December 8, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 57
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before the Chair calls the routine proceedings of the day, the Chair would like to make what might be considered an unusual request, that is to make a statement. This statement surrounds comments made by Mr. John Woodrow in the media in recent days. The Chair is asking for leave of the House and the consent of all members to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
At the beginning, I should state that under normal circumstances it is highly unusual for the Speaker of the House of Assembly to take part in a political issue outside his role as the impartial Chair of the House. I am also the Member for the House of Assembly for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, elected by constituents in that district and for whom it is my duty to represent them to the best of my ability.
However, I feel obligated to respond to certain statements made by Mr. John Woodrow in a interview with Doug Letto last evening on the CBC news program Here and Now. These statements have besmirched my integrity and my reputation as the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde and need to be refuted.
Mr. Woodrow's statement left the impression that he had done political favours for my constituents, for my staff and for me personally.
Let me deal with Mr. Woodrow's allegations that he did political favours for my constituents. As the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, I am approached, from time to time, by constituents to assist them with employment insurance, workers' compensation and tax appeals. This is a role performed by every Member of the House of Assembly and I have always been willing to assist any of my constituents who needed help in these areas. My two political assistants, who handle most of these appeals, felt that there were cases where constituents might be better served if someone with a legal background were to represent them at such appeals.
My executive assistant raised this matter with his colleagues two years ago when he joined my staff. He was given a name of Mr. John Woodrow, a paralegal here in St. John's, who provided services of that nature to the public on a contingency basis. Contact was made with Mr. Woodrow, and from time to time, constituents and their files, in consultation with these constituents, were referred to Mr. Woodrow when it was felt that constituents would be better represented by someone with legal experience before a board like the Tax Court of the Employment Insurance Commission.
Several constituent files were referred to Mr. Woodrow's office. I have spoken to the lawyer who handled these files in Mr. Woodrow's office and have been advised that contingency agreements were entered into with constituents and these agreements are on file in the Supreme Court Registry. How Mr. Woodrow could label this a political favour is certainly beyond my comprehension.
Neither I nor my staff ever pressured Mr. Woodrow into taking any of these cases. It was my understanding that the referral of employment insurance, workers' compensation and tax appeals was a common practice and he offered his paralegal services to the general public on a contingency basis. Neither I nor my staff ever requested a political favour of Mr. Woodrow. Mr. John Woodrow's statement that he did political favours for me personally are false and without basis. I want to make it clear that I at no time asked for or received political favours from Mr. John Woodrow.
This is a most serious matter and I am considering seeking legal advise.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think I speak on behalf of all members in the House in recognizing, first of all, that for you, as Speaker of this place, to take the step you have just taken, is an extraordinary action that could only be warranted by extraordinary circumstances.
Let my first words to you be words to reassure you, on behalf of the members on this side of the House - and I hope I can speak on behalf of members in the House generally -, that we recognize that the smooth functioning of this place is dependent upon, first and foremost, the integrity of the Speaker, and our confidence, all of us, in the integrity of the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, having heard the words you have just spoken, rest assured, Sir, that your integrity and our confidence in it in this House remains completely undiminished.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will say no more today but to add only these words. Reputations that have been earned over many years of public service are not easily acquired, and reputations that have been earned through the trials and tribulations of partisan politics are not always easily maintained. While there is a place for debate and there is a place for accountability - and indeed the members of the House would fail to do their jobs if they did not demand accountability - there also must be a place for due process.
It is my hope that the current investigations ongoing into the allegations being made generally by Mr. Woodrow will quickly, at the appropriate time, come to a conclusion and will establish the validity of the many statements that have been made, and allegations that have been made, directed at members of this House, members outside this House, individuals and officials in the public sector, and individuals and officials in the private sector.
I would say to those who cover this place - I would direct my comments to the media today as well - that while there is an obligation to give due coverage to allegations when they are made, there is equally an obligation to give proper investigation to those allegations before they are published, and there is an obligation to give an appropriate opportunity for response to those allegations before they are published.
Mr. Speaker, your reputation as a servant of this House, as Speaker, has been exemplary, and I think your reputation as a member of this House, representing the constituents who duly and properly sent you here, has also been exemplary. I assure you, you continue to enjoy the confidence of members of this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Allegations of any sort, labelled at any member of this House, irrespective of party, irrespective of position, have to be taken seriously. It is an unprecedented action, I say, that you felt compelled, as Speaker of the House today, to rise, to issue a statement. I can say, on behalf of the Official Opposition, that with respect to your role as Speaker in this House, in no way, shape or form, has our confidence been diminished in any way by the recent news coverage.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: We would say ourselves that we look forward to you continuing in that role.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While it is very unusual for a person in a role such as yours to make a statement such as you have, it is perhaps also unusual to respond to such a statement off the cuff. I do want to say, though, that the allegations made by Mr. Woodrow, in the context of your explanation as to the use of a service provided by him to the general public, appear to have no merit whatsoever. I would go further and say that the unfolding of these events does not affect my confidence in your ability to continue to Chair the House in an impartial fashion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of personal privilege. I wish to correct a false statement that appeared in an editorial published in today's edition of The Telegram.
The editorial entitled, "Art Reid Stepped Over the Line" had to do with the Provincial Home Repair Program. It stated that this minister changed the designation of two towns in his district - Harbour Grace and Carbonear - so that many more of his constituents could qualify for that program.
Mr. Speaker, the editorial in The Telegram was based on an inaccurate statement that was originally provided by the hon. Member for Conception Bay South. Even though I had provided the correct information to The Telegram and the other media yesterday, the editorial failed to make reference to this; and while I do not think it was deliberate, I feel that they have an obligation to print a retraction.
This minister did not re-categorize any towns in his district. The change in the categorization was done Province-wide, not just for the District of Carbonear - Harbour Grace. It was done purely for administrative/procedural reasons and, in fact, I was not even aware of it and therefore had no input whatsoever with respect to the change.
The Member for Conception Bay South issued a news release today. The member of the Opposition accused me of partisan politics with respect to the Home Repair Program and the release stated that this minister directed his staff to approve projects in his district even though the projects did not meet the criteria.
Mr. Speaker, at no time did I direct staff to approve projects under the Provincial Home Repair Program.
With respect to the charges of patronage, the member says almost one-quarter of the approvals were awarded to my district. I can provide information to this House which will show that Carbonear - Harbour Grace district did not receive the most approvals under the Home Repair Program in the Avalon region.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I take the strongest possible exception to these false and erroneous statements by the Member for Conception Bay South.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to respond to the minister's statement today, and to clearly point out to the minister that he certainly has one mistake in this particular statement which he made today. It is where he says: "the editorial in The Telegram was based on an inaccurate statement that was originally provided by the hon. Member for Conception Bay South."
Might I inform the minister that I have never informed The Telegram of anything concerning this particular program. I can only hope today that when the questions are asked of the minister, where he claims there is no information in his department coming out of his office, that when he is asked today in the House to table certain documentation, I only hope the minister will table that information in this House, so that maybe we can clear up this whole issue. I have seen documentation. The minister, I am sure, has seen the same documentation as I. Today, I will be asking you, sir, about this particular documentation, and I only hope that you can table that in this House of Assembly.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise on a point of personal privilege in relation to a statement made by the Premier yesterday which affects -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I believe we were dealing with a point of privilege raised by the hon. minister. Unless there are no other interventions, the Chair will take the hon. minister's point of privilege under consideration and under advisement and will report back to the House.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on a point of privilege.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise on a point of privilege in relation to a statement made by the Premier yesterday in response to a private member's resolution put forth by me. He made a statement that I have a full-time job outside of my duties at the House of Assembly. That is a false statement, and it reflects on my abilities to carry out my duties for my constituents, which I do to the utmost of my ability. The Premier knows that I, as other members of the House, engage in a part-time practice of law, as other people have business activities, but to make a statement that I have a full-time job outside of my duties to the House is false. It may have been said for political motivation, but it is false and it interferes with my privileges as a member.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure. I could quote Beauchesne to say why this is not a question of privilege and cite appropriate precedent, but perhaps I will just conclude this intervention and make the job ruling so much shorter by the Speaker by saying that if the Leader of the NDP says that he does not have a full-time job versus a part-time job outside the House, I can only take him at his word.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: A point of privilege or point of order, you determine, Mr. Speaker. I believe you said that I rose on a point of privilege?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. A. REID: The statement I made, Your Honour, was under ministerial -
MR. SPEAKER: This was a ministerial statement, but I believe the hon. minister said he was rising on a point of privilege.
MR. A. REID: No, I said I rise today on a personal privilege, not a point of privilege. I am sorry if I misled the House, but it is written in the statement and it is a ministerial statement, Your Honour.
MR. SPEAKER: Okay. The problem is solved.
The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise my hon. colleagues of a delegation from Iceland, who arrived at St. John's airport at 6:40 this morning for a shopping tour.
The 360 visitors are expected to spend an estimated $500,000 during their thirty-six hour stay. Shuttle services were pre-arranged to shopping areas, some of which opened at 7:00 a.m. this morning to accommodate these international shoppers.
In November of last year I led a delegation of Newfoundland and Labrador businesses to Iceland. One of the messages we impressed on those we met was that Newfoundland and Labrador has considerable opportunities, and I encouraged them to bring their Christmas shopping mission to our Province to see for themselves what we have to offer. Over the past few years the Icelandic Christmas shopping tour went to Halifax. I am delighted to see that our initiatives have resulted in today's visit to St. John's.
While in the Province the tour organizer from Iceland, Susan Gotzinger, will be meeting with area tour operators to coordinate future visits. Of particular interest is the Viking Millennium in the year 2000 and another shopping excursion scheduled for the spring. We have also provided those visiting from Iceland with information on the Province's investment potential.
Mr. Speaker, my department continues to assist Newfoundland and Labrador companies seeking business opportunities in Iceland and other parts of the world. In Iceland alone the export potential is enormous because of the similarities in each of our economies.
Once again, I extend a warm welcome to our friends from Iceland and encourage many more such exchanges in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I noticed the minister, when she was on her feet, could hardly contain her laughter. I do not know if it has anything to do with the content of the statement, or if she was just so filled with joy with the good news that it just brought the smile to the minister's face, and every minister over there.
Minister, it is indeed good news to have $500,000 injected into the local economy in St. John's. I know we have had previous shopping tours from Iceland here in the city. Why those tours were lost or why they had gone to Halifax, I am not sure. If the minister can take credit for bringing this back to St. John's, then, Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister. Hopefully, we will keep it here.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that people are coming here specifically for shopping. We had tour boats, cruise liners stopping by and people go and walk around, but these people are coming here specifically to buy goods. I think that is a very positive thing and needs to be encouraged. Any services they can get while they are here, they should look them up too.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Minister of Health and Community Services.
I am very pleased to inform hon. members that this is another red-letter day for the children in Newfoundland and Labrador. Today this government is providing three funding allocations to enhance services for children, as part of the implementation of the National Child Benefit Reinvestment Program.
We are providing $250,000 to licensed child care centres to assist with the purchase of supplies and equipment. Government recognizes that to promote healthy child development, licensed child care centres must provide programs to meet the child's needs for a stimulating environment. For many children, attending a high quality child care centre will result in them having greater success in school, of successfully entering the workforce as adults, and of being contributing members of their communities. To provide a high quality program, child care centre operators must give children access to a wealth of play materials for the children to use in their explorations, learning, and overall development.
Early childhood, from birth to age six, is the critical period for brain development. Current Canadian research has determined that this period is the key factor which affects the child's ability to reach his or her potential in school and in adulthood. For this goal to be met, quality, age appropriate equipment, in sufficient variety and quantity, is a necessary element. Such equipment for school-age children is no less important in the programs offered to meet the particular developmental needs of this age group.
To support operators of child care centres in the provision of quality programming for children, government is providing these supply and equipment grants to help offset the costs of materials required to equip playrooms to meet the developmental needs of children.
Mr. Speaker, today we are providing a funding allocation of $100,000 to offset the costs of upgrading licensed group child care centres to meet the requirements of the new child care legislation. This will be provided on a one-time basis and will allow all licensed child care centres to better position themselves to serve our children.
Mr. Speaker, today we are also providing $200,000 for the transportation of children to and from child care centres.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Child care centres provide necessary services to low income families who require child care in order to maintain employment, enter the workforce, or take advantage of educational opportunities. Child care centres also provide experiences that foster healthy child development. To be effective, these services must be accessible as well as affordable.
Through increasing the funding for transportation available to low income families, government increases the availability of child care services and removes barriers to those who wish to enter the workforce or take advantage of educational opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, this government continues to demonstrate its commitment to children and families. Today, we are allocating more than half a million dollars to improve services for our children. We have set a course through our Strategic Social Plan and together, through partnerships in the community, we are moving in a direction which will ensure healthy, happy, and productive lives for new generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, our children.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement.
I notice that this government is trying to move in the direction that will ensure happy, healthy children who will lead productive lives -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: - but we do have the Child, Youth and Family Services bill on the floor of this House now. It is presently being discussed in the House.
Daily I encounter many children who are encountering problems that are systemic, and they are fundamental, systemic problems caused by different policies within the government. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I take advantage of this opportunity to once again say that the children of this Province will indeed be on the road to healthy, happy, and productive lives when they have an independent person who can advocate on their behalf. So once again I will stress the importance of a child advocate.
I would also like to see that the National Child Benefit Program is working and that it is working without money being clawed back. I am glad that the pleas that were presented in the spring session by this Opposition on behalf of the people who made representation to us so much that they wanted the programs but they did not want the programs on the backs of the poorest children in this Province, I am glad to see that this program is working without the suffering of the poorest children in the Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Any step forward in the provision of quality child care is an improvement, Mr. Speaker. What we need across this country is a national child care program to ensure that every child who needs child care gets it, and every parent who wants to participate in the work force has quality, affordable, accessible child care available to them. This may help somewhat, but it does not answer the fundamental need that is one of the problems this country has, as identified by a recent report of the United Nations.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: It is all a cycle, Beaton, all a cycle.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Premier.
The fact, Premier, that the Speaker had to rise today in the House, an unprecedented response to what I would think would be an unprecedented situation, the fact that he was compelled today to rise and issue a statement concerning his alleged involvement in the Paralegal Training School scandal reinforces the Opposition's contention, I believe, that a full-scale, independent judicial inquiry is necessary.
I would like to ask the Premier today: Would he agree to that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want all of us in the House to be very careful with our language. I will assume the Leader of the Opposition - I am confident that I am correct - misspoke himself when he just made reference to the Speaker's alleged involvement in a Paralegal Training School scandal. That is not at all what the Leader of the Opposition meant to say, and not at all the matter that the Speaker addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the graciousness of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in joining with me today in reaffirming our confidence in the Speaker. I think this is an action that speaks well of the fundamental will of this House to behave in a manner, notwithstanding our occasional days of conflict, that is appropriate to what the public expect from us.
On the question which the Leader of the Opposition raised, which is to raise with me again this proposal of his from last week of a judicial inquiry, I repeat again to the Leader of the Opposition that there is now an RCMP investigation. That has been confirmed and it is very well known. The RCMP are already talking to a variety of people with respect to these allegations, and at an appropriate time the Commissioner of Members' Interests will do his investigation.
I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that as much as I respect his right to put his proposition for a judicial inquiry, actions are now underway which will demonstrate the validity, if any whatsoever, of the allegations that have been made by the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, let me go one step further. It seems to me to be becoming increasingly clear - and we will let the police do their job on the specific matters before them - that this particular gentleman has become expert in using the power of innuendo, the power of half suggestions, the power of half statements, to cast aspersions, and to increasingly capture more people in that net of innuendo.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all of us who want to get at the truth - and I assume that is all members of the House - will allow the authorities, who have the responsibility to unearth the truth, to do their job.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, getting at the truth is obviously, I think, the motive for the question that I asked the Premier today. There is no question that the issue is very serious. Public confidence is at stake and the Premier understands that; I know that. We disagree, however, on the approach.
MR. EFFORD: (Laughter).
MR. E. BYRNE: You can laugh all you want, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, this is a very serious issue. You can laugh and diminish it whatever way you want to but it is a serious issue.
The public confidence in the system, the educational system, in the system of government, is at stake. While the issues of members' reputations and false allegations are important, I say to the Premier, so too, or equally, is restoring confidence. Not only must justice be done, but the appearance of justice must be done. I submit to the Premier that the best way for the appearance of justice to be done is to appoint an independent, arm's length inquiry to proceed and to look into this matter.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Leader of the Opposition understands that the Commissioner of Members' Interests has all of the powers which are available to a judge in a judicial commission of inquiry. He has all those same powers under the Inquiries Act, and those powers may be called upon and used at the discretion of an arm's length, independent individual who has the confidence of the full House. Who is that individual? It is the Commissioner of Members' Interests who is appointed by all of us and who has the confidence of all of us; indeed an individual with respect to whose nomination, Mr. Speaker, I consulted the Leader of the Opposition and I consulted the Leader of the NDP. Indeed we jointly nominated that individual, as should be the case for that job.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we have a police investigation under way. We will have an inquiry which can draw upon all of the powers that you just described by the Commissioner of Members' Interests. If - let us take a big theoretical if, and it is becoming, in my mind, more iffy all the time - if anything were to arise out of these investigations, then if it were appropriate I would consider next steps. If it became appropriate.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition: Let us allow the police to do their job. If the police come forward and report anything to us that would warrant further discussion in this place, or further measures, I would be open to that, no question.
Right now we have a police investigation, we have a Conflict Commissioner. I think before we assume that further actions are required, we need to establish if any of these allegations have any validity, and we need to understand that we now have a bit of a circumstance happening in this House. I think we all do understand, in this House. We have one individual, with no direct evidence, with no allegations, nothing specific in the letter which was written to me, which the media I know has a copy of and I assume he made it available, with tapes which I assume have not turned up anything, that we have an individual who has made allegations which are unsubstantiated.
Now, let the police determine whether or not these allegations have merit. If they do, all the appropriate steps will be taken. If they do not, then we ought not to give this gentleman any more creditably than the nature of his allegations are entitled to.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, in the pursuit of determining what exactly happened here, it will come out through the inquiries that the Premier has talked about.
The Premier is right. He says where the Commissioner decides to conduct an inquiry, under subsection (1), the Commissioner has all the powers of a Commissioner under the Public Inquires Act.
I guess the contention is that if we leave it completely up to the discretion of the Commissioner to decide whether he is going to have a public inquiry or public hearing, or an avenue by which the public could be seen to have a look at this, I think we have to recognize that the difference between this and a judicial inquiry - if government moved to a judicial inquiry - those would be automatic. The public perception would be that there is a more arm's length process, that there would be open public hearings, and I guess that is the point we are making.
I say to the Premier that while we have made no allegations as an Opposition, we are in receipt of no information, have been in receipt of no information with respect to this, we have simply suggested that a judicial inquiry would be best served, and the people of the Province would be best served by a judicial inquiry. That is the question I put forward to the Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Leader of the Opposition. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that there are a couple of fundamental facts here.
First of all, when you have an RCMP investigation, which is an investigation into matters which may have criminal import, out of which criminal charges may arise, it is the practice, with respect to judicial commissions, it is most often followed - when it has not been followed it has led to litigation before the courts - that a judicial inquiry or, for that matter, a Royal Commission of Inquiry, will stand back to allow the police to do their investigation, as evidence before inquires cannot be necessarily used by the police subsequently in the laying of charges. Therefore, police investigations have been compromised by mixing the two. The general practice is to allow the police to do their job so that whatever evidence is brought forward, if any, is uncompromised and can be used by the police.
Mr. Speaker, we have a police investigation. We have an authority - an objective authority, an officer of the House - appointed by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the NDP, and myself - recommended to the House and accepted by the House - as our independent agent to ensure the conflict code is followed by all members on all sides of the House. That authority has all the powers that he deems appropriate.
The reason the system works is this - and I submit to the Leader of the Opposition, it is not up to the Premier to tell the Conflict Commissioner what powers he should or should not use; whether there should or should not be a judicial inquiry. It is not up to the Leader of the Opposition to give direction to the Conflict Commissioner. It is not up to the Leader of the NDP. It is up to the judgement of somebody we know to be impartial to make that decision.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition in good faith: Let us allow the RCMP to do their job, and the Conflict Commissioner likewise to do his. If, out of any of that, any further evidence were to be unearthed or any justification of any of these allegations were to be made that would warrant further action, I would consider it. I do not hesitate for a moment to say that. But let us first of all determine what validity, if any, these many, many allegations - and the list gets longer - might have.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is right. It is not up to the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition or any member of the House to tell the Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, or the Commissioner of Members' Interests, how to conduct what he is about to conduct. The act does allow us, on the one hand, to express an opinion to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner on what we would like to ask him. Whereas with respect to a judicial inquiry - it may be minute but it is a distinct difference, I suggest to the Premier - once a judicial inquiry is appointed through the justice of the court, with all the powers of subpoena, the public sort of approach in terms of public hearings, that is assumed; the judge goes wherever he wishes to go.
I would like to ask the Premier this: Wouldn't you agree that it is in government's own interest to reconsider not calling a judicial inquiry so that all members can get on with the business of serving the people in positive ways; and that, in doing so, a judicial inquiry would go further to restore full public confidence into what has been alleged here by a private individual.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that under the Public Inquiries Act, Mr. Jenkins, who is the Commissioner of Members' Interests, his powers include the power to summon witnesses, to require them to give evidence orally or in writing upon oath, to produce documents, and all those things necessary to carry out his investigation. Mr. Jenkins has the same authority to compel witnesses to appear before him as is vested in a court of law in civil cases.
There are quite broad powers there, as the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, this is a matter of disagreement between us. I think we now have a course of action which is being followed in which the public can have every confidence. The RCMP are doing their investigation. I do not think any member of the House would call into question the impartiality and the professionalism of the RCMP. I know the Leader of the Opposition does not.
Secondly, the Conflict Commissioner has his mandate and all the authorities that he requires; and no member of the House - I know this is not the case with the Leader of the Opposition - would call into question the impartially of the Conflict Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, let these two authorities work. If and when further action is required, and I think we should not prejudge that, we will consider all of the recommendations of the Leader of the Opposition or any other member of this House at that time.
One last point, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has said that, as Leader of the Opposition - and he has said this in the House, and indeed he said it a few days ago outside the House - he has absolutely no information, no evidence, nothing that would allow him to stand and make any accusation against any member. I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has made that clear. I, too, have no information. I have no evidence that would substantiate the comments which were originally made by Mr. Woodrow to Mr. Porter - comments which he has now backed away from. He has now gone on to the public domain to say the Premier is wrong. I did not allege that I bribed anybody.
Mr. Speaker, those were the nature of the comments he made to Mr. Porter, comments in the nature of innuendo. He now appears to be publicly backing away from those comments. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition I, too, have no information, I have no evidence and I don't even have an allegation, including from Mr. Woodrow himself, that any member of this Cabinet, including Mr. Tulk, who has sat aside from his seat, has engaged in any activity resembling anything having to do with the payment or bribes or benefits arising out of any activity with Mr. Woodrow.
One final point, if I may make it, because I believe it is important. It is now becoming clear today in the statements that have come from the Chair, from the Speaker, and other information which has just come to my attention this afternoon, that these so-called free legal services in fact were services provided on a contingency fee basis. This is a standard practice, as I am sure the Leader of the NDP and others in the House can tell us -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: I say that seriously, it is a standard practice. It is normal and it is completely above board for any member of the Bar to proceed in that way. I understand that the work which was carried out was carried out by a lawyer on the staff of Mr. Woodrow, and that a contingency fee was attached to the successful completion of that work. In the event where the work was successful a contingency fee was shared, and where the work was not successful, as is the normal practice, no money changed hands. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a far cry from the allegations or the innuendo that somehow free services were provided.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is becoming clear is that the need for an independent, full-scale judicial inquiry is what is necessary. That is what my point of view is.
I want to ask the Premier this question. Friday morning under questioning I asked him if he could table a copy of the correspondence he had sent to Robert Jenkins. I waited yesterday for it but he did not table it. I want to ask him today: If he has it, would he be able to table what he wrote to Mr. Jenkins? If he cannot table it today, can he make a commitment that he could table it tomorrow?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, I can table it right now:
"Dear Mr. Jenkins:
I am writing to request that in your capacity as Commissioner of Members' Interests, an independent office of the House of Assembly, you examine the matter which I addressed in a statement to the House today pertaining to any conflict of interest that may have existed with respect to the hon. Beaton Tulk and members of his staff and the Paralegal Institute.
"I would ask that you undertake a thorough review of the matter, pursuant to Section 42(4) of the House of Assembly Act, Part II Conflict of Interest, and subsequently provide me with a report at your earliest opportunity whether there was any contravention of the Act."
Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to table that letter.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I say to the Member for Humber East, it is not innuendo.
In light of what you have tabled, you have requested specifically that the Commissioner for Members' Interests, and the conflict of interest commissioner, specifically look at the reasons surrounding the resignation of Mr. Tulk. I am not casting any aspersions, but the point is this, that you as Premier, in your capacity as Premier, according to the section in the act, have written the conflict of interest commissioner to look specifically at one department. The allegations that have been made are broad, sweeping. Is there any guarantee that in terms of the judicial inquiry, or the inquiry that you suggest, they will look at all of the allegations? That is the question we are asking.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and I have had this exchange already in the House. I have made it very clear - in fact, I don't need to make it clear. The act gives the power of discretion to the conflict commissioner, that in the course of pursuing his investigation he can go wherever he wants, and I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would accept it. There is nothing which constrains in any way, shape or form, the conflict commissioner, just as, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing which constrains the RCMP in the conduct of their investigation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Minister, could you today table the program criteria as they existed in June and in September following the policy change about putting urgent projects at the top of the list? Surely it cannot be true that the department was assessing proposals without criteria. As well, can you table any Orders in Council or any other documentation authorizing the policy shift in September whereby urgent proposals could skip the list?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: I will endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to get whatever I can for the hon. member, and whatever I can find I will bring over. I cannot do it today but I will bring it over tomorrow. I do not have it with me now, but whatever I have over in my department as it relates to rules and regulations pertaining to the program I will gladly table.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have all read and seen various things over the last few days. I would also like to ask the minister, can he table details on all projects approved for his district, blocking out, of course, any identifying information if that be warranted, and as well table the department's internal assessment of all projects approved for his district, again blocking out any pertinent information that would identify the people involved?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, will I start with the Leader of the Opposition and do his first? Will I do the Leader of the Opposition first and then go through the House? Is that what the hon. member wishes me to do?
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As well, I would like to ask the minister to indicate how many of the projects were approved in his district that met the criteria of urgent needs. As well, how many of the projects wait-listed from previous years have been approved under the program to date? How many of the approved projects are new requests?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me the list of every MHA in this House and the numbers that each MHA was successful in obtaining for their districts.
AN HON. MEMBER: Since June?
MR. A. REID: Yes, since June. Mr. Premier, let's start with you, if I'm allowed to do that, because I have been accused of political patronage here. The Premier of this Province, representing Bay of Islands, made representation to me and to the Housing Corporation on fifty separate occasions for fifty separate people in his district. He made representation to me to look at fifty applications that were sent into his office. The hon. Premier successfully got fourteen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed, now to my colleague and my friend for Bonavista South. I won't say how many because it might embarrass him, but he got nineteen. Now, Premier, pay attention. I am sorry for doing this today, but you have to pay attention. You only got fourteen and he got nineteen.
Now, I have been accused in the media of political patronage. I could be horsewhipped by this side of the House! Let me say, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: Let me go on, Mr. Speaker -
PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier on a point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice of a Cabinet shuffle later on this afternoon.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in the House yesterday that the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was the (inaudible). I made a mistake, she came second. When I went back and checked it yesterday she came second. For a lady who never received a letter from me - remember this letter that every one of you received and no one over there? - she made twenty-seven representations to me and the Housing Corporation saying basically: Mr. Minister, we have some serious problems in the housing -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair got twenty-four!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question by saying that I made fifty-eight representations. Twenty-three were done. I admitted in the House yesterday that out of that twenty-three, four were moved up on the list, and I explained some of them yesterday, who they were.
Can I have just ten seconds? A lady who was in a coma in my district for two years was moved from the Carbonear Hospital to her home. This is hard to do, Mr. Speaker, because I know that lady. That family asked me, through the United Church clergyman in the area, whom my hon. friend is a good friend of, the hospital board asked me, the community health board asked me to help repair that house and put $6,000 into that house to get that house ready so that woman could come back home and live in it, so her family could look after her.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister to take his seat.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I did it and I would do it again!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I guess we are too cute by half.
The next question I have for the minister is this: Minister, I ask you today because you have seen memos, this member has seen memos, this member has had memos in his hands that were written - I do not have them. You know I do not have them. The reason I do not have them is because people at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing are in fear of losing their jobs. That is why I do not have the memos.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. FRENCH: So I call upon you as minister to provide to this House a copy of all correspondence by him or by his political staff as it relates to this issue, especially the memo that was written that quotes in part: Further to our meeting yesterday in the minister's office, here is the list of homes to be done and here is the list of homes not to be done.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
MR. FRENCH: I ask the minister today to table all of that correspondence in this House.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Yes, it is sad when you do that. You should be gone, let alone him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: This is the paper he is referring to, Mr. Speaker, and on this paper is a list of people not only from my district but from St. John's South - I am not going to read the names - from Spaniard's Bay and from other parts of the Province. These are referrals that I made. He did not get the comment quite right. If he had the note with him, he would have said: The following is a summary of this discussion that was had between political staff of mine and a number of people at housing, and the action agreed upon.
AN HON. MEMBER: In your office?
MR. A. REID: No, not in my office.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot show you the list, and I will get to that. There were a number of people agreed upon, but just look. These are the ones that were turned down.
The answer to his question is, no. I do not provide the names. I cannot provide this because people's names are on it. I do not think anyone in this House wants me to table this. I do not think they want me to table this. If I have to table this, I will have to table names of individuals. I do not do it in this House when I am asked questions on communities; I do not name communities. I could have tabled that yesterday but I did not do it. I stood here yesterday and read this letter, leaving the name out.
I am not going to divulge to this House or anyone else a letter that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wrote me with the name of a person in it. It is not fair to do it and I am not going to do it. You can ask me until the cows come home. No, Sir, I will not table individual names to this House or anyone else. That is not what people want me to do. I did not do that for the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I am certainly not going to do it for anyone on this side of the House or anyone on that side of the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I would like to bring to his attention the struggle of a family who have been trying to get repairs done through the Provincial Home Repair Program. The gentleman I speak of has severe bronchitis and emphysema. He cannot climb a flight of stairs without having to use a puffer. He is an amputee with a bad back, a senior citizen.
After several calls to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and being told they could not do his work, he suffered a heart attack because of carrying buckets of water down a flight of stairs.
I ask the minister: Can he explain why this family, in his opinion, were not considered a priority?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for St. John's South - the reason why, I guess, this family has not been recognized and not been done or taken care of is that according to this the MHA has never made a referral -
AN HON. MEMBER: Because I did not get the (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question please?
MR. T. OSBORNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I went through the normal process of calling Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. If I had gotten the privileged letter that the minister had seen fit to give the Liberal members of the House then perhaps this family would have received priority instead of being bumped down while you had people bumped up the list!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Question period has ended.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order please?
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has ruled that there is no point of order.
MR. A. REID: Can I raise a new point of order, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, on a point of order.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception. I am surprised that the hon. member's colleagues who sit in front of him do not turn around and say: Why don't you do what we do? Go over and see Art Reid privately and tell him your problems. He will have it looked into, boy, and if he can to anything for you he will do it. Am I right, Opposition Leader?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: Am I right? Isn't that how it goes?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that I was left here at the end of Question Period with a question and a statement, to which I should have the right to reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: I announced the program here and he had ample opportunity. In fact, if I remember correctly, the hon. gentleman was at the press conference when I made the announcement out there in that particular (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there was a question raised in Question Period, in the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier, on which I would like to raise a point of order.
The statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is that the Official Opposition has not made any specific allegations with respect to what he described as the Paralegal Institute scandal, I think is the phrase he was using.
The fact of the matter, if I just might conclude the point of order, is that Mr. Woodrow has made no allegations whatsoever about his getting a licence to operate the Paralegal Training Institute. Mr. Woodrow himself is making allegations and trying to file a court case to sue the government for the fact that he lost his licence, not that he got one improperly but that he lost it.
Now, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said about the Official Opposition making no allegations, not last week but last year, if you would check Hansard on page 1800 of December 12, the Member for Baie Verte made allegations - and this is important for the record - that there had been exemptions from the private training institutions' act and its regulations granted to Mr. Woodrow prior to getting his licence. The answer given a year ago, on December 12, by the Minister of Education, was: No such thing happened to my knowledge, and it was confirmed a few days later.
also in Hansard, if we can check the record again, in fact it was stated on December 15, after further checking, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Training Institute satisfied all requirements of the legislation before any licence was granted, despite the insinuation and the allegation from the Opposition -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to get to his point of order quickly.
MR. GRIMES: - and a further allegation, because the Leader of the Opposition, on raising the point of order, said, the Official Opposition has made no allegations.
The second allegation made last year by the Member for Baie Verte was that the government changed the policy for student aid specifically for the Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Training Institute.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: No such thing happened, Mr. Speaker. No allegations made last week. The allegations are a year old, and they have not been repeated by Mr. Woodrow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of the Minister of Finance, who is absent today, I am tabling in the House of Assembly today Order in Council 98-676, to meet the requirements of section 26.4 of the Financial Administration Act. This Order in Council authorizes the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to call and award tenders for the construction of new highway projects totalling $79.4 million, representing a charge against its 1999-2000 appropriations, Mr. Speaker.
I intend to outline the details of these projects in the House next week when the federal Minister of Transportation, the hon. David Collenette, my colleague in Ottawa, is in town. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:
"An Act Respecting Home Support Services Provided To Persons In Self-Managed Care" (Bill No. 56);
"An Act Respecting The Imposition Of A Charge Related To The Provision Of Certain Government Services" (Bill No. 52);
"An Act To Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act" (Bill No. 45);
"An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act (No. 2)" (Bill No. 49); and,
"An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991" (Bill No. 54).
Mr. Speaker, just housekeeping, I tell my friend, the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to present the following resolution:
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has established practices over the past ten years through which they have purchased training from public and private training institutions in Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS the provincially supported College of the North Atlantic has developed programs and retained staff and facilities based on revenues generated by the provision of programs supported previously by the purchase of training currently through the direct sponsorship of individual clients; and
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has initiated and furthered the development of programs in the provincial college system; and
WHEREAS the College of the North Atlantic will be severely impacted by changes in the employment insurance regulations and practices being contemplated by the Government of Canada;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the hon. House of Assembly urge the Government of Canada and its agencies to work with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the College of the North Atlantic to ensure that any and all appropriate federal financial allocations continue for our provincial college system.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have been asked to present a petition to this House of Assembly on behalf of a number of constituents in my District of St. John's East. I would just like to read the wording of the petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Chalker Place in the electorial district of St. John's East.
WHEREAS there are approximately thirty-five school children who reside at Chalker Place and attend St. Joseph's School on Quidi Vidi Road; and
WHEREAS the parents of these children are not in a financial position to meet the transportation needs on a daily basis; and
WHEREAS the parents are forced to walk to school with their children each day with the route from Chalker Place to St. Joseph's School being quite hectic - for example, there are several traffic lights, high traffic volume and dangerous intersections; and
WHEREAS with winter quickly approaching the hazards will increase and the level of concern by parents will heighten;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to give serious consideration and priority to providing school busing during the winter months for the children of Chalker Place.
This petition is signed by approximately one hundred parents and adults in that area.
This is a concern that has been raised by the parents and guardians of Chalker Place. I have had the opportunity to meet with the parents during several occasions, at which time their very serious concerns were expressed, simply because there are a number of children - many of whom are quite young - who out of necessity must walk that distance from that part of the city to St. Joseph's School. The difficulty, as is indicated in the body of the petition, is that there are several very busy intersections. There is a high traffic volume in the area, and with the age of the children in question there is a real risk and hazard of accident. Of course, this causes very serious stresses and concerns for both parents and guardians.
Attempts have been made through the Avalon East School Board to see whether or not assistance could be offered these parents and, in fact, arrangements for school transportation be made. However, officials at the Avalon East School Board simply throw their hands up in the air and state: It is not our concern, we do not have the funding, and if busing in fact is being requested it is best to approach the Department of Education.
That too has been done. However, I am simply awaiting a response from the hon. minister. I might add that correspondence was sent almost one month ago, but I and the parents of Chalker Place are still awaiting a response from the officials of the minister with respect to this request.
I would like to add that the parents are not simply asking for free busing, but they are prepared to enter into a fee-for-service relationship which is similar to other areas of the city where in fact busing is provided and the parents in fact pay a charge, whether it be $10, $20, or $25 per month, depending on the number of children per family. They are prepared to pay a charge.
Unfortunately, the exact details and even this issue have not been responded to by the minister. So the parents are at a loss at this particular time in knowing whether or not the department is prepared to intervene and perhaps do some advocating on behalf of these parents to try and negotiate some suitable arrangement between the parents, their children, the school and a busing contractor to allow appropriate transportation for children, yes, in the middle of St. John's.
Rural Newfoundland of course in most instances does not have this difficulty. Busing is provided. However, there are parts of the City of St. John's where we have high traffic, we have high risks for young children, we have parents who are not in the position financially to afford the cost of Metrobus on a daily basis or other forms of transportation. They are simply in a position that their children must take unnecessary risks in order to attend school on a daily basis. That is the very position that the parents, guardians and children of Chalker Place find themselves in.
I present this petition on behalf of these parents. It is clear these parents have raised a very serious concern. As I have indicated, I have met with these parents on several occasions. It is hoped that the minister will find some way -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - to consider some possibility to resolve this item of concern and stress to them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for St. John's East. The residents of Chalker Place are parents who have concerns for the safety of their children. These parents are asking the House of Assembly and the Minister of Education if he would give some consideration for their concerns.
Their particular concerns have been outlined by the member, and they basically relate to the safety of their children going to and from school.
Those of us who live in urban centres know that children very often, who live within the regulated distance, are required to walk on very busy streets, walk on streets that are often not properly sanded or salted, or the sidewalks are not clear. We can give illustrations of anywhere in the St. John's region, the Mount Pearl region, or anywhere in any other urban part of the Province where students have to walk to school every day, and in some cases they have to walk over very hazardous conditions.
As the petitioners note, conditions are worse in winter. We would simply ask the minister if he would give some consideration to the safety of those children. As the member said, they are very young children. They are going to a primary school, St. Joseph's School. These children certainly should have the privilege of going to school in a very safe manner.
We know as well that parents in the autumn and the spring have been walking their children to school every day. It is a very uncomfortable feeling when your child, five or six years old, has to leave the house and go over very busy streets to get to school. In some cases parents are able to walk with them. In some other cases, of course, parents are not able to do that because of job constraints and these kinds of things.
When these parents approached the Avalon East School Board they were told that the current regulation as put out by the minister will not permit the school board to designate this particular area of St. John's for school bus services. Therefore the school board feels their hands are tied by the regulations. The Member for St. John's East is asking the Minister of Education, as per the letter he wrote some time ago, to take a look at these particular needs. As happened in other parts of St. John's, there was a busing service that is connected to St. Theresa's School as well, and it is a fee-for-service system. We ask the minister to use his good offices to look at a similar arrangement as is in place for some children in the western section of the Mundy Pond Road area, and if he could institute some kind of program similar to that whereby these young children would be able to go to school in a very safe manner. We ask the minister if he would give that consideration.
Also, he should compliment the people in this neighbourhood who are saying: We are prepared to share some of the costs. How often does it happen that parents are coming in and saying: We will share some of the cost, we will pay a fee for that service, a service that is given to other parts of the Province absolutely without fees. These parents are saying: We are so concerned about the safety of our children that we are prepared to share some of the costs. I think the minister should be complimenting those parents, should be saying to them: This is the direction we want to go in the St. John's area.
He should give them encouragement, give them his financial support, and direct the Avalon East School Board to facilitate the conclusion of arrangements with the parents of Chalker Place, whereby their children can go to school each and every day safely. As the Minister of Health and Community Services is so apt to say: Every day, for this government, is a child day. Maybe we can say to the Minister of Education that if he wants to make that commitment a reality for the children of Chalker Place, then he can do it today by approving a busing service for those young children, who are four to eight years old who, in their parents' opinion, are going to school and -
MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: The way for them to go is not always safe. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Motion Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act," carried. (Bill No. 46)
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," carried. (Bill No. 47)
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act," carried. (Bill No. 48)
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act," carried. (Bill No. 50)
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Management Of Waste Material," carried. (Bill No. 53)
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Quarry Materials Act," carried. (Bill No. 55)
On motion, Bill Nos. 46, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. DECKER: Order 16, Mr. Speaker.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises Act". (Bill No. 18)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, this is essentially a housekeeping issue here. It is amendments to the existing EDGE legislation. We want to amend section 5. Right now there is a reference to a market plan and, of course, there has been some difference of opinion with the Auditor General when there is a chance to review the EDGE legislation. That is with respect to what is required of a market plan versus what is required of a business plan.
The consensus is that the standard generic term, business plan, would incorporate all the information that would be required of us in evaluating a project when it comes forward looking for EDGE designation. That would be section 5.
Under section 8 we are looking for an amendment that would give effect to the fact that the EDGE designation is revokable, should a company not comply with the terms of the EDGE contract or does not proceed with the business plan.
Under section 13 we want to eliminate the reference to start-up incentives. That used to be a $2,000 per job incentive that went with the EDGE legislation. That has been eliminated for some time and we want to clean up the act itself to remove the reference to those start-up incentives.
Under subsection 15.(1) and 15.(2) we want to amend it to give the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology the authority to appoint a facilitator. Presently this authority rests with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and our experience has shown that companies have a greater need for a facilitator in the very early stages of the application process. We want to be able to move as quickly as we can to accommodate those people looking to set up business in the Province, and by doing it this way we feel that this will accommodate that.
Those are all of the amendments to the EDGE legislation as it presently exists.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I hope the minister brought her pillow.
I am not going to speak long on this, actually.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. T. OSBORNE: The pillow is for the length of time. I am not going to speak long on this because many of the amendments here are amendments that we have been pushing for in any event, areas where we saw flaws and loopholes within the EDGE legislation that weakened the legislation and give unnecessary benefits to companies applying for EDGE status. Much of what is here is what we were fighting for in any event.
I will speak to a couple of the items in any event. Item No. 1, section 5: Where a corporation makes an application to be designated as an EDGE corporation, it shall provide a business plan covering all aspects of a corporation's proposed operations.
I have some reservation, because of the variance in business plans from corporation to corporation, in making sure that the business plan that is provided is going to be a generic business plan, so to speak, a business plan that will cover exactly what it says here, all aspects of the corporation's proposed operations as well as their marketing plan, as well as - under the old provisions it would have required a human resources plan, giving some explanation as to how many expected jobs could be created for Newfoundlanders as well as for - I want to make sure, where it says here that they should provide a business plan, that it will incorporate these items as well.
There is no question about it, we can't take a chance on having a business plan. Like I say, all business plans are not generic from business to business. They vary quite significantly, actually, at certain times.
Under section 2, section 8 of the act is to amend by adding immediately after subsection (5) the following: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may revoke a corporation's EDGE designation and cancel the contract with the corporation.
That takes away a considerable amount. Under subsection (5), it says: Where the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology believes, after reviewing the report of the EDGE corporation, or the report of the representatives of the government referred to in subsection (3), the corporation is failing to comply with the terms of the contract entered into with government, the minister may make recommendations to the Lieutenant-Government in Council with respect to the continuation, amendment or cancellation of the contract.
In that regard, I think, to add subsection (6) in addition to the preceding five subsections is something that we on this side of the House would probably support 100 per cent giving Cabinet, actually, essentially, the right to revoke or to cancel EDGE designation if they are not living up to the standards requested or expected by government, and essentially by the Members of the House of Assembly.
Item No. 3: Section 13 of the act is repealed. Mr. Speaker, there are some here under subsection (2), section 13, the start-up grant, again, it is good to see that gone. Instead of paying $2,000 per job to a company to come in from outside of our Province and start a corporation here, when we are not giving it to existing corporations that have been the backbone of our economy for generations and who are sometimes struggling on the vine to survive. It is unfair to give $2,000 per employee to a corporation to come into from the outside, so we have no problem with that either.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. T. OSBORNE: No.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) any Corporation (inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: So that is gone now?
MR. T. OSBORNE: That is gone, yes.
Subsection (3): Where the job in respect of which the grant is being provided for a portion of a year, and the grant... Again, we had problems with the entire section here, as I am sure government did, which is the reason it is repealed. I won't go into the benefits of taking that away because we are also in agreement with that.
Subsection (2) under section 3, this section is considered to have come into effect as of April 1, 1997. I believe that is when EDGE actually took effect.
Section 4: Subsection 15.(1) of the act is amended by deleting the words, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, through. Now, Mr. Speaker, that we do have some problems with because what they are asking to put in there is to give the minister the power as opposed to Cabinet, and to put that much power - with no reflection or prejudice to the current minister, but unto any minister as opposed to a group of people, a Cabinet, is sometimes dangerous.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Would the hon. the minister -
MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, I will give leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. the minister like for me to direct that the microphone be turned on for the record?
MS FOOTE: Alright.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS FOOTE: Just to that one point there, Mr. Speaker. The point here is that normally when a facilitator is appointed it is after the board has considered the EDGE designation and then it has gone to Cabinet and Cabinet has approved it. Not until then is a facilitator appointed. What we are looking to do is when a company comes to the door is be able to work with them right away to appoint a facilitator. There is no monetary value or anything associated with this. It is just trying to be as helpful as we can the minute they come through the door.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: I understand what the minister is saying, but at the same time the facilitator should perhaps be designated by Cabinet as opposed to - and without any prejudice to what has been happening in this House over the past couple of days. We see reason why maybe it should entail a body of people as opposed to just one person. As I have said, no reflection on the current minister whatsoever. We feel that to have a body of people make a decision is sometimes better than having one person make the decision on who to appoint as a facilitator, or whether or not to appoint the facilitator.
As I have said, I do not have a lot to say on the act because I agree with the majority of it, that being the only area that I would have questions or concerns, taking away the privilege of Cabinet to appoint a facilitator and putting the onus upon the Cabinet minister. Other than that I have absolutely no problem with the bill and I support what the bill is intended to do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now she will close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the hon. member for the points he has raised here and will certainly take them under consideration. I would like to now move second reading.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 18).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. DECKER: Order No. 17, Mr. Speaker.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Security Interests In Personal Property". (Bill No. 39)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the minister is away on Her Majesty's business and on behalf of the minister I would introduce the bill.
Essentially this is a very minor bill. It would revise the law with respect to security interest into personal property. If there are any questions that the Opposition would have I am sure the minister will be quite pleased to deal with them in Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am just wondering, is it possible to even defer further second reading, Mr. Minister, in view of the fact that this is substantive legislation? I would argue it is a very extensive piece of legislation. Before we respond in second reading I am just wondering - and I say to the Government House Leader - is it possible to have the minister make his introductory comments? If that is not possible we have no difficulty with that. We would simply defer that for another time. Because it is, I would argue, somewhat substantive in nature.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. DECKER: We have no problem deferring it, if this is your wish. You don't think Committee would be an opportunity to deal with your issues?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: It seems to me with a proper introduction by the minister, who in fact is proceeding with this legislation in the House, that may in fact eliminate otherwise much discussion that would be required during Committee. It seems to me if we defer this until the minister is here, and with some introductory comment from the minister, that may in fact eliminate the discussion otherwise that would be required in Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. DECKER: Okay. With the consent of the House then, Mr. Speaker, we will certainly defer Order No. 17. I would call Order No. 18, which is Bill No. 43, "An Act To Incorporate The Business Investment Corporation."
MR. SPEAKER: It is the understanding of the Chair that further debate on Bill No. 39, Order No. 17, has been deferred.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Business Investment Corporation". (Bill No. 43)
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to take a few moments to introduce this bill and explain the reasons why the department has brought forward this bill for the changes to keep in line with the present structure of the Department of Development and Rural Renewal.
The reason why we are doing it is simply because the history in the Department of Development and Rural Renewal has shown that we have a number of structured corporations in the department that are causing some complications as to how the department could be run most efficiently. For example, the department in the past was operating under the Economic Recovery Commission Act, the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation Act, the Fisheries Loan Act, and the Farm Development Loan Act. Now those are the four acts that were under the responsibility of the Department of Development and Rural Renewal.
It is unnecessary to have four different acts. It causes inefficiencies for people, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in accessing the services of the Department of Development and Rural Renewal and the responsibilities which it can carry out. What is being recommended is simply to repeal each one of those acts and to create, if you want to use the words, a one-stop shopping system, a one Newfoundland and Labrador Business Investment Corporation, to permit the Department of Development and Rural Renewal to administer its business investment portfolio within an environment that you do not have to go through three, four or five different acts, depending on what part of the rural development you come from. If you come from fisheries, you would have to go to the Fisheries Loan Board. If you come from the agriculture side, the farm side, you would have to go to the Farm Development Board, or in the manufacturing side you would have to go to the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation Act.
Under the creation of the new act - the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Investment Corporation - all applicants, all requests for investment or assistance in investment, would come under the one act in the department. The transfer of the assets and the liabilities of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, the Fisheries Loan Board and the Farm Development Loan Board to the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Investment Corporation really is basically housekeeping, tidying up the system so that our people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador can have a better, efficient system under which they can work and better get the service that is required under the department.
It is simply house cleaning, repealing acts and putting them under the one enterprise, the Business Investment Corporation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the new minister responsible for rural renewal. It certainly is house cleaning, to a point. What it basically does is bring it all under the one roof, under the Business Investment Corporation. It brings in the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, the Fisheries Loan Board and the Farm Development Board. It brings them all into being. Of course, we support anything in the way that is going to cut through some of the red tape. The minister used the buzz word, the one-stop shop. There has never been more criticism by the business community investment people about coming to government and having to bang around from one department to another. This will clean up the act so they can get down to business and put some people to work. That is what it is all about.
It is basically house cleaning. It is an administrative move. I will speak to some of the sections, more specifically, when we get through the Committee stage. I will mention one now in particular, section 15, which reads: "The corporation shall, not later than September 30 in each year, prepare and submit to the minister a financial statement setting out the assets and liabilities of the corporation, a copy of the audited financial statement, and the receipts and expenditures of the corporation for the previous financial year.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit for consideration, too, just to the minister, that particular statement should be tabled in the House of Assembly also. I will talk to that more specifically in some of the other sections.
It is basically an administrative move. The explanatory note very simply says that and also makes note that it is the winding up of the corporation, of the Fisheries Loan Board and the Farm Development Loan Board - something that has been used in the Province to a great extend. The Fisheries Loan Board I am very familiar with, but also the farm act and the loan board with the farm people in this Province. It also takes that into account. So it is the winding up of that.
More specifically, it brings in Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation under this umbrella of business investment corporation. So it is a administrative change which brings it all under one roof. Hopefully, at the end of the day, if it is done right, I say to the minister, when all of these are brought into one, the Fisheries Loan Board and the Farm Development Loan Board and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, that it is made more efficient, more transparent and, at the end of the day, more effective in that when people want to do investments and want to use this process in government they can do it more quickly and more efficiently. I think that is the purpose basically of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, in second reading, that is all is have to say. I will raise a couple of more points in Committee on a couple of more sections of the act.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not going to speak for long on this particular bill. When the minister got up and read the introduction, being the new Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, and he talked about including the Fisheries Loan Board and the Farm Development Loan Board under one roof, I do not believe that the minister is happy to see this piece of legislation go through. I do not think it is the minister's choice, if he had a choice, to see the Fisheries Loan Board taken out of his department and put under a separate roof. I would venture to say, knowing the minister and seeing the way he reacts every time this issue is brought up, he probably witnessed a good many fights around the Cabinet table not to have this done.
I feel that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, now wearing two hats, now finding himself the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, has lost a little bit of clout here. He has lost a little bit of clout with this bill. In order to see the fishery of the future unfold, and to see the players who will eventually write the full story, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture needs control of the Fisheries Loan Board.
The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture should have some say and should give some direction into how loans are passed out, or how loans are brought forward to fishermen in this Province.
I have attended many meetings around the Province where the minister has been present. The minister will or should admit that this is a big concern of fishermen out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today. They were always used to going into the office of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, visiting with the people who controlled the money within the Fisheries Loan Board when they were looking for money for boats, enterprises. They could go and talk to people who knew the business. They could talk to people who knew exactly where they were coming from, the amounts of money they were looking for, and knew all about their enterprise for the most part. Now they find themselves going to a strange place, trying to tell their story in order to access government loans, in order to access money to support their fishing enterprise.
Sure, the Fisheries Loan Board should have been changed. Sure, the Fisheries Loan Board should never be allowed to continue to exist the way it was. The taxpayers of this Province should not have been left on the hook for millions of dollars, but I do not think it was the wish of the fishermen in this Province to see the Fisheries Loan Board taken away from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and put into the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. It is not the place where the Fisheries Loan Board should find itself. It should have stayed with the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The minister should have had some input in the way it was structured. It could have all been done within his department, and I feel that fishermen would feel much safer being looked at by that particular department and much more comfortable than they would now in trying to access another government department that knows very little about what it is that they are talking about.
I have called the Fisheries Loan Board, as it exists today, on several occasions. In fact many of the same people are there, I say to the minister. They know the department very well, but I say to the minister that if he is going to allow this to happen, and he has, he has lost his grip on this funding agency. He has allowed it to slip from his hands into the hands of Development and Rural Renewal. It is not his choice to see this happen, I know that, but he has lost a little bit of clout around the table and he has allowed it to happen.
I say to him: If it is happening - it obviously is, you are supporting the bill here - I say to the minister to try to get the policies written down. It is not there today. You cannot call over to the Fisheries Loan Board and say: I understand the Fisheries Loan Board is now restructured, there are new rules and regulations, would you mind providing me with a copy? They are not tabulated. Fishermen have to call themselves to find out how they go about seeking a loan from the Fisheries Loan Board now.
If it is less than $50,000 it is not a problem, it can be financed within the limits of government. If it is over $50,000 and you are not branching out - you must branch out into a new fishery -
AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) what you are talking about.
MR. FITZGERALD: I do know what I am talking about.
Then the fishermen have to take a trip to a bank in order to access a loan. The fishermen will be expected to put forward 10 per cent, government will put 20 per cent in a pool of money in order to satisfy the whims of the bank. Then the fishermen will have to go and finance the remainder from some chartered bank that does business - one of the official loan sharks of the world, the legalized loan sharks of the world.
If there is a fishing enterprise here in this Province - and there are many good fishing enterprises, there are many good fishermen who are responsible in paying their bills. There are many good fishermen out there who need help today in order to access money.
What we have done for the most part is, we have made fishermen slaves of the merchants again. We have gone full circle. We have fishermen today having to go to processors, having to go to the merchants of the world in order to access money, and when they access money they then have to sign away their catch for the next two, three, forty years or whatever, in order to make a commitment to pay back that loan.
It is not hard to know where this will lead in the end. It will lead to lower prices for fishermen, it will make them beholding to the merchants of the world again, and we should wonder how far we have come. I think this particular piece of legislation has allowed that to happen.
Minister, you have lost your grip on your department. You have allowed fishermen to become slaves to the merchants, and it is all done by the introduction of this piece of legislation that will now make it legal, will now remove the Fisheries Loan Board from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Loans are much harder to get and sometimes the only way that the fishermen can access funding in order to repair, rebuild, or purchase a new boat, would be to go to the merchant, National Sea, FPI, or Seafreez and say: Please, Mr. Merchant, would you loan me $50,000 or $80,000 or $100,000? Then the promissory note is brought out and you sign away your catch. You sign that you will be landing your catch at this wharf, sold to this company, and the merchant of the day will claw back his 15 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent in order to satisfy the amount of money that is owing on that particular loan.
So, Minister, it is not something that you should be proud of. It is not something that is going to be positive for the fishing industry and, I can assure you, it is something that is going to be put in front of you many times from here on in because it is going to be a job to justify it. It is a topic that has been on the Fisheries Broadcast. I have raised it many times. It will surely come forward again and you, Sir, will have to answer for it.
Mr. Speaker, the Farm Development Loan Board is another lending agency that has gone out of the Department of Forestry and Agriculture and now gone into another agency. So while it might be one-stop shopping, and while the minister might stand in his place and say this is just a housekeeping bill, I can understand him saying that because he does not want those points raised here today. He does not want his name associated with this. In fact, if the minister had a choice he would much rather see the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal in his seat today. You would rather see the full-time Minister of Development and Rural Renewal in his seat today introducing this piece of legislation, because it is not something that the minister wants.
The minister is only a part-time Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He is a part-time Fisheries Minister now. He has lost his clout at the Cabinet table. This is the part that bothers me, because the minister continues to put himself forward as the great champion - the great champion of the people, the great champion of the fishermen - but still we see a piece of legislation coming forward that takes away some of the power that he would enjoy wielding and he would enjoy saying that he shaped in this Province.
I say to the minister, he might be popular in his own district - and that is slipping pretty fast - but he is certainly not popular in a lot of other fishing communities around Newfoundland and Labrador. I suppose a testimony to that was when we saw him perform down at Mary Queen of Peace just a few short months ago, when the old gentleman jumped up on the stage and he was gone, just like that - out the door, gone!
MR. EFFORD: Who?
MR. FITZGERALD: You.
MR. EFFORD: When?
MR. FITZGERALD: When the older gentleman went to get up on the stage and you did not know if he was going to shake your hand or congratulate you, you were afraid to hang around. You know where it was.
MR. EFFORD: At least I had the nerve to go down there. I didn't stay away like you did.
MR. FITZGERALD: The first introduction to pepper spray, I say to the minister. The first introduction to pepper spray in Newfoundland.
MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) to go down.
MR. FITZGERALD: I did not know it was happening, I say to the minister. I heard my name brought on the floor down there and this was going to be done with me, and something else. Anyway, the minister made a run for it, the mad dash for the cash! The mad dash. He ran through the gate, we never saw him after. So the minister is not a popular minister.
MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) you duck a handful of rocks.
MR. FITZGERALD: I have ducked rocks all my life, I say to the minister. I have ducked rocks and snowballs many times. In fact, it was only the other night - and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation... I don't know if anybody has had an opportunity to drive up the parkway, Columbus Drive I am talking about. Several times I have driven on the Columbus Drive there and I don't know if anybody has witnessed or experienced the barrage of snowballs coming out at you by some people up on the hill there. It was only sometime ago when somebody's windshield got broken out, speaking of rocks and that kind of thing.
MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: No, that is because of moose, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He has had the same experience as you have had with moose. You find out that moose can cause a lot of damage.
In fact, there is a young gentleman from my district in the hospital now, a victim of a moose-hunting accident. I do not know but he is still in a coma - it happened four weeks ago - at the Health Science Complex. It is not something that should be taken -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: No, I did not see a moose on Columbus Drive. I was talking about somebody throwing rocks at the cars going up Columbus Drive.
AN HON. MEMBER: They know (inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know; maybe it was a Tory that had their windshield broken and they expressed great concern that there might have been somebody sitting by the window at the time.
Anyway, we are getting off track here, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: I would say (inaudible) his resignation after that.
MR. FITZGERALD: No, I am not going to demand the minister's resignation. That will come in time. The minister will decide his own fate; but I tell you, it is little things like this that will creep up on the minister and he will find it a job to explain. He will find, when he goes out - I know it must be difficult, in order to speak loud and clear around the Cabinet table for something that you do not believe in, and then have to go along with the crowd in order to remain at the table. It is difficult but we all go through it, I say to the minister. By the expressions on your face I can tell that this is not your favourite piece of legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the hon. member, we all have our crosses to bear, we all have our pains to carry, but this is not one of mine. I can assure the hon. member this is not one of mine.
My ambition, as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and now the Minister responsible for Rural Renewal and Revitalization, is to do away with any government involvement in the fisheries whatsoever. In fact, the policy in which we carried it over the last year is not one nickel of taxpayers money to go into any form of the fishery, processing or the harvesting, or the equipment of boats, whatsoever. That is my intent. As soon as we can do away with the old guaranteed loans there will be no more new guaranteed loans enacted.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. EFFORD: As far as the Fisheries Loan Board, the intent is to keep the fishery -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been warned by my acting House Leader to clue up because this is simply housekeeping to repeal four acts and bring them under the one corporation within the Department of Development and Rural Renewal; housecleaning, efficiency, to make life better for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Business Investment Corporation", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 43).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Order 19, Bill No. 42.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act." (Bill No. 42)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we have here in this bill is to legislate some of the recommendations that came through from the Statutory Review Committee on the Workers' Compensation Act that was done in 1996. Basically, I guess, when we look at the report, Time to Refocus, what the review did of course was to look at the overall fiscal capacity of the commission and then look at what flexibility there was within the framework that was set out for full funding, and whatever slippage there was to pass it along to the injured workers.
Basically with that there were a number of benefits that came to the injured workers. In fact, the Injured Workers Benefit received a 5 per cent increase for short term, effective January 1, 1998. That went from 75 per cent to 80 per cent net. It meant, of course, more money in the pockets for the short-term people on the workers' commission.
Also, we readjusted the Canada Pension Plan benefits from 80 per cent to 75 per cent. That was effective September 1, 1998, and will be given to the injured workers once we have Royal Assent to this legislation that we are talking about here today.
In addition to that, also there was a recommendation that came in from the people who did the report, that surviving spouses would be guaranteed a minimum weekly payment of $200. That was done in conjunction with the sponsored pension plans of the survivor, and that is paid until age sixty-five.
For the first time ever, too, the commission provided $5,000 to cover burial expenses to the estate and families of people who were killed while in the work place. It is not something that we would want to probably highlight, but there have been fourteen people who have gotten that particular burial coverage since it was brought in the spring.
Changes were also made to the deeming process that also will cost the commission extra dollars because of that. Obviously, it was something that has been a point of contention for injured workers for so long. Obviously, the deeming process will be improved, and no doubt as we speak some of the improvements are already made.
Also, in questions from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, where we talked about where the specialist sports were overridden by the general practitioner from the commission, we addressed that as well.
Injured workers' appeals are heard faster, now from six to three months. There were two cancers added to the list of industrial diseases: cancer of the larynx and cancer of the oesophagus. There were homeopathic remedies that were introduced. Also, enhanced training and education for staff, employers and workers in the commission. Obviously, that has been paying dividends. In the last survey that was done we showed that there was a considerable improvement in that, voted on by the injured workers themselves.
We also took the education and training component from the Department of Environment and Labour and placed it with the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission because we believe at the department that every accident is preventable. By putting it with the workers' commission, we believe that was a very positive step. Also, we will expand the Board of Directors by three, once this legislation is passed.
I am going to stop here and of course let the Opposition people respond to that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to talk about Bill No. 42, An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act, and to say that this 5 per cent - to me, anyway - is not real. It is more of a joke, especially to injured workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I have had the opportunity, I guess, since 1996, in being elected to this hon. House, of having the opportunity to have represented many of them at workers' compensation appeals. I have watched people be deemed everything from dispatchers to greeters to - on and on it goes. I guess I have said in this House on a hundred different occasions that what we should do is take money out of the government treasury and buy a hundred or so copies of How To Win Friends And Influence People. We should take it down and give it to some people at Workers' Compensation.
The Member - I am not quite sure of her district, down Marystown way - will certainly understand one case in particular that I am going to mention, of things that happened in a family down there where somebody got charged with an overpayment to Canada Pension and who had to pay it back. Now Workers' Compensation are deeming that this family received money and of course on and on it goes. They are really stuck in the middle of all of this.
I have watched, I say to the minister, people in my own district - one person in particular - to be deemed a used car salesperson, who can barely walk probably from the door of this Chamber to the table, but they deemed him a used car salesperson. So when you go in to buy a car he can take you, and if somebody is with you, over and say, `Well, this is a lovely car here. Here are the features she has, now have a look at her.' Now he has to go back across the lobby of the dealership and find a chair and sit down. Now you have to look at the car and if you have any questions then you have to go find this individual so you can then ask the questions that you wish to ask.
I have been in with another gentleman who was deemed to be a dispatcher. There was documentation from hearing specialists that clearly said that this man - if he is not looking directly at you when you are speaking to him - has a hearing impediment. I was back with the same gentleman a week or so ago and even the chairman of the review commission said, `Yes, that's right, if you are here I certainly have to speak very loudly so that you can understand me, so you can understand what I am saying.' Yet, what we did was say to this man, `You can be a dispatcher.' He has a hearing impediment, yet this man can be a dispatcher.
I have watched as people with no medical qualifications, absolutely none, can sit and override medical specialists in this Province, can override what these people are saying. They can come in and say: Well, Johnny Jones, Mary Smith or whoever, is capable of doing this kind of a job or that kind of a job. Yet we have medical experts who have clearly said this person or that person cannot go to work.
Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. We have spent several hundred thousand dollars to do a review of the Workers' Compensation Commission, and if we are going to spend that kind of money to do a review, would it not make sense, at the end of the day, to implement the recommendations that the Statutory Review Committee brought in? Yet we see lip service, I am going to call it, paid to deeming and we see little or nothing paid to injured workers who receive Canada Pension.
I have had conversation as late as today with people who find themselves in this boat. Five percent of nothing is nothing. If we were going to do something, we should have gotten it up somewhere around the 50 per cent range. Five per cent to me, Mr. Speaker, is an insult. It is a slap in the face to injured workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is nothing short of a slap in the face to the injured workers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, since taking on this critic portfolio, I now receive calls from all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to become involved with injured workers, to become involved with representing them at appeals. I guess my only regret is that there are cases in different parts of this Province where I do not have the opportunity to go. I wish I did, for the sake of the people who call me and ask me to represent them; not that I am any better than any other member of the House, but it is a critic portfolio that I have and I wish that I could go with some of these people to represent them at a hearing - people who cannot afford lawyers, people who cannot afford to get others to go with them. I would like to do it, would love to do, and would do it if it were within my physical means. I would love to do it for them. Unfortunately, there are times and cases that do not permit me that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, but I would love that opportunity to go with these people and represent them at hearings.
Because there are times at these hearings that sometimes these people may miss something, because they are not familiar with dealing with these cases. After you do several of these you become very familiar with different cases. You become very familiar with what you should look for, what you shouldn't look for, what you should talk about in tribunals, what you shouldn't talk about in tribunals, what medical evidence on reviewing the file that you should or should not have, what medical evidence you might be able to say to this person or that person: You really need this for a hearing.
Unfortunately, we have people in this Province who are not able to represent themselves. That to me, again, is very sad. I had a call last week from somebody who told me that - I suggested maybe, because their case was a bit trickly, that they get a lawyer. The first lawyer they called wanted $4,000. They do not have $4,000 to lay on the table for this lawyer to come in and represent them.
Five per cent to go back to Canada Pension is to me ridiculous. The minister and I will certainly disagree on this point, but I believe I have seen documentation from the Injured Workers' Association in this Province which clearly shows me, given the present trend and the trend their calculations are based on, that the unfunded liability could be paid off by the year 2005. The minister disagrees with that, I know he does. We have had conversations on that. He says it cannot happen, I say it can happen. I guess we will agree to disagree on that particular point. I believe by 2005 the unfunded liability of workers' compensation should be covered. That is providing everything would stay on track as it is today. Then there will be no more unfunded liability to workers' compensation.
Over the next week or so I'm certainly going to be having some questions for the minister as it relates to workers' compensation, to some of the things that have gone on and still continue to go on at that particular place. As I said when I got up, if ever there was anything I've run into since becoming a member of this government that to me is very annoying, it has been the Workers' Compensation Commission.
Their deeming to me is nothing short of criminal, it is nothing short of ridiculous. I have to wonder sometimes, are they there for the benefit of the injury worker? Are they there to help the injured worker? Or are they there occupying a seat, earning a good salary in most of the cases? Is that what they are there for? Because I have a different view and a different opinion of workers' compensation in this Province.
I have had a case that was argued before Workers' Compensation. At the end of the day the decision of the Chief Review Commissioner was that he would award a certain amount of benefits to a constituent of mine and that he would award re-training. After several weeks went by he heard absolutely nothing. This day he picked up the phone and called Workers' Compensation, called his caseworker as a matter of fact, and was told by the caseworker: Listen here, you, what you got from us you got, I am looking after your case, and that's as much as you are getting from us.
At the time I was on holidays. When I was notified I picked up the phone and went through the normal formalities of going through the executive offices and so on. I did all that and I got talking to a gentleman down there. I said: Sir, listen. If you are not going to accept the decision of the Chief Review Commissioner then please tell me. Please tell my constituent that no, you are not going to accept his decision, and we will prepare for the next level of appeal, which is the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said: Mr. French, if that happened there is something certainly wrong. I said: Yes there is something grossly wrong with a procedure that does this. He said: I will look at it.
A few days went by and I never heard from my constituent. About two or three weeks later while attending a function in my district he was there. He came over, shook my hand and said: Thank you very much for representing me. How much do I owe you? I said: You owe me absolutely nothing. I am only too glad to have helped you win your case. He said: The day that you called, a couple of hours after you called, I got a call back and was told within a matter of two or three days to come out. When he went out, all his back money was ready and he was dealing with a caseworker, then at Workers' Compensation, to go on and be properly retrained.
Why somebody, for the life of me, took the decision of the Chief Review Commissioner, turned it upside down and gave it back to my constituent, is beyond me. Why we would want to put somebody, who had had a good job all of his life, who had made a good salary all of his life, why we would do that is beyond me.
In one of the deeming processes they deemed this gentleman to be a long-haul driver. On reflection the only place in the Province that had long-haul drivers hired was in Grand Falls, the A & D Company. When the constituent checked into applying for a job he was told that the A & D Company, at that time, had not hired a long-haul driver in about five years because people working there lived in the Grand Falls area. If they were lucky enough to get one of these jobs, naturally enough they stayed there.
This is what he went through. This is what we put him through, and this to me is grossly unfair, unkind, sickening to people in this Province who were injured, who cannot go to work. Not because they do not want to go to work. This man would have liked nothing better than at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning hop out of bed and say: I can go back to my original job, I can earn the salary I was earning, and I can go to work today. That did not happen.
I had a letter in my office that an injured worker showed me where he was deemed to be a carpet salesperson. The reason they deemed him to be a carpet salesperson was that they said a carpet salesperson does most of his work by phone. He could lie on his back and use the telephone. Now just imagine going into a carpet place to buy carpet and here is some fellow in there lying on the floor with a telephone in his ear trying to sell carpet. Now to me, whoever wrote that or whoever said that at Workers' Compensation should not work there, should not be eligible to work there. Because they certainly do not have the care of the injured worker in mind.
After all, I think our first goal is to prevent accidents in this Province. Unfortunately, where there are accidents then the next thing is to try and rehabilitate people, try to get them back on their feet, and try to get them out and working. I believe this legislation does not go far enough in deeming, it does not go far enough with the clawback on Canada Pension, it does not go anywhere near where it should go. I say to the minister: Let's bring in legislation that benefits injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's bring in legislation that not only helps them, but helps their families.
I have also watched families under workers' compensation, people who certainly have been suicidal, people who have been close to having their families disbanded because there is not enough money coming into the house anymore to live on, to pay the light bill, to pay the food bill, to buy clothes, or to put the children through school. I am sure members on that side of the House have seen and had the experience I have had.
I believe this is where this legislation should be going. This is where we should be, down there shaking the daylights out of Workers' Compensation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This legislation, in my opinion, does not do it. We should be down there stripping that place from stem to stern. Maybe we should say to some of these people who find some delight or some glory in taking some injured workers apart: Let's let you live on the salary that we pay this injured worker, he or she. Let's do that. That is not happening.
To me, this legislation doesn't go far enough, it doesn't go near to where I want it to go. If we were going to do anything for injured workers in this Province, let's not bring in 5 per cent. Maybe we should have started off with fifty. I believe that is where we should have been. I believe the recommendations of the commission, or the study that was done, certainly were not implemented, and they are not being implemented today by this bill.
I ask the minister to withdraw this piece of legislation and to come back with better legislation that helps the injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. We should be doing something for them. We are not doing it, and I call upon the minister today to withdraw this particular bill. Because this particular bill means little or nothing, I say to the minister, to the injured workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can assure the minister that there is a day of reckoning coming throughout this Province when injured workers and their families and their relations will remember what has happened to them.
Mr. Speaker, with those few words I will sit down. I call upon the minister today to withdraw this legislation, to have another look at it, and let's really do something for the injured workers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is more than one clause in here that I have a problem with, but I will address a couple of them. One is on page 9, it is in clause 12, and is 54.2(2). It reads: "The commission may suspend, reduce or terminate compensation made to a worker, where the worker fails to co-operate in the development or implementation of a rehabilitation program."
I have had calls from people who have been injured on the job. They are put through ease back, and work back. They are deemed to be, as my colleague just said, able for work. Such as a carpet salesman making telephone calls from his bed, or a person being deemed to be a used car salesman. A person who is unable to walk deemed to be a used car salesman. What kind of a person would send a person who is unable to walk out selling used cars, crossing icy, snowy lots in the middle of the winter? What kind of a person would do that? It is too foolish to talk about.
I know of people who returned to work. They did not return by choice. They returned because they felt they had no other choice but to return to their original employment, in pain, because the deeming process was so gruelling and so hard on them. Unfair. I would refer to them as folks, but the `inhumans', with the inhuman attitude at Workers' Compensation, were so cruel to them that they returned to their original place of employment.
There is another clause I have addressed in here, clause 16, which says under 83.1(2): "In an action begun as a result of a determination by the commission that it has made an overpayment of compensation, the court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether an overpayment occurred or the amount of the overpayment."
How much power do they want when they want more power than the court? They are a bunch of `inhumans' down there. How much power do they want when they want more power than the courts?
I have a story I would like to relate. It is about a person who is physically disabled. This is not a story, this is a fact. This person was physically disabled but he went to work anyway. He was injured on the job and applied for workers' compensation. He received workers' compensation in the amount of $151 a week. His workers' compensation allowance was topped up by the Department of Human Resources and Employment. Somebody at Workers' Compensation suggested to this person that he apply for Canada Pension disability.
He applied for Canada Pension disability and thirteen months later - no, he was turned down the first time. They suggested he get a lawyer to pursue it on his behalf. He did get a lawyer on a contingency basis and he was successful. He received $13,500 in total. That was the total payment. In his hand he received $8,500 from the $13,500. He called Workers' Compensation immediately and said: I have a settlement here from Canada Pension disability and from now on I will be on Canada Pension disability. They said: How much did you get? He said: I got $8,500 in my hand. They said: No, how much was the settlement? He said: The amount of the settlement was $13,500 but the lawyer took the $5,000. They said: Sir, you have to pay us back $13,500.
In the meantime, the Department of Human Resources and Employment - they were a little bit more human - clawed back the $8,500. So we had two agencies of the same government - the man got $8,500 -, and one agency was clawing back $8,500 and Workers' Compensation was clawing back $13,500, for a man who had received $8,500.
The man made representation to me and I tried to get it straightened out. We got a meeting of all parties involved and we had a representative there from the Department of Human Resources and Employment, a representative there from Workers' Compensation, and from the Injured Workers' Association.
I have to say right here that the Department of Human Resources and Employment were reasonable. They said: If one arm of the government is clawing it back, we won't claw it back. So we had that settled. Now we had to deal with Workers' Compensation. The guy from Workers' Compensation got up with his flip chart and he said: I have to demonstrate, because people here don't understand what is going on, what is happening.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: I suggest that the minister listen. This is important. This is what the inhuman things his employees are doing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Obviously, he does not care. Anyway, the guy from Workers' Compensation got up with his flip chart. Partway through I said: Hold on now, he got $8,500, why are you clawing back $13,500?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: That is what he was eligible for, that is what he received. I said: No, he got $8,500, but his claim, his benefit, what he received, was $13,500. I said: Do you mean to tell me that Workers' Compensation are charging this man for getting back the $8,500 for him? He saved Workers' Compensation $8,500 and had to pay $5,000 for the privilege of doing so. They said: This is our policy. I asked: Can you see what you are doing? Who suggested that he go to -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you. I asked: Who suggested that he go to Canada Pension?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: The answer was: Workers' Compensation suggested he go to Canada Pension. Why didn't they pay the lawyer's fee?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Workers' Compensation received $8,500. The man received $8,500 and Workers' Compensation took back his $8,500, and charged him $5,000 for the privilege of this man, who is physically impaired, hiring a lawyer, getting the case heard, and having his Canada Pension benefit granted to him. Workers' Compensation charged him for the privilege of doing so.
Nowhere in this act do I see this inhumane policy changed. As long as we continue to let stuff like this happen, this inhumane government will permit to see it happen. An uncaring, inhumane, government that -
AN HON. MEMBER: That is not nice!
MS S. OSBORNE: You bet your sweet bippy it is not nice!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: That is the most accurate statement I have heard this minister say since I came to this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: You bet your sweet bippy it is not nice. When a person who is physically disabled is told by -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on a point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Your bippy, yes.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Do you know what I find inconceivable here? That the ministers on the other side are making a joke about a physically disabled person being told by Workers' Compensation to hire a lawyer and get Canada Pension, and they charged him $5,000 for the privilege of doing so. You are laughing. You find it very funny.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on a point of order.
MR. EFFORD: The hon. opposite has a reason if she wants to be upset. That is her right as an Opposition member to be upset with government, but she has to make accurate statements in this House of Assembly.
What I said is that this government is a caring government, it is not an uncaring government. That is why I was smiling at the statement she was making about an uncaring government. Not about any individual, disabled or not disabled, in this Province. The hon. member knows that is accurate statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: I hope they have recorded what the minister said. Making a joke about a disabled person who went out -
MR. A. REID: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to sit in this House and allow this -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Are we going to sit in this House and allow this member to continue this diatribe, knowing full well that this hon. member here and this member here were laughing at the fact that she made the comment of a dippy. I asked what a - what was it, a dippy or a bippy? We were laughing over the fact that she said the word "bippy."
I ask the Speaker, please, will you refrain this lady from making these comments, because they are incorrect and she is misleading this House by making those comments? We did not laugh at anyone she mentioned prior to the conversation. If she cannot do that, the best place for her is back in the kitchen, probably, where she came from.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. T. OSBORNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South on a point of order.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears. That was a sexist remark about an hon. member of this House of Assembly. I think he should retract his remark.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order. Are you speaking to the point of order?
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, to the madam opposite, I apologize for my comments. They were rude and misplaced, and I certainly do apologize for what I said. I retract those statements.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the Member for St. John's West, I would ask the member to address her comments to the Speaker or to the Chair.
The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to check Hansard tomorrow and see that my statement that he referred to was made after they laughed at the comment that I made about the government being inhuman. That came first, then the laugh came, then my remark came. I would have no reason to make a remark like that without it being provoked from the other side.
I was speaking about a person who was physically disabled who applied for Canada Pension, at the request of Workers' Compensation, received a sum of $13,500, only received $8,500 himself - the lawyer charged $5,000 -, and Workers' Compensation clawed back the entire amount. Which meant that that disabled person paid $5,000 for the privilege of giving Workers' Compensation $8,500. In this act I would like to see some provision made that this does not continue to happen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just have a couple of brief comments. The critic here I think made most of the comments there. I just want to comment very briefly on this bill. I think it is in the best interest of workers and employers and the Workers' Compensation Commission and everybody basically to have a healthy fund. There is no doubt about it. Have no unfunded liability, have it fully funded.
I think we also have to keep in mind that there has to be a reasonable period of time in which we can get back to a level where there was about, what, $170-some million unfunded liability. Now we are down to, I think, as of last year's statement, $91.8 million.
We have accomplished, I think, in five years a position from 42.4 per cent roughly up to 72.4 per cent. I really feel there has to be a balance struck between the unfunded liabilities here and there has to be a balance between the rights of workers and so on to be able to have a certain amount of income and a certain amount of dignity to be able to carry forth.
We are at an accelerated pace to meet that. We have to have realistic expectations here. If the fund is producing better than normal, I think we have to lean in favour of the workers to ensure that they are not going to be put through undue hardships. I deal with cases regularly. I received two decisions back last week and other cases are coming up now. People are deemed to be just about any possible thing they can imagine. People whom I know physically cannot get out of bed. One went to the emergency department last week and was going to be sent home. He said: I want to see the specialist. The specialist came and set a broken bone in their back. That is how it deteriorated. That person had to be admitted immediately when the specialist saw it, the same person who was denied over a week ago. It made no difference to that person. It made no difference to their income. They had retired and their income was above what they would get anyway. It made no difference but, out of principle, that person went to fight the case. Not one extra cent would he get in that particular case.
I think we have to start looking a little bit at the human side. We have to have a realistic goal in mind, and we have to balance the desires of employers and people in the workplace today to be able to get a balance that is not going to cause further undue hardships. I really feel we are moving a bit too fast. The expectation they set earlier we are going to get before that. I think we have to look at a proper balance.
Our critic there certainly addressed other specific points of this particular bill. I think it is very important that we have to start showing a certain human side when things get a bit better than we anticipated. I feel it is a responsibility of government to protect the integrity of a fund, and it is also their responsibility, I think, to protect the integrity and well-being of workers. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure to rise to speak for a few moments to the bill before the House, An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act, Bill 42.
There are many points that need to be made and need to be made strongly. The act before the House today is a feeble attempt, I say to the minister. This is a government that put in place an independent Statutory Review Commission to look independently at the issues surrounding injured workers, employees, employers, assessments, Canada Pension, deeming and all the broad issues surrounding what injured workers are facing today. Now, what we see before us today, as I indicated, is a feeble attempt, to my mind, that does not address at all, in any way, shape or form, the recommendations from that Statutory Review Commission.
For example, last year it was felt, and indications were given to this House, that it was possible, that it looked like, that it was going to happen, that Canada Pension would be clawed back 50 per cent and not 100 per cent as it now happens. That did not take place. What happened as a result of it? Why didn't that take place? Information coming from the minister, from the Workers' Compensation Commission, has indicated that they could not do it because of financial reasons, that the Commission is moving forward to being fully funded by the year 2012.
Minister, it is my view, and the view held by others as well, that if the Commission proceeds along the path right now towards being fully funded that they will reach that goal long before 2012.
Now, the minister is shaking his head, he is saying no, and he will have an opportunity to respond to that. It is clear that the Workers' Compensation Commission today is in a better financial position than it has been for some time. There is no question about that. As a result of that, some of the clawbacks that occurred from 1989 to 1995, right now it is time to recognize that from the point of view of Canada Pension - my hon. colleague for St. John's West just brought to light a true story where an injured worker was told he should apply for Canada Pension. He received Canada Pension. A portion of the Canada Pension was clawed back. He paid the lawyer's fees and ended up owing money, as she put it, quite correctly, quite articulately, for the privilege of getting Canada Pension.
The minister is not immune to the issues of injured workers, he knows firsthand. He has talked to injured workers, he has talked to representatives from the Injured Workers' Association, he has talked to employers, he has talked to the Commission. The issues that were levelled here last year after the Statutory Review Commission tabled its report - because up until that point, any question that you asked about the Workers' Compensation Commission was referred to with: Look, it is all being looked into, it is being handled by the Statutory Review Commission.
Once that report was tabled it was pretty clear that some of the accusations that have been made about injured workers - that they are a drain on the system, that there are a number of frauds in the system - are clearly not true and have no basis in fact. The Statutory Review, if my memory serves me correctly, went as far as to say that those statements were grossly over-exaggerated, and less than 3 per cent of those people who are injured, or classified as injured workers, would even fall into that category of submitting fraudulent claims.
Minister, it is time for a more substantive piece of legislation with respect to the Workers' Compensation Commission. The attempt here - that is all it is, an attempt. It does not address, in a comprehensive way, the issues in the Statutory Review Commission's Report, not even by a long shot. We will have an opportunity in clause-by-clause debate to debate it more, but from my point of view I would like to urge the minister and to urge the government, through the minister, to address not only in an adequate way but in a fair and just way, the issues that injured workers are facing, and live up to the independent recommendations made by the Statutory Review Committee which was comprised of: an employer representative, an employee representative, a member at large, and an impartial chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to make a brief comment with respect to this legislation. That is, that it is important at all times, when we are talking about the Workers' Compensation Commission, that a word be kept in mind of the employees of that commission, and that word, namely, compassion.
I have seen from time to time, from my own experiences in dealing with injured workers in this Province, that what is lacking sometimes is the fact that because of unnecessary delay, undue delay, we had many individuals who, through no fault of their own, are finding it most difficult to go through the system in what ordinarily should be a relatively ordinary and easy way to deal with the problems which are confronting them.
Mr. Speaker, what is essential at all times - and I would ask the minister, just in my brief comment, to ensure that steps be taken at all times to expedite problems that are existing for injured workers who are dealing on a regular basis with the Workers' Compensation Commission. We see all too often people waiting for assessments, waiting for reports back from the medical department, who simply - their lives are on hold, I say to the minister. Their lives are on hold because there is no way of expediting these procedures and, as a result, the lives and the misery continues. It is essential, therefore, that steps be taken to address problems which occur in very extreme cases, to ensure that their lives can carry out in a meaningful way without the requirement of waiting unnecessarily for reports and assessments and responses from personnel at Workers' Compensation Commission.
It is essential that a real direct and honest effort be made at all times to help these extreme cases, these workers who find nothing but frustration with the system. There is a special category of individuals who require utmost attention and utmost consideration by all parties with respect to problems which they are facing on a day-to-day basis.
In conclusion, I would say that it is hoped that through this legislation, and perhaps other amendments that we hope to see in response to the Statutory Review, that we see efforts being made to expedite problems and concerns that particular people experience on an ongoing basis.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like first of all to say to the Member for St. John's East that obviously one of the priorities, I guess, for government and for the commission as well is to put a human face on the commission. It is very difficult sometimes to even do that when you have a no-fault insurance program. I believe that they are making steps to do it. Obviously there is always room for improvement, and let's hope that we will be able to do that as time goes on.
Also, I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition, if we had not done anything at all, if we had not moved from seventy-five to eighty, had we not adjusted CPP from eighty to seventy-five, had we not made $200 for spousal, had we not done the $5,000 burial expenses and some of the others, we could have been fully funded by 2005, but because of that it pushed it back to 2012.
I move second reading.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 42).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. DECKER: Order 15, Mr. Speaker.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act". (Bill No. 27)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a very simple piece of legislation and it simply does this: Whereas, when the Department of Government Services and Lands was brought into existence, the functions of the Motor Registration Division were transferred to that department. Also, the function of responsibility for appropriate road signage - that is directional signage for vehicles travelling on the road - went with it. It was not intended so to be. So the effect of this amendment in this piece of legislation is simply to revert to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation the ongoing responsibility for the decisions about the erection and maintenance of directional signage on the Province's highways.
As I say, it is not a piece of legislation that changes anything other than where the departmental responsibility lies for deciding where signage goes, what goes on the signs, and the erection and maintenance of these signs.
I don't think I need say any more, Mr. Speaker, because it is very simple. This is housekeeping, and I would move second reading of it.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this bill, An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act, Bill 27.
The minister made a statement that it is a piece of simple legislation. I will not elaborate on that because he has kind of set himself up there.
He talks about the responsibility for road signage going back to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, when it was transferred before to the Department of Government Services and Lands. Another prime example of this Administration, one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. Here we are, as usual around Christmastime, rushing legislation through the House of Assembly, and find that we are amending legislation that went through no time ago. Typical of this Administration.
I agree with the minister, it is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. I do have some questions, though, with respect to a few of the clauses here. I think when we get into Committee, when we do clause-by-clause, I can ask the minister any questions at that time and I am sure he will be quite willing to give me the answers. They may not be the answers I want to hear, which is not unusual, but in the meantime I think that is as much as I want to say on this at this time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words on this bill. I am not going to drag it out. I say to the minister that it is a simple piece of legislation but there are a lot of people who have great concerns with signage as it exists in the Province today.
Now there is a program that comes on in the summertime, I think it is a program that interviews tourists in the Province. It happens every Tuesday morning in the summertime where some reporter would interview somebody visiting the Province. The one complaint - if you listen to it - that is continuously brought forward is the lack of road signs, the lack of direction. I have brought it forward many times in this House before whereby I thought we should put the names of communities on the routes forward where people driving by can readily see where they are going, or the community that they want to visit. It is a continuous request from many communities to have their name put on the sign. We continually hear: No, we cannot put all the names on a particular sign because it is our policy to only put the two communities with the largest population on that particular route.
I do not see why we would have to abide by a signage policy that exists in British Columbia or Ontario. I think the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation suggested, one time in a conversation with her, that maybe we might consider sometime down the road putting in rest stops, or little detours, where tourists could drive off of the main highway and readily see what communities were on that particular route.
It is not a bad idea at all. It is certainly much better than to see the communities with no name there at all, and sometimes people having to go miles and miles out of their way before they find where they're going. We can put up big eight by sixteen foot signs, putting one name on it. Surely to goodness we can put a small sign that will show the community names that exist on that particular route.
The one that is continually brought forward to my attention is Route 235, where Route 235 intersects with Route 230. There are approximately, I would say, twelve communities on that particular route and there are two names of the largest communities that are shown on the sign. I think this can be addressed and we can do something in order to accommodate the requests that those communities are putting forward.
While we ourselves might know the easy route to get there, I can assure you, even though it is only two highways, the people travelling and not knowing where they are going do have some difficulty.
It is something that should be attended to and I suggest that the minister might want to take a second look at the rules and regulations as they exist today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if he speaks now he will close the debate.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have noted the intelligent comments made by the hon. Member for Bonavista South, and the probing and insightful comments made by the Member for Cape St. Francis.
Having said that, and that only, I would move second reading of the bill, and I would be happy to answer any questions that may arise as a result of Committee. I look forward the dissertation, the rhetorical, well-rehearsed presentation in terms of questioning legislation that will come from my critic, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 27)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. DECKER: Order 10, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 10.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill No. 9)
The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. REID: My hon. colleague from Port de Grave tells me to behave myself. I have to say across the House again, quite honestly, that I had such a rough day today and I should not have made the comment I made about the Member for St. John's West. I say that quite honestly and I apologize again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what is it they say? Your tongue is no fun - I forget now - a slip of the tongue is no fun.
Mr. Speaker, I am doing this in the absence of the hon. Ernest McLean, and I am basing it on information that has been provided to me.
There are a number of serious things in this particular bill, some pretty serious things, and I believe that it needs enough time to go through it piece by piece in the explanatory. The minister, I think, should be present at least to address this on third reading if not on second. I say, quite honestly, we will have plenty of time to debate it. It is getting upwards to closing time and the best thing for me to do at this particular point in time would be -
AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.
MR. REID: Keep going for another few moments?
AN HON. MEMBER: No, no. Just an (inaudible).
MR. REID: Give him a chance? Okay.
One of the major issues I find here that satisfies me somewhat, as a member of the government, is the fine for driving without insurance, going from $100 to $500. That is a darn good policy considering - if I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, the minister said one time last year that up to 25 per cent of the people driving on the highways were not insured. That is unbelievable, an unbelievable number of people.
The fact that now fisheries officers will have the right to stop vehicles after this particular legislation, to stop on reasonable grounds and search and even ticket if they have to - the licence suspension, the discretionary use of a particular date with regard to suspending of licences, and it goes on and on.
I think that is enough for me to say because I think my colleague across the way wants to make a few comments before we adjourn the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that this is a fairly important piece of legislation actually. It has some far-reaching ramifications. I know that the Minister of Government Services and Lands is on Her Majesty's business. I would be very interested in the minister's comments with respect to when he introduces this bill, and the one with the insurance and one about littering, snow clearing, and what have you. It may sound minor but there are very important points to be considered. When the minister comes back into the House, I would like for him to address this bill, a few comments in Committee, and we can take it from there with further questions. With that, that is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 9)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their cooperation. We have indeed done a great day's work. If we keep that up, we should be able to get home for Christmas, I would think.
Tomorrow, of course, is Private Members' Day. It is one of the government member's, the Member for Labrador West, I believe. We will debate his private member's bill tomorrow.
I would move that the House, on its rising, would adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.
**********************************************************************