The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions.

MR. DECKER: This has got to be some important.

MR. SIMMS: I say to the Minister of Education, he perhaps should keep his ears and eyes open; it just might be.

I want to ask the questions today of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I know that the minister is receiving at his office, on a regular basis the last couple of days in particular, a number of representations about driving conditions and safety on the highway. I know that for a fact because I have received copies of a letter, for example, a very serious letter, which I may have an opportunity to allude to a little later.

Now that the minister told us, and he told us on Tuesday as well as on Thursday past, and I quote: That the department has been on winter operations, winter status, for the past week. That is what he told us on Tuesday and Thursday.

I want to ask the minister if he will now confirm that the central region of his department, which operates several highway depots out in that area, were told only yesterday that the Winter shift will be brought on next week - next Wednesday? Can he confirm that?

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, for the month of November Winter status for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation first involves bringing on the second foreman. The second foreman has been in place in the Avalon region since November 2; in the eastern region since November 9; in the central region since November 2; and in the western region since November 4. That is the start of winter status for the department.

The foremen, who are dispersed throughout the Province, assess the road conditions, as I indicated yesterday, between 4:30 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. every day. If the foreman feels, at that particular point in time, that it is necessary to bring crew and equipment on to the roads, he has the authority to make that decision. He can make that decision at 5:00 a.m. or at any time. He has the authority to bring men and equipment on to the roads if he feels the need warrants it at that particular time in the day or indeed at any particular time of the day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would give a straight answer to what is a straight question. I asked him on Tuesday, and on Thursday he was asked again: were the Winter shifts on?... and he tried to pass it over by talking about these words that he uses, Winter operations and Winter status. I asked him to confirm that the central region were only told yesterday to hire the Winter shifts. Can he confirm that? That is what I had asked him.

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I was quite prepared to give this information yesterday, only I was not permitted the opportunity to provide this information yesterday. I had the information yesterday and there is nothing to hide, I am quite prepared to provide the information.

The Opposition would like to make some allegation that because of government restraint, the safety of the travelling public is being put in jeopardy; that something is being done differently this year than has been done in previous years. As the members opposite know, and several of them have been Ministers of Works, Services and Transportation, the Winter status is a phasing in status and what is being done this year with respect to Winter status is no different from what has been done last year with respect to Winter status and no different from what was done the year before with respect to Winter status.

As hon. gentlemen are aware, in the month of November it is still possible to conduct Summer maintenance, to do grading of roads, to install signs, to do culverts, to install guard rails so, what we have put in place for bringing on the crew at 5:00 a.m. is firstly, we - generally the snowfall is heavier on the west coast so the shifts come on earlier on the west coast than they do as you move east, but on the west coast where, the snowfall is generally experienced to be the heaviest, the foreman and crew have been on since November 4th.

In the central region, where the snowfall experience has not been so heavy and where it is possible to grade roads and do summer maintenance for which the office receives many requests, the shift is not brought on at 5:00 a.m. The foreman is on at 5:00 a.m. to assess the road conditions to determine if it is necessary to bring the shift on at 5:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GOVER: - if it is necessary they will bring the shift on at 5:00 a.m. The shift is scheduled to go on at 5:00 a.m. regular on November 25th for the central region.

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

MR. SIMMS: The minister could have answered my question with his last sentence. I asked him to confirm that the Winter shifts will not be on until next week, instead of implying on Tuesday and Thursday that they are in full Winter operations; that is the point I am trying to make. He misled the House, whether deliberately or not, that is the point I am trying to make. Now will he confirm for this House that many regional superintendents and foremen out around the Province can't hire the men for those Winter crews because in fact they don't even have the equipment they need for Winter operations? Half of the equipment is still out in the yards, for example, in the central Newfoundland yard. Can he confirm that?

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, if the foreman determines men and equipment are needed he has the authority to order the men and equipment out. If the equipment needed exceeds the equipment available to the Department, then there is a system in place to acquire additional equipment if needed.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister is listening. I'm telling him that half the equipment for a number of the regional operations, including the central Newfoundland one, is laid up at the yard, at the Grand Falls depot. Now, if half the equipment is laid up then how can the operations work properly? How can they hire the men if there's no equipment for the men to work on? That's the question. Let me ask him this question. Can the minister confirm that the Winter mechanics - those who would normally be hired to repair equipment usually in existence at the depots - are not yet in place? Can he confirm that?

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm what I have said. That the foremen, who are competent and capable people, and dispersed throughout this Province, and are familiar with the climatic conditions in their region, and with the roadway in their region, make an assessment. If their assessment is such that the men and equipment are required, they dispatch the equipment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: If additional equipment is required over and above that which the Department has available there is a mechanism in place to ensure the speedy delivery of that equipment.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. It's pretty apparent the minister doesn't know what's going on in his Department. Let me ask him this. Can he confirm that equipment which broke down during recent snow storms had to be taken out of service because there were no mechanics to do the necessary repairs? Is he aware of that?

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that as you go through a Winter season equipment will fail. That's an unfortunate fact of life. I'm sorry that there is a law of mechanics which states that the useful energy in the universe does run down and breakdowns do occur. That's a sad fact of life. I cannot alter the law of physics. But the system is in place to provide safe travelling conditions to the general public. As I indicated in my answer yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the number of dollars spent on snow and ice control has increased every year since this Administration took power, and it was more than that Administration spent on snow and ice control.

So, if the hon. member is alleging that the system is deficient now, how much more deficient was it when they had it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, how silly can the minister be! Everybody in the Province knows that because of inflation and because of hundreds of kilometers more of roads in this Province, with four lanes in some places, that naturally the cost of the snow clearing and sand and so on is going to increase. That is silly.

Let me ask him this question: Since he doesn't know anything about the operations of his department as it applies to safety - I assure him that some of the things he is saying here today will come back to haunt him, when I get a chance to table that letter. His department has been told now by the Minister of Finance to cut 3 per cent in their operational costs, operations, and 1 per cent of their salaries. I want to ask the minister: How is the minister intending to cut his budget to meet those reductions? Can he tell us how he is going to save that kind of money over the next four months, which are the peak winter months for us to be operating, and can he guarantee safety on our highways if these cuts are made?

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question on Tuesday. It was the same question on Tuesday and the same answer today. Mr. Speaker, I intend to instruct, and I have instructed, my officials to achieve the restraint objectives set forth for my department with a view to maintaining service levels with as little impact as possible and, in particular, for the snow and ice control division to achieve the restraint objectives, bearing in mind that the ultimate consideration has to be the safety of the travelling public -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: - bearing that in mind, Mr. Speaker, to achieve that objective with the minimal or no impact on snow and ice control.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, I would like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of Fisheries. There have been a number of areas around the Province that have experienced severe catch failures this year, not including the area covered by the northern cod moratorium benefits package. I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Fisheries: There have been discussions ongoing with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans - Will the provincial government be participating financially in a fisheries emergency response program for those areas not included in the northern cod moratorium package?

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

MR. ROBERTS: What I have to do, Mr. Speaker, to get the hon. gentlemen up to ask me a question! And they said they never would (inaudible). I don't speak as the Acting Minister of Fisheries. What I shall say is that the Minister of Fisheries is on his way to Ottawa, even as we speak, for meetings in the morning with the hon. Mr. Crosbie and the Ministers of Fisheries from the other three Atlantic Provinces. I understand - I will put it that way, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry my friend from Kilbride is having some difficulty - can I help him?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite would be good enough - the hon. the Member for Kilbride, Sir, is deliberately, flagrantly and repeatedly trying to interrupt. Not only is it rude, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members on both sides of the House to co-operate. Hon. members know they are not supposed to interrupt another member except by way of a point of order, and then, the member speaking could yield if he wanted to; but that is the only way under which a member is supposed to interrupt another member.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank you. I am sorry that Your Honour has to become involved with this rudeness, this deliberate, childish rudeness of the gentleman from Kilbride. Now, I was answering the question -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) he doesn't know how to answer.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I may not know how to answer a question, but the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know how to ask one, so we are even there.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back, because I take the question as being a serious one and I am trying to respond to it in that way.

I understand that the subject the hon. member raises is one of the areas that the five ministers will be dealing with tomorrow. I can't go beyond that. The hon. member may know more than I do; I only know what my colleague told me before he left, a half or three-quarters of an hour ago, for the airport. The hon. gentleman obviously has a direct pipeline to John Crosbie. The only thing we don't know is whether it is the end that goes in or the end that goes out, to which he puts himself. What I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that the information I have given you is what I have been given by my colleague. We will deal with it further when we have more that we can give to the House.

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

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

It is absolutely amazing, Mr. Speaker, that on asking a question, trying to get fishermen who have had catch failures, and fish plant workers through the winter, and this is what we get from the Government House Leader. It is absolutely despicable.

A supplementary to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Does the minister know if the Province will be participating financially this year in a fisheries emergency response program? Will they be cost-sharing a fisheries emergency response program in areas other than those covered by the northern cod moratorium benefits package?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. In the meetings that we were involved in recently in Ottawa and the meetings that are continuing tomorrow, up to this point in time while the areas other than those covered by the moratorium have been discussed, there had not been, in any meeting that I was involved in, any request from the federal government for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to participate financially in a fisheries response program for areas outside the moratorium area. The need for such programs was discussed at length and the indication is that serious consideration was given, but a request to the Province to participate financially has not been made, to my knowledge, at this point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: I have a question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. The minister confirmed yesterday that each hospital and nursing home board in the Province had been given a specific amount to cut from their budgets for the balance of the fiscal year, for the next four months. He promised to tell the House today what these amounts were, how much they were going to be cut for this year. Does he have these amounts available for us and can he give them to us today?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't do my homework. I have to say that I will bring in the total amounts some other time. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely amazing, that the Minister of Health would get up and give that type of an answer. When hospital boards in the Province are being asked to cut to the bone, the Minister of Health gets up and makes a big joke out of everything, that he didn't do his homework. He hasn't been doing his homework for years. It is about time he found out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the boards have to respond to the Minister of Health by tomorrow, and he will be told what he already knows, that there is absolutely no way that the hospital boards in the Province can come up with the amount of money that the minister is asking them to come up with.

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

The hon. member knows the rules of the House. He knows that he is not to debate an answer. He is now into a supplementary and should have had the question asked.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Let me ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: How does he intend to deal with what the hospital boards are going to tell him tomorrow? Is he going to press on and implement these cuts even though the hospital boards are going to tell him that there is absolutely no way they can put up with these cuts that the minister has asked them to make?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, when I receive their responses, I will then know how to address them. Until I receive their responses, I won't know how to address them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Health: Is it true that the hospital boards, on a request from the minister, have been asked to come up with between $6 and $7 million, and are there more budget cuts to come? This is what the minister has asked for, between $6 and $7 million. Are they going to be hit with an extra amount from the Minister of Finance when he brings down his mini-budget at the end of the month?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the critic for Health on the part of the Opposition is forever trying to frighten everybody in the Province. He tried to frighten them not long ago about the mammography scare and then the report was released and most of his scares are just a lot of nonsense. So he is at it again.

All we have asked the hospital boards is: What would you have to do to cut 1 per cent and 3 per cent off your budget? Let us know, please. In the meantime, lay nobody off and don't take anything that will affect patient care. When the Minister of Finance brings in his budget, if he is going to bring in a budget, then these things will be revealed. There is no need for the member to lose much sleep over this, this is our problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one in the Province losing sleep over this.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not losing much sleep, either.

MR. DOYLE: The people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to know from the Minister of Health how much the health care system is going to be cut as a result of the minister's Draconian measures.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question! Question! Question! Not a speech.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister: Shouldn't the people of the Province know how much they are going to be expected to cut from the health care system. The fat is gone, let me say to the Minister of Health, and he's asking the people of the Province, the health care system and the boards to take apart the skeleton now, bone by bone. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask him again. How much are they going to be expected to cut?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Gone back in his shell again.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. Two weeks ago in this House I indicated that the Province was gypping the students of this Province on the grant portion under the Newfoundland Student Aid program. In light of the increasing burden placed upon students by this Province I would now ask the minister would he confirm that beginning this year for the first time his Department has instructed the Student Aid division to consider income received by students under the survivor's benefits of the Canada Pension Plan?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the regulations that govern the Student Loans Act have been laid down by the federal government and they've been adopted by the Province. We have not made any changes to the student loans administration that I'm aware of. Income has to be considered. If the hon. member is talking about something that was not done in the past I would certainly have to take that under advisement and get back to the hon. member. I have not given any specific instructions that anything would be done differently.

The government recognises that it is an extremely difficult time to be a student in Canada today. We have a very conservative, very right-wing federal government which froze the student loans back in 1984 and have not considered inflation. So this administration is bending over backwards to accommodate students who require student loans and student aids. However, like every other citizen in every other branch of government, this government cannot break the laws of the land, and those laws are laid down by the Student Loans Act. We have no authority to break those laws. But specifically as to whether or not some sort of an income is not supposed to be declared I'll certainly take it under advisement. My guess is that all income has to be considered, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to inform the minister, prior to this year those survivor benefits for the children of widows and widowers was deducted, including parental income. Their income was too low to require parents to contribute. This year this Province - the only one in Canada that I'm aware of, and I've checked with three others - has been taking that from students. The Secretary of State indicates that it's 100 per cent provincial responsibility. I'll ask the minister: will his department and the government get off the backs of the students of this Province and stop inventing obstacles to prevent them from getting an education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in the previous time allotted to the hon. member he asked me a question. In the supplementary he gave me the answer. I would have to ask why he's wasting the time of this House to ask that question if he knew the answer?

MR. TOBIN: He's exposing you! That's what he's doing! Exposing you!

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, why is he wasting the time of this House to ask questions that he knows the answers to? I suspect though that the hon. member is following in the footsteps of the other fearmongers over there and is trying to create an issue which does not exist. Therefore I will take the matter under advisement and get an answer back to the hon. member.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason I asked the hon. minister the question is because the answers can't be obtained anywhere else. It took me great lengths to obtain them. So I'll ask him again, will he admit that this Province - the only one in Canada, to my knowledge - has changed the method that they contribute to students and they deduct this directly from the student contribution, because this Province is going to save money that they give the students in grants? In other words, they're transferring the burden from federal to provincial. Will the minister admit this and do something for the students of this Province to help them get an education in a very struggling time?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, one moment the hon. member claims he has the answer; then he talks about all ten provinces in this country which are doing something differently. Yet he knows for sure that three did it, so he generalizes that all ten did it. The hon. member is on a fishing expedition.

I have told this House on many, many occasions that there is not enough money per student, in the student loans program and the provincial grants program, for a student to pay for the full cost of a year in post-secondary education simply by borrowing and receiving a grant. Now that is the unfortunate thing about it. The responsibility for that lies solely in the lap of my friend's cousins in Ottawa. It is this neoconservative, right wing, callous, Tory government that we have in Ottawa - trying to balance the budget of the federal government on the backs of the students. Quite the contrary to the approach that the hon. member has taken, this administration is trying our best, within our limited means, to make available as much assistance that we possibly can to assist the students.

So the focus of the hon. member's argument is wrong. If he has a problem, let him direct it to his Tory colleagues in Ottawa, who are riding roughshod over the students of this great country of ours.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I ask the minister is: Will he make a report back to this House that he has used, in his department, a different method for contributing and calculating student contributions this year than they have done in the previous three years of their administration?

AN HON. MEMBER: Provincial.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and provincial.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will admit no such thing. I would want a better basis on which to establish my admission than some clamouring and blaring from someone on the Opposition who is out to make political points at no matter what cost.

Just because the hon. member puts forward a premise is no basis for me to admit that the premise is correct. I have already told the hon. member that I will take his first question under advisement. All the other questions were exactly the same thing. I will take the question under advisement, and if there have been some changes made, I will report that to the people of this Province.

I am not going to get up and admit something simply because some hon. member gets up and tries to make political points in this House. That would be irresponsible. That would be grossly irresponsible, and if that is the kind of answers he is looking for, I would suggest to him to either stop asking questions or find someone on his side to ask questions to, because I want to tell the people of this Province the truth. I do not want to be talking on hearsays and make-believes, and perhapses. That is not my style.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Last week in his statement, the Minister of Finance indicated that all government departments would have to have a 1 per cent salary saving and 3 per cent in its overall budget on expenditure. Could the minister indicate, or give some idea, where the cuts are going to come in his department, and will they have any effect on the MOG's given to municipalities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any indication at this time.

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

MR. WINSOR: I am not sure what the minister said there. Did he say: No, he could not give an indication? Is that what he said?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Okay. Anyway, the minister can answer when he gets up again.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has had a report done for him by the Federation of Municipalities, which recommended a number of changes to how MOG's are financed in this Province. In view of the announced budgetary restraints, what implications come from that for the dispersal of funds for the next fiscal year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: There are no implications that I know of, Mr. Speaker. The report that he speaks of is in the system and being studied by officials, and will take the normal course to be either accepted or rejected. At this point in time it has no implications on next year.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most municipalities are in the process of preparing their 1993 budget. Their calendar year is from January to December. None of them that I have been able to contact have received any indication from government as to what level of funding they are going to have in MOG's for the next fiscal year. When can these municipalities expect to receive their notifications?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I would suggest to the municipalities in the Province, at this time, to act upon the existing information and the existing criteria to establish their budgets. If there is a change to be made, it would be an improvement and a plus on their side, which they will be readily able to accept.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill 48? It is order No. 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 20, continuation of the debate adjourned yesterday.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned the debate on Tuesday afternoon with just a few minutes remaining in my allotted time. I will now summarize the main points I was trying to make in opposing the principle of this Bill.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the workers' compensation program in Newfoundland and Labrador is in trouble and there must be reform, but, Mr. Speaker, the reform must not be rushed, it must be undertaken in consultation with the people affected, with employers, with unions and with injured workers. Therefore, there should be a six-month delay in our Legislature's considering proposals for reform and we should assign a committee of our House the task of conducting public hearings and getting input from the public so that together we can put forward the most appropriate, the most sensible and the most compassionate changes available.

The principles that should guide reform of our workers' compensation program are: No.1, the assurance of fair and reasonable compensation to workers who are injured on the job; No.2, the assurance for injured workers of prompt and thorough response from the health care system and of reasonable assistance in returning to work. When workers may not return to their former jobs, then there must be assistance for them to train and qualify themselves for alternate employment. No. 3, there must be incentives for employers to put in place effective occupational health and safety programs and appropriate penalties, there have to be positive encouragement and negative discouragement. I am looking at the Member for St. John's South as I am saying this. I believe he appreciates the importance of an improved occupational health and safety effort. No.4, government, as the largest employer in the Province, government as the operator of hospitals and nursing homes where the accident rate has risen so sharply, have to be a leader in providing safe workplaces and preventing workplace accidents. No.5, the premiums charged employers who support the program have to be reasonable, have to be bearable.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years premiums have become oppressive for several reasons that I outlined when I spoke on Tuesday. The reasons include the significant increase in claims and lengthening of the period of claims but also the decline in the provincial economy; the loss in the first three years of the Wells administration, from May of '89 to May of '92, of 20,000 jobs. The decline in the size of the workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador in that short three-year period from 202,000 jobs to 182,000 jobs and that was before the northern cod moratorium which put over 20,000 other people out of work.

So, Mr. Speaker, finally the government has to stimulate the economy and bring about the creation of more jobs, the restoration of jobs, so that the business base, the payroll on which workers' compensation premiums are levied, is made larger. What has been happening in our Province is that more and more workers' compensation premiums, heavier and heavier workers' compensation premiums, have been loaded on a smaller and smaller business base, and this has become oppressive. Some employers in the Province are threatening revolt.

Mr. Speaker, Workers' Compensation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill, to the hoist that my leader has proposed.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be more consultation with the people of this Province and, indeed, with people throughout this country on legislation that affects the people so much.

One of the things that has occurred in this country over the past couple of years, is the complete dissatisfaction of the general public with politicians and political parties. And the forum that we participate in, such as we saw here today during Question Period, leaves, I guess, a very bad impression on the general public of how we behave as politicians. Some people, when asked a question in an attempt to get some information, feel it is being done purely for political reasons, that the questioner is being crassly political about it and doesn't have the interest of the particular subject matter that is being questioned; they are just attempting to ask a question to embarrass a minister or government.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think the issue of something such as is being discussed here today - and we saw how the minister behaved -is also relevant to what the Government did on this particular piece of

legislation.

This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, affects every single individual employed in this Province. And there was very little consultation with people, with the ordinary working man and woman in the plants, or in the shops, or in the boats, or in the mines throughout this Province.

There has to be more consultation with people. I believe one of the reasons why the general public is completely dissatisfied, disillusioned, and disgusted with politicians is that there is, one, not enough consultation; and two, even when they go through a charade of consultation with the general public, political parties at all levels don't listen to the public - they are not listening. And I think that we, as politicians, should start listening to what some of the people in the streets are telling us.

The people in the streets and the people in the workplace are telling us we should have another look at this piece of legislation and see what it is going to do to the ordinary working man and woman in Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't know how many people in this House read The Evening Telegram yesterday and saw the full page advertisement that the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union had taken out. It is one of the most effective ads I have ever seen, Mr. Speaker, very, very effective; and it is honest, it is to the point. It tells you the history of what happened to a person, it tells you the history of what is happening at the present, and also mentions what is going to occur in the future, Mr. Speaker.

There is a concern in the general public about what this particular Bill is going to do and why the government is doing it. The general public, the ordinary working man and woman of this Province, can't believe that this administration continues to be governed by a bottom-line mentality. They don't have consideration for individuals, for people, and especially when you look at this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about people who have huge amounts of assets or a lot of money to withstand several years off work. We are talking, in a lot of cases, about people who have lost a job. These are ordinary men and women, who, along with the physical pain they have to endure and the mental anguish they are going through of not being able to work because they have been injured on the job, we see this administration attempting to get on their broken backs in order to be so concerned about a bottom line.

This balancing-the-books or bottom-line mentality, Mr. Speaker, I firmly, firmly believe has stifled the economy of this Province, has actually hurt the economy. Because that is really, really the problem with Workers' Compensation, that because the economy is so bad and we have had so many companies going broke and fewer companies providing opportunities for employment, that really we have not been able to get the revenues up versus the payments going out. That is really what the problem is, and I think that the minister recognizes that.

So, Mr. Speaker, they should stop attempting to use that bottom-line or balancing-the-books-at-any-cost mentality that they have used since they were elected in 1989, and attempt to create a more hospitable climate for people to invest and participate in the economy, and to allow entrepreneurs to be able to invest more money and to create more employment opportunities and more economic activity.

They have to realize that apart from laying off the nurse at the Janeway - when that nurse got laid off at the Janeway several things occurred. One is that the nurse who remained there ended up taking on an increased work load and that may have contributed to the reason why she had to take time off work with a bad back. She had increased her work load because of what this government did. But in the larger picture of the economy, Mr. Speaker, that nurse that you laid off, that you turfed out of a job down at the Janeway also participated in the economy. She just doesn't add up on the ledger side of expenses, Mr. Speaker, she also participates in the economy. All that salary that she was paid, that salary that she earned, when she went out and bought a car, bought groceries, bought clothing for herself or her children, went to a movie or helped furnish her house, that money went around in the economy of this Province. So that created an economic activity.

But with the bottom-line mentality of this group, since they were elected, Mr. Speaker, they think that she was only a total expense. In their simple, bottom-line mentality economics they look at her simply as an expense, that she doesn't participate in the economic picture of this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is completely untrue and I believe it is one of the reasons why we find we are worse off, and have been worse off, than any other province since this recession started, because of what the reaction of this government has been.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some people think that you can balance your books by laying off all your government workers. It isn't that simple. They aren't merely an expense. They participate in the economy. When that nurse buys furniture, or used to buy the furniture, or cars or groceries, she actually participated and helped drive the economy of this Province. That bottom line mentality has created more of the mess in this Province than what the global recession has caused.

Because that's truly what the real problem is with workers' compensation. The other problem that's occurring in workers' compensation when a nurse is being injured, or a worker in the mines in Labrador is being injured, because a nurse was laid off in several hospitals we've now found - and this is really also driving up the cost of worker's compensation - that people aren't getting treatment fast enough because of shutting down hospital beds and not having access to health care.

I keep returning to the problem with laying off the nurses, that simple bottom line mentality that this regime has created since they were elected in 1989. By laying off the nurses they stifled the economy, created an unsafe working situation in that nurse's environment, but they've also created another problem, in the miner's case who was injured in the mines in western Labrador and now they can't have as quick an access to health care facilities and health care treatment in this Province because of all these cutbacks. So that's increased the burden on workers' compensation. Again we're seeing that the knee-jerk reaction of this administration, this regime, has created a larger problem.

A lot of my constituents have a lot of concerns about this Bill. I've often wondered why - and maybe the minister, I know he's taking notes while I'm speaking and listening very intently - but I want to - some of the questions that they're wondering about are: why the government has such a concern over the top-up provision? I'm hoping the minister will respond. I don't know why it is. You're making it a law that an employer cannot top-up the wages of an injured worker in their compensation.

I can't understand the reasoning behind it. If an employee works out an arrangement through collective bargaining with an employer, that employee sells a service to that employer. Would this employee be able to purchase, as an example, a plan outside the arrangement? The minister nods in the affirmative. Then what's the purpose of making it unlawful for the employer to top it up? Can the employee through some co-op program opt into and be able to get the compensation increased? Those concerns have been raised in my district.

There's also a concern in my district over the compensable earnings allowed by workers' compensation. A lot of the people in my district earn high salaries. They produce a lot of wealth for this Province, they produce a lot of wealth for the company they are employed with. When they lose their earnings their expenses are still going on. The cost of living is very high. They find it unreasonable that they cannot be adequately compensated. They feel that they should and they would like to see this addressed, and that is one of the reasons why they would like to see more public consultation. They want to be able to tell this government what they feel should be in this Act. They don't want this government not listening, or to pass a regulation and then come back and say: Well, that is the law, it is very difficult to change it now. They are suggesting that we should have more consultation with them so that we can, when we enact this legislation, do it for the benefit of people working, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have to be really concerned about, that we are doing this for their benefit and for the benefit of all the workers.

There are some positive things in this legislation; one of them is the dependence age being increased from sixteen to eighteen, and the other, I think, is the index with the cost of living?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that is not there, it is taken away.

MR. A. SNOW: Is that being removed?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is being removed for the next four years.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, there are some positive aspects to this legislation, but there are too many negative aspects affecting the ordinary working man and woman of this Province, to persuade me to vote or to support this legislation as it is.

One of the things that has to be addressed is the idea, I believe, that especially for somebody who has lost his life in an industrial accident in the workplace, the survivors have to be adequately compensated in the survival benefits. It is very tragic, very, very tragic to see somebody lose his life on a job and then to see that the surviving members of that family are not adequately compensated or looked after, if you want to look at it in that sense, especially when they leave children to be educated. And there isn't enough - I don't think there is enough coverage to allow a complete education before benefits are restricted or cut back.

I think that benefits to surviving children should not be cut off at eighteen, they should continue, I would think, up to probably the age of twenty-three, twenty-four or twenty-five, while they are attending post-secondary institutions. For these children who have lost a parent in an industrial accident and now find that they cannot afford post-secondary education, I think it is important that workers' compensation benefits continue until an age - I don't know the average age of a student finishing post-secondary education; I would say it is probably about twenty-three or twenty-four years of age, by the time one finishes high school and gets a degree at university. So, for at least one degree, Mr. Speaker, that would be say, twenty-four years of age. But my understanding is that we presently would not allow child survivor benefits past the age of eighteen. I don't think that is being realistic. It doesn't represent what is occurring out in the real world. We all know it is becoming very, very expensive, for a younger person to get a postsecondary education, especially in the universities. I think we should be doing whatever we can to ensure that these people who have lost a parent - that is tragic enough, but to hit them again with another tragedy, that of not being able to get access to a postsecondary education is another tragedy, and we shouldn't be doing this to these people. Mr. Speaker, we have to consider that the disability benefits and the death benefits are completely different, and we have to treat them as such.

Mr. Speaker, the people in my district have a lot of concerns that they would want this government to address before changing legislation to workers' compensation. They feel that the accidents that occur, and they do occur in the workplace, can be greatly reduced if their employers were to spend more time and effort in creating a safer environment, and not take the bottom-line mentality of reducing benefits, drive up the cost and just look at the bottom line. You have to invest money into specific programs - specific to being more safety conscious - educational programs in the work force.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on the motion to table this bill for six months and bring it forward then again, the bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act," Bill No. 48.

I think this is a very worthwhile motion because it will allow time for the people of this Province - and not just those who made briefs to the committee or who were already in touch with the government, but would allow time for the people of this Province, the workers, themselves, the individual workers who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of this system, and, indeed, those people who are injured workers and are out of the system and dependent on this system for their sole livelihood and that of their families, those who are on extended earnings loss provisions, those who are receiving benefits for deceased spouses or family members for whom they are dependent - all of those people have a right to know in detail the consequences of this Act on them.

There has been, yes, some discussion on the bill, and the players -the unions, the Federation of Labour, the employers' council and these types have had their say at an earlier stage. That was prior to this legislation being brought forward, and I think the government has an obligation to allow time for the people who are to be so seriously affected by this legislation to have a good, hard look at what the government's plan is, and determine whether or not it is necessary.

We have seen a great deal of criticism of the Workers' Compensation Commission, and perhaps they don't deserve it all; but I do know that workers' compensation, as an issue, is one of those issues that members of this House are constantly and consistently being called upon to try to help resolve. It involves getting answers from Workers' Compensation; trying to get a claim approved; trying to find out what exactly the Commission is doing on their case; determining whether they can get medical aid; trying to get their claim straightened out - all of this leading to enormous delays which were identified by the Workers' Compensation Review Committee, the Statutory Review Committee, as being part of the responsibility and the major factors, Mr. Speaker, in the responsibility for the increased costs of assessments and the increased costs, of course, to the system, resulting in what has been referred to as unfunded liability, which obviously needs to be redressed at some point in time.

We don't expect the system to be perfect at all times and to assume that the impossible and the unlikely will happen. What the government has said is that: if we had to continue to pay out claims based on the money that we have in the fund right now, we wouldn't be able to do it. That's what they're saying. But that is not reality. The reality is that the Workers' Compensation system is continuing, and that this year and next year and the years after, employers who are covered by this and get the benefits of this legislation - because that's what it is, Mr. Speaker, it is legislation designed to benefit employers as well as employees - those employers who get the benefit of the legislation will continue to pay assessments. And as long as the system is continuing, it will be able to pay out the benefits that are already accounted for.

So this notion of unfunded liability is a problem, yes, but it is not a problem of today or next month or six months time, it is a problem down the road that can be addressed now in ways other than by taking apart the system and threatening the security and the futures of injured workers and their families. That is what this government has chosen to do.

I say that deliberately. This government pretends in this House day after day, week after week, month after month, that it has no choice. We must cut back services, we must cut back benefits to workers, we must rip up collective agreements, we must lay people off, because we have no choice. That's the constant theme of this government. We have no choice, we cannot govern, we can't make decisions, we can't do anything, the deficit made me do it. The devil made me do it. That's the only excuse that this government has for its inaction, its incompetence, and its lacklustre ability to give any hope to the people of this Province that they can bring us out of the mess we are in.

They respond constantly by looking for: How can we take apart the system? How can we take apart the security that an injured worker will have? How can we do something that is going to make things a little bit less secure for people and remove some of the hope that they have? It is almost that way. I don't suggest they do that deliberately. But I do suggest that they are perhaps not unhappy with the results. Because, deep down, they think that the people who are on workers' compensation are malingerers. Deep down, they think that they shouldn't be on workers' compensation at all. They figure that: We will make it a little more unpleasant for people to be off work, and maybe they will go back to work.

I say that if there is somebody who is malingering, if there is somebody who is abusing the Workers' Compensation system, go get him. Check it out. If somebody is abusing the system, go and do a proper investigation. If somebody is defrauding the Workers' Compensation system, well, then, they should be made to pay. They obviously should be taken off the system and perhaps prosecuted. Government would receive the support of all members of this House for doing that. But they are not doing that. They are going ahead and removing the benefits for injured workers and making them pay.

Now, I have no difficulty in saying that, because if they were aiming this at people who ought not to be on the system, then they would be doing something different. There is a lot of people who ought not to be on the system. All those who are victims of accidents that should never have happened shouldn't be on the system, because the accidents should have been prevented by the Department of Employment and Labour Relations doing a proper job in occupational health and safety, doing a proper job in prevention, making sure that workplace injuries were reduced by having programs in place that would have prevented it.

It is not too late. They have introduced some programs now. Why don't they let them work and make more stringent the rules for workplace safety, make more stringent the fines for violations of occupational health and safety, take it seriously, about treating workplace safety with as much importance as they do highway safety in terms of enforcement? - perhaps not in terms of keeping the roads clean but, in terms of enforcement, they go head and they have very serious fines. They have a new system for removing people's licenses. Highway safety, they say, is uppermost in their minds. I am not so sure about winter ice clearing. We are trying to figure it out right now. But, Mr. Speaker, workplace safety is of the utmost importance and, by improving workplace safety, some of the people who should not be on workers' compensation would not be there, Mr. Speaker, causing injury to themselves and hardship for their families and also, of course, an expense to the system.

So they won't let that work. They won't wait, Mr. Speaker, and see how valuable and efficient their programs of workplace health and safety can make the workplace and decrease costs. They won't, Mr. Speaker, rely on the measures that should be taken, and were advised to be taken, to improve the efficiency of the system by getting people's claims responded to more quickly and by getting people's rehabilitation programs started more quickly, so that there is a possibility of reducing the duration of an accident claim and reducing the duration of a worker's injury.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that if a worker receives an injury that can be assisted by physiotherapy, that physiotherapy should start immediately. The sooner you start physiotherapy to help repair damaged ligaments and muscles, the quicker it will work. I see the former Minister of Health agreeing with me. He know a lot about this and how important it is to get early service and early treatment for injured people, whether they be injured workers or people injured in other categories.

So it is important, Mr. Speaker, for us to realize that there are ways of keeping the system under control by, in fact, providing a better service, quicker treatment, quicker rehabilitation, shorter claims resulting from that, Mr. Speaker, less hardship, less room for people to try to see if they can take advantage of the system, if there are, indeed, people who try to do that, and with that, Mr. Speaker, a more efficient system. I know the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations agrees with me in his own heart. But Clawback Clyde has told him he must cut back benefits to workers. It seems to be part of the theme of the government of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

So what they have done is they have cut back the benefit to the injured workers, the ones who are deserving and needful of workers' compensation to look after themselves and their families. So I say, Mr. Speaker, take the people off workers' compensation who shouldn't be there. Take the ones off who should never have had the accidents, by making sure we have a good prevention system in place so the accidents will not happen and they won't be there. Get them off workers' compensation by making a safer workplace. That is a good idea. The next idea, Mr. Speaker: If there are people on it who are malingering or who shouldn't be on it, get them off by having a proper investigation system. Don't say in the back of your minds, `Yes, we know they are all taking advantage of the system, so we will rip them all back by 10 or 20 per cent or, in some cases, up to 40 per cent loss in their income. That is what we will do instead, Mr. Speaker, we will treat them all alike.' It is called collective punishment, I think. I am not sure what they used to call it in Germany, but it was collective responsibility when they decided they would punish everybody. They would punish a whole group of people for what they saw as the wrongs of a few.

That is what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is time that they woke up to the realities of what they were doing at the behest of the Premier of this Province. I think, Mr. Speaker, the workers are recognizing this as unfair and they are recognizing it as the work of a government that is does not truly care for their interests.

We see, Mr. Speaker, the second part of this clawback program is once again there is interference with existing collective agreements and the collective bargaining process. Now why are they doing that?

They may tell us, I suppose, that if we lower the amount of compensation, and that some employer has agreed to top it up to 90 per cent or 100 per cent, it might say that we do not want to give them an added responsibility by having agreed to top it up to the top, because when we take the middle out their contribution is going to get bigger. They might say that, but what they have really done is gone further. They have outlawed any future agreements, so that if I, as an employer, want to say to my employees: Look, as part of our package of benefits we are prepared to provide you with additional remuneration if you happen to be off work because of a legitimate workplace accident. This government has outlawed it. What is the rationale for that? Who are they trying to let off the hook? Themselves? Private employers? Why are they interfering with collective bargaining in this way? They have not answered that question. It can only be because they are using this as a backhanded way to get at the workers and to get at the unions who have negotiated agreements.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows anything about collective bargaining, whether it be in the public service or in the private sector - even the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs knows about negotiating contracts - when you make an agreement, you do not get something for nothing. The Member for Harbour Grace knows that too. You do not get something for nothing when you are making an agreement, when you are making a deal, when you are making a contract. You put your proposals on the table, and the other side puts their proposals on the table, and you trade off, and you give up this and you get that, and you get something else. Those workers who negotiated collective agreements wherein they got a workers' compensation top up, what did they give up? They had to give up something. I cannot tell you what it was, but I know they gave up something in order to get that top up. Now, the question is, what does this legislation offer and replace?... zero, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they take away whatever is there and offer nothing in return.

So once again the collective bargaining process is given a body blow by this government, which obviously has no respect for the institution of collective bargaining and no respect for the democratic organizations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) disincentive to work.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs says that top ups are disincentives to work. Now I think we have gotten to the nub of the problem here.

That side of the House believes that people are on workers' compensation because they do not want to work. That is what the government side of the House really believes, so what we are going to do is take away from everybody because there may be a few people who will not go back to work because they are getting the top up; they are getting full salary.

Mr. Speaker, top ups are a disincentive to workers, is what he said. I politely listened to him, and I understand that is an argument that can be made; but it just confirms my point that the government side of the House believes that the reason the system costs so much is that people who are collecting workers' compensation should really be back working and they should not be on compensation at all. I agree with him in one respect - that there are a lot of people on workers' compensation who would not be there today if we had safer workplaces. They should not be on compensation.

There is another group, and there are probably a few - I do not know how many. There are people on social assistance who should not be there because they are cheating the system, or they are abusing the system, or they are defrauding the government. I am sure there are. There are people on unemployment insurance who we see being charged in the courts, week in and week out. Yes, there are people who abuse that system, but that does not mean that the system ought to be gutted, Mr. Speaker. I know that there are some people over there who want to gut it out, the Member for Carbonear wants to gut the system. The Member for Carbonear said it should be gutted.

We know there are people who commit crimes, we know there are people who even abuse social assistance or government members who abuse their privileges, that happens, Mr. Speaker, and that should be dealt with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - that is something that should be dealt with and the hon. members over opposite would deal with it by cutting everybody's salary in half, they would cut everybody's salary in half and that will solve the problem, and that is the kind of approach that this government takes. They do not identify people; if there are people who should not be on workers' compensation, get them off, get them off and when you get them off, the system will be cheaper. When you have workplace safety looked after and you beef it up; when you have the system more efficient so that people are getting treated as soon as they need the treatment, when they are getting decisions from the Workers' Compensation Commission in a timely way so they can organize their lives and their futures, and when you can get the system straightened out that way, you will not have the same problems as you have now, Mr. Speaker. You do not have to gut the system in order to do that.

But I think the reason we have this legislation is really based on what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has said, that they really believe that workers' compensation, the system is too good for Newfoundlanders. It is too good for Newfoundlanders; Newfoundlanders cannot take it, you give them a system like that, sure they will stay home, they won't work, that is what the government believes. They do not want to work, is what they think; that is their attitude, that is why they have the clawback. Why do you think, Mr. Speaker, there is a clawback on the package, why is there a clawback on the package? Because this crowd over there thinks that Newfoundlanders do not want to work. That is their attitude.

Why is there a clawback on the fisheries compensation, Mr. Speaker? Because the Government of Newfoundland, clawback Carter and clawback Clyde, they think that the people of Newfoundland do not want to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want another one now.

MR. HARRIS: Now they want another one; that is the logic and the logic of the cuts of workers' compensation is what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said: top ups are a disincentive to work so we will take them off. We cannot have a person adequately compensated for workplace injuries because they won't go back to work. They won't go back to work. So the logic of that, Mr. Speaker is really (inaudible). You have some poor worker who is lying on his back in a hospital for two years - I know how we will get him back to work, we will rip back his compensation, we will cut him back to 70 per cent, that will get him up off his back, that will get him out of traction, that will get him back on the job; no problem, give him an incentive -

MR. GRIMES: Why don't you read the bill?

MR. HARRIS: Ah, we are getting to him now; we are getting to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. He says: Read the Bill, don't be silly. I am just quoting him, what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said. It is obvious the Cabinet's policy is that top ups are a disincentive to work and so I am saying to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, perhaps when he gets up he can tell us how cutting back the benefits to a worker who is on his back in the hospital to 75 per cent, how is that going to get that man up off his back, back lifting and working in the warehouse or driving a truck, how is that going to get him up? Cut him back to 75 per cent, make his family suffer, make his wife and children suffer because top ups are a disincentive. There is no answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. While I have the attention of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations perhaps he can tell us when he gets up to speak and closes - well I don't know how many other people are speaking. Perhaps he can tell us why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps he can tell us what the government is really doing in Clause 9. I'm prepared to listen. But I really for the life of me can't understand what the government is doing in Clause 9. The previous section 45 of the Bill - called the 'Ocean Ranger' amendment when it was all completed - allowed a worker to receive compensation and also sue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now the Member for St. John's South knows all about it. I'll tell the Member for St. John's South that I know about it because I was involved in it. Alright? I was involved in it. So was the Minister of Justice and his law firm, they were very much involved in it.

MR. ROBERTS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman misspoke himself. He said: the Minister of Justice and his law firm. He may mean my former law firm, or he may mean some other law firm which I'll be associated -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) work for Enterprise Newfoundland?

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Is that firm still doing work for Enterprise Newfoundland?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have no law firm.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have no law firm, I say to the rude gentleman from Kilbride. Now let me come back to the gentleman from St. John's East who has the floor.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I wonder how much (Inaudible) -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: I say to the hon. gentleman from St. John's East that he may have misspoke himself. I have no law firm. I was formerly associated, I was the senior partner, in fact, with Halley, Hunt for many years. If I ever go back to the practice at the Bar I may or may not become associated with a firm. That remains to be seen. But I would ask the hon. gentleman please to acknowledge that I have no law firm.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking to the point of order? Because the Chair is ready....

MR. HARRIS: The Chair can rule on the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The hon. member was taking the opportunity to clarify a statement made by the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Neither the Minister of Justice nor I have a law firm. Both the Minister of Justice and I have former law firms that we were formerly partners of. So I take the minister at his word on that.

I say to the Member for St. John's South, both the Minister of Justice and I, and our former law firms, were involved in the Ocean Ranger case. So we have a familiarity - you know, being a lawyer is not always a bad thing. You do pick up a bit of knowledge along the way, particularly of the law. I'm telling the hon. member that Section 45 of the Act allowed the individual to collect compensation and sue when you were involved with third parties. The third parties in the Ocean Ranger case, for the benefit of hon. members, were the manufacturer of the rig, the United States government, the United States Coast Guard, all sorts of people who did not have employees covered by workers' compensation.

That allowed the individuals, the families of these victims, to collect compensation on a month-to-month basis and be able to feed their families and look after their obligations, and at the same time to pursue whatever legal rights they might have. That's similarly the case now. It was done at the time but it still exists, that you can collect workers' compensation and you can sue when there are third parties involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk about the Pearcey case.

MR. HARRIS: The Pearcey case. Mr. Speaker, the member doesn't now what he's talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know what you're talking about?

MR. HARRIS: I was in the Supreme Court of Canada when the Pearcey case was being argued, so I do know what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker. What happened was -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It was dismissed from the bench, exactly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Pearcey case, Mr. Speaker, was about whether or not you could sue your employer and collect compensation. The Supreme Court of Canada decided, as did the Newfoundland Supreme Court and the Newfoundland court of Appeal, that the Workers' Compensation Act acted to protect employers from law suits. Right? But not third parties. So what I want to know is, why did the minister take away the word "and" and replace it with "or"?

Now, you have to do either one or the other. So, if your spouse, Mr. Speaker, is killed in a plane crash, or you are an injured worker as a result of a possible third party action, you have to lie on your back or suffer it out and decide: Well, am I going to sue or am I going to go to Workers' Compensation? And the very act of applying for workers' compensation, in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, means that you have lost the right to sue.

Now, why are they doing that? There may be some administrative reasons why the Workers' Compensation Commission needs to know, Mr. Speaker, because the Workers' Compensation Commission, itself, may wish to take action, and I have no problem with that; if they are taking action and taking away the right to sue at the same time - they can take action to collect what they have paid out, that is fair game, but why would they deprive someone of the right to sue, on the very day that he applies for workers' compensation? It is not right, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know where this has come from. It seems to be coming out of left field, somewhere.

It seems to me that it can be done some other way to ensure that the Workers' Compensation Commission has some idea what is going on, so that it won't miss limitation periods and be subrogated to the claims of the individual. There are other ways of doing that without destroying the right to sue. Because, Mr. Speaker, I think, once you have taken away that right, and the Workers' Compensation Commission is subrogated, there may well be a responsibility on the part of Workers' Compensation to take an action, and that doesn't appear in the bill. But if an injured worker or dependents apply for workers' compensation, all of a sudden, there is no right to sue, and if the Workers' Compensation Commission doesn't get around to doing it, the right to sue could well be lost, and the opportunity for the Compensation Commission or for the claimant to get greater benefits than workers' compensation, would be lost, too.

So it seems, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that provision. There is some woolly thinking going on in the minister's department when it comes to this particular provision, and he didn't really explain it in his opening remarks. I ask him to redress it in his closing remarks and also to go back to his officials and ask: Do we really need to do that? Isn't there some administrative way we can find out, within a reasonable period of time, whether the individual is going to sue or not, that still gives us time to do the investigative work and get the legal work done to start an action, without having to do what is being done?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: Question!

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

On motion, amendment defeated.

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

Is the hon. member on a point of order?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We are now speaking on second reading of the main Bill. The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor, or does the Government House Leader?

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

MR. ROBERTS: I wasn't aware the Chair had recognized anybody, but I will gladly let the hon. gentleman, if he wants to speak.

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

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Chair didn't recognize Halley Hunt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: He is sitting right next to the fellow who is paying his bills there - Enterprise Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: A low blow.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity to say a few words to the hoist that was introduced.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Oh, my, I wouldn't expect that from a House Leader.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Government House Leader is attacking my colleague from Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: We have to kill twenty-nine minutes for him.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, if they will be quiet and listen, I will certainly speak to this debate. I want to say I am a little disappointed - I am not surprised - that government has once again decided not to go to the public of this Province and let them have some input into this piece of legislation.

Actually what I was looking for in my file, and I do not have it there, is the statement that the Premier made to the House where he confirmed to this Province that he spent in excess of half a million dollars redecorating his office, and spent another $118,000 on furniture, I say to the Government House Leader. I want to make the comparison of how this government has thrown money to redecorate the government offices when at the same time they are prepared to roll back the wages, to claw back what people on workers' compensation are getting. That is what I wanted to get.

A man, with a family today on compensation is getting cut up to 40 per cent when the Premier of this Province can install $600 door knobs. That is what I was looking for in my file. When people in this Province today, who are on compensation and other things, have homes that need repair, when the Premier of this Province can spend $80,000 on wallpaper for his office. That is the kind of research I was looking for. That is the comparison I want to make.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pippy Park doing his lawn. $20,000 for entertainment, and he (inaudible) spend it.

MR. TOBIN: What was that?

MR. R. AYLWARD: $20,000 for entertainment, and he (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And the list goes on. People on compensation today, and people who cannot work, for whatever reason -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Look! Look! The poor fellow fell down. You got knocked down.

He almost got compensation.

MS. VERGE: We almost had a workplace injury on the part of a politician.

MR. TOBIN: It is interesting to note that the expert on safety, the former safety officer, almost had an accident in the workplace. That is what we have. The safety officer, the man who boasts and blows off in this House about all he knows about safety, almost broke his leg - an accident in the workplace, Mr. Speaker. That is what we had. And he gets up in this House and says: Listen to me. I am twenty-five or thirty-five years as a safety officer, and he cannot even walk on the floor. We will never take advice from you again. Go up and rub your hands on the knobs and see if you will rub something off. Go up on the eighth floor and start rubbing knobs and see if that will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am referring to the $600 door knobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were talking about peppermint knobs.

MR. TOBIN: I find it difficult to speak when I am constantly being interrupted.

I say to the members opposite, and I say to the people of this Province, that we have gotten involved in this debate, and we have tried to highlight to the people of this Province the injustice that has been inflicted upon those who depend upon workers' compensation because of this piece of legislation. We have a responsibility -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to work or starve.

MR. TOBIN: Well that is the attitude.

We have a responsibility, as an opposition, to let the people of this Province know exactly where government is going to place them; and the decision right now is that they are going to have clawbacks and rollbacks, and it could be up to 40 per cent reduction. So what the government is saying to the person today on compensation is: Go back to work or starve to death.

I want to say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, if I could get his attention for a minute I would certainly appreciate it, I say to the minister responsible for this piece of legislation, that when he gets up to speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: He never listened to what teachers told him all the years he was President; he is not going to listen now.

MR. TOBIN: No, I am serious. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, I want to get his attention because I want him, when he gets up to speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I can say to the gentleman opposite that I do care about all of the people in this Province who are on workers' compensation, and other people who cannot work.

I am sure that my friend and colleague from Placentia, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who has a lot of experience in safety, and who, I understand, from time to time trained people in the work force in safety. I believe that the Member for St. John's South is a former trainee of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in the field of safety. So it is unfortunate that he never advised him to open his eyes and watch out for steps, but I think he did train him.

I want the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I want - what did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said put them together to make several safety officers.

MR. TOBIN: I must say that wasn't a bad line.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Don't say that too loud.

MR. TOBIN: I won't say who said it, but someone said across the floor that the two of you together would make several good safety officers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the Minister of Employment, I'd like for him to address the annuity, when he gets up to speak, that annuity clause. Because I'm after having from my district, I say to the minister, and from the district of Fortune- Hermitage in particular, I'm after having several calls from Fortune - Hermitage district and my own district regarding that clause. I'd say to the minister that a lot of the calls that I've received on this annuity program were people who were involved with Fishery Products. Two or three of them were actually captains with Fishery Products who had invested heavily and had a significant dollar invested into the annuity program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Up until such time as they made the - I'm speaking to the minister. I'm not speaking to you. You only think you're the minister, or wish you were the minister. I'm speaking to the person who is the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the Member for St. John's South, if he wants to find out something through the Cabinet process, to consult with his colleague, the Minister of Tourism, and he'll help him out.

The trawlermen, I say to the Minister of Employment, who had paid into a very significant retirement savings plan over the years, who were involved with the company pension, or whatever it was. As a result of injuries they did not make any further contribution, I guess, is what I'm saying. Did not make any further contribution to their pension plan. As a result of the program that was set up with Workers' Compensation they continued to pay into this annuity program. Now I understand from speaking to them - and I know the minister will certainly address it when he gets up, and I'd appreciate that, because I want to get back to those people who called, and I did say I would raise it in the House.

And other people such as the Shipyard employees, I received calls from a couple of them as well as it relates to that annuity program. I say to the minister that I do have somewhere in my file letters - the statements, I guess, that were sent out by Workers' Compensation to these people. Several of them, Mr. Speaker, had several thousands of dollars. As a matter of fact, some of them had in the high 'teens invested in this program, and it's now not available as I understand it as of December 31 unless they are sixty-five years of age.

The other question I'd like for the minister to speak to when he gets up as it relates to my concerns is that I spoke to someone the other day in my constituency. He has to travel back and forth to St. John's for therapy. He gets his way paid in and he gets his accommodations looked after. I've been told that the same type of therapy can be made available to him in Marystown through the chiropractor. He says that Compensation for some reason will not recognise or will not pay that person.

So I'd like for the minister to address that as well. Because if that is the case - and I don't know if it is the case or not - but I say to the minister, if that is the case, can he imagine how much money he would be saving around this Province if people could avail of the therapy back home in their own areas, rather than have to come to St. John's and pay accommodations? So I ask the minister to address that as well when he gets up to speak.

We all know that Workers' Compensation is finding itself in difficult situations for a lot of reasons. But we must realise that in this Province today there are some forty-some thousand less people working than there were when this government came to office. Now I say to the minister, when he gets up, if he wants to address it, that when you consider the people who are on this fisheries compensation package, 21,000, they do not show statistically as unemployed. The fact of the matter is that they are not employed and while they are in that situation they are not contributing to the workers' compensation plan. While they are not contributing, Mr. Speaker, to that plan it means that the Workers' Compensation Commission is receiving less money because of the economic conditions that this government has brought the Province to. So when you have 40,000 people who were contributing three years ago that are not contributing now, obviously the revenue has to be down by a significant portion.

What's happening in this Province is that the government now is saying that they're finding themselves in this dilemma. (Inaudible) workers' compensation, the biggest contributing factor to the situation that Workers' Compensation finds themselves in, is based on the poor economic conditions in this Province. The poor economic condition is something that is going to cause problems not just for the Workers' Compensation Commission but for everyone who is depending on social programs.

MR. MURPHY: Foolishness!

MR. TOBIN: Foolishness? I'd say to the Member for St. John's South, the self-imposed safety expert, Mr. Speaker, the former trainee of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I'd say to him that it is not foolishness. That as long as this government brings 40,000 unemployed people to this Province, as long as it takes 40,000 out of the work force that are not contributing to the economic conditions of this Province, that are not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: What are you talking about?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, every day there are companies going bankrupt in this Province since this crowd came to office. Doesn't the member know that? As a result of the economic conditions, with companies going bankrupt in this Province, Workers' Compensation is receiving less money, I'd say to the Member for St. John's South. When they're receiving less money then they find themselves in the situation that they are now in.

The fact of the matter is that the economics of this Province and this country is today playing a role in this piece of legislation that's before the House. The Member for St. John's South told me himself that he does not agree with the annuity aspect of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's right. I'd say to the Member for St. John's South -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Are you going to vote against that in the Bill?

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the Member for St. John's South that -

MR. DOYLE: You'll never get to the front bench like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the Member for St. John's South that these people who have paid $16,000 for example into an annuity program, to see it all gone, come the 31st of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the minister is going to address it. The minister assured me that he will address it, and he will. I have raised other issues that I have asked him to address.

The people of this Province today who are on workers' compensation are being forced to go back to work or starve. How can members opposite stand up in their place today and say to the men and women who are their constituents that depend on workers' compensation that: we are going to reduce your rate, that we are going to put you and your families in a situation that we will force you back to work?

I'd say to the Member for Harbour Grace, have the courage to stand up in this Legislature and tell the people of Harbour Grace, your constituents, the men and women out there, who are on compensation, whether you are supporting them, this minister and this government hauling back. Halted their cheques. Reducing it up to 40 per cent, I say to the Member for Harbour Grace. Stand up and let the people of Harbour Grace know where you're coming from. Let them know whether or not you support it, I say to the member. Never mind shouting across the House at someone who is trying to make the people of this Province aware of-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. Well you stand up and let us know what you are going to say about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You do not have the courage to stand up and tell the people of Harbour Grace how they should vote I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Carbonear, if I were you, I would turn back on to because he has great difficulty in looking ahead to see the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island in Cabinet. He has even greater difficulty looking ahead to see the Member for Placentia in Cabinet and that is the problem with the Member for Carbonear, you are back over there, a sooky baby, sooking all the time because some of your colleagues were invited to Cabinet, that is the problem with the Member for Carbonear, I would say to this hon. House. I will tell you something, you will never get into Cabinet with that attitude. It is better for you to stand up and to accept the fact that the Premier did not choose to invite you to Cabinet and that he invited other people.

MR. DOYLE: What about the night after the election, he said he was going to Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. DOYLE: Right after the election, he said he would be in Municipal and Provincial Affairs. He told everyone.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I do not know, Mr. Speaker. My colleague for Harbour Main and my colleague for Grand Bank tell me the night of the election, he told his constituents that he was going to be named Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Well I do not know that and I do not know if that is true or not.

MR. DOYLE: That is right, because he happened to be in the Federation of Municipalities.

MR. TOBIN: That is wishful thinking, but I would say to the Member for Carbonear that if he wants to get involved in this debate, to stand up as the Member for St. John's South did. The Member for St. John's South got up and told his constituents that he supported the government's rolling back, claw backing, cutting them by 60 per cent but the Member for St. John's South I would say had the courage to get up and say that, I say to the Member for Carbonear, that he had the courage to get up and tell his constituents that he supported the roll back and the claw back of up to 60 per cent, that he supported the government saying: go back to work or starve. That is what the Member for St. John's South had the courage to do but the Members for Carbonear and Harbour Grace stay over there and mumble something, that is what I would say.

It is time that the Member for Fortune - Hermitage brought the case of his constituents to this House of Assembly as I have done today on behalf of the people of Fortune - Hermitage who called me-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say to the member, that there will be someone and when election night is over, either I will be elected or I will be defeated, and whatever the wishes of the people are, I will graciously accept it, that is what I say to the member.

MR. DOYLE: Hear, hear! What a member. They will elect you forever, speak up on their behalf.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What choice do you have?

MR. TOBIN: That is what I say to the member opposite.

MR. DOYLE: But the people of Shea Heights, the people of Shea Heights will have that Hansard.

AN HON. MEMBER: Allow me.

MR. DOYLE: The people of Shea Heights will have that Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is some kind of a statement coming from the Member for Harbour Grace.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that.

MR. TOBIN: Did you hear what he said?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope there are more women in the House of Assembly; I will be glad, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Harbour Grace. This House has lots of room for good women -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Especially on that side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: If I could have the attention -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: It is the first time ever I was shouted down in the House. The Member for St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All hon. members know that they are not to interrupt the member when he is speaking, so I ask them for their co-operation, please.

MR. DOYLE: That is all they have been doing, is interrupting, Mr. Speaker, that is all they have been doing.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that because for those of us who stand on our feet and speak in this Legislature, we realize that it is difficult when there are people constantly shouting. I want to say - and I'm just about ready to clue up, Mr. Speaker - that we as a party and as a caucus felt -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for St. Barbe that I hope I don't have to borrow any from him. What is that, what's that he (Inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I might not be a PR dream, Mr. Speaker, I might not be the public relations dream, I say to the Member for St. John's South. I will never pay a PR person $50,000 a year to write it about me either, I say to the Member for St. Barbe. The taxpayers of this Province paying $50,000 while people on compensation have to starve. Paying PR people $50,000 to write that he's a PR dream? A public relations person's dream.

Yet that minister will stand in this House and he'll vote to claw back a few bucks from the people who are depending on workers' compensation. That's the type of waste we've got, and filth, in this government. Six hundred dollar doorknobs, $80,000 worth of wallpaper, $1,000 chairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it took thirty years for renovations to be made on the eighth floor, and it took this Premier three years to spend more than was spent after thirty, I'd say to the Member for St. John's South. That's what took place in this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's the truth, and those are facts. What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes. Mr. Guy. I happened to watch it last night, I don't watch it very often. I don't watch it very often. But....

Mr. Speaker, this caucus has pointed out I hope, as the Member for St. John's East, I would suspect, has tried to point out to the people of this Province, that this piece of legislation is going to hurt the people who for some reason or other find themselves on workers' compensation. For those people who find themselves on some sort of a long-term disability from workers' compensation, could be hurt even more.

MR. MURPHY: The fund won't dry up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What fund?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South says the fund won't dry up. I'd say to the Member for St. John's South that this government better do something for the economy, if that fund is not going to dry up. Because I say to the Member for St. John's South, in all sincerity, that this government in the past three years has done nothing for the economy. Nothing. It took the Premier three years to realise that there wasn't enough light on the eighth floor for him. Where was he? If it took him three years to find out there was not enough light in his office, where was he? He wasn't in his office for three years or he would have known it before now, if that was the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: He was galivanting around this country preaching the Constitution.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Crosbie said he wasn't galivanting (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: Preaching -

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

I wonder if the hon. member could take his seat while I inform the House of the questions for the Late Show?

Question one: not satisfied with the answer of the Minister of Environment and Lands with respect to the emissions at the Holyrood plant. That's the hon. Member for Harbour Main.

Question two: not satisfied with the answers from the Minister of Health on the cutbacks in the health care system. That's the hon. Member for Harbour Main.

Question three: not satisfied with the answers given by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in answer to my question on the MOGs. That's the hon. Member for Fogo.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat a little bit for the Minister of Education about the Premier's office, the $600 doorknobs, the $80,000 worth of wallpaper and the $1,000 chairs. It took him three years to realise that there weren't enough lights in the office because he was beating around this country preaching on the Constitution. What was it he was referred to as? The hero of Meech Lake and the turncoat on - I heard him referred to the other day by a commentator - the hero of Meech Lake and the turncoat of Charlottetown.

I say to the minister in conclusion that we hope the people of this Province will see the injustice that's been done; that they will see the lack of economic development by this government has caused a major decline in the amount of money that is being paid to workers' compensation.

We hope that the people of this Province, when their cheques are being clawed back, and when they are being forced to go back to work with back injuries or leg injuries or neck injuries, whatever the case may be; when their salary and cheques are being cut by up to 40 per cent and they are unable to support their families, and have to try to limp out and try to crawl to the workplace because of injuries that they have sustained as a result of accidents in the workplace; when people have to go to work because of the cutbacks; when they are forced to go back to work or to starve, that they will realize the injustice that has been inflicted upon them by this minister and this government, and that the people out there in rural Newfoundland in particular, who have elected members like the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, and LaPoile, and Baie Verte - White Bay, and Harbour Grace, and St. John's South, and Stephenville, and Lewisporte, and Trinity North, that they will show them that they never stood in this House to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who never?

MR. TOBIN: I never mentioned you.

When people in Fortune - Hermitage had to call me and ask me to stand to bring their case before the minister in this Legislature -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. TOBIN: That is true.

The Member for St. John's South did stand, Mr. Speaker. I will give him credit for that, and I said that when I was speaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I do not have time. I have one minute left, and I cannot get into the Member for Port de Grave. I will leave that to another time.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. TOBIN: I only have one minute left, and it would take an hour.

MR. EFFORD: I did not say anything.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is right, exactly. That is what he is saying. You said nothing.

MR. TOBIN: That is what he said. You said nothing, and I said, well it would take me an hour to get into that and I only have a minute left.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we have pointed out to the people of this Province the injustices that have been inflicted upon them by this minister and this administration, and that when they are forced to go back to work in this Province, when they have to go back to work still injured, that they will realize the injustice that has been brought upon them by this administration.

I would suspect that when the public servants of this Province, when the nurses and teachers and policemen, in the next election, decide -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: - decides the future of these gentlemen, decides the future of this government, that those who have been affected by the atrocious attack upon them in workers' compensation, will join them as well.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, that has to be the sincerest speech I have heard in the House of Assembly in a long time, really, and the most factual speech I have heard in a long time too, as a matter of fact - the most factual speech I have heard in many, many years, and I have been here a few now, I must say. It is getting up there, as a matter of fact, and I expect that the people of Stephenville will, one of their days, hopefully in their wisdom, do the same again.

I was listening to him. I listened intently to all of the constructive criticism that he gave us on the workers' compensation bill - very constructive criticism about how they would deal with this problem if they were over here. Now we know how they dealt with the problem while they were over here, because that is not too long ago. We should all understand that.

What they did when they were over here was zero - nothing - zero. Very simple, ignore the problem, ignore the problem, ignore the problem, and then hope one day that have not will be no more, and then deal with it. That is how they wanted to deal with the problem. Have not will be no more. The problem is that the time has come to deal with the problem. It came a lot faster.

Now, your know, the hon. members opposite, especially in the loyal opposition, the opposition, who were the government - and most of them on the front bench were Cabinet ministers in the previous government. Now we have to remember this. They were Cabinet ministers in the previous government.

MR. ROBERTS: They were the driving force.

MR. K. AYLWARD: They were the driving force, as a matter of fact. And they were the driving force behind zero and zero wage freezes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The members opposite. They were driving forces on a whole range of things that they don't want to take credit for. It is too bad the Member for St. John's East is leaving, the leader of one, the leader of me, myself and I, who is now the Leader of the NDP party.

Now, the only thing about it is, if they are going to criticize, I wish it would at least be a bit credible. I mean, he is now leader of a party, he is not just a sole member. He is representing, supposedly, a political party in this Province. What I hear from him is: You shouldn't do this and you shouldn't do that, but he doesn't say what he would do if he were over here and how he would pay for it. Because the time will come in politics in Newfoundland and Labrador - the electorate was always intelligent but now it is more educated, and they have decided that if you are going to say something, then back it up when you say it and explain how you are going to do it. Now, the thing with the Opposition right now, the problem they have, is that they are over there criticizing but they haven't got any backup as to how they would fix the problem, not a word, as a matter of fact.

Occupational health and safety: We are spending way more money now in these budgetary times than they did in the seventeen years while they were over here. So we have more emphasis on occupational health and safety than they ever did and they are not saying a word about it.

So, you know, you get there and you are listening to the wonderful criticisms, and they should criticize in their capacities, but the problem is that there is not a solution offered, not a one, especially from members opposite who were Cabinet Ministers not too long ago and who put this Province in the financial mess it is in. The reason that the Member for Exploits, who is now the very good Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, has to come in with legislation to deal with a major financial problem, and also clean up a lot of other things that need to be dealt with in workers' compensation, is this: They never did anything about it, they ignored it. And do we ever remember that, when I was in the Opposition, do we ever remember that!

The other thing is: In 1989, do you know what the hoist was about? This motion on the hoist was to go to the public, from them now. Your motion was to go to the public with this bill. They are the same group that were in government that never opened the House of Assembly in a fall session, at least four years in a row that I can remember. They never even opened the House for public debate. Never opened it! There weren't even legislative committees that you could put legislation to when they were in government, because they didn't believe in it. So now they are saying: Well, let's go back to the public. That is the same crew. So, I mean, let's be credible if we are going to talk about this. Let's deal with credible criticisms. Let's deal with how you would solve the problem, instead of talking about things you never did, never would do, and you know you wouldn't, if you were in government. So, let's get real.

I know this is a bit embarrassing, because they were here before and they left it in the mess they did. I have to read a couple of quotes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Oh, that is too bad!

I have to read a couple of quotes. Brian Peckford was the Premier of this Province in 1987. "Newfoundland is heading for a 1930s style financial disaster within two years, unless Ottawa fundamentally redefines the Province's place in Confederation." I mean, he was predicting that we would be 1933 all over again in 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) except doorknobs.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, except doorknobs.

So, in 1987, their former, former leader was talking about the bad state it was going to be in with the federal government. Then we get in government and we find out what the financial state is. Do you know what we have been doing for three-and-a-half years? We have been trying to fix up the financial state, so that the people of the Province and the future generations will have something to look forward to. They are over there saying: Well, you shouldn't do that. You shouldn't fix up the financial state of the Province. You shouldn't try to keep the credit rating so at least we can borrow our money to keep the services going.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Socialist.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, I see a Socialist. The Socialist is there.

They are saying: Don't tax this and don't cut this service, and here is big Ottawa, Mr. Mulroney - remember co-operation and consultation? Remember that one there, the one where they were holding hands, the federal Tories, Mulroney and the provincial Tories, helping them get elected?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much were the rest of the doorknobs.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, I am going to get into that now.

They helped get the federal government elected. They are still big supporters of the federal government, who have wiped out $800 million to this provincial government in three-and-a-half years over four budgets. Eight hundred million is our total health care budget wiped out in transfer payments that these people over here opposite, support. Now, they are talking about renovations. Let me tell you about renovations. I have a file this thick of renovations over fifteen years. But what do you do? Do you give this credibility? is my question.

This Chamber we are sitting in - at the same time that Mr. Peckford was predicting a financial disaster for this Province in 1987, they were planning the Chamber, an $8 million expenditure. They went ahead with the expenditure anyway. The ninth, tenth and eleventh floors had to be done, so they made plans for these expenditures and went ahead with them anyway. The financial state of the Province didn't matter, it never mattered one iota.

Now, this is one set of renovations, not including the $125,000 for the Member for Torngat Mountains when he became the Minister of Northern Affairs, $125,000 for his office. Now, that is one minister - they had twenty-three ministers when they were in government and if they had a larger caucus he would have made them all ministers, I suppose, at the end, because he was extending it and it was growing larger all the time. So, if we are going to get criticism on this side, you know, it would be awfully nice if it were credible, or at least it were a state of affairs where you could say: 'Well, that makes sense, we will consider that.' but when you look at what was done and the party that the former government was on with the taxpayers' money, you have to say to yourself, 'Let's be a bit real and show a little credibility.'

It is unreal to hear those types of criticisms coming from a crowd who spent money like it was going out of style, never even worried about the public pension plans, the study on public pensions that we had to do when we got in because they were in such a mess. Nobody had worried about people getting a pension in the year 2005 and whether they were going to have any money, whether they were going to get a cheque. Nobody bothered with that - who cares about that, who is worried about it?

Well, all of a sudden we have to start worrying about it because the pensions are coming due; therefore we had to have a study done and now we have to try to fix up the pension plans in the middle of this financial crisis that Mr. Peckford talked about two or three years ago. So, if you are going to criticize the government, go right ahead, because that is your role. But I have been listening for a number of weeks to what the Opposition - both oppositions have had to say about how they would fix it if they were over here. Because it is not that complicated and most of them know that over there. Most of them were senior levels, senior ministers of government, that front bench over there, senior ministers of the former government, and what gets me is, they know what it is like, but they saw what was coming.

The only thing is, I figured out why they didn't have a Budget in 1989 before they went to the people. It was because they knew what was coming and if they had gone with the Budget they would have been wiped out for sure, because it would certainly have shown the mess it was in.

MR. A. SNOW: That is the reason why you had a surplus.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The only Budget we had a surplus? I say to the Member for Menihek, thank you for that surplus; that was some surplus. Thank you for the $4 billion debt; thank you for the pension plans that are in the state they are; thank you for the workers' compensation fund that you did nothing about. I mean, I can go on thanking you about what you left us with: thank you for the Mulroney federal government; thank you for the mismanagement of the fishery from Ottawa, thank you very much. You know, if we want to get into thank yous, we have a long list like that, that we don't want to thank you for and, unfortunately, the Member for Menihek can share no blame in that because he was not a member of Cabinet in the former government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: I do not know. But he has the interest of the people at heart, I know he does, and he is trying to present options for this government so that we can correct the problems. However, I say to him and to the Opposition, let's be a little bit realistic here when we are talking about how we would fix the problem. I mean, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, has brought in a number of recommendations to try to resolve, not only the financial problem but also resolve the other problems with workers' compensation. He is legitimately, and diligently working to deal with those problems. He has a number of recommendations there, after consultation with everybody concerned in the process, and is trying to deal with these problems. And I think he is doing a good job considering the circumstances and considering what he was left to deal with and what this government was left to deal with - there were major financial problems to be dealt with.

So, when we hear the other side, all we ask is - a bit of partisan politics is good stuff, but some legitimate criticism as to what you would do if you were here would go a long way, and, as a matter of fact, help the government. Then, it might even make your criticisms a lot more credible with the people who are out there.

Nobody who gets into politics likes to reduce a benefit or take away something or make it a little less than it was, but I tell you this, I would rather make it safe. I would rather go home at night knowing that we are doing something to save the process in the future, than going home every night worrying about it all. So my mind is a lot more settled that way, I must say, because we are trying to deal with the problem instead of avoiding the problem and running away from it as the former government did.

I was listening to the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and when you hear the criticisms you are saying, 'Well that is fine; make fun of this and make fun of that; but what would you do if you were here?' I think that is the question that people out there should ask the Opposition: What would you do if you were here?

We know what they did. They did little or nothing, so you avoid a problem and finally it comes home to roost. This government has decided - and even if you didn't want to decide, even if you wanted to be a politician who says, 'Well, as a group, let's not worry about this problem,' we can't even afford to do that anymore, so even if you didn't want to deal with it, you still have to deal with it now. They know that over there, and they saw it coming, but it didn't matter anyway. The thing is, they don't want to admit to it now, either.

When you look at what is happening across Canada - I am sure the minister, in his final remarks, will talk about other governments in Canada right now who are dealing with workers' compensation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: On that note, I have been having a good say here -and I have been wanting to get a few things off my chest. But I want to say to the Opposition, Let's have some credible criticism. And we will take notes over here. The minister has been taking notes and trying to figure it out, and I am sure he will tell us the good criticisms that were given by the Opposition.

I commend the minister on doing what he can to make the workers' compensation fund a safe fund for the future for everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were a couple of points that I did want to make at this point, while closing debate and moving second reading. Some of the other points we will leave and I am sure we will address as we go through the Committee stage of this debate; but there are two or three, in the ten minutes or so that are available to me now, that I thought I should address for the record. Maybe I will try to work backwards by dealing with some of the comments made by some of the speakers from the side opposite.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, when referring to some of the problems that we are trying to address here, and painting a particular picture, suggested for the record that there are presently 40,000 less people working in the Province now than there were at the time when the previous administration left office, and that that is part of the problem with workers' compensation - there are less people working, less people able to pay into the fund and so on.

I just wanted to point out again, in case the hon. member and others might be labouring under some misunderstandings, it is not necessarily the number of employees that have impact on the funding of the Commission, but the number of companies, the number of employers, who are in place, because it is the employers who pay the full assessments, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, for workers' compensation. They pay for it totally. There are no tax dollars, there are no employee contributions. It is totally, 100 per cent an employer contribution.

Just for the record, because the Opposition members opposite are sometimes known to use numbers selectively for effect more than anything else, and the number used this time was that there were 40,000 less people working in the Province now than there were then.

The fact of the matter is, if you want to look at numbers, and you can be very selective with numbers, which is why I prefer not to deal with statistics a lot, but I just want to point out this number for comparison. When the former Premier, Mr. Rideout, called the election at the end of March, 1989, statistics showed that at that point in time there were 181,000 people employed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, after going through a couple of years of recession and economic difficulties, in the last numbers that were released and debated in this House, and discussed just a week or ten days ago, there are 190,000 people working in Newfoundland and Labrador in the last month recorded. So, if you want to pick numbers, you can pick numbers.

Now, members opposite, if we were in a Question Period and debate, would look at that and say, `But that is not a fair comparison,' and no more it isn't. But I used the example just to point out how ridiculous it is to try to pluck a number out of the air like 40,000 and say it as if there is something real about it. It is an absolutely meaningless number. So if you pick the numbers that I just used - but I will be honest about it, I won't try to kid anybody. I just used the number that, when the former government left office, in the last month that they were in office, there were 181,000 people employed in the Province. In the last month recorded for this year, which is October past, there were 190,000 people working. Now, if you take those numbers, how could anybody stand up with credibility and say there are 40,000 less people working. It doesn't make any sense. I am not trying to fool anybody. I will tell the world that I just selectively used some numbers, which is what the members opposite do quite often. I used a number that happened to come from March month in 1989 because that was the last month that Mr. Rideout and the Opposition were in office, and the last number that I used came from the month of October in 1992. So we would normally say, if you are going to be fair let's compare one equal month with one equal month.

We recognize and we have admitted that we have gone through a recession and the numbers are down slightly. If you compare March to March in 1989, it was 181,000 and this year it is 173,000, 8,000 less. We will admit that there are 8,000 less people working and that that is part of the problem, but we don't like to hear exaggerations and numbers thrown about, like they were just recently, in the last little bit of discussion by the hon. member opposite. It is that kind of thing that I have seen in some of the debate from members opposite that, for effect more than anything else, they have exaggerated some of the points of view, and they have not dealt with the real impact of this piece of legislation.

I mention that, because when I get back to the remarks from the hon. the Member for Humber East - when she spoke in the Legislature yesterday, she talked about the plight of the injured nurses. There was reference made today, by the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West and others, the hon. the Member for Menihek, about the ad in the paper and what it pointed out about the great catastrophe that could be in store for an injured nurse. I will point out in the closing remarks over the next day or so, when this bill is called again, that while there is some validity and some reason for concern for these people, it is not because of what is in this bill. It is absolutely not possible for what was depicted in the paper or has been presented to this House to occur, because of the provisions in this bill amending The Workers' Compensation Act. So I just point that out as one item.

A couple of serious items, at least one of which I will address in five minutes or so, that the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West brought to the attention of the members assembled: I would like to spend a couple of minutes, if I could, Mr. Speaker, referencing the annuity issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Deal with the top-up issue.

MR. GRIMES: I will deal with the top-up issue as I go through, further on.

I will deal with the annuity one now. I am trying to go backwards as they were raised. I like to try to do things in some kind of order, rather than go hopscotching all over the place.

The annuity issue was raised, and it is clear that we have changed the way the annuities will function with respect to workers' compensation. Maybe in the four or five minutes that are available, I might point out, Mr. Speaker, to all hon. members how the provision works now and how it will work as a result of the provision in this bill which will change the act.

Currently, an injured worker, any injured worker, regardless of what kind of a work environment or work site they came from, if they are on claim and if they are injured for twenty-four consecutive months, which means it is probably a very serious injury, then the Workers' Compensation Commission will not only continue their normal payments, or their entitlements and their benefits, but will also contribute an amount equal to 10 per cent of that into a separate fund to provide a pension or annuity for that person when they reach age sixty-five. Currently that provision is there for every injured worker, regardless of whether or not there is a pension in place for them at their work site.

All hon. members gathered here know that in many work sites where there is an organized group or union in place and so on, and a fair number of employees, there is likely to be a company pension plan in place. There are many instances where that occurs; but there are many more instances where, because of the size of the work force, or things that have happened, because of other benefits that are being paid by the employer to the employees, there is no annuity or pension plan in place for the workers. So if they were not injured, and if they worked every day for the rest of their lives for that employer, they would not get a pension, because there is neither one there. It has never been arranged; it has never been part of their deal in working. But if they happen to get injured, and if they are injured for more than twenty-four months, those employers who pay in the assessments, some money is taken from the assessments that they put in, and the worker starts getting a pension - whether they ever would have got one working or not.

We looked at that and said: That is not right. The system is supposed to compensate you for things that you lose. It is not supposed to give you something to which you never, ever had an entitlement. So we said: Well there is a fair way to deal with this; and we think the bill spells out the fair way.

This bill and amendment says that for annuity for any worker - and the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West presented a good case. There was a worker in a workplace where there was a pension being contributed to, and they got injured. They have been off on long-term disability. They are still injured, and there was a fund set up in the workers' compensation system for them, because they had been injured for more than twenty-four months and they had been on claim. Therefore, they stopped paying in at the work site because the pension was now going to be paid from workers' compensation - fair enough.

What we have said in this bill is that when that worker reaches age 65, if the worker can demonstrate, and if it is clear, that by working they would have gotten a better pension than by being injured, the commission will pay the difference. They will not lose a thing. Whatever they were entitled to by way of annuity or pension, by virtue of working in the workplace, they will be guaranteed.

So I do not understand, and I say sometimes that the members raise certain things more for effect than for debating the merits of the case at hand. What we had put in place is what both employers and employees agree is a fair system. It is a properly based system that if you are working in a place, and entitled to a pension, and if you are injured for a period of time, and at age 65 when you would have collected your pension it is reduced because you lost time at work, the commission will pay the difference. You will not lose a cent. But if you were never entitled to a pension, there should never have been any expectation that the commission should give you one when you were not entitled to one in the workplace.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, as we go through the closing of this, to move second reading, to be able to clarify several other points as well that have been raised. I will not take a lot of time to do that when the bill is called again on the next day, I hope, hopefully tomorrow morning. I would like to address several of the issues, and if it still leaves questions raised, I am sure we will get an opportunity to deal with them in Committee.

Rather than move second reading at this point, I would like to reserve some time and just adjourn debate for the present moment.

MR. SPEAKER: It now being 4:30, I call upon the hon. Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only reason I have this question on the Late Show today, for the Minister of Environment and Lands, is that I have been waiting now almost a week for a little bit of information. I did not go through the Freedom of Information Act, as her department forces the CBC to do. I asked the Minister of Environment and Lands in the House only a couple of days ago to supply a little bit of information - just a small bit of information about the Holyrood generating station - and I still do not have that information, Mr. Speaker.

I guess probably the minister now, when she gets up, might

give me the information or she might force me to go through the Freedom of Information Act as well. I was absolutely amazed I should say to her, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had to go through the Freedom of Information Act in order to get information that is vital and basic to the health and safety of people in the Province, not in the Province but in the Seal Cove and the Holyrood areas.

Now, surely, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Environment and Lands should make information available on such a vital issue. Information that affects the health and safety of the people in the Seal Cove and Holyrood areas. She should make that information available if there is nothing to hide and I hope there isn't, I certainly hope there isn't. If Hydro does not have anything to hide, if the Department of Environment and Lands do not have anything to hide, then why can't that information be made readily available to the people, and how dare, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Environment and Lands, how dare the Department of Environment and Lands refuse to give that type of information to the media when they are looking to report information that might be important, again I repeat, to the health and the safety of the people of the Holyrood and Seal Cove area?

Now I got the impression from the minister a couple of days ago that she really did not totally and fully agree with the position taken by her own department; she said: well, quite possibly they should have given that information. Well, if that is her attitude still, then maybe she will get that information for us and you know, I have absolutely no reason myself to believe that the emissions are not anything but at an acceptable level but, my suspicions were raised somewhat when the media asked for that information and they could not get it. So out of concern for the people of the Holyrood and Seal Cove areas regarding these emissions, I thought it appropriate to ask the minister, and on top of that up around that area you have houses being painted by Hydro. Hydro paying for paint jobs on houses, paying for paint jobs on cars because of the falling residue that is coming from that plant, so I could only assume that the lungs of people are no less vulnerable as well. So I think it is a fair question, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to upset anyone or raise anyone's concerns unduly, but I think it is a fair question.

Now I did not ask the minister to get me the travel logs of the government aircraft or to get the number of trips that ministers have taken. I could see if the department had a lot of work to do there, that they would have to force you to go through the Freedom of Information, but, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is vital to the health and safety of people so why can't the department of Environment and Lands make that information available? I am given to understand as well, that something similar occurred just recently, when the Mayor of Sunnyside asked for information with respect to the fallout from the Come by Chance plant, they were told that they would have to go through the Freedom of Information Act as well. Well, that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough that they should have to go through Freedom of Information for that and pay for that type of information. I mean, it is only a phone call, when you go to the Department of Environment and Lands and say: what are the readout levels at the Holyrood generating station, which the media did, and they got all kinds of co-operation for the first five minutes until somebody realized well, we better not give out that information; we might be incriminated because of it, so, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody trying to make any trouble for the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: - or trouble for the government or trouble for the department. We just want to know if the health and safety of the people in Holyrood, Seal Cove area are in any way being jeopardized.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

In response to my hon. critic for Harbour Main, there are a few points that I would like to bring to the attention of the House.

First of all, the emissions from the Holyrood plant are not exceeding federal or provincial standards, so that is one thing that is very encouraging. My government has focused on the Holyrood plant in surprising proportions compared to the lack of interest that was shown by the previous administration. There was not even any staff that was designated by the past administration

to be responsible for the Holyrood Plant. Obviously, this isn't a tolerable situation and so we have assigned some staff to look after the Holyrood Plant.

Now, over the summer - well, not just over the summer - I will tell you some of the things that happened, positively. Prior to the summer we started having high-level meetings with the people from Hydro, the deputy minister and the top people at Hydro, and suggested to them that we did have some concerns about what was going on out there. We found Hydro very co-operative. There only concern was, you know, would we give them some advance notice so that they can work these things into their budgets and so on, which is very reasonable.

Over the summer, in the stacks were placed new monitoring equipment. This now is going to be very effective in helping to deal with the measurements of just what is coming from the stacks. As well now, on order, they have monitoring devices that will pick up what is in the air, what is floating downstream, downwind, from the plant. That will help as well in the monitoring of just what is coming out of the stacks and is it exceeding the regulations that it should be, or whatever.

Now, one of the faults that they did have at Hydro, that I will have to point out, was that they didn't have a specific person, sort of responsible for environmental safety. In the conversations with us, that became one of the things that we focused on. Hydro has decided that come January 1, they hope to have in place an environmental engineer. Now, once that individual is in place, his or her total responsibilities will be focused on just making sure that everything is proper and right in the environmental area.

So, as far as the Freedom of Information thing goes, I will tell the hon. member, rather than make a big fuss, why doesn't he phone Hydro. They will tell him. They have an in-house lawyer. It is very easy for them to check with those lawyers - they are right there at hand - and see if the information can be released. The reason it is not released from our department is by advice from the Department of Justice because we want to check to make sure that the people asking for the information are not put into an awkward position legally, and that the people giving the information are not put into a legally uncomfortable position.

It is no desire, Mr. Speaker, to suppress information. That would be abhorrent to this government. The great bulk of applications for information under the Freedom of Information Act, they pass through that sieve and they are given out, and it is not a problem. But we certainly don't want to see CBC liable for something. We care about CBC. He really seems to care about them too, but if he cares that much he can phone up the Holyrood Plant for them. I have suggested to CBC that they phone Hydro, by the way.

MR. HOGAN: You live right next door, all you have to do is go in and ask them.

MS. COWAN: Yes. But they, CBC, like the hon. member over here, prefer to make it an issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Conception Bay Center.

MS. COWAN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

MS. COWAN: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that is correct. They could phone Hydro at any time and probably get that information. There are in-house lawyers there who quickly can tell them whether or not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. COWAN: Is my time up?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. member's time is up.

MS. COWAN: Well, in conclusion then, Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to say I am pleased with what is happening at Holyrood. I would, in fact, say that I would like to take a little bow as Minister of Environment and Lands, because of the improvements that have taken place out there with the co-operation of Hydro, since I became minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I wish the rules allowed me to have a go at the minister again on that, but I won't.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope I get a little bit more information from the Minister of Health today than I got from the Minister of Environment and Lands. Now, I was expecting the Minister of Environment and Lands to come in today with that information. I am a little bit disappointed that she didn't. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to - I must confess, I eavesdropped a little bit on the minister's interview outside, when he was with the CBC and NTV.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why? Did they get him out?

MR. DOYLE: Yes, they finally got him out.

MR. MATTHEWS: They put the rope on him and dragged him out.

MR. DOYLE: They had to get a chain (Inaudible) to get him up out of his seat to get him out in front of the cameras. Actually, the media today during that interview got no more information from the Minister of Health than I got from him today, Mr. Speaker.

The minister confirmed yesterday that each and every hospital and nursing home board in the Province had been given a specific amount to cut from their budgets this year, when we only have four months left in this fiscal year. The minister promised us that he would come forth with the information as to the amounts of money that each board would be expected to cut. Lo and behold, the great revelation from the Minister of Health today when questioned on that was well, he's sorry, but he failed to do his homework.

That is not good enough. The minister failed to do his homework. That's not going to be good enough when people who are lined up waiting for by-passes and cancer operations, and every other kind of operation, when they can't get into the hospital. It's not going to be good enough for the minister to say: I didn't do my homework. We find out today that the Janeway is going to be cut - they have been asked to cut $450,000 from their budget for the remainder of this fiscal year, $450,000 to be taken from the Janeway budget for a four-month period. On top of that they've been asked to trim $500,000 from their budget.

The boards are going to be meeting with the minister tomorrow morning, or tomorrow afternoon, or sometime tomorrow. The minister is going to be told exactly what he already knows. That is, that the health care boards can't afford to chop one penny from their budgets without seriously affecting the health care of people in the Province. The minister already knows that. He can't expect them to cut 1 per cent and 3 per cent from their operating budgets and their salary budgets without affecting, in a devastating way, the level of health care in the Province.

In the minister's last Budget when he was Minister of Finance he did the job on the health care system at that time. Violated the promise that the Premier had made, that while the need existed - the Premier said during his election campaign - there would not be one hospital bed closed. The minister did the job on the health care budget when he was Minister of Finance and now he's here to take up the pieces as Minister of Health. There's no fat left in the health care system, I would say to the Minister of Health. Not one ounce of fat is left in the health care system. Only the bare bones. Now the minister is getting ready to take the skeleton apart piece by piece.

All he has to do is meet with the nurses' union and they'll tell him that there's absolutely no way they can afford to cut not only 1 per cent, but one-tenth of 1 per cent, one-fiftieth of 1 per cent. They have people lined up in the corridors now waiting for operations. They have nurses who are worked off their feet. I make no wonder they have a problem with workers' compensation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: When you have nurses in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: - who are worked off their feet because of this minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance stood in his place recently and indicated that the Province had a severe financial problem and indicated that we're going to take some steps both the remainder of this current year, and it looked like it was going to be bad for next year.

So what he did is he said we should look at saving 1 per cent of our salary budget and 3 per cent of our operating budget for all departments, and we'd have another meeting about it and decide what we're going to do. So what we did in the health care system was write every agency and every organization and said: Look, we would like for you to start to watch what you are spending. Do not spend any unnecessary money. We expect that you will be saving 1 per cent of your salary budget, which is x dollars, and 3 per cent of your operating budget, which is x dollars. Look at this and tell us what the impact of this will be on your institution, should we go ahead with it. In the meantime, don't go laying off anybody. Don't do anything to interfere with the care of the patients or residents who are in your institution.

Now then, that was the instruction, and the institutional people were given until Friday of this week to get their impact statements back to us - what would happen if, if. They are coming back. I have already met with a number of institutions. In the meantime, the Minister of Finance is looking at the options very carefully, and when this information comes in on Friday we shall, during the course of the next week or so, look at it and decide precisely what we, as a government, are going to do.

There is no need for the member to be all excited and saying: This is only the beginning. I do not know where this doom and gloom - it has to do with Toryism. Instead of cutting 1 per cent, look at it. There is 99 per cent left. Instead of 3 per cent, there is 97 per cent left. What in the world is wrong with the Tories over there? All they want is to be down in the gloom and down in the dumps and everything. They revel in being bad.

What is the alternative? The Minister of Finance has to come to grips with the financial problem. If we do not, and if we are unable to borrow, then, by gum, we are going to be in trouble. Then we will close the hospital beds because we cannot borrow to pay for it. But by acting responsibly, we will save the hospital system in this Province; we will save the nursing home system in this Province, and continue to make it better. It is already better than it was when that crowd over there, the hon. crowd over there ran it. It is much better as a result of the reforms instituted by the former minister, which will be continued by the present minister, and we will have one of the better systems of health care in this whole nation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is good to see the former Minister of Finance - who used to frequently talk about doing his sums - we see that he has them right today, that 99 + 1 is 100. He forgot the other three, though.

Mr. Speaker, my question earlier today was to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs because, as the Minister of Health said, the directive that came from the minister, in his statement, was a 1 per cent savings on salary, and a 3 per cent on operating.

The minister, in his budget on current account, has about $122 million. It is a little less probably now, because of the transfer of some to cultural and historic resources, I think, that went to another department in the realignment. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has lost some of that, but he still has a fairly significant amount of money in that budget.

The fiscal year for councils has just about come to an end, and certainly there is a concern out there as to how savings are going to be effected in that department. Now it was good to hear the minister say today that there will be no reductions given to municipalities as a result of this, on the MOG's. My question to the minister is: How is he going to effect the 3 per cent savings in there if there is going to be no reductions? We are glad to hear that.

The second part dealt with: How are municipalities going to be financed in the following year? The minister has already indicated, through a press release some time that no municipality, once you are given allocations, it is fundamentally unfair to change them in midstream - that once you are given your allocations, December 01 or 10, then that is what you are going to get.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to three councils in my district today, and all of them are in the process of preparing their budgets. They have not received any information from the minister. They are getting worried. They are afraid that the 3 per cent is going to apply to them. I think we got the minister's assurance, although I am not quite sure, that they will not have less next year than they had this year. I think that is what the minister said today - they will have no less; because he said they could base it on the figures that they have this year and they would be exactly the same.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister can tell us now, when they are expected to be given the amounts that they are going to be given for 1993? The time is getting close. Small councils - it is getting close to Christmas. They like to get their budgets done as early as possible in December. They need that information now. The minister will, in the next few days I hope, be able to supply them with that information.

We have already seen some reduction in the minister's department, in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, some 30 people or so got laid off last week. Is there going to be another layoff there as a result of the 1 per cent savings in salary? Is the minister going to go into that department again, despite the added responsibilities they have been given, as a result of now having to do work for the Department of Social Services?

I would like for the minister to clear up some of these questions when he gets up to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Fogo, and the critic for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, is entirely wrong. As my colleague was saying, he is trying to put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort, of what he tried to illustrate to the House a few moments ago. What I did say was, based on the report that is forthcoming from the Federation of Municipalities that the municipalities should not act on that report but on the current information they have to prepare their budgets. That is the only information I can give them. I have no different information than that. They are all fully aware of the formula that is used to calculate the Municipal Operating Grant, and I will stand by what I said, the fact that if there are any changes to the MOG throughout the year, as happened this year, there will be nothing done to have monies taken back or taken from the municipalities in the middle of the year.

That came about, Mr. Speaker, from misinformation that had either been obtained by the department from the municipalities or given by the municipalities to the department, whatever way you want to look at it. The calculations were based on that information and found to be erroneous during the year when the municipalities submitted their budgets and their forms which were used to make the final calculations on the MOGS. What, in fact, happened was a correction went out to the initial claims that were put forward by the municipalities. It was a simple matter of misinformation either being received or asked for by the department or given by the municipalities, from whatever perspective you want to look at it.

The other question that the hon. member asked: The 1 per cent in salaries and the 3 per cent in operations of the department will not affect the Municipal Operating Grants that have already been agreed to with the municipalities throughout the Province. Any changes to the Municipal Operating Grants that were to take place or have already taken place with the municipalities will not change at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I assume that those of us on this side will vote in favour of the motion to adjourn which, by the Standing Orders, is now before the House. Before I ask my colleague to do so, may I say that tomorrow we shall call Order 20, that's the Workers' Compensation Bill. That will finish at some point because the minister has the balance of his hour left. So at some point mid-morning we shall take a vote on that and get on with it.

We'll then go on to what is Order 9 on today's order paper. That's Bill 20, the municipal operating grants Bill. My friend the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will be able to enlighten those who need enlightenment on the other side, and that is many.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Bill 30, yes, I'm sorry, Order 9. It's the municipal grants Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 30.

MR. ROBERTS: Bill 30. And Bill Hogan with Bill 30. Yes. Should we succeed in carrying the day against the hordes opposite on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker, we shall then call Bill 20, which is today Order 7, and resume debate on that important piece of legislation.

It's not a matter of moving the adjournment, Mr. Speaker, because there's a motion before the Chair. But let me say, I shall vote in favour of it.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.