November

23, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 67

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet, Mr.

Brian Tobin, the Minister of Fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome to the House

five co-op students from the Seventh-Day Adventist Academy in St. John's

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Graham Carey and also a class of seventy-five

Canadian law students from Levels I, II and III at Carbonear Integrated

Collegiate accompanied by their three teachers Glenys Murray, Les Yetman and Mr.

Cliff Green.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I will welcome them after Question Period

then when they show up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before you call the first order

of the day, I would like leave to make a brief personal statement if I may?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has leave to make a statement.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, on Monday in the House I used

some words in debate in response to a question from the Member for Humber East,

who perhaps had gotten a little more under my skin then she should have, I found

on page 2375 of Hansard, `with a great deal more confidence when it comes to

lawyering the hon. lady should perhaps look at being a seamstress or a

politician but not a lawyer.' Mr. Speaker, those words were spoken in the heat

of debate and I realize they may have given offence to the Member for Humber

East or to other members or to those who practice the profession of seamsters

and seamstresses. So I would like to withdraw them unreservedly and offer an

unqualified apology to anybody who took offence to them, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I do not know if the Member for Humber East

gets equal time.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the Trans

City Holdings health care contracts. Surprise, surprise, I guess for members

opposite.

On Friday past, I asked some questions in the House, both of

the Premier and then latterly of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. One

of the questions I asked him - I would like to throw this out right at the

beginning before I get into my line of questioning - I asked him if he would

table all of the notes, memoranda, correspondence or anything written by any of

his officials, particularly back in November of '91 or prior to that, that

advised anyone in government that the Trans City bid would cost government more

than if it actually borrowed the money to build the buildings itself or that it

did not, whichever.

Now the minister carefully avoided answering that particular

question, so I wonder if I could repeat it here today, keep it simple, and ask

that question: will he table the information I have asked for?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: No?

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

MR. SIMMS: Well, that's good; if that is the approach the

government wishes to take - we can understand why.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you expecting that answer.

MR. SIMMS: No. We can understand why. I was not talking

to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. He should go back to Japan

or somewhere, where he belongs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, also last Friday, I asked -

MR. TOBIN: More (inaudible) in this government than in

the last twenty years.

MR. SIMMS: Even though I agree with my colleague, the

Member for Burin - Placentia West, I still want to get on with the questioning

if I could.

Last Friday I also asked the government, the Premier, why the

Cabinet ignored its own directive which authorized leased/purchased arrangements

only if the financing cost was equal to or less than the Province's borrowing

rate.

Now the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, said that the

rate, and I quote him: ultimately reached with Trans City, ultimately reached

with Trans City, was less than the Province's borrowing rate at the time; a very

tricky answer and I hope it was not an attempt by him to mislead the people so I

want to give him a chance to be straight.

Will he now admit that the financing costs of the lease

arrangement proposed in Trans City's bid, and which was accepted by the

government on November 13, 1991, was in fact, eighteen basis points higher than

government's rate at the time, that is on November 13, 1991 and will he

therefore admit that the acceptance of the Trans City bid violated Cabinet's own

directive on lease/purchase?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is not

correct at all.

Two of the proposals that were put forward had kind of

open-ended provisions in terms of when we would tie in with whatever rate

existed at the time. One of them had I believe a six-months time limit or the

1st of April of the next year which ever came sooner, and one of them was

open-ended in the sense that we could tie in at a rate that existed at any point

up to substantial completion, which was a great deal later. The markets were

falling at the time and we chose the one that was more open-ended, so ultimately

we tied in at a rate of 9.41 on an escalating payment base, and that was below

what the Province could have done at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Was that before November 13, 1991?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, we tied in the rate much

later than that. Whenever the substantial completion was, I could check and get

the exact date for the hon. gentleman, but I think it was sometime in 1993,

actually, April 29, 1993.

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

further supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, now the minister has, in fact, confirmed what we have

been trying to get at all along. The fact of the matter is, they were advised by

officials in the Department of Finance that this was contrary to your own

Cabinet directive, and you are now telling us that this was changed a long time

afterwards. You tried to mislead the people of the Province on Friday with your

answer to me.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this question. In fact,

I think I will ask the question of the Premier in his capacity as the acting

Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, these contracts were awarded to Trans City on

November 13, 1991. Six months after that, after the contracts were awarded - and

accepted by the companies, by the way - on May 5, 1992 the Minister of Justice,

the Member for Naskaupi, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

Aubrey Gover, at the time, sent a paper to the Cabinet proposing major changes

in the financing arrangements agreed to only six months earlier by the

government. I want to ask - no, this is a question for the Premier, as Minister

of Justice, not the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: We want the Minister of Justice to answer the

question. If he has the guts to answer the question, he will stand in his place.

He won't need the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this Cabinet paper was written by

his department after several weeks of meetings with the two companies involved.

What I want to know is this, and I ask him: How long did it take after these

contracts were awarded on November 13 before Trans City and Confederation Life

came back to the government seeking changes to these contracts? Was it within a

matter of weeks?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated earlier, the proposal call, which was quite

general - when we received the results from that there were two companies that

had no sort of fixed time as to when we could tie in with the interest rate.

Now, that was particularly advantageous to us simply because the interest rates

were falling very rapidly at the time, and the later we could tie in, the better

it was for this Province financially. So the proposal we eventually chose had

the later tie-in date, there was substantial completion. At that time, Mr.

Speaker, consideration was given to a proposal that would make it even cheaper

on government. The proposal by Trans City was that on a fixed lease basis, a

fixed term basis, the rental rate would be based on -

MR. SIMMS: That wasn't the question I wanted to ask. When

did they come back looking for the changes? that was the question.

MR. BAKER: Well, I have to explain -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

One question at a time.

MR. BAKER: I am answering the question.

MR. SIMMS: You don't have to explain. Answer the

question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hansard can't -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary

question. I will listen to the answer and I will cut the minister off if he

takes too long, but this is not helpful for the record, so give the minister

some time.

MR. BAKER: At that point in time, Mr. Speaker,

consideration was given to a financing method that would be even better for the

government in terms of financing. The original proposal suggested that the rate

would be 120 basis points above the Bank of Canada's long-term rate. By changing

to escalating payments we could get the amount essentially at 100 basis points

below the Bank of Canada long-term rate, which would save us twenty basis

points, and that would translate into a lot of money. So, Mr. Speaker, that

option was ultimately chosen on advice from officials in the Department of

Finance who determined that this was the most advantageous financing method for

the people of this Province.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to ask the Premier a

question as Minister of Justice. He is carefully trying to avoid this whole

issue for some strange reason. I'm talking about a matter that was dealt with in

a Department of Justice Cabinet paper, Justice 36-'92.

I want to ask the Premier, as Minister of Justice, in this

Cabinet paper: Will he confirm that Confederation Life told the government that

if the government insisted on the financing terms in the tender that you had

awarded to Trans City - that is, the monthly lease payments and a buy-out at $1

at the end of thirty years - that Confederation Life would not fund the

construction of the projects at the interest rates quoted?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have no knowledge at the moment of what

was there. I was at the Cabinet whenever the -

AN HON. MEMBER: You were in charge.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Tom Hickman told you!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Whenever the paper came to Cabinet, I've

no doubt I was at Cabinet. I could check that to make sure, but I don't

recollect - the Minister of Finance knows the details. He was a member of the

committee that dealt with it. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and

the Minister of Justice dealt with it. Now, I happened to become acting Minister

of Justice yesterday morning and for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to

put this forward and say my department did this is monstrous anyway.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have taken as much as I can

from this Premier in trying to hide away from this particular issue. The fact of

the matter is, this has been well-known throughout the Province for the last

three years. There is a court case going on, Mr. Speaker. He is the leader of

the government - you would think he would know something about it. You would

think he would call the Cabinet ministers in and ask for a report. He didn't

even do that. Is that what he is trying to lead us to believe? What nonsense,

Mr. Speaker!

Mr. Speaker, this Cabinet paper I referred to - and I want to

read the quote. The quote is: `If the structure initially envisaged by

government, monthly lease payments, payments over the terms of the lease,

allowing a buy-out for a dollar, at the end of the thirty-year term were to be

used, Confederation Life would not be able to fund the construction of the

projects at the interest rate originally quoted.' Mr. Speaker, there is the

answer to the question. The Premier doesn't know it - I know it. I have a copy

of the Cabinet paper. Why doesn't he get the ministers in and ask for a report

on this whole schemozzle and this whole scandal? Why doesn't he do that, as

leader of the government?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that question

has essentially been answered by the Premier, as to why today he cannot give

that answer, and I think everybody else understands it except the Leader of the

Opposition, or he is simply posturing, one of the two. I will probably give him

the benefit of the doubt and say he is posturing.

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, we ended with a financing deal

that was better than the Province could have done at the time, that was better

for the people of this Province in terms of lease payments. This was the

analysis that was done by officials in the Department of Finance, not by Cabinet

ministers but by officials in the Department of Finance, that the ultimate

financing arrangement was by far the most advantageous to the Province. That is

the only basis on which the decision was made.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary. Can the minister tell

us why government agreed to change the buy-out arrangement which said that

government could buy the buildings back after thirty years for $1.00 to being

able to buy them back for 60 per cent of the original purchase price? Why did he

agree to that? That is not going to save millions of dollars, it is going to

cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: There is no simple way to deal with that type

of question because the hon. member obviously doesn't understand the methods of

financing and what is of advantage to the Province. Perhaps if I used a very

brief analogy that would sort things out a little better in the Opposition

Leader's mind.

Mr. Speaker, models are done on certain terms of analysis as

to which methods of financing are best. If I were to use the hon. Opposition

Leader's logic I would go back and say that if the Province itself were to have

done the financing, the Province itself would have simply paid interest for

thirty years and never paid back a cent of principle, and would have gone on for

the next hundred years paying interest and never paying back a cent of

principle, therefore I could say that if the Province had done it itself we

would have ended up paying billions of dollars and still owed 100 per cent of

the value at the end of the time.

The logic just doesn't make sense. The analysis was done that

the staggered lease rate, starting out very small and getting larger towards the

end, would be much more advantageous to the Province from a financing point of

view. Overall, the whole thing was much more advantageous to the Province. We

ended up perhaps borrowing money for a longer period of time, but the rate was

so favourable and the drop of twenty basis points, that it was much more

favourable to the people of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

MR. SIMMS: You understand it, you are just trying to

cover it up like the rest of your colleagues.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: After the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is what. You are involved in a cover up

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the Opposition House Leader.

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

too bad the ministers don't tell the truth when they are on their feet, but

yesterday the -

MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

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

MR. SIMMS: It's not a point of order. He didn't accuse

any individual (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker will decide, I say

to my friend for Grand Falls, what is a point of order and what is not. My

submission is that the hon. gentleman got up and the words he used were: It is

too bad ministers don't tell the truth (inaudible) in the House. Mr. Speaker, I

suggest that is -

MR. SPEAKER: The member has to withdraw, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: I suggest that is contrary to the rules of

the House and he should be asked to withdraw it, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I think the hon. member has to withdraw

it. It is unparliamentary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, not knowing that I said

anything unparliamentary, if I did I will withdraw. If only the minister would

withdraw totally from the Cabinet, I say, we would all be better off in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yesterday the Premier relieved the

Minister of Justice from his responsibilities as Minister of Justice and

Attorney General while an investigation was ongoing into two of the minister's

companies. The minister and the Premier have claimed on numerous occasions, on

questioning in this House, that the minister has remained at arm's length from

the management and operations of those companies. Yet yesterday the Premier in

the House, and I quote, said that Mr. Roberts had told him on Friday afternoon

that: "he" - being Mr. Roberts - "and directors of the company" - Mr. Roberts

and the directors of the company - "and the company's lawyers, had caused an

investigation to be made...," and had discovered certain information.

In anybody's mind, how can that be arm's length relationship

from management of companies when he was involved in the decision? I want to ask

the Premier: Isn't it a fact now, isn't it perfectly clear to the Premier, that

the former Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, has always been and

still is very much involved in the management and decision making of his

multi-million dollar companies, companies that do millions of dollars worth of

business each year with this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: A couple of things need to be said, Mr.

Speaker. First, that the minister was relieved of duties as Minister of Justice

and Attorney General specifically to ensure that he has no connection whatsoever

with the running of the police forces in this Province, or any activity

involving the police in the Province, or the role of Attorney General, while

this matter is subject to a police investigation. I will be asking the minister

to perform all sorts of other responsibilities that have no direct bearing on

that.

With respect to the additional comment that the member made,

that doesn't this show that the minister was involved? No, it doesn't show any

such thing. I can only accept the minister's word that he has never had any

involvement since being involved in politics with the running of these

companies. I have no reason for one second to doubt one iota of that

undertaking. I accept it without reservation. Unless and until somebody gives me

good reason to think otherwise I won't question it for a moment. The comments of

the hon. member do not give me any reason to think otherwise.

I would expect that anybody in the minister's position who

became aware that there were certain allegations respecting companies in respect

to which he owned shares, he would take steps to find out if anybody was

involved and he told me he took steps and turned information over to the police

immediately. I commend him for taking the action rather than criticize him.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can believe that.

The Premier would commend him, he has done it now for a couple of years. Let me

say this to him, the minister, the Government House Leader, is one of the few

people in this Province who has benefitted and who will benefit from government

policies that the Premier has been instrumental in bringing to the floor of this

House, health care consolidation, Atlantic procurement, privatization of Crown

corporations and the special tax break for Fortis Trust. I want to ask the

Premier this: Isn't it a fact that all of the Government House Leader's

companies and investments have prospered and stand to prosper greatly from your

policies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think the question has to

be asked the Premier, what does the Government House Leader know about the

Premier? What does he have on him that the Premier would compromise his own

standards and ethics -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - that the Premier would compromise his

own standards and ethics by keeping this minister in his Cabinet, can he answer

that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am not sure the members question is properly put. I will

move on to the next member.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I ask the Minister of Health will he confirm that a decision has been made to

maintain two acute care hospitals in St. John's?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The decision has not been made to do as the hon. member as

alluded to. The situation with respect to the rationalization of health care in

the Province and in St. John's in particular, will be the subject of a lot of

discussion, I am sure, when the new regional mega-health board takes its place,

officially April 1, 1995, but until that time no such confirmation can be given.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whether the minister admits it or not, I can tell him the

decision is made. I ask him, will he confirm - time will tell - I will ask the

minister will he confirm that the two facilities that will remain are the Health

Sciences Complex and St. Clare's Hospital?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I cannot, I

will not and I shall not confirm such a comment or proposition by the hon.

member.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is possible that

some space at the Grace Hospital could be used for long-term care. I ask the

minister, will he let the people of this Province know, up front, that his plan

is to close the Janeway Hospital outright and that the Province no longer will

have a hospital that is dedicated to paediatric medicine and the care of

children in this Province?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is beginning to get on to the game that he

dropped in June when the House closed. He is beginning to get into the exercise

of fearmongering and putting forward propositions that have no basis in fact,

that have no value really for commentary on. We have not made any decision as a

government nor has the health boards that are now in existence that such a thing

will happen. We are looking at the rationalization, the realignment and the

whole picture of health care in the Province. Things are changing in terms of

how health care is delivered. The needs of the people are changing. What will be

done in the health care system in the future in terms of what facilities will

remain and what new ones will be put in place will be done in the first instance

in the best interest of an efficient, a fair and an effective health care

delivery system. They will not be done on any other basis other than the basis

of what will best serve the needs of the people of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

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

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

My question is for the Premier. I want to ask the Premier if

he, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, has made any representations to

the federal government with regard to Marine Atlantic's decision to shut the St.

John's dockyard out of international work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: First, I don't know that Marine Atlantic

has made a decision to shut the St. John's dockyard out of any international

work. I am not aware that such a decision was made. I am aware that a decision

was made by the board of directors recently that they would not bid on or

undertake a particular project. I don't know that the general decision to which

the hon. member refers was made, but I don't know if any other member -

MR. MURPHY: There is a meeting tomorrow.

PREMIER WELLS: The Member for St. John's South, the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, tells me he has a meeting tomorrow

in relation to the matter, so I will defer to him.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Premier,

maybe he has not been monitoring the situation with respect to the 800 workers

at the dockyard, and the decision taken by Marine Atlantic to indeed limit the

scope of work to Atlantic Canada and the domestic market.

In a brief the Premier received by the Newfoundland Dockyard

Corporation nine months ago, on February 7, 1994, the corporation points out

that there are limited opportunities to make profits out of the domestic market,

and that the broader international marketplace offers the best opportunity for

required gross profit levels, I submit to the Premier.

In view of that, I ask the Premier if he has asked for and

received any explanation as to why Marine Atlantic has shut the dockyard out of

the only market where it sees an opportunity to make a profit and thus survive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology wrote two weeks ago in relation to the matter. I know it is being

followed up by a meeting now with the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. I have total confidence in both of these gentlemen, and they don't

need my further intervention.

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

for Kilbride.

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

I wish that the people of St. John's and the employees of the

dockyard could share your confidence. After decades of being a bit player, the

dockyard was beginning to succeed under new and aggressive management. Why has

it been put into a straightjacket? Who is threatened by the success of the

dockyard? Are Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada and New Brunswick busy once again

making sure that there will never be competition in Atlantic Canada for the St.

John Dockyard? And by doing nothing, Premier, you and your government, are you

aiding and abetting once again in the loss of jobs for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I met with the management of the

dockyard some weeks ago to go through this issue. It is unacceptable to this

government. I have stated so in a letter to the president.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: The minister is meeting with the President of

Marine Atlantic tomorrow morning in Ottawa as well. It is unacceptable to this

government, but let me say something else, Mr. Speaker.

The media have been carrying a $200 million story as though

somehow jobs are being chased away from the dockyard. The proposal that I saw

was for thirty-nine vessels, for forty-seven-and-a-half meters each, to be built

at a cost of $4.7 million. Eight of those vessels would have been in this

Province if we could do it for that price. People at Marystown, for example,

tell me we couldn't; however, mirrored (?) financing would have to be put in

place, guaranteed by this Province, with thirty-one of those vessels being built

as far away as Brazil. This government couldn't guarantee that.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Could the minister confirm to the House if his department has

done a review or an investigation into the activities of the Conception Bay

South Town Council?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: A review, yes, Mr. Speaker, basically a review

at the request of the council. We had a request some months ago to look at a

certain aspect of the operations at CBS, and we have completed that review.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister then - I think he just said, if I heard

him right, that review is completed - confirm what precipitated that review and

if now, after some two or three weeks, I think, that the review is possibly in,

that his officials have sent it to the Department of Justice for some

recommendations? Is that not true?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. It was a

taxation question that arose some years ago in CBS with regard to cost recovery

for water and sewer, and development. The Town wanted to make some changes to

that arrangement. They spoke to me and my officials, I think, on three separate

occasions, and they proceeded on their own to introduce a new system to the

town. We weren't sure at the time they introduced this new system that it

followed the rules and regulations as set out in the Municipals Act.

In cases like that, we have available to us members from the

Justice Department, and we consult with them almost on a daily basis. One lady,

in particular, I think, spends as much time in my office as she does in the

Justice Department. It wasn't a legal question but strictly an

interpretation

question of the act and we have asked them to look at it.

I really can't make any further comment other than that

because I haven't actually read the report myself. I do know that my officials

and council have met once and I think a meeting is in the works in the next

couple of weeks for the council to come in and actually sit down with me, and

with my advisors from the Justice Department to try to help straighten it out.

I will say to my hon. colleague that there is nothing there

to be worried about. It is not a question of any council breaking the law. It is

a question of the method they used in collecting fees and taxes in the

community. Don't make into a story whereby somebody in Conception Bay South, or

a council, will be accused for doing something wrong, because it is not that at

all.

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

for Humber Valley.

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

Could the minster, then, confirm to the House that one of the

recommendations in that report - or is it true that one of the recommendations

in that report, recommended the dismissal of a couple of councillors on the

Conception Bay South Town Council?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have to plead ignorance. I admit

to the hon. member and to the House that I really don't know what he is talking

about.

AN HON. MEMBER: You read the report.

MR. REID: I just said a minute ago that I haven't read

the report. I haven't seen the document yet and I don't know if there were any

recommendations. There are recommendations that come to me on a regular basis to

dismiss councils around this Province, as the hon. member well knows. The last

thing I want to do, as Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, especially

with the problems that municipalities around this Province have today, is to

dismiss councillors.

That will be the very last thing I will do, and the hon.

member is aware, that the only way I can dismiss a councillor is if the

councillor or the council is in direct contravention of the Municipals Act. That

is the only authority I have. I hope that is not the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

I would like to point out to hon. members, in relation to a

comment made by the Opposition House Leader in asking a question - I don't have

the exact phrasing, which will appear in Hansard, but I think the suggestion was

that the Premier had somehow dealt with the Minister of Justice in some fashion,

and if I recall correctly, what did the Minister of Justice have on the Premier.

That is clearly unparliamentary and I will refer members to paragraph 484 of

Beauchesne, in subparagraph (3) where it says: "In the House of Commons a Member

will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the House

itself as a political institution; or to impute to any Member or Members

unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case;" and that applies in

debate as well as Question Period or anywhere else. Members will have to

withdraw those sorts of comments in the future.

I would like to welcome on behalf of hon. members, to the

House of Assembly, seventy-five Canadian Law Students from Levels I, II and III

at Carbonear Integrated Collegiate, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Glenys

Murray, Mr. Les Yetman and Mr. Cliff Green.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table six copies

of a Special Warrant that was issued recently. It has to do with the Roads

Program in the Province. The summer was so good that a little bit more work was

done than expected and this is 100 per cent recoverable from the Federal

Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the report of the Public Accounts

Committee as it relates to the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1992. This covers

the work that committee undertook in the last year. I would like, in doing this,

to thank the former Vice-Chair, the hon. the Member for Eagle River, who is no

longer a member of the committee, and I would like to welcome in his stead, the

Member for Lewisporte, who is now the Vice-Chair, and the Member for Trinity

North, who has recently been appointed to the committee.

The committee had numerous meetings, Mr. Speaker, and dealt

with various items primarily referred in the Auditor General's Report dealing

with the audits of the Advisory Council on the Economy, the Appalachia Roman

Catholic School Board, The Grenfell Regional Health Services Board, The Avalon

Consolidated School Board, Dr. Charles A. Janeway Child Health Centre and the

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation.

The matter still outstanding with the committee, Mr. Speaker,

deals with the audits of Memorial University. We had debate here in this hon.

House dealing with the refusal of the President, who appeared before the

committee; that has been dealt with by legislation and the committee will now

move forward with the Minister of Education and his staff called before the

committee. The other issue, of course, is a matter which the committee had ruled

was before the courts dealing with the contracts to Trans City Holdings.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the report, and in tabling this

report I express thanks of the committee to the Deputy Clerk of the House, who

acts as the secretary of the committee, to our research assistant, Mr.

Noseworthy and to Your Honour, for the co-operation of you and your staff for

the work of the committee during the year. I table this on behalf of the Public

Accounts Committee.

Petitions

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here from a number of policyholders, or

clients, I should say, who dealt with either J. J. Lacey Insurance Ltd. or

Central Insurance. Hiland, naturally, was the underwriter of those companies.

I am not going to read out the total prayer of the petition,

Mr. Speaker, it will take away from the few minutes I have. I will read the main

part:

WHEREAS the demise of Hiland Insurance has caused great

hardship for its clients; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

failed in its responsibilities to satisfactorily regulate the financial affairs

of Hiland Insurance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this has been a concern of mine for some

time. In last spring's session of the House, the Minister of Justice brought in

a piece of legislation - I think it was the facility insurance one, was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that will be the Automobile Insurance

Act.

MR. WOODFORD: The Automobile Insurance Act, yes. And, at

that time, in debate back and forth in the House, and we sort of agreed, to a

certain extent, that the liability limits -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the $200,000 limit for liability in

the Province was too low, and we agreed at that time that it was. All members, I

think, who spoke said that it was. After something like this happens, it brings

it to the fore a lot more how important it is to have the limits for liability

insurance raised in this Province. Now, it has nothing to do - the Premier is

looking - with the bankruptcy or insolvency of Hiland. No, I am just leading

into something else.

Going back some ten months, based on the Minister of

Justice's report that he put out late last week on the transactions with Hiland

and what happened with regard to the Superintendent of Insurance since December

of 1993, the question I ask, and a lot of other clients around the Province ask,

is: How come, after ten months, Hiland was declared insolvent?

I know that something precipitated it, that something started

it. Some report came to the minister's desk, something going on with Hiland,

that would initiate such an activity and a move by the Department of Justice in

October month, but it wasn't until November 4, really, that they were declared

insolvent, and a lot of transactions and a lot of activity took place even in

the month between October 3 and November 4.

All insurance companies in the Province, and the minister can

correct me if I am wrong on this one, are supposed to submit a financial

statement, I do believe, on a quarterly basis. They are supposed to have it in

every three months. Now anybody dealing with any financial institution, whether

it be a bank or a credit union, or even Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador,

there are always some stipulations there to have your financial reports in on

time or else. Really, in some cases today the banks will charge you a fee if

that financial statement or that financial report is not in.

Now the government of the day is responsible. They are the

regulator for insurance companies around the Province. That is the only

protection that clients, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, have with regard to

insurance companies around the Province.

The question I ask is this: How come, and where was the

financial report for the end of March from Hiland Insurance? Where was it? Was

it in? If so, would the minister let the House know if it was in or not? Why

wait April, May, June? Where is the end of June's report, the quarterly report

for the end of June? Those are financial statements, and a bank in this Province

today will not let a client go any longer than thirty days without a financial

statement. Any business in this Province today, the banks want their financial

statements or they will charge them a fee.

Now, if that financial statement was not in at the end of

March, that is one of the most basic questions, and a fundamental question, that

people around the Province should be asking. Why wasn't there action taken at

the end of March if the financial statement wasn't in? And if it wasn't in at

the end of March and no action taken, why was it not taken at the end of June?

Why was it not taken at the end of August? The end of September? Three chances

to put in a financial statement and, to my knowledge - and I just challenged the

Premier or the Minister of Justice to correct me if I am wrong - how come they

weren't in? And if they were, what did the financial statements say?

Mr. Speaker, another concern that I have with insurance

companies, it is so easy to set up an insurance company in this Province today.

Most insurance companies, I would say, even today - some of the ones that are

acting out there today - are under-capitalized. You could go in, I think, the

rules and regulations state that with $1 million in assets today you can start

an insurance company in this Province, as an underwriter. Now that, to me, is

wrong. I say that legislation should be introduced in this session, this fall,

to make sure that some of those concerns are addressed. The under-capitalization

of insurance companies in the Province - they have a monopoly. Although there

are a number of them around the Province. We have to have it. We can't drive a

car. You can't go into the bank and sign a mortgage without having insurance.

Pretty well they have you where they want you. You have to have it.

Mr. Speaker, the only protection that people in this Province

have is the government acting as a regulator and controlling and making sure

that the financial statements of those companies are submitted on time. If they

are not submitted on time then questions should be asked. The Superintendent of

Insurance in this case, as far as I'm concerned, fell down on the job. He did

not do his job and did not do his duty on behalf of the citizens of this

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. WOODFORD: There are 20,000 policyholders out there -

it is easy to say it is not true, Mr. Speaker, if you are not one of the

clients, if you are not one of the people who is out $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000

or what have you. Very easy to say. I would ask the minister responsible for

this, for controlling and regulating insurance companies in the Province, to

make sure that this doesn't happen again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of

the petition presented by the Member for Humber Valley. In doing so I also want

to ask the minister now responsible to fill in some of the blanks in this whole

case. There are an awful lot of people around this Province who have lost

premiums and are concerned about receiving proceeds of insurance. This hasn't

been resolved yet. There are an awful lot of gaps in the information that has

been made available to the House, and I think one of them was made known by the

Minister of Justice when he tabled documents in the House on Friday.

The question was asked to the Premier yesterday, and I don't

think it was satisfactorily answered. The Premier will have had an opportunity

to review the documents that were tabled in the House. The Member for Humber

East yesterday pointed out what is fairly glaring looking at the documentation

is a letter from the Minister of Justice to the Superintendent of Insurance on

January 21 1994 which says, and I quote: My instructions are simple and

straightforward. Please do what is necessary to ensure that the interests of

those who place business with Hiland are protected properly and fully. Then, on

the bottom: Please keep me informed of developments as they occur.

The next letter is a letter of November 18 1994. Where is

everything in between? What happened from January 21 1994 to November 18 1994

after the minister gave instructions to Mr. Tapper to please keep me informed of

developments as they occur? Did the superintendent not keep the Minister of

Justice informed or did the Minister of Justice fail to keep this House

informed? He hasn't provided anything. He has a big blank page here between

January 21 1994 and November 18 1994. Has the Minister of Justice failed to let

this House know what all happened in between?

The Member for Humber Valley just asked: Were the financial

records and reports filed in a timely fashion from January 21 on, or were they

not? If they weren't, why wasn't action taken? Was the Minister of Justice

informed of these problems and what did he do about it? Why do we have no more

correspondence? There was nothing going back between the Superintendent of

Insurance and the minister in the meantime? We know that the Superintendent of

Insurance took over operations of the company, and as far as I understand

accepted premiums from people while he was running the companies, accepted

premiums from individuals while he was in fact superintending the operation of

those companies for a full month. People paid money to these companies while the

government's official was operating these companies.

There are an awful lot of unanswered questions. We don't have

to wait for a full enquiry to get some of those answers. We know that there is

another investigation going on but nevertheless, if there are reporting

requirements that had not been met, had they been discovered in a timely

fashion, had they been acted on and did in fact the Superintendent of Insurance

do what he was told to do which was to take whatever steps were necessary to

ensure that the interest of those who place business with Hiland were protected?

Those are the questions that remain unanswered, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the

Premier will respond to this petition and answer those questions here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I know the Opposition would

like to make something of this but let the police do their work. They have all

of the powers of the police open to them. If anybody has done anything

improperly I am satisfied that the police are competent to ferret it out. So let

the police do their work. Let the police do their work without impairment of

their ability to do it and without prejudicing their ability to proceed to

prosecution, if prosecution is desired.

The Member for St. John's East should know that to follow

what he requests and what the Member for Humber Valley requests could well

prejudice the ability to proceed with any criminal actions, should any criminal

actions be justified. Now this government is not about to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Let me also say that as far as I know there is no basis for the Member for St.

John's East suggesting that reporting requirements were not met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Excuse me fellows, I cannot hear myself

talk.

So far as I know reporting requirements were met. The

position that was of concern to the Superintendent of Insurance, namely with

respect to the reinsurance contracts and the capital level, was satisfied in

January. The Superintendent of Insurance acted on the explicit instructions

quoted by the Member for St. John's East: My instructions are simple and

straightforward, please do whatever is necessary to ensure that the interests of

those who place business with Hiland are protected properly and fully. The

company must maintain an adequate capital base. So there is no question

whatsoever about what the instructions of the minister to the civil service

were. Now I do not want to imply, by that, any lack of confidence in the civil

servant who carried out those instructions. To the best of my knowledge, as I

stand here before the House, he did his duty fully and there is no indication of

failure on his part.

Now, Mr. Speaker, something obviously went very wrong. There

is no question about that but I remind hon. members that that is the very thing

that the police are investigating. Let the police do it. Do not try and take

over the work of the police to start to persecute people. The reason why we have

a police system and system of laws that provide for police to investigate is to

prevent politicians, who would do so, from persecuting people. We operate on a

standard, principled and straightforward basis and we turn it over to

independent police. Let them do their work!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I can say so far as I

know, all of the reporting requirements were met. On the report that was due on

March 31 - I believe that was a weekend or something - was in fact filed on

either April 4 or 5. Now that being so, that is difficult to quarrel with. The

report due on the end of June, so far as I know that was filed but I will check

to see whether or not it was filed.

I can only say to you that I operate on the assumption that

the superintendent was totally satisfied with the state of affairs and the

reports that had been filed in August when he reissued the license. I have no

reason to believe that he was not. Now, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean it was a

perfect situation. Something went wrong, something caused this problem. That is

what the police are investigating. Stop trying to subvert it, to make political

hay out of it. Let the police do their work in a proper fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition on behalf of

the citizens of St. Mary's - The Capes:

`To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer:

We the undersigned hereby request the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to generate

desperately needed employment in our communities. As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, while many people in my district of St. Mary's -

The Capes, and I am sure, in several parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, are

very fortunate for the NCARP and TAGS programs for the past number of years,

there are a number of people in our communities who have fallen through the

cracks due to the fact that they were not directly involved in the fishing

industry. These people, Mr. Speaker, are now in the position that, for the first

time in their lives, many of them have to resort to social assistance and are

being left out in the cold.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, they have forwarded to me several

petitions which I hope to present over the next few days here in the House,

requesting that this government look at some type of funding, some type of

emergency projects this year. Now, these projects have met with some negativity

over the past number of years with relation to what their sole purpose is. I

realize it is not the answer to all the problems we have in rural Newfoundland

now, but a fair number of positive things have come from programs such as the

one we are requesting.

You can drive through communities, not only in my district,

but several communities around the Province, and see community centres, fire

halls, and work that has been done through these programs, and that is part and

parcel of the program itself. I guess, the problem is not with the program but

with the delivery of it.

These people are looking for some type of short-term

assistance to help them through the phase they are now going through in rural

Newfoundland, in relation to people, as I said before, who are not directly

involved in the fishing industry. These people have asked me to put forward this

petition.

Mr. Speaker, people out in the district are now coming to a

point in their lives where the future is not looking the greatest, and with the

possibility that the fishery may be shut down for a number of years into the

future, these people now really have no alternative but to resort to social

assistance. As a matter of fact, I have had several calls to my office over the

past number of days from people wondering if there is going to be anything to do

this winter, whether the Province is going to try to do anything with regard to

bringing forward a program to generate some employment.

I am sure the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

would like to announce a program, but I guess he has to consult with his Cabinet

colleagues in order to do that. I know he would like to do something, so I

stress to the other members of Cabinet here today, that this is important. It is

not to be passed off as a joke. It is very important to the people of the

Province, and very important to the people in my district who are seeking

employment at this time.

I hope the government will take my petition seriously and,

hopefully, something will come forward in the next couple of weeks in relation

to a job generation program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Private Members' Day and 3:00 p.m., I call on the

Member for Kilbride.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible). He emptied the galleries when

he stood.

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

I need no lessons from the relic of the '60s on who empties

what galleries and when.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly sit down and

let the former Minister of Justice and former Attorney General stand if he

wishes to speak, but I believe you have recognized me as the Member for

Kilbride, Mr. Speaker.

Let me explain to the House, and in particular, to the people

in the galleries, why this motion is being debated today. It is a result of

cheap political trickery perpetrated by the House Leader to ensure that the

Member for Twillingate's motion, personal member's resolution, on industrial

waste and importation into this Province does not get on.

Now, let me explain why. First of all, everybody in this

Province knows that last year when the story broke on the Appeal Tribunal and

the former chairman, Gordon Seabright, who was paid excessive amounts of money,

there was a public outcry. As a result of such an outcry, I, as the critic for

Employment and Labour, and the Member for Kilbride, put a resolution to this

floor in May to be debated, which the government of the day would not let be

debated at the time. But I put a resolution to the floor to be debated that

called upon the government to do two things: first, to put a full-time tribunal

in place with a neutral chairperson, a full-time employer rep, and a full-time

employee rep. The second thing, the spirit of this resolution, read that the

members who would be appointed - and let me be clear on this - that the people,

or members, who would be appointed to such a tribunal would have to go through

the Public Service Commission. That would eliminate any government, any party,

whether that be today, next month, next year, or twenty years from now,

committing the patronage that allows for people like the former Appeal Tribunal

chairperson to claim excessive amounts of money, which I believe Mr. Seabright

received to the tune of $98,000. That is the backdrop of where this resolution

came from.

Why is it being debated today? That is the question we must

get at here. But before we get to it, let's examine what government has done

since May. In June of last year, before this House closed the Spring sitting,

the former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Mr. Grimes, or the

Member for Exploits, relayed to the people of the Province through the House of

Assembly that the Appeal Tribunal had been dismantled, that such activity that

had taken place before would stop, and would cease immediately, and that, in the

place of the Appeal Tribunal, government had established a single person review

commission consisting of one full-time review commissioner and up to six

part-time review commissioners.

Two of the things that government talked about in eliminating

- by going to this new system: Firstly, there would be a single arbitrator.

Decisions that would be made would be final and binding upon the injured worker

who appealed his or her case, or it would be final and binding - that being the

decision, Mr. Speaker -upon the Workers' Compensation Commission. Secondly, the

government said, no longer would we see excessive amounts of money, I believe, I

say to my colleagues and submit to this House, submitted or being claimed by the

chief review commissioner or the six part-time review commissioners, and that

there would be a $500 maximum that could be claimed per decision rendered.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what happened here yesterday was nothing

short of a travesty. Government knows full well, and the Government House Leader

knew full well, that this private member's resolution presented by this member

of the House of Assembly is as outdated politically as he is, as the Government

House Leader. It has no bearing today on the workers' compensation system. It

has no bearing today on the Workers' Compensation review division because it is

not relevant. This private member's resolution is not relevant. The government

and the Government House Leader know that.

Let's get back to the question that I raised earlier. Why did

this happen? It happened for this reason: In 1989 the government and the

Opposition of the day entered into an agreement that on every Wednesday,

government would have a turn to introduce a private member's resolution, and on

the next Wednesday, the Opposition would have their turn to introduce a private

member's resolution. That is what the decision was. Now, in order for that

decision to take place and to be effective in this House, it required the

unanimous consent of every member. What happened yesterday was that the Member

for Twillingate withdrew his consent for that agreement and thus set in motion a

chain of events that leads us to here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: By precedent. When the Member for

Twillingate withdrew his consent to that agreement, it committed government, and

this House, to debate the next private member's resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it was obvious when this House opened that the

first member who stood in putting forward a private member's resolution was the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The second member who stood was the Member

for Twillingate. Last week, we debated the Leader of the Opposition's

resolution, and this week it was supposed to be the Member for Twillingate, but

it did not happen, and let me tell you why.

The Member for Twillingate put forward a resolution that

would, in effect, see this government make a policy initiative and directive

that would stop the importation of industrial waste and garbage into this

Province forever and a day. That is what the spirit of his resolution was about,

but it was scuttled. It was nipped in the bud, because this government, in their

own paranoid sense, did not want to see that debated. That is what went on here.

The Member for St. John's Centre stood up himself, felt

obliged. He was incensed, enraged by his own government actions and said he

couldn't believe the childishness of members on that side of the House, and

neither could I.

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

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

Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for the

past ten minutes, and it is Wednesday afternoon. There is a private member's

motion, a motion to be debated. Now, I have been waiting with expectation,

listening for the hon. member's comments. He spent ten minutes debating a ruling

by the Speaker yesterday, and I want to know the relevancy between what he has

been talking about now for the last ten minutes and the motion he has on the

floor, because he hasn't yet spoken one word about the motion he presented in

the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: That isn't accurate.

MR. EFFORD: It is accurate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. minister wasn't listening, because the member

explained right at the outset what this is all about today. He pointed out that

the resolution that he has on the Order Paper is one that was placed there last

May or early June when the Seabright scandal was at its height, when he was

making thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess of what most

people in this Province make. That is the reason that resolution was put on the

Order Paper, and also to deal with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He did so, at the beginning, but as he

explained, that has now all been changed and that his resolution is not

relevant. He is trying to explain why, and he is also telling members of the

House what happened here yesterday. In my view, it was as described by the

Member for St. John's Centre, the former Minister of Health, when he said it was

childishness on the part of the Cabinet ministers on that side of the House.

That is all he is trying to explain, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, it is Private Members' Day. The Chair

has listened intently to the hon. the Member for Kilbride, and I don't see any

problems with the debate at this time.

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

I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

you may slow me down, Sir, but you will not stop me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, let me continue where I left off.

The Member for St. John's Centre was incensed and enraged by

his own government's inability and childishness that they would not, that they

did not want to deal with this issue. So, Mr. Speaker, let me say emphatically,

let me make it clear for every member in this House, and let me make it clear to

the general public, that this member, the Member for Kilbride, the critic for

Employment and Labour, will not participate in those cheap political tricks.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know if the hon. member has indicated that he is

withdrawing his private member's resolution. He hasn't said that. He indicates -

he really wasn't very relevant to his private member's bill, and I can

understand why, that the private member's bill is a Rip Van Winkle kind of bill

- it looks like the hon. member is asleep, and to even suggest -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, the hon. member could have stood in his

place any time since the House opened in a week-and-a-half and, by unanimous

consent, he could have withdrawn his private member's bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, that was yesterday. That was a different

debate yesterday. If the hon. member had stood in his place -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, if the hon. member had stood in his place

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, or stood in his place last week and asked to have -

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations knows full well that this member rose yesterday and requested to

withdraw the Private Members' resolution that he said he would not consent to

and do you know why, Mr. Speaker? He said he withdrew his consent for the very

reason that I just outlined, that he too, as part of the government and as part

of the Cabinet, does not want to debate the resolution put forward by his

colleague, the Member for Twillingate. It is cheap political trickery and

exemplifies the little political backbone that this government has demonstrated

it has.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the hon. Member for Kilbride, I

have no problem with any Private Members' bill dealing with waste disposal. I

remind the hon. member, before he was an hon. member, that this hon. member was

the one who was the first member of this House to discuss the importation of

garbage. So I do not need -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The leader from Grand Falls can laugh and

swig away and do whatever he wants but he knows it, Hansard shows that, hon.

members know it, it has been discussed before. So for the information of the

Member for Mount Pearl, it was this hon. member who discussed - or Kilbride,

excuse me. I apologise to the Member for Mount Pearl. So I say to the hon.

member, he knows that he never got up prior to yesterday when debate ensued and

hon. members were up and down on points of order, he could have - points of

order, I say to the leader - last week he could have stood in his place and

asked hon. members: look, I see that my Private Members' bill is still on the

Order Paper. I would ask unanimous consent of the House to have my Private

Members' bill taken off, and it would have happened, it would have happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, up until yesterday - and

government knows full well and all members in this House know full well - there

was an agreement in place by unanimous consent of members in the House, whereby,

one week government would have an opportunity to discuss a Private Members'

resolution, the next week the Opposition Party would, up until yesterday that

was withdrawn. There was no need to stand and withdraw a Private Members'

resolution, the member is aware of that. It would never come to the floor, it

would have died on the Order Paper. So the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations is playing silly and slick political games that most people know and

will know, that are not true. He is perpetrating this whole notion, Mr. Speaker,

that I could have done it at my will. He knows that is not true, he knows that

the agreement was in place until yesterday and he should acknowledge it.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, I did not stand in my place a few

moments ago when the Member for Kilbride got up the first time. I know he is a

new member of the House and probably does not really appreciate the rules of

order and procedure. However, twice now in a very short time, he has gotten up

on spurious points of order, points of order that are not points of order,

simply to interrupt the member and prevent the member on this side from having

his twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker, to express his opinions.

I would like to point out that the Member for Kilbride had a

full twenty minutes to put forward his position and if he had asked for leave

for more we would have given an extra twenty minutes to express his views. He

was given ample time to express his views and now, Mr. Speaker, he is using

incorrectly, the procedures in this House to improperly prevent the minister

from presenting his side of the case. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like Your Honour

to rule that this is not a point of order and direct the member that such points

of order in the future will be dealt with severely.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, my comment will be very

brief. The only person who is interrupting the minister now on various points of

order and speaking to the points of order is the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board; so if we are sincere about letting the minister speak, then let

us all sit in our places and do it, including the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and let me

move on into what the hon. member presented in his Private Member's motion. He

said:

WHEREAS the current policy of appointing persons to serve on Workers'

Compensation Appeal Tribunal on a part-time basis has often resulted in lengthy

and unreasonable delays in the processing of the appeals of Workers'

Compensation appellants, and has in many cases caused hardship for these

applicants.

Now the hon. member is totally correct. What the hon. member

said in his first

whereas is totally correct, and this government looked at the

appeal tribunal system as we knew it, it was a new initiative and like a lot of

new initiatives you try to do the best you can from the experiences of other

provinces et cetera, et cetera, and we put in place an appeal tribunal to deal

with those Workers' Compensation appellants who felt that they had every reason

in the world to go and appeal the decision of Workers' Compensation.

Now, what we found out, Mr. Speaker, what this government

found out is that, that particular system was archaic. It was long, it was

expensive, subsequently, over time we had built up a back long of Workers'

Compensation appellants up to over 250, 252 I think, is the exact figure and

these people, Mr. Speaker, were sitting in limbo so to speak, waiting, having to

go to social services and having to go to other areas to try to get some money

to sustain themselves; so what this government did on July 1, '94, is put in

place a commission and with that commission, the structure was changed. We went

from a tribunal into a commission because we realized as this government has

always realized that we had in place a system that was not doing what it was

intended to do, so this government did not mind saying to itself, we made a

wrong decision. We made a wrong decision, that is what the government said and

we changed it. We put in place a commission instead of a tribunal.

Now, we did not know if it was going to cost less and really,

that was not a concern. The concern was to offer to the appellants the kind of

justice, fast, quick, resounding justice that they needed. Well let me say that

took place and instead of $65 an hour, for those chairpersons all over the

place, and though some cases went on and on and on as the member knows, he had

phone calls, I had phone calls, all the members did and it went on and on and we

built up this horrendous caseload, so what we did was, we restructured it, we

put in place a commission with a full-time chairman and six other people and we

told the commission: you will get paid $500 per caseload.

Now that decision really, was obviously, wisdom beyond

wisdom, because what has happened in six short months is that the 250 people who

were backlogged, by the end of December will have been totally gone. We will

have heard all those appeals, we would also have heard the appeals that have

come up in the six-month interim, so we had 250 who were waiting, we have all

these people straightened away, plus we have also heard those who wanted to

appeal.

Now, some people might have assumed and/or thought that

because of that decision we may see some of those appellants getting quick

decisions that weren't right decisions, that weren't heard properly. I say to

the hon. member that that hasn't happened. Statistically - as a matter of fact

we are a little better, a little higher, on the appellant side of findings.

We are saying to appellants: The Workers' Compensation

Commission has in some appeal cases decided that they weren't going to listen to

the decision of the Commission. That was concerning us, still is concerning us,

and is still being addressed. Then again, I'm sure that the Minister of Justice

or the acting Minister of Justice, the Premier, or the former Minister of

Justice, who may stand to speak to this, will clear that up.

I say to all hon. members - and they I'm sure wouldn't want

it any other way - that every individual in this Province and in this country,

we are all fair before the law. If we don't believe that the appeal commission

has handed down the right decision, that individual has every right in the world

to retain legal counsel and/or some kind of counsel and go to the court of the

land and say: Here is my case. The minute we say that, Mr. Speaker, we also say

that the Workers' Compensation Commission has the same right. There are very few

people who fit into that category.

What we've done - and the hon. member was up the other day -

and in June we appointed the six members. Mr. Gullage, who has a long career in

the insurance business, decision making end of the insurance business, whether

it be fault or no-fault he still has lots of experience, is the new review

commissioner. We have Catherine Allen Westby, another individual with a lot of

experience. David Alcock, who I'm sure all hon. members know has been a great

individual in labour relations and understanding and handing down decisions on

evidence. Mr. Jeff Brace, who other people know. Mr. Brace is a member of

council and also a lawyer, and has been involved in many situations where

decisions had to be made. Gonzo Gillingham, Mary O'Brien and Derrick Watton.

All of these people are competent Newfoundlanders, competent,

trained, skilled people who have been appointed to the commission.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) Jeff Brace.

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Member for Grand Bank, a

competent individual.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. MURPHY: All of them. All of them are competent

individuals or they would not be, Mr. Speaker, on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go getting nasty now, don't go

getting nasty over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $500 a crack.

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member, $500 a crack. If a

case, and some cases have, taken as long as five days, four days, $500 a crack

is very reasonable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The hon. member was one of the fellows who

worked in the fish plant down in Charleston with FPI and loved incentive. He

loved incentive. He was a believer of incentive. The man who got the fish off

the line faster than the fellow next to him, but he was a firm believer in it. I

know he was a firm believer in it. What I say to the hon. member is: Don't

change your mind now because you are in the House of Assembly. You are a firm

believer in incentive.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Okay. Then if you are a firm believer in

incentive that ends the $500 per caseload. There is absolutely no rip-off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: Will the hon. member listen? He might learn

something if he would listen. The assessment that comes into the Workers'

Compensation Commission from the employers in the Province, subsequently funds

the commission, so if the hon. member will listen now and take his time, he will

learn. It comes from the employers.

No employee ever, ever, ever saw a deduction on his or her

cheque from Workers' Compensation. The total monies come from the employer, as

my friend and colleague, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, fully

knows. It comes from the employer. It does not come from -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sit down!

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Member for Grand Bank, I will be

happy to sit down, because this obviously is an embarrassment to the member. I

know it is. I know how embarrassed he feels about it, and I am only trying to

help him by addressing it, and doing it very lightly, doing it very gently,

taking pity on the hon. member who last week scorned me, questioned me; however,

not being a vindictive individual, I say I have absolutely nothing but

compassion for the member. I won't pick on him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I won't pick on anybody. That is another

story.

He says: Therefore

be it resolved that this hon. House -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I don't pick on Liberal colleagues, I say to

the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. MURPHY: I don't pick on Liberal colleagues.

MR. TOBIN: You don't pick on Liberal colleagues?

MR. MURPHY: No.

Therefore,

be it resolved that this hon. House urge the

government forthwith to introduce requisite changes to provincial legislation

whereby (1) all positions currently on Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal be

terminated.

Done, I say to the hon. member, done, completed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: If I just might -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Obviously, what work the government has done

- I cannot support this resolution, it is unsupportable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words on this resolution.

MR. EFFORD: You don't even know what it is.

MR. TOBIN: I do know what it is, I say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation. He didn't know what it was when he got up

yapping in the House a few moments ago.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the minister prompted me to get

involved in this debate. I really hadn't planned to get involved until after I

listened to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. All I can say is,

it is no wonder that the morale on that side of the House is in such disarray.

It is no wonder that they are over there not speaking to one another, that they

are in turmoil over there, that they have the knives and the guns out for the

leader, that there is a leadership campaign on over there like we haven't

witnessed before, and one of these days, the Premier is going to have to rein in

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and his campaign manager.

Can you imagine, with a Premier not having announced he is

retiring or resigning, that you have the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation in a full-fledged campaign with the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, his campaign manager? That is what is taking place, and this

government is becoming preoccupied with putting the knives to the Premier

instead of governing the Province.

I would suggest to that caucus over there that they forget

about the Premier. He is still the Premier. If you want to deal with the

Premier, if you want to gut the Premier, do it in your caucus. Do what you did

with Leo Barry, do it in your caucus.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Have a turr supper.

MR. TOBIN: Have your turr supper, or whatever you want.

If you want to do it, do it, but stop interfering with the operations of this

Province while you are trying to gut the leadership of your party. That is the

first bit of advice I have for you. Then, if that happened, we would not find

ourselves in the situation where there would be 350 jobs going on a barge from

Marystown to Saint John, New Brunswick. There would not be the excuses that the

minister just gave regarding the Workers' Compensation Board. There would not be

a situation where government would be strapped to the extent that they have to

try to scrape $15 out of people by not licencing their vehicles, by sending

people on the road in unfit vehicles. You talk about Workers' Compensation!

The insurance industry in this Province will skyrocket

because of the action of this minister in the callous and uncaring way he

approaches motor vehicle registration. If there was ever a Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation in this Province who was totally uncaring, who was

callous, who couldn't care less about the safety of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, well, we have him now. Last year he came in and talked about

making the roads safer for people.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) talking about priority lists.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, there you go!

MR. TOBIN: Another threat, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if whether or not I have the right to speak in

this House depends on whether or not I am on his priority list for road

projects, well, that is up to government. It doesn't surprise me that this

government operates that way. It doesn't surprise that they are that fickle.

I was on his priority list a few months ago when he was out

trying to gut the Premier and other members of the Cabinet. I was on his

priority list when he wanted to talk about the Premier and other people around,

and I was on his priority list when he talked about wanting to sit next to me, I

think he said.

MR. EFFORD: Next to `Bill', not next to you.

MR. TOBIN: Next to `Bill', was it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Which is next to great.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we will have in this Province

more demands for claims from Workers' Compensation or insurance industries than

we have ever had in the past. If this minister continues to be as reckless as he

has demonstrated regarding safety on highways there will be workers'

compensation and insurance claims like we have never seen before. That is the

situation we find ourselves in.

We have a Premier who is preoccupied with trying to keep the

government out of scandals. What is going on? Money was not a problem when they

awarded the tenders for the health care centres.

MR. EFFORD: What are you talking about?

MR. TOBIN: I am talking about scandals that this

government is involved in, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Now, I don't know if he was in Cabinet or not, he probably

wasn't, when this Trans City contract was awarded. I don't know if he was in

government then or not, I am not sure. He was probably on a leave of absence at

that time.

MR. EFFORD: Was that the first or second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: You were kicked out that time.

MR. TOBIN: Were you kicked out twice?

MR. EFFORD: Oh, yes.

MR. TOBIN: Well, the last time you were called into the

Premier's office and you made amends, the day before you had the shuffle. Is

that right?

Mr. Speaker, when they awarded this contract to Trans City

there was no problem with money then. When your buddies had to be rewarded,

money wasn't a problem. It was running pretty free, millions and millions, and

millions of dollars. When you had to look after your buddies there wasn't a

problem.

But now, Mr. Speaker, who do they take it out on? The poor

person who is involved with Workers' Compensation. There is no problem with

money when you have to hire some political buddies, when you have to do your

patronage bit.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Tory buddies for seventeen years.

MR. TOBIN: I doubt, Mr. Speaker, if I was even on it for

seventeen years. I was only here with them for ten. But I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that after the next election we will be here for another seventeen

years, because the people of this Province haven't seen a government so corrupt

in their operations, so bankrupt of ideas -they haven't seen it.

AN HON. MEMBER: So callous in their decision.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, callous in their decisions. We haven't

seen it, Mr. Speaker, before.

Mr. Speaker, why did they appoint Mr. Eric Gullage as

chairman of this commission without going out?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who better?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, probably nobody better, but what

is wrong with going to the Public Service Commission?

MR. EFFORD: I guess, the same reason why you fellows

didn't do it for seventeen years.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member, I don't know

if his mother ever told him or not, two wrongs don't make a right. We paid for

our mistakes in 1989 and you will pay for your mistakes in 1996 or 1997, make no

mistake about that. This government has done more in terms of political

patronage than the previous government did in seventeen years. Talk about

patronage and names and appointments and people who got - there has been more

patronage in this Province than we've ever seen. I wonder would the name Ambrose

Stoyles ring a bell with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Sir.

MR. TOBIN: I wonder did he get a political appointment.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Sir.

What about Graham Wood, Mr. Speaker?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Sir. What is wrong with that?

MR. TOBIN: Board of directors of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, Norm Whelan; Scott Simmons, chair of the Agricultural Marketing

Board; Don O'Keefe, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Speaker; Eugene

Hiscock; Mel Woodward, MUN Board of Regents; Fred Best, chair of Clarenville

hospital; Jean Payne, Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal. Talk about

patronage, talk about corruption! Mr. Speaker, that's what is going on. Bill

Case, Mr. Speaker - who is Bill Case? Board of directors, Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing. Who would Bill Case be? He wouldn't have anything to do with

Trans City, I suspect, I wouldn't suppose, would he? I wonder would he have

anything to do with that.

What is going on here is that this government has always seen

fit to attack the small person, attack the person who hasn't the ability to

stand up and become involved. Attack the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I'm not sure what she said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure if the Minister of

Education and Training passed it on to me it is a compliment.

Anyway, this government should start taking a realistic

approach, should start looking at the Workers' Compensation appeal board. Even

though, as the member outlined in the beginning, this resolution is outdated -

this resolution was outdated. And we are here debating it not by choice, not by

the choice of this group, but because the Government House Leader - the minister

who just got the flick from Justice - because the Government House Leader

decided that he wanted to bully the caucus and denied the Member for Twillingate

being able to put his resolution on the floor. That is why we are debating this

resolution, it is because that caucus over there decided to gang up on one of

their own members.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Not true!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River should

know. The Premier sent him down on the same floor as the back benchers to keep a

watch on them, when the caucus got into total disarray and they couldn't

operate. There were meetings taking place - out `Danny', poor old `Danny', Mr.

Speaker, as fast as he could go to dinner. As fast as he could take him out to

dinner after the Cabinet shuffle - and I know what I'm talking about, and

`Danny' knows that I know what I'm talking about - as fast as he could take him

out to the Swiss Chalet, I believe it was, to dinner, Mr. Speaker, to try to

keep the lid on him. That's what is taking place in this government.

And what really bothers me, back in the '60s when Joe

Smallwood, who no doubt was a good Premier and had good intentions for the

people of this Province and did his best from time to time, but when he turned

into a bit of a dictator, at least you had John Crosbie and you had the present

Premier, you had Mr. Hickman, Mr. Val Earle - anyway, there was a group of them

who stood up and protested; they said: `Premier, enough is enough.' Mr. Speaker,

we don't have that today. And Mr. Hickman, Mr. Crosbie, the present Premier and

Mr. Earle, a lot of them were Cabinet ministers when they rebelled against the

government. That's what is somewhat missing these days. Not only do we not have

the Cabinet ministers, we got the back - they had a little rebellion, Mr.

Speaker, when they had to go on all night for a caucus meeting, had to go on

until 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m., when the chicken was being brought in, when people

on that side, I understand, told the Premier the biggest problem was his

arrogance. I understand that was told the Premier that day. But they have not

really proceeded.

The other day, the Member for St. John's Centre got up and

said, `I asked the people on this side of the House, particularly the members of

Cabinet, to stop their childishness, their foolishness, their silliness.' Mr.

Speaker, the looks that gentleman got from the Premier and from some other

people, was unbelievable. But he had the courage to tell what was true. He had

the courage of his convictions to say what was right.

The Member for Pleasantville, Mr. Speaker - I don't see him

over there now - he rebelled for a little while, too, until he got some company

and then they didn't know who to pick on any longer. They didn't know who to

pick on, Mr. Speaker - the Member for Pleasantville, the Member for Fogo, the

Member for Twillingate or the Member for St. John's Centre -

MR. NOEL: When he got the position, look, we all just

kept quiet but once he got a chance to (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said for

that, when the Member for Pleasantville said, `When the Member for Eagle River

got the position we all kept quiet.' Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an operation

within the framework of CSIS in this Province it's the Member for Eagle River on

behalf of the Premier.

What is the name of that fellow who went around? What is the

name of that fellow who was watching the Reform Party and all that the last

time? What was his name? Mr. Speaker, that's who he is, over there, the same

fellow - the same type of person no doubt.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Spying on his own colleagues.

MR. TOBIN: Well, that's what the Member for Twillingate

just said. I only have eight minutes left. Mr. Speaker, my time for this

opportunity is coming to a close.

I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, my friend, the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, would give me leave, and I know that

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would give me leave, Mr.

Speaker, because I might have something to say about his involvement in the St.

John's dockyard, and he would like for me to do that; but I am on this private

member's bill, Mr. Speaker, and I can't really get involved in that.

This government, when it comes to Workers' Compensation, has

a lot to do. I had the opportunity the other day to do an appeal - or to go with

a person. And do you know what that appeal was about? He won his appeal, the

gentleman won his appeal but the Workers' Compensation Commission decided he

shouldn't get paid.

MR. MURPHY: Well, that is Workers' Compensation

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I know, but they come under your jurisdiction,

I say to the minister. And when you set up an appeal board, give it some power,

let those decisions be binding not only on the person who is doing the appeal,

but also on the commission, because what is happening, it is binding upon the

person who does the appeal -

AN HON. MEMBER: In some cases the (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Right. Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) use public money to take it to

court (inaudible) and they will have to use private money.

MR. TOBIN: Right, and if some -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's right, but the thing here is, if the

commission goes to court, the taxpayer pays for the commission to take some poor

person who is off on unemployment insurance for five or six months, or years,

when they have to have an appeal and they have to spend their own money, that

they don't have - to fight the commission, who are there on the taxpayers'

money, and that is not right, I say to the minister. If it is going to be

binding, make it binding.

What is the purpose of a hearing, when the adjudicator rules

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, but I had a case the other day where it

wasn't paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Brace is dealing with it, Mr.

Speaker, and I say that I find him very cordial, I will say that despite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Just a couple minutes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker, because I have to

go to a meeting as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I only want a minute anyway.

In my discussion with him, we did have a meeting, I will ask

you to check, but I do know that the tribunal is dealing with it or, Mr. Brace,

who did the hearing, the arbitrator. But the question I want the minister to

answer is why, when the decision was made, the commission was not forced to

abide by it? They go back and ask for explanations as to what happened. I mean,

here is a gentleman, Mr. Speaker, who has lost his business because he was

involved in an accident and was on workers' compensation; his business went

bankrupt. I won't mention any names, but his business went bankrupt and today he

is in begging Workers' Compensation to - they turned him -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Eagle River, I am

serious about this and this gentleman is serious, too, and so is the minister.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible). Over 98 per cent, I think it is

98.9 or 98.7 per cent are paid, it is only just a few, little - that they feel

is a wrong decision by the commission or the Appeal Tribunal, so it is very

minor. I am not saying it didn't happen to your individual.

MR. TOBIN: Okay. In the case I represented, that I went

to one day last week -

AN HON. MEMBER: That decision (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, no, the decision was rendered and the

Appeal Board stated to the commission that, `Your decision is not upheld', or

whatever term they use, `that we support the decision of the applicant and that

he should be paid all his back time,' okay? That was the decision of the Appeal

Board or the Tribunal, whoever heard the case. What happened then, is that the

commission disagreed.

The commission first denied the man his right, there was an

appeal, the appeal ruled in his favour and the commission still disagreed and

went back and refused to pay the man, because they disagreed with the

commission; so what happened then, here he is back - and this is a man who lost

his business because he couldn't work; and he had a good business, I know it for

a fact, but because he was beat up in an accident and couldn't work, he lost

everything.

What happened is that he has now gone back and had to appear

the other day before Mr. Brace and, as a matter of fact I asked for a

postponement in it because it was felt by Mr. Brace as well that the issue

probably warranted someone with legal training to become directly involved in

it.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) send me the case.

MR. TOBIN: I will.

MR. MURPHY: If the member comes over and sees me -

MR. TOBIN: I will do it.

MR. MURPHY: - the minister, I will do everything I can to

clear it up for him.

MR. TOBIN: I shall speak to you right after this.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I thank my colleagues for leave

and I will see the minister and explain the situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the next speaker I just

want to draw hon. members' attention to a couple of matters.

One, when we are referring to hon. members in this House we

must refer to them as such. I notice that a couple of times we've been calling

hon. members by other than "hon. member," calling them by their names. The other

thing is I heard words like corrupt, cover up, and that kind of thing. These are

certainly not the kinds of words that we should be using in the debate in this

House. I caution members on the use of these in the future.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to

have a few words on this resolution. From the outset, I would say that this

resolution is just as outdated as the party opposite. This resolution is as

outdated now as the PC Party is to the mainstream of Newfoundland politics. The

public opinion polls of late have shown a dramatic increase in the support for

the people on this side of the House. The latest poll shows we are up another

eleven points, three months since the previous one. There is no doubt that the

party opposite is well out of line with the thoughts of the people of this

Province. There is no doubt also that this member opposite is out of touch with

what is happening as it relates to the Workers' Compensation Tribunal.

We have a minister today here in this particular portfolio

who brings to this portfolio, in my view, a tremendous amount of compassion, a

tremendous amount of understanding of people, and a tremendous amount of

integrity to this particular position. Also, he acted quite hastily upon getting

his appointment in taking control of this very important issue. It is

unbelievable that members opposite would think that after having a line up,

after having months of delays in getting appeals heard, that you would have a

minister come into a portfolio and within two short months he was able to clear

up the backlog, give people their decision, get people their checks, give people

their security, and put them on the road back to recovery and back to security

for their families, and then to have members opposite come in and be able to try

and put together a resolution that would say to the minister that he is

incompetent.

I think the minister in this case deserves a medal for taking

this issue and changing it and responding to the real needs of people who were

there before him. Hundreds of people who were lined up for months to have their

appeals heard could not get them to the front door. This minister came in, made

the appointments, and got the people in place on a full-time basis so they could

deal with the backlog. I know the Member for Carbonear is telling me out in his

District that the people are out there praising the minister for taking the

speedy action, putting the mechanism in place. The Member for Harbour Main I

know is also saying that people from his District have never seen such speedy

action on the part of a minister to change a massive problem. To put a structure

in place, a mechanism in place, that responds like no other government action

has in recent time to be able to deal with very serious issues.

That is I believe because of the qualities that this minister

brings to this portfolio. He cares about having people given the security that

they deserve. He cares about making sure that all the impediments that

government might have in place are cleared up so that he can get the people

their satisfaction, their due recourse.

I find it interesting that the members opposite would say:

This Tribunal is non-binding, this Tribunal is something that is absolutely not

final. I mean, members opposite must get it right.

Just a few short months ago they never got up in this House

and told Mr. Crosbie that the NCARP appeal process upon which hundreds of people

were told that they were into the program, only to go down and because you

weren't a friend of Crosbie, or because you weren't on some kind of a nebulous

PC list, you never got your NCARP benefits because you were thrown out by the

political administration down at White Hills at the time; but you never heard

the Member for Ferryland, for example, get up and say that the NCARP process is

wrong. You never heard him get up and say that every one of those people who

were accepted into the program, who went through the independent appeal process,

who laid out their long history in the fishery, who laid out how they should get

all of those benefits, hundreds of them had their letters come and say: Yes, you

are accepted into the program, only a few weeks later to have another letter

signed by Mr. Dunn, and I don't blame Mr. Dunn. I know the kind of pressure that

he was under from the political side of that department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: You know, I suppose sometimes you have to

look beyond, I suppose, the actions of some civil servants. Sometimes you have

to look. Maybe there is, in some dark corner, something happening that you don't

realize, and I do believe that in this case, especially the Member for

Ferryland, because I know at one point just shortly after the last election

where he was down and he got up on the big vessel, the big boat down there on

the southern shore, and climbed on board with his friend, Mr. Crosbie. I know at

the time that he never spent not one millisecond while he was on that boat,

telling Mr. Crosbie about the fact that hundreds of people were accepted into

the NCARP program, were accepted after going through months and months of

anguish of preparing their case, and putting their case together, documenting

their history in the fishery, and clearly showing independent tribunal, three

people, clearly showing them that they were eligible for the program, only to

get the bad news in the mail again that no, you cannot qualify, without any

reason whatsoever, other than the fact that they were not politically associated

with the party that was in power at the time.

Now we ended that program. We ended that attitude. We ended

that practice. When this minister came into this portfolio on this particular

case, he never sooked around the table and said: Now, who on the injured

workers' list is PC, or Liberal, or NDP? He did not look at it and say: Now, if

there is a PC there, I am going to make sure that no matter what happens, he is

not going to get his benefits. He didn't take that approach. He said that if

there is a person there waiting, and they have been waiting too long, I am going

to put a mechanism in place that will clear up that backlog, and hundreds and

hundreds of people are being able, today, to have food on the table. Hundreds of

people are able to plan their future today because of the actions of this

minister, and the actions of this government, in putting in place a structure

and a mechanism that addressed those problems and now have them out of the way.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this is an outdated resolution given by

an outdated member from an outdated party, one that will terribly infringe upon

any kind of freedom, any kind of process to further their political ends. Those

are the facts of the matter, and I am very pleased today, and honoured, to be

able to get up here and acknowledge what the minister has done, and what this

government has done, and I can fully understand why the member opposite did not

want to come into this House and get up and talk about this issue. I can fully

understand why he was kicking and screaming, trying to get in through the door.

He did not want to come in here and have to stand up and be corrected on the

facts of the matter, that indeed this minister and this government acted on a

very important issue, and one that was dealt with to the satisfaction of

hundreds and hundreds of constituents.

I notice the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the old

Charest chest thumper. Only a few short months ago I saw him here with the

Leader of the Tory Party in Ottawa, bringing him down and waltzing him around,

him and the Member for Grand Bank, waltzing around Mr. Charest. Then the

question was asked of Mr. Charest: Here we have $4 billion now, the federal

government in Ottawa has $4 billion dedicated to putting employment projects in

place, helping the unemployed, helping those who need training and Mr. Charest

said: let them eat cake, who cares, that is a waste of money, any money spent on

helping the unemployed is a waste of money; that is what he said. That was the

Tory leader of the Tory day, working with his Tory buddies in Ottawa and I guess

it just reinforced for all of us again, a Tory is a Tory is a Tory, whether he

is in Ottawa or whether he is in Burin or whether he is in Lamaline or wherever

he is, but obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is not lost on the people of this Province

because the people of this Province are responding, the public opinion polls are

telling us once again that if we were to go to the polls tomorrow, we would be

returned with another resounding victory, another majority government in this

Province and there is no doubt about it.

They might pull off I would say five or six seats at this

point in time, and with any luck, the Member for Burin - Placentia West might

get deputy, deputy, deputy House Leader after that, because he might be down

about sixth in line then because there will only be eight back here; he might

hang on to the deputy, deputy, deputy position -

MR. TOBIN: How many (inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Eight. Eight members would come back

today if an election was called today, eight members of the opposite party -

unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I would also have to say that I think maybe the

Leader of the NDP might be back too, so you may have as many as nine over there

if there was an election called today. But that would be -

MR. ROBERTS: Only if they run unopposed.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes. Well some of them obviously would

only win if they never had anybody else in the battle, Mr. Speaker, that would

be a fair comment; but the resolution as put forward today cannot be supported

by this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, the resolution is outdated, the problem

has been solved, hundreds and hundreds of people are able to order up their

Christmas gifts this year, hundreds and hundreds of families out there are able

to prepare for this Christmas like they could not last Christmas, because this

minister did put a mechanism in place to have their appeals heard and to get

their decisions final, and hundreds of them have obviously had very, very,

positive resolutions to their appeals, so there is no way that I can stand here

and support the member opposite in such an outdated resolution coming from an

outdated party.

I would submit that we are going to continue to get more good

news from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I would submit that

after his meetings in Ottawa and coming back and briefing his Cabinet colleagues

here in this Province, I would submit that we are going to get more good news

from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. When it comes to trying to

get some money for the unemployed in this Province, this minister is second to

none in fighting for those people; this minister is second to none in leading

the charge; this minister is second to none to be able to go to Ottawa as

opposed to years before when we had the door slammed in our faces in Ottawa, we

were not allowed up there. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

and I, one time went up to a meeting and we managed to get inside the meeting

and Mr. Crosbie was there; obviously he had to acknowledge us but we had to

force our way in, we had to sneak in through the side door, Mr. Speaker, to get

in to see the federal Cabinet minister for Newfoundland, but that is not so

today.

The federal representative for Newfoundland and Labrador

today, is there with his arms opened, his hand is extended, his door is

wide-open, Mr. Speaker, saying: come in, let us talk, let us work together, let

us do what is right to make sure that the people of our dear Province are

protected and let us welcome the ideals and the commitment from this government,

that I know the people of this Province support. That is the kind of minister we

have up there today, not one who is preoccupied with partisan, political games,

Mr. Speaker. Not one who is up there deciding, well, if he is PC, I won't help

him, that is not the kind of apparatus we have in Ottawa today.

We have a people in Ottawa along with the people here who are

committed to good government for all the people of this Province and that is why

the minister tomorrow, the Member for St. John's South is losing no time in

going up there and he is speaking to the minister, Mr. Tobin. Mr. Tobin is not

Mr. Crosbie, the door is not slammed shut in his face when he goes up there, he

would be welcomed, he is going to be taken in and he is going to be told: I am

glad to have a cooperative government in Newfoundland and Labrador to work with,

because I know that you are putting people first in your Province, and you are

going to do something productive to help them down in your area of the country.

The minister's officials I'm sure from Employment and

Immigration have been told that the whip has been cracked, and they've been told

that: You had better do something to help out the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Not unlike what was done in previous times, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Chancellor (inaudible)?

MR. DUMARESQUE: You know, that is another idea, that is

another very clear indication of how fair and balanced we have been. I have had

my problems with Mr. Crosbie, I have had my disagreements with Mr. Crosbie. When

it came time to recognize the contribution that he made, I could not put my

partisan differences up front and allow my good conscience and good and clear

logical mind to be interfered with. I had to say: Look, this is a man who has

contributed above and beyond partisan politics in this Province, this is a man

who is now going to dedicate the remainder of his time in public office, in this

public position, to dedicating it to raising money.

For instance, I understand he is going to be raising money to

help out Memorial University, and I wish him well. I know this government will

be cooperating fully with him as Chancellor and the other members of his

committee as they get together to raise money for the much needed projects that

Memorial University has on the go. That is a clear idea, the most dramatic

example that anyone could look to, to say how fair and balanced this government

has been. Not preoccupied with whether we are going to take care of another Tory

or another Liberal or another NDPer, Mr. Speaker. They are very hard to fine I

know these days, those Tories and those NDPers, but besides that we are there to

make sure that regardless of what they have on their sleeve or what card they

might have in their pocket, if they are in need we will deal with them.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is leading by

example. He put a mechanism in place to clear up hundreds of back cases, very

needy people out there who needed a decision and who got a decision from a

commission and a Tribunal that has been working very well and receiving

accolades. The Member for St. Barbe I know realizes that there have been

decisions that have come out of that Tribunal that have been positive for his

riding. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage I know has people in his riding who

have been calling him and telling him that there have been good positive

decisions come out of this, faster then they were before. I know we were here

before the previous minister. We recognize that everything wasn't perfect, but

we also recognized that we couldn't cure the problems overnight.

Indeed, this minister came in - and I would have to at this

point also give due regard and due credit to the previous Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations. He also did not sit back and blame it on the previous

government. He also did not sit back and say that: Because we are Liberals we

are not going to worry about them because there might be some Tories in the

lineup. He did not say that. He told his officials: I want to find a mechanism

that will work to make sure that the needs of these people are addressed and

that they can have some security in the fastest time possible. Indeed, while the

new Minister of Employment and Labour Relations acted above and beyond the call

of duty in implementing this particular system, I think that the Member for

Exploits, the previous Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, should be

commended for the work that he did as well to address this very serious issue,

rather than play partisan politics with it.

Of course, nobody could do this without the tremendous work

of his officials, and they also duly receive, should get the recognition there.

Not to have to be subject to the partisanship that would come from the other

side. To not be subject to the pure gimmickry that is coming through day after

day in this House where they are out to do whatever they can to create a parade.

To be able to create some kind of a fuss so that they can lead it and hopefully

be able to get some kind of integrity associated with their party.

Obviously, as I've said right from the start, this is an

outdated party. It is out of touch with reality. They are not about to gain the

credibility they deserve because they continue to play those kinds of partisan

games, and it is not lost on the people.

I would say to all members on this side: be proud today to

stand up and support our new Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, be

proud to stand up and support this government for addressing a very serious

issue in a very short time, Mr. Speaker, so that hundreds of people this

Christmas can have the security that they deserve because we did what was right

in the fastest time that we possibly could. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, really the hon. members opposite have been

caught, in effect, allowing the House to have a piece of business which is, as

you say, old business, caught by the rules, caught by the firm application of

the rules as written in the Standing Orders. Mr. Speaker, I might add that the

situation is such that it makes the debate somewhat redundant but of course for

their own political interest and the interest of others in the House, I suppose,

they feel that they have to maintain and allow this particular piece of business

to stand. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, we are here today to speak about an issue

which is very relevant to the people of the Province. This is coming up daily,

this issue is a burning issue that we are dealing with here, to some people it

is. It is the kind of issue that I, as a member of the Legislature, deal with on

behalf of injured workers who seek my assistance through the process of appeals

to Workers' Compensation.

I might point out, that the overall situation is such that we

do our best as members of the House of Assembly to look after the needs of our

individual constituents. The situation for a lot of these injured workers was

such that the commission would undertake a review and then the Workers'

Compensation Appeals Tribunal review process certainly kept it from being dealt

with in a timely fashion. The rendering of decisions possibly being the key

element that we had difficulty with.

Now let's look at the hon. members means of putting this

forward. I am not sure when this was placed on the Order Paper. It may have been

placed there at the height of debate when the House opened back in - I suppose

it was in March, was it that the House opened in the spring? March or April?

Anyway the writing of the hon. members resolution speaks about the issue of

appointing people to government boards, agencies and what have you. I might add

that the record of this government is beyond reproach, insofar as the

appointment of individuals, regardless of their political affiliation, to a

variety of boards, agencies and commissions here in the Province. One has only

to look at the effort that is made by the Premier and the ministers of this

government in seeing to it that all appointments are made without regard for a

persons political history. I might add that in saying without regard, that would

mean in taking into account that the appointment of an individual is not either

denied or confirmed on the basis of that individuals political history.

In this case, the solution that we sought was to appoint an

individual, namely one former minister of this House, Eric Gullage, and his

appointment as the commissioner in this instance, since it is the field of

insurance, it is a field with which the former hon. member, is well aware off.

He had a history in the management of the life insurance industry which deals on

a private basis with workers' compensation type disability vehicles, although on

the private side and not necessarily on the public sector side.

If you combine the experience of the hon. member who is a

chartered life underwriter which is the equivalent of a chartered accountant and

is one of the few professional designations of individuals that can be looked

upon as being what some would call an expert in the field of disability. We are

speaking about a disability program which is no fault, but it is a disability

program which is in essence such. It is an insurance program which has no fault

related to the application of the benefits to individuals, but the overall

tenets of the insurance industry do apply under workers' compensation.

A lot of the same tests are conducted, the medical test, the

ability to work, the occupational clauses that are in effect in a variety of

insurance contracts are also the type of litmus tests that are applied to an

individual, and who better to appoint, without regard to the fact that the

individual happened to be a member of the government caucus at one time? Should

that individual be denied, because of his political affiliation in the past? I

would submit that the government chose to go forward with that issue in such a

manner because the individual was highly qualified as a professional with a

chartered designation in that field, and as an individual who knows how to cut

through the red tape of government, having been involved as a minister in the

past, having experienced the system of government firsthand, and acted as chief

administrator of a number of government departments.

In that respect we have to look at the thrust of this hon.

member's salutation in the resolution. He says the current policy of appointing

persons to serve on the workers' compensation appeal tribunal on a part-time

basis has often resulted in lengthy and unreasonable delays in the processing of

the appeals of workers' compensation applicants and has in many cases caused

great hardship to these applicants.

I do not think anyone would have a big problem with the way

that is written and in fact government acted on it as a result of the lengthy

delays that were being experienced by many injured workers with respect to their

need to get the system improved. Also, there to follow he says: and

whereas the

current regulations con