept the

agreement that has been reached by the leadership.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the good news just keeps rolling

on. It is good to hear. I notice members opposite are very happy these days, the

last day or two. Yesterday we had some terrific news, too, the Premier decided

and announced that he wouldn't be proceeding with Hydro privatization, Bill 1 -

so that was great and terrific news. At least he would not be proceeding with it

before the House adjourns this summer, which was contrary to a position he had

taken about three or four days before that. Nevertheless, it was great news.

He is now reported to have indicated that he won't probably

be proceeding with the bill until the House reconvenes sometime this Fall.

Having said that, I would now like to ask the Premier if he would tell the

people of the Province why on earth he has wasted between $50,000 and $60,000 of

the taxpayers' money just this last week alone on that crazy advertising scheme

that he first spent $100,000 on a couple of months ago? Why such an obscene

waste of money if you weren't going to proceed with the bill? Secondly, while

you are on your feet, could you tell me, the House, and the people in the

Province: Do you intend to continue with advertising between now and the fall?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps

insisting on misstating things. Let me correct his misstatement first before I

answer the specific question.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I will start again, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member keeps misstating things. The hon. the Member

for Grand Bank doesn't help any when he interjects in this way and interferes

with the answering of questions, so I just ask him to restrain himself for a

minute and allow people to answer the questions they have been asked in the

House. It is a normal courtesy to extend to people when they are asked questions

- he doesn't understand it, obviously.

The statement I made is not contrary to a position of three

or four days ago. The position of three or four days ago was very clear, that

government intended to continue to build support, and we intent to continue to

build support that we know in the end will be there to provide for the

privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that we wouldn't be

proceeding without an acceptable level of public support and we haven't done

anything inconsistent with that position. Everything we have done has been

completely consistent with that position and we intend to continue to follow

that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Let me start again, Mr. Speaker.

Everything we have done has been consistent with that

position. Then, the additional question the hon. member asked, was whether or

not we intended to continue with what he called wasteful advertising.

Mr. Speaker, informing the people of this Province is not

wasteful; it is what government should do. What I would consider wasteful is

spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to put your picture in the paper day

after day after day; that's wasteful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That, Mr. Speaker, is a wasteful, obscene

abuse of public taxpayers' money, which the former government practised on a

daily basis, led by the present Leader of the Opposition. He was the one who led

it, for heaven's sake.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government of this Province, the

present government, has stopped that practice. We have only used monies to

advertise in this nature where it is in the public interest to do so, and so

long as it remains in the public interest to do so the government would intend

to exercise the powering authority that it has to so take steps to inform the

people of this Province.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has become so

unpopular these days in this Province, he has to pay to get his picture in much

of the advertising, Maclean's Magazine and all these other places.

Now, his definition of consistent is certainly at odds with

the definition of consistent, I think, understood by most normal-thinking people

in this Province, because let me correct the hon. Premier. He did say a week

ago, in fact, that he expected the legislation to be passed before the House

adjourned for the summer. Now, that is what I said he said, and that is what he

did say, so he can deny it all he wants.

I want to ask him this question. Last week, or over a week

ago, he also told the media, and through the media, the general public, that he,

too, had done a public opinion poll on the Hydro issue. Last week, in fact, I

asked the Premier here in the House if he would tell us who conducted the poll,

how much did it cost, he may recall, and he indicated he would get the

information for me. Now, a week has passed and we don't have the information. Is

he in a position today to give answers to those two relatively easy questions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If I can comment on the hon. member's

first comment, I would say to him, if and when I ever sink to a low of 6, 8, 10

or 12 per cent, then the hon. member opposite will have some basis for

commenting on popularity. Then he will know he will have some basis for doing

it, but until then he ought to remember the glass house he has lived in for the

past three years, and that he is likely to be back in again, before he goes

casting aspersions of those kinds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the

specific question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will start again.

In answer to the specific question, I haven't provided the

answer to the amount that the poll cost because I don't have the specific cost

at this stage; the bill isn't in for it. I understand it is in the neighbourhood

of about $6,000. That's what I understand the cost to be, in that neighbourhood.

But I don't have the precise bill, so I don't know what the cost is.

MS. VERGE: Who did the poll?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! One question at a time.

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have a

supplementary?

MR. SIMMS: Yes. On the other part of the question, who

conducted the poll, the Premier can answer that I guess?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: What?

MR. SIMMS: You don't know who conducted the poll

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Let's get some order here.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Does a member other

than that member wish to be recognized?

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to get it clear on the record. The Premier has

indicated that he won't say who conducted the polls, is that correct?

PREMIER WELLS: I won't answer the question the hon.

member asked about who conducted the poll.

MS. VERGE: Why?

MR. SIMMS: Well let's make sure we get it correct.

MS. VERGE: Are public funds being used?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

One hon. member at a time if we want to have a question and

an answer.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make sure we get it correct. I asked him who

conducted the poll last week, and he said he would check into it. Today he is

saying he won't say who conducted the poll. Is that what he said, because I want

to understand clearly what he said. I don't want to misquote him. That's what

the Premier said. He will answer I guess when he stands to answer this

supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of questions in the House and

information tabled I believe by the Minister of Finance, possibly by the

minister responsible for Hydro, we now know that the government and Hydro have

spent together, not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but millions

of dollars in consultant fees, legal fees, advertising and probably a lot of

other costs related to the Hydro plan as well, the plan to sell Hydro.

Will the Premier tell the House today, can he give the House

at least some ballpark figure of the total amount spent to date by both

government and Hydro on this plan to sell Hydro? Secondly, would he table a

precise detailed breakdown of those expenses at the earliest opportunity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can't give him the figure

today because I don't have it; and as to whether I will table a complete

breakdown, yes, absolutely. There will be a complete breakdown of all the costs

incurred both by government and by Hydro in preparation for the privatization of

Hydro.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Will that information be tabled within the

next few days, what has been spent thus far, or is the Premier playing his games

again now and talking about tabling the answers to those questions, after Hydro

is privatized? I want to get it on the record.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is a silly request but I

suppose I have to answer it anyway.

There is no way in the world that I can table it in the next

day or two; I can't do it. It will take some time to put it together. I don't

have the figure and it will take some time to put it together, so I can't

undertake to have it tabled. If he wants to, I have no quarrel with making it

public sometime in the future. You don't have to wait till the House resumes in

the fall, if that is what he is asking. I have no quarrel with that.

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

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

My question is to the President of Treasury Board. As he

stated prior to question period, NAPE and CUPE and the government have reached a

tentative agreement that is being recommended to the membership. I wonder if he

could give us a status report on the state of the talks with the nurses union

and the NLTA?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the nurses' union,

there have been a number of bargaining sessions held. I personally had one

meeting with the nurses' union, along with the Minister of Health. The purpose

of the meeting was not necessarily collective bargaining. As a matter of fact,

most of the meeting centred on some concerns with the Department of Health.

So, the process is continuing and there are certain things we

are doing now to try to bring the negotiations with the nurses' union to a

speedy and successful conclusion.

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

Menihek.

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

From statements that the minister has made, both inside and

outside the House, it seems that government feels that it may not need savings

from the employee compensation package this year. Has the government dropped or

modified its demand of the 2.5 per cent reduction in the employee compensation

package?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, our position on that has been

very clear all along. At the point where it was obvious that perhaps this was

the year that things would turn around we notified all unions involved and

indicated that perhaps in terms of the 2.5 per cent it is probably better to

wait till the mid-year numbers come in. If in fact our revenues have improved

enough, then either all of that 2.5 per cent or a portion of it would not be

needed. This was always the position put to the unions for the last month. The

consideration of increased government revenues was always a factor in this round

of negotiations.

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

Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: My initial question, Mr. Speaker, was to the

President of Treasury Board. I asked for a status report on what was happening

with negotiations between the nurses' union and the NLTA. I wonder if he could

give us a report on what is occurring with the NLTA.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I think that everybody in the Province knows

what has been happening over the last few weeks. It is a result, I suppose, of

negotiations never getting started in the normal way, and not having time to try

to negotiate a settlement.

There was an agreement, a tentative agreement, reached

between government and the NLTA that was accepted by the provincial executive as

well as by the branch presidents but was rejected by the membership. Since that

time, there have also been intensive negotiations over the weekend, which have

been continuing into this week. I cannot say any more about it right now, but I

could say to the hon. gentleman that I may have some news a little later on this

afternoon.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the member had his final

supplementary. I move to the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Social Services.

An advocacy group called LISTEN has made a proposal to

government for federal\provincial funding to place long-term social assistance

recipients in full-time jobs in the private sector. I ask the minister: Why

hasn't his government approved this proposal? And will you reconsider and

provide the funding LISTEN has requested?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, for some time now we have been

having meetings and dealing with the LISTEN group. Their overall policy and

approach, certainly their approach, to dealing with the unemployment situation

as it relates to social assistance recipients, pretty much approximates the

government's own policy. With respect to the details of the program, there are

many initiatives presently being undertaken by the government.

We have a meeting scheduled with the LISTEN group, myself and

a couple of other ministers with the appropriate departments, to discuss

precisely what government's position is, and we expect that meeting to take

place within the next eight or ten days.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, several months ago, government ministers were

very supportive of this idea and plans put forward by this group. In fact, the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations said that their proposals mesh with

government's own policies. Yet, the group can't seem to get anywhere with the

support that counts - namely money.

I ask the minister: Does he believes their proposals will

work, will they create permanent jobs for people on social assistance, and will

it save money for both levels of government?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member

in my previous answer, certainly the overall philosophy of the group

approximates that of the government, namely, to get our people engaged in

meaningful work, to reward people for working, to have a program that provides

incentives to work as opposed to having disincentives; so, in that respect, it

does meet with the overall policy of government. However, I point out two

things: One, that the government, itself, has many of those programs within the

Department of Social Services and within the Department of Employment and Labour

Relations. Secondly, the government wasn't looking, at this particular point in

time, to another agency to deliver these jobs. The government, itself, is now

delivering these services directly. We are doing the jobs ourselves, so at this

point in time we are not looking for another agent to do the delivery system on

these jobs. That is not to say we will not do it, but up to this point in time,

government is taking care of these programs itself.

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

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the minister if he

has discussed LISTEN's proposals with his colleagues up in Ottawa, the Federal

Government, and if so, what has been their response to this particular program?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the program under which LISTEN

applied was the SAR program, which is jointly sponsored by the Province and by

SAR - by the Federal Government and the Provincial Government. So it went to

that committee. But, Mr. Speaker, in terms of discussing this specific program,

with federal officials, I didn't take it because I wasn't asked to take it to

the Federal Government. We have discussed, naturally, the program in general,

what the Province is doing, because we are all talking about income support

programs and how we can mesh that in with employment initiatives, and that is

the direction for the future - how we can mesh the income support programs with

employment strategies so that we can have a program, Mr. Speaker, that is

directed towards job creation and job training so that we can create meaningful

jobs for the people of this Province. Those are the initiatives we have

undertaken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education. The process of

negotiations between the churches and the government on governance changes to

the structure of the education system has been ongoing for some months. Can the

minister confirm that the process has progressed whereby a consensual agreement

for reform to the education system is not only a possibility but a probability?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have had

meetings with the church leaders over the past number of weeks. They have been

excellent meetings. Both sides have clarified some misunderstandings. I don't

want to say whether it will be a probability or not. I never like to count the

chickens before they are hatched. I think things are progressing, and to quote

the Minister of Mines and Energy who often says he is cautiously optimistic, I

think that would be the best way to describe my feeling at this time, cautiously

optimistic.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could

share with the House the criteria reached on a definition of a `viable' school?

Would he also care to comment on the future school busing practices, and will

these school busing practices be used to assure the continued viability of

uni-denominational schools?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, what we've said about viability

is that viability will be established solely on educational grounds, but we will

be consulting with all of the stakeholders, the denominations especially,

because they have played a major role over the years. We have also said about

busing that we will provide busing to uni-denominational schools on the same

basis as we will on multi-denominational schools.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the reforms to the education

system will require amendments to the schools act. Will the minister be tabling

this proposed legislation prior to the summer recess of the House, and can he

assure the House, regardless of when the legislation is tabled, that there will

be an opportunity for some type of public review?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we had thought that we would be

able to able it before the House rose tomorrow. Of course, the hon. member knows

that is impossible, we won't be doing that. The talks with the churches have

gone so well that we would like to be able on the day that we table that

legislation to be able to make a public announcement that this has the blessing

of all the churches, and that is not out of the question.

What we are going to do - there are two options. One option

would be for us to put it to one of the Legislation Committees over the summer

and let them have public input into it, or bring it into the House next Fall. I

can tell the hon. member, who must recognize that we've now had almost two years

of discussion of a Royal Commission, we have consulted with practically everyone

in this Province who is a stakeholder in this. In the same tradition of being

open with everything, this legislation will not come as any surprise to anyone.

I'm quite confident, Mr. Speaker, that when it is finally tabled, the support

that it will receive will be so overwhelming that the hon. member will be up on

his feet insisting that we hurry up and make this available to the public of the

Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier concerning the importation

of American industrial waste into the Province, and environmental guidelines,

and specifically the Baie Verte asbestos waste disposal project. Mr. Speaker,

the environmental preview report response will be in the hands of the minister

on June 17 and will be considered by Cabinet after the House closes this summer.

A number of people are concerned that this process may be truncated and be

approved without full public hearings. Can the Premier assure the House that

Cabinet will insist there be a full environmental assessment process with access

to public hearings and public information all over the Province, considering

that this is the first proposal for the importation of American industrial waste

that has gotten this far?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There's no proposal to import American

garbage. There is a proposal that would consider putting back into the hole from

which asbestos came in the past, asbestos waste, from whatever the source. Some

may be from the United States, some may be from other parts of Canada, some may

be from other parts of the world. The only thing that I can assure the House is

that the full letter of the law will be met. The full environmental process

required by the law will be followed.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So far we've been assured that the contents of this

industrial waste will be 1 per cent asbestos and 99 per cent unknown content

from apparently unknown sources and unnamed companies. Is the Premier prepared

to abide by, with respect to this project, his Ministerial Statement of December

7, 1992, in which he said that the project must be acceptable to the people of

the Province as a whole and meet the requirements from a social economic and

biophysical perspective,including public opinion on the matter? Is the Premier

prepared to abide by that with respect to this proposal and to this project when

it comes before Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon.

member got that fabricated story he came up with, about 1 per cent asbestos and

99 per cent unknown. That's utter nonsense. I don't know where that came from so

I say nothing further about it. It's garbage, as far as I'm concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: On the second point, I'm quite prepared to

stand by the statement that I made but not the hon. member's

interpretation of

it. I'm quite prepared to stand by the statement that I made but not any

rejigging of it by the hon. member.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the acting Minister of Tourism and

Culture. The department has commissioned a study to prepare a provincial theme

touring routes master plan. Would the minister tell the House when this study

was commissioned, what company received the contract and what is the total

amount of the contract?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the actual specifics

but I'd be happy to get them within the next hour and table them.

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

Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, most of this Province already

has theme touring routes such as the Viking Trail, the Heritage Run and so on.

Other sections of the Province are being looked. At the present time, there is a

comprehensive tourism study of the entire Avalon, which includes theme touring

routes. I ask the minister: Why do we need another study? Doesn't he think this

is another example of re-inventing the wheel?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's another

example of re-inventing the wheel. If you look at the example that he used, the

theme touring route for the Viking Trail, a great lot of energy and time has

been put into that by the private sector - the coming together of all of the

businesses on the Great Northern Peninsula, putting together a study, an action

plan with the help of consultants. It's paying off handsome dividends. We're

seeing our numbers increased and we're seeing jobs being created because of it.

So you can only go by the examples of the past. If you take the Viking Trail

tourism study, the theme touring route and you see the positive results coming

from that, surely, if it's working in one part of the Province, we should give

effect to it in other parts of the Province.

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

for St. Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, part of the process of the

study is consultation with industry and the general public. Three meetings were

held across the Province during the past few weeks. I ask the minister, if he is

convinced that the study is necessary, will he take it upon himself to ensure

that several more meetings are held across the Province, and especially in

Labrador, to gain input from the industry and the general public?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we will do whatever is necessary

to grow this industry. We've highlighted it in the Strategic Economic Plan. If

you look at jurisdictions across the country, you'll see that there was negative

growth in other parts of the country last year. Newfoundland and Labrador must

be doing something right. We grew by 6.4 per cent last year.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: I am delighted to hear the minister say that

there is an industry in this Province growing because my question is to the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture who is trying to destroy an industry in

this Province.

Several of my colleagues have received copies of letters that

the minister has sent to the operators of pasture lands in this Province,

reducing the grant by 50 per cent, from $55 per animal unit to $27.50. I always

thought it was the responsibility of the department to promote agriculture in

this Province, not to downgrade it.

Can I ask the minister why he has decided to attack that

aspect of rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member

that it is the intention of this government not to destroy agriculture but to

make sure that our money is well spent and we get the proper value for our

dollar. A government decision this year was to not necessarily close the

pastures but to withdraw funding for pastures that were no longer viable in this

Province, that didn't have the animal units to support them, and that didn't

have the participation of the local community.

What we decided to do instead, Mr. Speaker, was to identify

fifteen regional pastures that serve the purpose, out of which we will get the

best value for our dollar, and that decision was supported by the agriculture

industry.

MR. EFFORD: Hear, hear! What a minister!

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I can tell the minister, it was not supported

by the farmers, particularly the sheep farmers in my district who took advantage

of the pasture land there, or any other districts in this Province. The minister

said there will be fifteen regional pastures left in this Province, and he said

he was downgrading them. What he has announced is that as a result of this

reduction, no funding will be available for your pasture in the future, so what

you have done is eliminate it.

Let me ask the minister which pasture lands have been

removed, will not receive any more funding? What districts are they in, and how

many are there, Mr. Speaker? Yes, the minister might laugh, and I say that for a

reason. He knows why I am asking that question. Why, which ones, and what

districts are they in, and can the minister also tell me in response to his last

statement, that there will be regional pasture lands? What regional pasture land

will be left on the Burin Peninsula?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously

doesn't expect me to list the names of all the pastures that have been retained.

There are sixteen, but I can tell him there are three retained in the district

of the hon. the Member for St. George's, and it is justified by the numbers, Mr.

Speaker. I can tell him there are members on this side of the House who have

been on my back this past month because I have closed pastures in their

districts. I can tell him, another pasture that I understand is closing is in

his district - Winterland, Mr. Speaker.

I can also tell him that at the Estimates Committee when I

defended that decision, members of the Loyal Opposition were there and nodded in

agreement, agreed that was the right thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: The hon. member should speak to his

agricultural spokesman on that side of the House who was present at the

Estimates meetings and agreed it was the right thing to do under the

circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to reply to a question asked yesterday by the Member

for Placentia regarding the Argentia employees and the situation in terms of the

wind-down of the operation.

Mention was made of the severance pay. There has already been

agreement that the appropriated employees and the non-appropriated employees

will be treated the same way in terms of severance; therefore 100 of these

non-appropriated employees will receive full severance benefits.

The problem arises with the pensions, and the hon. gentleman

is correct there. The situation is this, that that pension plan has now to be

wound up and in winding-up the pension plan, the way that we do it here is as

follows: Under the wind-up formula, all eligible employees retire immediately;

the ones who are eligible for pension retire immediately and receive their

pension. Those who cannot retire are vested and the value of their pensions must

be transferred to locked in RRSPs.

Now this process of winding down has an extra cost associated

with it of about $2 million, an extra cost, and that is what is causing the

problem. It seems to me that the officials at the base don't want to have

anything to do with that extra $2 million;

whereas, under the wind-down

arrangements of a plan, that extra $2 million cost must be in there.

So that's where the situation stands now. We are still

insisting that that extra $2 million be put in, but there seems to be some

reluctance so we are going through channels to make sure that we are on solid

ground in terms of that extra $2 million.

I hope that satisfies the gentleman for Placentia; and I

would like to table a sort of a note that I was given on it and I am sure he

could read it and see what else is there.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, some questions were asked

yesterday with respect to historic sites. One was with respect to the Cape

Bonavista Lighthouse, what was happening with respect to repairs, and was it

painted.

The exterior was painted last year and it will be painted

again this year. The

Interpretation Centre had a leak in the roof that was

fixed, two bathrooms were renovated and an

interpretation exhibit is to be

installed within the next three to four weeks.

Last year the historic sites opened on June 28; they are

opening on July 1, this year. If bus groups make prior plans to be at any of

these particular sites, Mr. Speaker, and they give us advance notice, we will

have people there for

interpretation. If it is required to open it for a day or

two days for bus groups, prior to the official opening date, we can certainly do

that.

That's about it I guess. Those are all the questions that

were asked.

Orders of the Day

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

Private Member's Day.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, in accordance with the

agreement reached in the House yesterday, we will deal first with Motion 5. I

understand the debate will be quite short with the hon. gentleman from St.

John's East, a speaker from the Opposition and a speaker from the government

side, and we will then go on to other matters.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Motion 5, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I speak today on the Private Member's Motion standing in my

name on the Order Paper with respect to the Newfoundland pony.

The resolution, Mr. Speaker - and I won't read it because it

is there for all members to see on the Order Paper - relates to the current

situation and plight of an animal known as the Newfoundland pony.

Mr. Speaker, this is a distinctive breed known only in this

Province, developed through adaptation, local conditions and local breeding over

the last couple of hundred years. It is a species which has developed

characteristics which are especially suited to our climate and to the needs of

our people and communities over the years for an animal which could provide

transportation needs; essentially a working animal, Mr. Speaker, particularly in

rural Newfoundland but in urban settings as well.

This animal is in danger of extinction but can be rescued by

definitive action on the part of government as well as those others who have

made significant efforts to try to ensure the survival of the breed as part of

our distinctive Newfoundland heritage, and a breed important because of its

uniqueness to this Province.

I will mention some of them, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to

leave anybody out, but there are a couple of groups which deserve particular

mention. The Newfoundland Pony Society is one which is dedicated to the

preservation, development and breeding of the Newfoundland pony. An organization

in Ontario called the Rare Breed Conservancy, which has noted and expressed its

concern about maintaining rare breeds, not only of horses but other animals,

have taken a particular interest in the Newfoundland pony. An organization

called Newfoundland Pony Care Inc., or sometimes known as Friends of the

Newfoundland Pony, which has placed a great deal of effort into providing spaces

for ponies to live, provided care for Newfoundland ponies, and have an adoption

program which allows ponies to be cared for at the expense of donors to

Newfoundland Pony Care Inc.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to give recognition to the work of

a veterinarian, Dr. Andrew Fraser, whose contribution, in addition to his

concern about the pony and his activity as a veterinarian, has been in the

production of a book called The Newfoundland Pony , which was published in

1992. It makes the case for the Newfoundland pony as a distinctive breed in the

context of recognition of breeds of horses and animals, in that sphere, and

explains in great detail and with much erudition the history of the horse and

the place of the Newfoundland pony in it.

Mr. Speaker, others have helped as well, people in

government, people outside of government, and some hon. members here who

themselves are particularly concerned that government try to do something to

save the Newfoundland pony. I should say in reference to Dr. Fraser and his

book, Dr. Fraser is in the gallery here today to witness the debate and has

expressed his pleasure that something was being done by the House of Assembly in

recognizing the importance and significance of the animal. Also, in reference to

the book, I will say that the Minister of Education was mistakenly - mistakenly,

I say - criticized in the newspapers recently when someone wrote a letter

talking about how the minister was reading a book in the House, a picture book

on horses. Hon. members will know, who have seen the book, that this book,

The Newfoundland Pony , was being read by the Minister of Education as an

educative effort, trying to educate himself about the Newfoundland pony, so that

he could be prepared to support this legislation here in the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to support this

resolution. It is going to do three things. I know a lot of hon. members are

interested in the Newfoundland pony and expressed an interest in it, but this

resolution does more than that. It provides some significant recognition to the

animal. That hasn't been done to date. The importance of recognizing the

Newfoundland pony as a heritage animal by government and putting that in

legislation, which this resolution asks to be done, is an important prestige to

the animal that will increase its value, its importance and significance for the

Newfoundlanders who own them, for individuals who want to breed them or sell

them, and for individuals who want to get involved in the tourist aspects of the

Newfoundland pony. By saying that the Newfoundland pony is a heritage animal,

efforts can be made to protect them and to go about identifying examples of the

breed.

The second part of the resolution asks "that measures be

taken to assist in the establishment of the Newfoundland Pony as a recognized

breed including providing or endorsing means of acknowledging individual animals

as Newfoundland Ponies." This is important because what is happening to

Newfoundland ponies today is that sometimes the owners themselves or their

communities don't recognize the significance of an individual animal. The meat

collectors come by and offer a low price for an animal to so-called take it off

the hands of an individual and take it off to New Brunswick or Montreal to the

meat trade for a very cheap price. Individuals don't recognize that they have

what is a potentially valuable animal. So to recognize individual animals,

something should be done, Mr. Speaker. I think the Newfoundland Pony Society, as

the breed group, is perhaps the best body to be given the opportunity to

identify and recognize individual animals.

There are now less than 100 breedable Newfoundland ponies

left in existence. That is a very small number. There are only six stallions in

that herd. There are a number of other animals that are beyond breeding stage,

or are incapable of breeding because of their geldings or castrated males; so

less than 100 breedable animals. This is down from 500 a couple of years ago,

and 5,000 or 6,000 in 1980. So we are at a point, Mr. Speaker, where the size of

the population is very crucial. It is very crucial, and I think there is an

opportunity here for government action, which is inexpensive but necessary, to

preserve and provide for the rescuing of this breed. Not only the rescuing, but

to encourage the growth and development of the pony population.

They have tremendous potential for having a significant

commercial value as well to their owners and to the tourist trade in this

Province. For example, I want to acknowledge today that as late as yesterday the

Department of Environment and Lands have made available approximately ten

hectares of land in the Trinity Hopeall, Trinity Bay area, to establish, by the

Newfoundland Pony Care Inc., a sanctuary for the Newfoundland pony. That's on

the Baccalieu Trail area, and once that sanctuary is established and a herd is

developed there, this will be of significant tourist interest as part of the

Baccalieu Trail tourist region.

That is only one example, but there are tremendous

opportunities both in breeding and in recreation, in tourism and in

establishing, perhaps, working heritage farms or examples of how these animals

could be used.

They have been replaced in many cases, Mr. Speaker, by

four-wheel drives and ATVs; and we know the problems we have had from these.

They are an important part of the cultural and working heritage of Newfoundland,

and action to protect them is very important. In fact, without action now there

is still a grave, grave danger that the Newfoundland pony population may

disappear. There may be accidents, there may be problems in the breed or in

breeding that could cause the demise of the Newfoundland pony entirely.

Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity now to support this

effort. These three things that are contained in the resolution are of great

significance to the survival of the Newfoundland pony as a distinctive breed,

and to promote it as a distinctive breed, and to promote the growth and

development of the population.

I want to thank hon. members who have indicated previously

their support for the motion and for government action. I know the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture has responded, saying his department is studying these

initiatives. I think the support of the House of Assembly for this motion - and

I would hope that that support would be unanimous for the motion - that the

House of Assembly's significant support of such a motion, would give greater

encouragement to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, in particular the

officials, to get moving and doing the things that have to be done to ensure the

survival of this particular breed.

The other item that is mentioned here, in terms of government

action that is needed right now, is the prevention of the export of Newfoundland

ponies for meat. That is still going on, Mr. Speaker, that ponies are being

sold, bought by buyers, and taken out of the Province for meat export. That can

and should be stopped by action right now at Port aux Basques and at Argentia,

where the ferries are running, to prevent the export of Newfoundland ponies for

meat. That can and should be done without any expense. There are already

agricultural officials there. A way ought to be found to ensure that this does

not happen.

If we do those three things today, Mr. Speaker: Encourage the

government to bring forth legislation to establish the Newfoundland pony as a

heritage animal, it would give it value and significance and prestige that it

does not now have; that we find a means of identifying individual animals to

certify that this particular animal is indeed a Newfoundland pony - if we can do

that, Mr. Speaker, that would increase the value of individual animals; and

thirdly, Mr. Speaker, prevent the export of ponies for meat. Those three things,

if they can be done now, will perhaps ensure the survival of the Newfoundland

pony.

I commend all hon. members in support of this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the

motion brought forward by the Member for St. John's East. I'm in total agreement

with the motion. Over the years the Newfoundland pony has certainly been part of

our rural culture. The Newfoundland pony, as we know it today, evolved from a

number of breeds that were brought into this Province centuries ago. Today the

Newfoundland pony is near extinction, as my hon. colleague has indicated. This

is due partly to the fact that the pony has been replaced by modern machinery.

The municipal regulations also caused a lot of the problems because there were

no grazing lands for the animals.

I remember growing up in Lethbridge and on any given evening

you could see ponies working their way up the road, probably about half a dozen

horses, hauling sleigh loads of wood after spending a day in the woods working

very hard. A number of these were Newfoundland ponies and even though they were

very small they certainly pulled their share. We as kids often jumped onto the

pile of logs and hooked a ride somewhere. Then during the summer these horses

were left to graze. Anywhere around the community you could see a number of

horses grazing and they never seemed to create any problem. They were just part

of the country scene out there. Of course we didn't have as many automobiles, we

didn't have the fast traffic. It was just one of these things that we certainly

enjoyed.

I had the honour, on May 28, to represent the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture at

the Newfoundland Pony Society meeting which was held in Chapel Arm. I was very

pleased to see the dedication of the members present, dedicated to saving the

Newfoundland pony from extinction and I know that they do have the support of

these two members.

As well, the Minister of Education and I had a chat yesterday

- and I was glad that my colleague pointed out that he was indeed reading the

book of Newfoundland ponies. I also indicated to him that down in Point

Leamington some of the people there have developed some stories based around the

Newfoundland pony, and they are using that in one of the themes on horses in the

elementary curriculum. The minister was very pleased to learn about that and I'm

sure he will be looking further into that aspect.

I was indeed pleased, when I was in Chapel Arm, to have the

opportunity to meet Dr. Fraser. He has certainly contributed very well to the

cause of the Newfoundland pony. I know that the book he wrote was from the

heart, it wasn't just something to make some money. It's a wonderful book, it's

full of factual information and I was very pleased that my husband received a

copy as a Christmas gift.

I would also encourage members opposite, and on this side as

well, to certainly join up. Join the Newfoundland Pony Society, it only costs

ten dollars. I'm asking you to put some money into this very worthwhile cause.

If anybody would like this sheet of factual information and the subscription

form, you can certainly get a copy and that will certainly promote the cause.

Now this Newfoundland pony could certainly fit into any

department. It could certainly fit into Works, Services and Transportation,

because the pony worked very hard, it provided a good service and it was

transportation there as well. It could fit in with Education now because there

are stories being written about the Newfoundland pony and we're recognizing its

contribution. It could fit in with the Department of Fisheries because no doubt

the ponies hauled the dried fish from the stages to the sheds. It could

certainly fit in under Environment and Lands, because it was an environmentally

friendly animal. It didn't cause too much pollution, because it all worked back

into the soil. It could certainly fit in with Tourism and Culture because there

are people in other parts of this country, and indeed around the world, who are

horse lovers who would certainly come to this Province just to see some of our

Newfoundland ponies. It is part of our culture and we should make every effort

to ensure that it remains part of our future.

The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture has certainly

indicated a willingness to carry out the resolutions put forth in this motion.

He has his staff doing research on this entire matter and I'm very, very pleased

with the response that not only he but other Cabinet ministers - and you know,

there is indeed justice in the world, because the Minister of Justice also

endorses this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge all members of the hon. House

of Assembly to join with me and my colleagues today in our support for this

motion. As well, I give full credit to the Newfoundland Pony Society and all

other horse lovers out there who are protecting the future of this wonderful

little animal which has worked its way up through the history of our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take great pleasure today in rising to support a motion

that was put by the Member for St. John's East and supported by the Member for

Terra Nova.

Far too often our society recognizes something when it is

gone. We have a chance now, starting today, to hold on to something that should

be taken care of. It goes back to the times long past, before responsible

government, and through it, and the Commission, and now a province, but also

part of a country. It is very important that they hold out. There is something

dreadfully wrong that we let an animal that is nearly extinct go for mink food

and cat food and dog food.

My family moved to Placentia in 1951 from the Cape Shore and

I spent all my summer holidays out there after. That was a transitionary type of

period in that area, from the time they were getting horses imported from the

mainland; and you would see the mixtures of the Newfoundland pony running along.

On the cliffs on the Cape Shore, before it became popular for

tourists, Bird Island, there would be hundreds of horses from all over the Cape

Shore out there in the summertime, and you would see the smaller pony with them.

They were very sure-footed animals, animals bred over centuries that were

adapted to Newfoundland's weather and terrain. The overhead cost of these

animals was less to the person who had them than some of these other hay burners

that we had. Pound for pound they were better than the Belgians, I've been told.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were just like goats (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, very sure-footed, as I said, and am

reminded by my colleague. They are a part of our culture, and something like

ourselves. We dug in and stuck here and we are going to stay here.

It is something that is very important, that animal. I'm glad

there are people out there such as the Newfoundland Pony Society, the advocates

and the other supporters, of having this animal designated as a heritage animal.

They should be recognized, endorsed and acknowledged as Newfoundland ponies;

registered.

As the hon. member said earlier, that would drive up the

value of them. Then we certainly wouldn't see them used as animal food. As we

see so often ourselves, and I imagine other people - things that we never

thought of as valuable, family things that were passed down through the years,

went out in the garbage. Americans and Canadians came in here, have taken things

and then gone; furniture that was old, that we never took any pass on, tables

that our great grandfathers and all these had sat at, and we realized it too

late. Then, certain laws had to be put in to stop stuff from being taken.

I am glad to be able to support the hon. member, the member

across the way, and others, who will make sure that starting today, the

Newfoundland pony will not be extinct. What will be extinct will be those who

want to make it into dog food and cat food.

I am pleased to be here today.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

Motion, carried.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to announce to the hon. House that we have

reached a tentative agreement with the NLTA.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: The union will now go through its process of

having meetings around the Province and take a vote sometime in the next three

of or four days. We hope that this time we will bring a successful conclusion to

this round of negotiations.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that is two out two for my hon.

colleague today. He is on a roll, so let us keep going.

Could we do Motions 1 through 3 first? That is simply to give

first reading to three bills, and then we will begin the debate on Order 16

which is the Worker's Compensation Act amendment bill.

Motion, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

introduce the following bills:

"An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," (Bill No. 30)

"An Act To Amend The Department Of Works, Services And

Transportation Act (No.2)," (Bill No. 31)

"An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act." (Bill No. 32)

On motion, Bill Nos. 30, 31, and 32, read a first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Could we now go on to, as it were, the main

portion of the day's business, the Workers' Compensation Act amendments? It is

Order 16, Bill No. 27, in the name of my friend, the Member for Exploits.

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

The Workers' Compensation Act (No. 2)." (Bill No. 27)

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It might take some time with respect to introducing this

particular bill because I think the record of the Legislature, Hansard, should

make some note of the very specific changes that are contained here, and for

that purpose, I will go through an introduction with some detail regarding the

explanatory notes that are contained in Bill 27.

Bill 27, Mr. Speaker, as was explained to the House of

Assembly on Friday past, is really an amalgam of two things. It is Bill 4 which

has been on the Order Paper for some time, in which there are a couple of

significant changes to the Workers' Compensation Act, along with housekeeping

changes, as well as the brand new additions here with respect to a complete

overhaul of the current appeal system within Workers' Compensation, or the

external appeal system at least, that is currently referred to as the Workers'

Compensation Appeal Tribunal, and that will from July 1 forward become known as

the Workers' Compensation Review Division.

All of these, Mr. Speaker, are incorporated in this one bill,

Bill 27, and as I indicated, I will take a few minutes to look at the details of

them.

You can see in the explanatory notes that Clause 1 spells out

that the appeal tribunal will basically be replaced by a new entity known as the

review division and that the membership of the appeal tribunal, being currently

a Chair, Vice-Chair that sits and chairs the appeal hearing, assisted by two

sides people, will be replaced by a single review commissioner, who will hear

the appeal brought forward by a dissatisfied claimant in Workers' Compensation,

who has registered the fact that despite everything that is happening,

everything that has happened so far to them, that they are still dissatisfied

with the decision rendered, Mr. Speaker, by the Workers' Compensation Commission

and its processes.

Clause 2 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, amends subsection 4(3) as

the explanatory note indicates, by removing the chairperson of the appeal

tribunal from the Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation Commission.

This too, indicates that presently the chairperson and CEO of the

Workers'Compensation appeal tribunal, by law, is an ex officio member of the

Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation Commission, which is the

policy-setting body of Workers' Compensation for the Province. In the new

arrangement, the review commissioner is not to be involved in policy decisions

at all or in any policy review, but is to render a decision as to whether or not

the Workers' Compensation Commission has brought forward an appropriate decision

based on existing law, regulations and policy,and there is no loop.

The old loop used to be in what was

Section 21 and then the

new

Section 28 which is now being abolished altogether, that the Workers'

Compensation Commission could, in fact, override a decision of the appeal

tribunal and that's eliminated, Mr. Speaker, which is one of the important

parts, and the decision of the review commissioner is final and binding, and the

only way that anyone can deal with that, the only role for Workers' Compensation

is to implement the decision rendered by the review commissioner without a

reference again, back to policy and a review of policy and those types of

things.

So since there will be no reviews, on a policy basis, of the

decisions of the review commissioner, it is felt that the review commissioner

would not serve any role being on the Board of Directors of the

Commission,itself; they will sit in judgement of the decisions rendered but they

will not give any opinion as to what policy should be, therefore they should not

sit around the policy formulating table which will have the normal board of

directors being a couple of members representing workers, a couple of members

representing employers, a couple of members-at-large and the neutral chairperson

of that particular commission.

Clause 3, just substitutes the new language `review division'

for the words appeal tribunal consistently throughout the act, and then clause

4, repeals existing appeal tribunal which is spelled out, its role and functions

in the current act in sections 21 to 34; all of those sections are repealed and

they are replaced then; clause 4 replaces and substitutes for anything

referencing the appeal tribunal, the rules and conditions and terms, in terms of

setting up and also providing the mandate for the new review division which will

consist of review commissioners who would individually have the power to review

the commission decisions. So that's what is contained, Mr. Speaker, in clause 4,

which is the most extensive clause by far in this particular bill, and it spells

out in the act that will then spell out the new

section 21, the new sections 22,

23, 24, 25, 26 up to and including - and that's clause 4, ends with the new

section 30. So, in the new act as it will be proclaimed afterwards in the

Workers' Compensation Act, the review division and the role and mandate of the

review commissioners, will be spelled out in new sections numbered from 21 to

30, and the current sections 21 to 34, which set up and spell out the mandate of

the appeal tribunal will all be summarily substituted and repealed from the

current legislation. So there will be a major replacement exercise in terms of

the piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that is contained and spelled out in

clause 4.

In a few minutes again, just for the record, I may make a

couple of comments with respect to a couple of those individual clauses between

21 and 34 in the act that are contained in clause 4 of the bill.

Clauses 5 and 6, Mr. Speaker, are then consequential

amendments arising out of the repeal of

Section 34. There are a couple of

housekeeping things that have to happen as a result of that because

Section 34

is repealed, therefore there are some other consequential amendments throughout

other parts of the act that have to occur and are spelled out in clause 5 and

clause 6 of this bill, and in the bill they appear on page 9, where the couple

of words: `34 or' and `appeals and stated cases' after

section 37, are amended

to bring them in line with the new review division.

Clauses 1 to 6 contain the changes that are relevant to

replacing the appeal tribunal with a review division. That is all contained in

those six particular clauses.

The other clauses that we have in the bill are related to

other changes that were previously in Bill 4 and are now incorporated just

exactly as they were on the Order Paper in Bill 4, in this new Bill 27.

Clause 7 defines `motor vehicle'. One of the changes made in

January of 1993 was that basically, in the Workers' Compensation system,

individuals give up their right to sue, but there was one exception. In the case

of motor vehicle accidents, in the course of duty where there is third party

liability, there is an option clause where people can sue the liability

insurance, because in some cases it is more lucrative than workers' compensation

would be. In fact, that was designed in January of 1993 to be more beneficial to

the injured workers, but one of the confusions in one of the cases that arose

since, was that `motor vehicle', for definition under this act, wasn't

appropriately defined.

So the change in clause 7 is here to make sure that `motor

vehicle' in the Workers' Compensation Act is basically defined the same as it is

in the Highways Act, so that any time there is an accident involving vehicles,

where the people are driving in the course of their duty, they can exercise

their right under the Workers' Compensation Act to either take the compensation

and let the Commission launch a court action against the liability insurance of

one of the parties, or they can forego their right to compensation and launch

the action themselves. That choice is in the bill, but to make it workable,we

need to make sure that the definition of `motor vehicle' is consistent with what

it is in the Highway Traffic Act. That is what clause 7 accomplishes in this

bill.

Clause 8 is a great improvement that has been lobbied for for

some time, particularly for widows of miners in the St. Lawrence area, and also

applying sometimes now in Baie Verte and otherwise where there have been workers

who have, some considerable years after their employment ceased, passed on,

because they were suffering from industrial diseases. The most prevalent and

most common ones are the lung diseases that people contracted in the mines of

St. Lawrence, and there have been some cases arising out of Baie Verte as well.

One of the unfortunate parts of the rules was that the widows

and the dependants of those people could only get workers' compensation if the

person was working at the time they died, and these people, because of the

nature of the lung diseases, were actually off work and away from work sometimes

for years before the actual lung disease caused their death. But if it is

determined, as it has been in a number of cases already, that it is the

industrial disease, the lung disease, that caused the death, then the widows and

the other dependants will get the benefits, regardless of whether or not the

person was working at the time he died from the industrial disease.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes, in response to the question from the

hon. the Member for Grand Bank, the Opposition House Leader, I think they have

been accepting all cases where, at the point when the person was leaving work

because of illness, the indication from the doctors was that he had the

beginnings of a lung disease or industrial disease; then, later on, whether it

takes a year, two, three or five, that is being accepted as a matter of course

without the onus of proof as being the cause of death at the end of the day.

There has been, I think - and the way the people protected

themselves, is that the medical files have shown, when the person left work in

the first instance, even before retirement age, in many cases, the early

evidence of the lung disease and industrial disease was recorded in the files,

and those people will be accepted for this claim without further onus of proof.

I think that has already been indicated. That one will come

into effect retroactive to January 1, 1994. Those people who are waiting for

this to be passed will be notified by the Commission. They won't need to apply,

and their payments will start effective January 1, 1994 and come forward from

that date in time for everyone who has been identified.

There has been a successful lobby and a proper lobby about

that particular aspect over a period of time, largely resulting from miners in

the St. Lawrence area, and the board of directors of the Commission listened to

the argument, felt that it was fair and proper, and have agreed that from

January 1, 1994, upon passage of this bill, that new amendment will, in fact,

make it possible to make workers' compensation payments to the widows and their

surviving dependants according to the act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Starting January 1?

MR. GRIMES: It will go back to January 1 of this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Payment (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Payments will. There will be retroactive

payments for six months or seven months. This will be proclaimed on July 1 and

then they will continue on from there. Anyone else coming into the system as of

January 1, 1994, will be picked up immediately.

So that one is here, Mr. Speaker, and I think that there are

a number of people we know of already who are anxiously awaiting the passage of

this bill so that can happen.

Clause 9 is being repealed because that was a transitional

clause. When the changes were made in the benefit rates from December 31 of 1992

to January 1 of 1993 there needed to be a transition clause referring to the

people who were in the system for thirty-nine weeks or longer and thirty-nine

weeks or less so they could go from the 90 per cent to the new appropriate rate.

That is no longer needed because this is now a year and six months later. The

transition has occurred. The actual piece of legislation is redundant because

all new claims are coming in under the new system and at this point in time any

recurrences are coming in under new legislation. This is not needed. It served a

purpose for a period of three or four months to clear up some cases at that

point in time, but is no longer necessary, so it is being removed from the act

altogether.

Clause 10 is also making an adjustment to ensure that

employer-sponsored pension plans, all of them, whether they be in the public

service or in the private sector, if there is an employer-sponsored pension plan

in which the employer either pays for all of the benefit or part of the benefit

on a matched basis with the employee, all of those pension plans will be treated

for the purpose of Workers' Compensation exactly the same as the Canada Pension

Plan is. That is that there will be a certain claw back of certain amounts and

so on and that however Workers' Compensation treats the Canada Pension Plan, it

will treat any other pension plan into which the employer makes a contribution,

whether it is all of it or some of it.

The only one where there will not be any connection and any

relation between the pension plan and Workers' Compensation is if the employee,

himself or herself, made the total contribution through an RRSP arrangement or

it was privately funded. That is considered the same as private insurance plans

and so on and is not deducted in any way, shape or form from a worker's

compensation entitlement. That change is being brought forward in clause 10 of

the bill.

Clause 11 is a further amount referring to the industrial

disease. The other reference talks about when Workers' Compensation has paid

some money out on behalf of an injured worker and then Workers' Compensation

makes an action, takes an action, recovers that money from some other source,

that before Workers' Compensation pays out the amount of money in the settlement

to the injured worker, they will deduct any monies they've paid to the worker,

which will not only include money they've paid to the injured worker for salary

compensation but also money they've spent in relation to medical expenses,

rehabilitation, other expenses.

If Workers' Compensation makes a claim, for example, in the

case of the third party liability again, and receives a settlement from an

insurance company that is in excess of what the injured worker would have

received from Workers' Compensation, they deduct whatever their expenses have

been, whatever foregone wages they've paid to the injured worker, and then the

rest of it after those expenses, they pass over to the injured worker. It just

spells out exactly what it is that the Commission deducts before they give the

rest of the money to the injured worker.

Clause 12 basically is a transitional clause that spells out

exactly how current appeals in the system will be dealt with while we are

changing from an appeal tribunal to a review division. It spells out clearly

that for the ninety days after July 1 if there are hearings already started they

will be finished by a panel, as it is set up. If the current panel has started

work on a case it will finish the work, but it is ordered by law to finish that

work within ninety days after July 1. If any appeals have been registered now

but have not yet started in the hearings process they will be heard after July

1, but they will be heard by a single review commissioner and they will be heard

by the rules of the new act even though they've registered before July 1.

Clause 13, the last one, basically is the clause that spells

out that the plan certainly here is that for clauses 1 to 6, which is the

reworking of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal into a Workers'

Compensation Review Division, it gives effect and says that even though we may

very well pass this bill in the Legislature today or tomorrow or before the

House closes for a summer recess, that the new rules and provisions and those

new parts of the act would come into effect and have the effect of law in the

Province as of July 1.

Mr. Speaker, those are the major changes. I think there has

been a fair bit of public debate and discussion about this. We understand that

it doesn't meet fully, in many cases, the desires of different people who have

made representation to us as the government but, in our view, taking everything

into consideration, we feel very strongly that this will be very much beneficial

for injured workers in terms of making sure that there is a timely response to

their complaint and to their appeal, and that it will be heard, and that the

review commissioner who sits will, in fact, decide very quickly for the

appellant, whether or not Workers' Compensation has properly enforced the law,

the regulations and the policies, or whether they have made an error.

If, in the opinion of the review commissioner, the commission

has made an error, then the new law states quite clearly that the commissioner

is ordered with the authority and the power to render the remedy, to state

clearly what the new decision should be, and the role for Workers' Compensation,

the Commission then, is to enact that decision, and that is to be appealable

only to a court, and only on very limited basis, and the basis basically is that

if Workers' Compensation, if the Commission, for example, feels that they are

aggrieved by the new decision rendered, the only way they can go to a court of

law is if they feel that the review commissioner has made an error of law in

terms of deciding whether or not the law, the regulations or the policy were

enforced, or if they argue that the review commissioner would have exceeded his

or her jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, what we hope to do is have the debate on this

issue now in the Legislature, to hopefully see passage of the bill, and to spend

the time between now and July 1st putting in place six or seven people who we

hope will publicly meet a judgement of being impartial, they will be seen to be

fair people whose first interest is to make sure that they understand the needs

of injured workers, and that they will do a complete and thorough review of the

decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission in any case where there is an

appeal, to decide whether or not the decision given by Workers' Compensation was

appropriate in light of existing circumstances, or whether they should order a

new remedy or a new decision.

We want to cut out completely the loop that takes those

decisions back to Workers' Compensation, make those decisions final and binding.

And the only thing that I could probably commit to, when we did the

comprehensive review that came into place January 1, 1993, some eighteen months

ago now: I said that if the experience starts to be positive with respect to

workers' compensation, we wouldn't necessarily wait the five years for the next

mandated legislative review.

We are still looking at that, because we have since had the

first report under the new circumstances and the new legislation, which has

showed some improvement. It has definitely shown some improvement in the

financial circumstance of workers' compensation itself. We are studying now what

the real reasons for that were, to see whether or not there is any point and any

purpose, at this point in time, to look at the other issues, because we still

want to look at the issue of whether or not the Commission can sustain a benefit

rate above and beyond the 75 and 80 per cent levels that are currently law - the

changes from the previous 90 per cent.

So we are looking at that and evaluating it, and if that can

happen we won't wait the five years for that to happen. We will probably need a

little more time to look at that issue. And in this instance, Mr. Speaker, two

things: We will review the functioning of this new operation, this new review

commission, fairly early in its mandate. Somewhere within six to ten months

after it starts we will compare whether or not they are meeting their six-month

mandate, whether this is an improvement for injured workers or not, whether or

not the decisions are timely, what the cost factors are looking like, and if

anything, I have been discussing already with the current chairman and chief

executive officer, and the vice-chairs, because my own preference would have

been to put in by legislation a time line shorter than six months.

I am advised at this point it might be tricky to try three

months or two months, but we will look at how the cases flow through this new

system in the early part of the new mandate of the review commission, and the

one thing I would like to be able to do is to return to the House next Fall, or

the Spring after, a year from now, and if we are going to make any change to

this at all, it would be one to try to even shorten the times lines even moreso

than six months. Because I believe all of us in this Legislature agree that

there is one thing that injured workers deserve - they have already been

frustrated by not getting a decision that they understand or agree with through

the whole process, and to have to wait even six months longer is really a time

period that causes some concern, but it is the best we can do at this point in

trying to mandate a shorter time, because I think everybody here, even by

representing their constituents, understands that the current practice has led

to time frames that are normally double or triple that. So we'll review the

six-month criteria as soon as we can after we get some cases through this

system. If there's anything we can do immediately, it will be to further shorten

the time frames so that the injured workers can get through this process as

quickly as possible. And they will know for sure whether the decision of the

Commission is upheld or whether a new decision will be ordered by the review

commissioner, which the commission will then be charged with implementing.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those opening remarks - mainly for the

record, because we've had much of this discussion before - I certainly look

forward to the other participants in the debate. Any commentary or question they

might have, I would certainly try to deal with at the close of the debate later

today or tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a lot of questions concerning the legislation brought

before the House. It was only tabled on Monday and asked to be dealt with in a

fairly expeditious and forthright manner by the government. Let me preface my

remarks by saying, Mr. Speaker, that since the general election of last year,

the Employers' Council, the Federation of Labour and indeed the Newfoundland and

Labrador Injured Workers Association have made and submitted briefs to the

minister, to the government, dealing with changes that these groups would

independently like to see to the Workers' Compensation Commission, itself, and

to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

Now, these three groups' views vary greatly, depending on

what aspect of the Workers' Compensation Commission you talk to them about, that

they would like to see changed; but clearly, Mr. Speaker, independently, each of

these groups has called for significant changes to the appeal tribunal process.

Indeed, what they have called for and asked for really is identical, these

groups who represent the stakeholders when it comes to Workers' Compensation,

the Employers' Council; the employers, themselves, who underwrite - with their

own money, Mr. Speaker, underwrite the Workers' Compensation Commission; The

Federation of Labour representing labour groups, and people who are in the

workforce, who are at risk to potential hazards and potential dangers in the

workplace and thirdly; the Injured Workers Association who represent injured

workers in the Province in a daily, weekly and monthly fashion in relation to

the problems they have encountered with the Workers' Compensation Commission.

What have they asked for? Mr. Speaker, they've asked for this: They have asked

for the present appeal tribunal to be dismantled. The minister has done that.

They have asked for an independent chairman to be hired on a full-time basis,

they have asked for a full-time employer representative, they have also asked

for a full-time employee representative, who would review cases, make decisions

based upon consensus of those three groups being represented at the appeal

process but, Mr. Speaker, the government and the minister have chosen to ignore

really what the stakeholders have said to them - the people who are affected

each and every day by the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal and the time it

takes.

Now, some parts of the legislation - the minister has dealt

with the criticisms that have been levied by the Employers' Council, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers Association, and the Federation of

Labour and indeed, Mr. Speaker, has dealt with some of the complaints that have

arisen from myself, as critic for Employment and Labour, and indeed, the loyal

Opposition. Namely, one of the biggest criticisms has been that the Workers'

Compensation Appeal Tribunal decisions were not final and binding upon the

Workers' Compensation Commission. Now, I wonder if the minister would be able -

maybe we could, clause-by-clause, I say to the minister, debate this. If I could

pose a question and he could respond immediately, I don't know if he's up to

that - if that's fine with him?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: As we go through it now.

You talked about the decision of the review commission and

review commissioner being final and binding upon the Workers' Compensation

Commission, but there is a loophole you referred to yourself just a moment ago -

that the Workers' Compensation Commission has the right to bring before the

courts in the Province any decision that they believe a commissioner has made

outside the guidelines of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Is that what you

referred to?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I understand, if it's agreeable

with the rest of our colleagues that we'd do it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Clause-by-clause.

MR. GRIMES: - similar to like we would have done in

Committee and whatnot, sure. The changes are significant, Mr. Speaker, and I

guess we're referring now to what's in

Section 26(2). In the old legislation,

what occurred was that there was a clear loop and a mandate in the old

section

21, prior to the changes, and then

section 28, that gave the Commission the

authority to make a judgement upon the decisions rendered by the appeal

tribunal, that they were empowered by law to do that. That

section has been

deleted completely and it has been replaced by

section 26(2) of which the legal

words are here, and I read the legal words, because I had to go through with our

colleagues in Justice and others, because I explained to them exactly what we

wanted to accomplish, and then they explained to us that this is exactly the way

you accomplish it by legal text.

What we wanted to accomplish was to make sure that there was

no longer a right for the Workers' Compensation Commission board of directors to

second-guess the decision given; and if they felt there was a problem, if they

felt that someone had exceeded their jurisdiction, or that they had made an

error in law, we would even try to prevent that. But even when you put words in

like in 26(2) that say you can't go to court, there are those two bases that you

can't prevent somebody from going to court on.

It is not that the Commission board of directors can now just

say: We don't agree. What they used to do then was send it back to the Appeal

Tribunal and say: Reconsider. There was a reconsideration. They used to turn it

down or reconsider. Send it back to the board. It would go back. This could go

on for months and months. That is completely eliminated. The words here say: "An

order or decision of a review commissioner is final and conclusive and is not

open to question or review in a court of law..."

But I'm advised, and one of our people here at the Table here

can even tell us, because they had a hand in writing a goodly part of this

particular bill, that even with those words, if somebody is aggrieved of the

decision of the Commissioner, even though it says it "...is not open to question

or review in a court of law and proceedings by or before a review commissioner

shall not be restrained by injunction..." and so on, that someone can still end

up getting into the courts but only on two very narrow bases.

They have to argue before the courts; they have no power to

overturn it themselves. The only way they can stop implementation is to make a

decision to go to court. They would have to argue that there was an error of

law, that the commissioner made an absolute mistake and didn't know what he or

she was doing from a legal basis, or that they exceeded their jurisdiction. That

they went beyond the jurisdiction which says: Review the decision in light of

the current law regulations and policies, confirm the decision as being an

appropriate one, or order what you think the proper decision is. Because I think

the language that talks about that talks about ordering the remedy.

It gets as close as you can, to saying that the decision has

to be implemented. There is no point in having a big debate. The Commission's

board of directors then must say: We've got a choice. We either implement the

decision, the remedy that has been ordered by the Commissioner, or we go to

court, but we can only go to court and argue that the Commissioner made an error

of law or exceeded his or her jurisdiction. They can't have a big debate about

the policy and all this kind of stuff.

That loop is completely removed from the legislation. We are

advised that this is as close as you come to telling anybody that under no set

of circumstances can you go to court. You can't apparently write a piece of

legislation in anything that says you can't go to court. This basically stops it

as effectively as you can.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I thank the minister for his explanation

and feel satisfied that the loophole has been closed to a narrower gap than has

existed previously. Suffice it to say, maybe before this sitting is out, that

whereby no lawyer has ever been able to draft a piece of legislation that could

stop something from going to court, maybe the hon. the Government House Leader

is just one such lawyer who would like to bridge that gap. Certainly, his

opinion of himself and his background as a lawyer would eminently qualify him -

in his own mind, I say, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: No one has ever been able to stop the courts

from getting into (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me go on, Mr. Speaker, to talk about

the government's decision to put in hand a review commission, a single

adjudicator sort of process as opposed to having an employee representative, an

employer representative, and a neutral chairperson who reach decisions on

consensus. Where there is a complete majority decision in terms of those three

people agreeing that a case, yes, should be considered, or yes, a decision

should be overturned, a majority opinion is offered. Where there is one

abstention there are times when a minority decision is also written.

Why did government not listen to the stakeholders, the very

people who have the most to win and the most to lose when it deals with the

Workers' Compensation Commission and the Tribunal? What was so predominate in

your thoughts and in government's thoughts, that they moved to a single

adjudicator as opposed to implementing a structure that was recommended to them

by the stakeholders in this industry?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of things

actually. As I indicated at the press conference a couple of days ago, on

Monday, this is not an issue we have only been dealing with in the last few

days. This is `the' issue that was left over as a result of the statutory review

that was conducted in 1991. We implemented some fifty or sixty recommendations

that came into effect on January 1, 1993 and it was clear that there was another

recommendation made, and it was with respect to that

Section 28 that we just

talked about, about the loop of going back, about the role of the appeal

tribunal, the relationship to the board, and who could overturn what and so on.

There was a clear recommendation made, Mr. Speaker, in that

statutory review, that we find a way to make the decisions final and binding.

Now, the other part we looked at was to say, what is the role of these sides

people anyway? What we have been doing as a government since 1989, is we have

been, a step at a time, very gradually, in the appeals process, moving away from

tribunals. We have very clearly taken the argument that when workers want proper

decisions made at Workers' Compensation, the best place for them to have an

impact is through their representatives on the board that recommends to

government the regulations, and sets the policies that determine and guide the

decisions in the first place.

The same thing for employer representatives - if they want to

have a real impact in terms of the kinds of decisions that are coming out of

Workers' Compensation then, most of the time, their argument is with the

policies that were the framework for the decisions in the first place. They

might have some difference of opinion as to whether or not this or something

else should be allowed or permitted. The people who are rendering the decisions,

the staff, are like staff in any other department, once policies and regulations

are put in place they don't have flexibility to vary that, go beyond, or so on.

They have to interpret what is there and make a decision on the basis of the

existing policy.

So we are saying that once you get to the appeal, just like

we do for the human rights adjudicative panel, there is a human rights

commission in which all kinds of interests are represented. They debate issues,

formulate policy, and make recommendations to government as to what the Human

Rights Code should be and so on.

Now, when it gets down to a person, though, filing a

complaint that goes through a process, and they want to know whether or not

their human rights have been upheld or violated, they go to an adjudicator. They

don't go through a panel. There is no labour and there is no employer dealing in

many of those, although history will show that about 80 per cent of the human

rights complaints in Newfoundland are employer-employee related. They come from

a work environment in most instances. But they don't go to a tribunal where

there is an employee rep, an employer rep, and a neutral person - they go to a

neutral person who judges whether or not the policies and rules were properly

enforced in this particular case, or whether there was an error made by

somebody.

We are saying that is the exact same role here. It is a year

or so ago that we made the same change with respect to labour standards, where

workers come forward, mostly workers in this case, and argue that they have not

been getting the proper wage according to the labour standards, that they

haven't been paid appropriate overtime, that they don't get sick leave, they

don't get rest periods, they don't get vacation pay, and there is a disagreement

between them and their employer. They used to go to a tribunal where there would

be an employer representative, an employee representative and a neutral

adjudicator. We eliminated the sides people and said there is really no role for

someone representing the employer or the employee to have a discussion, they

have already stated their case. They have already had an investigation. They

have told everything they had to tell. Now, we need someone to decide whether or

not a proper decision was made.

In the current rules, Mr. Speaker, in the old

section 27, it

is spelled out that the decision of a majority of the members of the appeal

tribunal, or of a panel, represents the decision of the appeal tribunal. When

you couldn't get unanimous consent, what would happen, and it is the same thing

that happens in arbitration cases and so on, the chairperson writes the

decision. What they do now is, they basically are in a situation where this says

you have to get a majority of the panel, so they have to shop around and get one

or the other to agree with them, and if they didn't get one or the other to

agree with them, there was no decision rendered; but, in fact, all that really

happens, in the real world, and I think the hon. member knows this, too, from

experience with similar types of tribunals, is that the Chair keeps going back

and forth until he gets someone to agree with what he wrote in the first place.

So the decisions, by-and-large, are the decisions of the chairperson. Now,they

have to have some discussion in the tribunal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) consensus.

MR. GRIMES: Reached by consensus,in a manner of speaking,

but the reality is that the Chair writes it and they wait and they wait and they

wait. The pressure comes on because an injured worker is waiting for a decision,

wondering why he doesn't get it. The chairperson tells that to the employee rep,

saying, `Boy, you should agree with this because now we can get a decision on

it.' If that doesn't work, they go the employer rep and say, `You should agree

with this so we can get a decision on it.'

They will get somebody to agree, sooner or later, but there

was never an exercise where three people sat down and wrote the decision. That

has never happened under the current system, and we feel that what really

happens is that the employer and employee input should be into the policies.

Someone would then judge an individual, the same as if you went to court, the

same as if you went to Human Rights, the same as if you went to Labour

Standards, a person - and the main criteria is to find someone who is accepted

as being fair and impartial - a person will make a decision and render a

decision as to whether the rules were appropriately applied, properly applied,

or whether an error was made. Then, if he thinks there was an error made, he

will then order the remedy. We feel that there isn't a role for sides people in

the adjudicated process. It should be back at the policy-making level.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister and

government have overlooked a very serious consideration in terms of the argument

that the minister has just put forward. There is no question that employers and

employees are represented on the board of directors in terms of the formulation

of policy, formulation of rules and regulations, but it is what happens to those

rules and regulations, and to the policies that they had up front input to, that

causes the most concern.

Suffice it to say that if the majority of rules and

regulations and policies of the Workers' Compensation Commission were enacted in

the spirit in which they were drafted, most of the appeals that are before the

appeal tribunal now would not be there, and the reality is this: At the appeal

tribunal, when an injured worker appears, or an employer appears, based on

whatever the case may be, the rules and policies were not, in fact, enacted, and

decisions that have been overturned have found out that that has taken place.

I could go on for three or four days in terms of case

descriptions, but when it comes to the actual appeal process, where the employee

representative, the employer representative and the neutral chairperson are

sitting at the table, they are the ultimate judges of that, if policy and

regulations have been up front, have been adhered to in terms of the spirit in

which they were drafted. Now that is eliminated, I say to the minister. What we

are looking at is one person who sits in judgement, who has neither any

background, necessarily, in terms of the stakeholders, in terms of employers who

underwrite the Workers' Compensation Commission, in terms of employee or injured

worker who has gone through the process and who knows best, in many cases, where

the problems of the Commission lie, that they, themselves, do not have a direct

input into their own fields of experience. And I think the government has made a

mistake here in going with the single adjudicator process, and I just want to be

on record as saying that.

Now, in terms of the decisions you talked about, how a

decision is rendered, is most often that the chairperson writes the decision,

runs back and forth between an employer rep and an employee rep in trying to

reach consensus, but most often it is the chairperson.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly. The chairperson is there for that

reason, but my experience, and I have had some experience with different boards

and tribunals, as the minister has pointed out, is that more often than not,

consensus is reached up front; the decision is written thereafter.

There have been decisions at the Workers' Compensation Appeal

Tribunal where the employer and the employee rep have agreed and have overruled

the decision of the chairperson. So what sort of decision would the chairperson

of the tribunal write then?

I don't necessarily buy into the argument, although it sounds

good, but the practical applications and fallout of how it actually works is not

necessarily what you described. And, consensus, in my experience, it has often

been shown and demonstrated that consensus is reached up front and that

decisions come out in an expedient manner.

The other question I would like to ask, there are a number,

but you talked about putting in a time frame, dealing with the six months, that

the review commissioner or commissioners must make a decision within six months.

Now, that again, and we have talked about it outside the Chambers, but we have

talked about: how do you enforce that?

For example: can the minister say today what is the backlog

in terms of cases before the appeal tribunal? And as a result of this new

system, what is the tribunal's predictions, or the commission's predictions or

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations' predictions, of how soon that

backlog will be cleared up so that decisions can be rendered within six months?

or, will we be back here this time next year, Mr. Speaker, talking about: we

said in legislation that decisions have to be made in six months but we are yet

experiencing decisions not being up towards twelve to thirteen months.

It is just a cautionary sort of statement that I make. And,

does the minister have any quantifiable data to show that seven commissioners,

one of whom is the chief review commissioner, will clear up this backlog quickly

and will get decisions made in six months? so that, as he said, we may be back

here next year talking about reducing that in legislation to a two or

three-month period on behalf of injured worker?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have started some discussion of those issues already,

because I think, from our point of view as the government, this is the most

critical part of the bill in terms of trying to make sure that we get timely

response. As of today's date, in checking, there are some 230 appeals registered

at the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal that have not yet had a hearing

date set. There are others that have hearing dates set, somewhere in the range

of sixty or seventy on which dates are set down and they are expected to be

heard this month, or someone has committed already to hear them in the early

part of July and so on.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we should know that they are averaging

three new requests for appeals each working day that the office is opened, so

they are getting about fifteen new ones a week, that is the average that is

coming in, there are about three a day coming in, in terms of meeting the

requirements that within ninety days of a decision from Workers' Compensation

Commission that they have to apply for an appeal.

So, at that particular rate, the same as the last couple of

years, it is expected that we will have a workload consistently for a while

through the review division that will be in the range of 400 to 500 cases a

year. And even in clearing up the 230 that are already registered, which is our

first concern, the expectation is that if we put the chief review commissioner

or an acting chief review commissioner in place as of July 1, who can work at

this job full time, that they can do at least twenty cases in a week - average,

I should say, ten a week for the individual. Even if they average two cases a

day just for the hearing, they may then need some time in the week after that,

if they get backed up on their decision-writing to hear fewer cases, but with

two or three of the other commissioners, hopefully being people who will be

available to us almost on a full-time basis even if they are not put on a

full-time salaried position anyway, that we can deal within the range of twenty

to thirty cases a week.

They might need some time in the next week to write, but

monthly we could expect that we could clear up somewhere in the range of fifty

of these cases, being a hearing and then a stipulation that in fact they give

the decision. We are also looking at even though the law doesn't ask for that,

Mr. Speaker - it spells out six months as the time frame, and I will answer that

question just after these other couple of comments - that we would like them to

put in place a new administrative structure, that enables them to provide - the

phrase in the business is, I think, `a quick and dirty decision' - you give them

a short, one-page answer rather than a twenty- or thirty-page decision with all

the reasons and all the history and so on; that whatever the main point of

appeal is, it might be possible to restructure the actual format of the written

decision so that the review commissioners will be able to provide within a week

or ten days of the actual hearing date, a short version of the decision with the

main points highlighted in it for the claimant.

Within that kind of time frame, if they are working at this

full time, we can turn those over fairly quickly so that inside of six months,

between now and Christmas, we are hoping to have these 230 that are currently

registered, cleared completely off the books, and then we will probably get into

a position with a full-time available chief commissioner and one or two people

available on a fairly regular basis, that will be able to keep well apace of the

average of three a day, and as they come in, a hearing date would be set very

quickly.

The main delay then would be in the staff over there getting

the affidavit file from Workers' Compensation. As soon as that file is in the

hands of the commissioner, in the hands of the complainant, and in the hands of

anyone else who has expressed an interest in appearing, then the hearing date

can be set down, the hearing can be held and we can render the decision quickly.

Again, I've asked him to be cognizant of the fact that there

is no penalty - we looked at it - there is no really workable penalty. What are

we going to do, fine the commissioner $100 if he doesn't give the decision on

the exact six-month day? The control that we have, Mr. Speaker, is that when

these people are offered appointment they will be made completely aware of this

and the government's concern that timeliness be the number one priority.

If we have people who can't meet this time frame then we will

remove them and appoint others. We will get to the point where we will have to

have people who can meet this time frame, because the current staff and the

current Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission feel that when operating on a

full-time basis, people making themselves available pretty well full-time for

this instead of part-time as now, there is no reason - other than the very odd

exceptional case where maybe the claimant himself or herself might ask for

delays or new information might come forward, and so on - there is no reason

that anyone can see, why they can't meet the six-month time line and, as a

matter of fact, as I said earlier, to try to make it even shorter than that -

even if we get to the point where we can amend the act and say four months is

the most you could ever have to wait from start to finish.

That is the one, though, Mr. Speaker, that we will be

monitoring most closely. We are also looking at internal administrative

mechanisms to try to give that decision and render the basic content of a

decision on a very quick basis without jeopardizing the quality of a decision.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

talk about review commissioners and part-time review commissioners. The

minister, I believe - and he can correct me if I'm wrong quickly here - said

that initially there will be a chief review commissioner hired, full-time, and

possibly another person hired full-time to clear up the backlog. Is that true?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: At least in the first year, that is a

possibility. You talk about the chief review commissioner, that this would be a

full-time position, that person devoted solely to getting decisions written,

getting decisions made quickly, getting the appeal process sped up so that

people can get on with their lives.

We've talked about, as well, that in the legislation this

position will be appointed by Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, upon

the recommendation of the minister. Remuneration and benefits will be decided by

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a recommendation of the minister. Can you

enlighten us on some of those areas? Because, as he knows, the debate about the

cost associated with paying a chairperson some $98,000 and a vice-chair some

$83,000 in terms of the benefits that really accrued to the people who were

going before the tribunal for such a cost - what are we looking at in terms of

actual salaries for these people? Part-time I know is a different story,

because, depending on the backlog, it will depend upon how much work, or how

much they will be paid, and that is a different concern.

But if we are looking at somebody full-time, does that person

necessarily then have to - is he part of the public service, part of government?

Is he allowed to be a private consultant, for example, hold down private or

part-time jobs? Could it be an MHA or city councillor, I ask, which is the

present circumstance? What sort of remuneration package are we talking about?

Could you just enlighten me on that?

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I just

want to note for the record that we are not following the normal rules for

debate in second reading here, but it is by leave of the House, as I understand

it, that we are allowing a member to speak more than once and the minister to

answer the questions.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to deal

with the components of the question.

The only exclusion would be that - and I know you didn't ask

because you thought somebody here was interested in one of these jobs - but MHAs

would be excluded. Because, in fact, by virtue of our positions, and the

Internal Economy Commission and the Morgan Commission Report, we state that we

are full-time members of the Legislature by virtue of collecting our full-time

salary. Unless somebody here wanted to state they wanted to go part-time and

work part-time over there. I think that exclusion would be there.

I understand, as well, the question with respect to one of

the current vice-chairs who is a city councillor, Mr. Brace - that is a

part-time position that they do, it is not a full-time job. As a matter of fact

at the press conference on Monday, I indicated that three of the current five

have been asked whether or not they were interested in continuing. Because we

would also like to have someone there with some experience. We don't want to

bring in seven brand new people who have never done anything with Workers'

Compensation before, because it is a complex area and we would like to have

someone who demonstrates some experience.

Mr. Seabright won't be involved because of the policy of

government about the double-dipping, and won't be offered any new appointment.

His appointment will expire at the end of this month. Mr. Brace - I have an

initial indication from him. He would be interested in one of the positions. I

haven't yet heard from Mr. Watton or Ms. Allen Westby from Corner Brook. They

had expressed some interest before in continuing on if the present system

continued. Ms. Fagan indicated to us earlier that due to her law practice and

other duties, she didn't think she could devote enough time to appeals and

wasn't interested in continuing on with the Appeal Tribunal. I'm assuming that

she is not interested in becoming a commissioner, either full-time or part-time.

If we hear from any of those, we would certainly have to consider whether or not

they would continue.

I've asked for an expression of interest, and also I've

written to the Employers' Council and to the Federation of Labour asking them if

they would suggest names that they would find acceptable. Because knowing that

they are biased in the process and neither one considered neutral - but if the

Federation of Labour were to suggest to myself and to Cabinet some people who,

as far as they are concerned, would be acceptable on the neutrality and unbiased

and fairness criteria, and convinced that the community, generally, would accept

him or her as a person whose only interest was making sure that the proper

decisions were rendered - because that is what the review commission is there to

do - then we would certainly consider those names. I've offered the same

courtesy to the Employers' Council. Even though their normal appointees came

with an employer bias, if they thought they had some people they could

recommend, that the employees, the injured workers, the unions and so on would

see as being fair, even though they might be from the employer camp, then we

certainly wouldn't rule that out.

Because there is no stipulation that it has to be someone

with a legal background. It always has been by tradition ever since it started

in 1987. If there are other people in the community who are arbitrators,

adjudicators, and so on, who aren't from a legal background, we would consider

those as well.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the best I could do, is do some thinking

out loud for the hon. member, because I haven't made this proposition to the

Cabinet yet. There are two choices, I guess, we are going to explore. One is to

take at least the chief review commissioner and put him or her on a full-time

salary retainer, make him or her a full-time employee. If we do that, the

thinking is that they would probably be offered a salary somewhere equivalent to

the assistant deputy minister level. I think that range is somewhere in the

$63,000, $64,000, up to $75,000 range. I think that is the scale on which

assistant deputy ministers are paid.

I've already had discussions where there are people currently

in the system - employer reps, employee reps, and the chairs themselves - who

think there are downsides to that. Because if you put somebody on a salary there

is no motivation for him or her to hear a lot of cases. Their job is to hear

cases, but there is no motivation.

The other proposition that we are considering is whether even

for the chief review commissioner, that we might put him or her on a retainer -

$5,000, $6,000, $10,000 a year - and then pay them by the case, so that there

would be a real incentive for the person to hear cases. You can see the debate

that conjures up, because would somebody rush the case and probably make a poor

decision because they make more money? We are debating those options and they

will be spelled out for the Cabinet. I will recommend one course or the other to

the Cabinet somewhere in the next couple of weeks so that we can have at least a

week or ten days prior to July 1 to make sure everybody knows that the system

will very smoothly transition into July 1 without a gap in hearings and so on.

Those are the things we are considering. I can probably give

a personal inclination. I lean more towards a per case payment, because I think

that motivates people to make sure that they hear the cases, deal with the

cases, render the decision. Because the other component of that we are thinking

about - and again I say, doing some thinking out loud - is that currently the

people bill as they go. If I heard a hearing today, which some of the Chairs are

doing, then they put in a bill for today, but you mightn't get the decision for

ninety days. The other thing I'm asking them to think about administratively is

to not pay any money until the decision is rendered. Again, there would be a

real impetus and a real encouragement and a real enticement for the

commissioners to get the decisions written up and get them delivered to the

injured workers, because that is what will trigger their payment.

Those are the things, Mr. Speaker, that we are thinking

about. I would certainly be interested in hearing the hon. member's and others'

views, because that is one that we will have to come to grips with in the next

couple of weeks, and right now I don't know which way we will go with it. It is

likely to be one version or the other of those two types of things.

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

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

As the minister is aware, today really, is usually reserved

for Private Members' Day. I had a private member's resolution on the floor

calling for three things; one, that the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal be

terminated as it now exists, which he has done; two, that there be a full-time

representative of employers and employees and a full-time neutral chairperson,

which we have already debated; the third point I'd like to get to in that

private member's resolution deals with the individuals selected to serve on this

tribunal or on the commission itself, that these positions would be selected and

hired independently by the Public Service Commission.

As I was going to do during Private Members' Day, and I'll do

it now - I will explore the possibility, the realm of possibility, especially

dealing with the review commission as it now will be called as of July 1, 1994:

Why couldn't government, for example, why couldn't your department put out to

the Public Service Commission these positions and ask the Public Service

Commission to provide them with the job descriptions and criteria? You could

still do the things that you've outlined here in terms of - when you were

thinking out loud of how you would pay these people, all those sorts of things.

But why couldn't government, in terms of the Workers' Compensation Appeal

Tribunal or the review commission, publicly open up the job competition for the

review commission? What would it do, I ask the minister? What would such a move

do to enhance, not only the quality of work that may be done at the commission,

it also would enhance the credibility of the Commission itself.

Now, I want to talk about the quality of work. I think that a

public sort of competition, through the Public Service Commission, removes the

notion and removes any possibility that there was political patronage involved,

that political patronage is continuing. What we've seen recently - there have

been charges levied dealing with the notion of political patronage and the

Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal - but what really is wrong with opening up

these positions to the Public Service Commission, I ask the minister? Now, he

may argue in fact that the chief review commissioner, if he/she is going to be

paid at an assistant deputy minister level, that those positions normally do not

go through the Public Service Commission, and he's right. But what about if

government maintains the right to appoint the chief review commissioner but yet,

in the same breath says to the Public Service Commission: We are opening up, for

competition, the part-time review commissioners for the review commission of

Workers' Compensation. We are hoping to get, as a result, the best people, with

the best credentials, with the most experience, who are the most qualified, so

that, at the end of the day, the very mandate you are putting forward here today

in terms of wanting to get decisions made and rendered quickly on behalf of

injured workers who've come before there, that by doing that, you are ensuring

that that will happen in a more expeditious manner and a more credible manner,

not only to the people who are appearing before the Workers' Compensation

Commission but also to the general public at large.

Some of the nonsense, I say, Mr. Speaker, that has happened

here, dealing with patronage, the government boards - and I'm not really

necessarily pointing my finger at this government because they have participated

in it, as have other governments to more or less degrees, but the problem with

something like that is that it overshadows everything else that members do in

this Chamber, members who, by the way, work sixteen or seventeen hours per day

on behalf of the people who elected them. Something so trivial on one hand, in

terms of the work that we do here, besides that - but something so important on

the other hand, which ensures political credibility, I think, in terms of

restoring some honour to the profession that we are practising here as members,

then why doesn't government take serious consideration in putting six of those

review commissioners into the Public Service Commission and wash their hands

clean of it, I ask him?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do recognize, as

well, in fact, with the private members' motion that was on the paper, point

thr