December 12, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 38

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon the Speaker has notice of members'

statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South; the hon. the Member for Port de Grave; the

hon. the Member for Port au Port; the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair; and the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Gina Colbourne of Carbonear who was crowned Miss

Teen Trinity-Conception 2006-2007 at the second annual Miss Teen

Trinity-Conception Pageant.

Danielle Seward of Heart's Delight-Islington was first runner-up, while the

Miss Victoria Fire Queen, Kelly Clarke was second runner-up. Collette Garland of

Cupids won the Miss Teen Friendship award for the second year in a row.

These young women competed in the categories of: interview, personal

introduction, speech, evening wear, casual wear and on stage interview.

Mr. Speaker, the evening began with contestants performing an opening number

and introducing themselves individually. Other contestants included: Andrea

Carvalhal of Bay de Verde, the reigning Miss Carbonear Nicole Wareham, Robyn

Crummy of Carbonear and Stacia Smith of Bay Roberts.

The pageant prides itself in striving to focus on the intelligence,

academics, leadership, volunteer work and community involvement of the young

women in the Trinity-Conception area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in

congratulating Gina Colbourne, Miss Teen Trinity-Conception 2006-2007.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a courageous and admirable young man, Mr.

Andrew Dunn. Andrew is an active member of Scouts Canada in the District of

Conception Bay South and Holyrood and was nominated for Scouts Canada's Award

of Fortitude. Upon review, the awards committee in Ottawa upgraded the award to

the Jack Cornwell decoration.

Andrew is only the third recipient to receive this honour, which is the

highest award in Scouts Canada. Recipients of this award are recognized as true

heroes of this organization, and through their actions are considered to be role

models.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, Andrew fell ill and was diagnosed with a rare brain

tumour known as Skull Base Chordoma. This courageous boy underwent surgeries at

both the Janeway and Toronto Sick Kids hospitals, followed by a series of

radiation treatments. Through it all, though, he preserved, never complained and

was determined to get well. While fighting for his life, this eleven year old

remained committed to his scouting activities and was the top seller in their

popcorn fundraiser.

Mr. Speaker, Andrew Dunn is a true inspiration to all of us. I ask all hon.

members to join with me in congratulating him on the Jack Cornwell decoration.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Brandon Roach, a

twenty-one year old Bay Roberts native who plays with the Acadia Axemen men's

hockey team and has been selected to play as a member of Team Canada's men's

hockey team at the 2007 Winter Universaide in Turin, Italy.

Mr. Speaker, Brandon left for the Maritimes when he was seventeen where he

played with the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League for four years. This past

August he started with the Acadia Axemen University hockey team.

Brandon attended camps with the NHL's Colorado Avalanche and the AHL's

Albany River Rats this past summer where he could have turned pro, but said he

was not prepared to sacrifice his education package from junior for anything

less than an AHL contract.

Mr. Speaker, on November 16, Brandon was eyed by Team Canada,, along with

Saint Mary's University's head coach Trevor Stienberg and Axemen's coach

Darren Burns. He ultimately was selected to play with the Canadian University

team in Italy.

Brandon, along with Sam Roberts of St. John's were the only Newfoundlanders

on the roster. They will depart for Italy with the team on January 14, 2007.

I ask all members, Mr. Speaker, to join with me in congratulating Brandon

Roach on his accomplishments and wish him and Team Canada the very best in Italy

in January.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take notice of the passing of Mrs.

Stella Tomkins, a prominent citizen of Stephenville.

Stella Tomkins was a mother, a nurse, a churchgoer, patron of the arts, an

avid reader, grandmother, generous spirit and loyal friend. She was a mixture of

the traditional and the progressive.

She was a faithful churchgoer who often joked that the church was her second

home. Throughout her nursing career she was a strong advocate of individuals

taking responsibility for their own health through preventative measures such as

diet and exercise.

A quiet, understated woman, Mrs. Tomkins loved language and sending and

receiving letters. She was well known for often writing letters of

encouragement, congratulations, comfort and gratitude to colleagues, friends,

community leaders and others. This also applies to her eight children, all of

whom she was immensely proud and she often put that pride in writing, sending

messages of support and praise to acknowledge their accomplishments and

significant developments in their lives.

Stella was a huge promoter of education and literacy, having served on the

local library board in Stephenville when the new library was constructed. She

also served on the board of directors of the long-term care facility in

Stephenville Crossing.

An environmentalist, she was a passionate recycler who applauded and

encouraged any and all efforts to reduce landfills across the Province. She had

a great deal of admiration and respect for human kindness and those who gave of

themselves for the betterment of others, be it in the community or around the

world. Mrs. Tomkins was a kindred spirit whose belief in others was unwavering

and provided them with tremendous support and encouragement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of the House to join with me in extending

condolences to the family of this wonderful woman.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Katie Flynn, who was crowned Miss Teen Canada

Galaxy 2007.

Katie, is the daughter of Dean and Nancy Flynn and a resident of Forteau, in

the Labrador Straits. She was given the title on September 23 at the Miss Teen

Canada Galaxy Pageant in Mississauga, Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, as a participant in the pageant, Katie met people from all

across the country, and participated in a variety of activities, including a

masquerade ball, a banquet dinner, and sightseeing tours. She got to know other

participants, directors and last year's winners, and shared her ideas, her

goals and discussed her education and career plans for the future.

Kate has no doubt become a celebrity at her local school, Mountain Field

High, where she has the support and encouragement of her classmates. Throughout

the coming year, she will be public speaking on topics that are important to her

and attending a number of selected events. In July, 2007, she will get the

opportunity to participate in the Miss Teen Galaxy International being held in

Orlando, Florida.

Mr. Speaker, Katie was thrilled to participate in this event. It was an

experience she will cherish forever, and she says participating in these kinds

of events has been helpful in boosting her self-confidence and self-esteem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of the House to join with me in congratulating Ms

Katie Flynn on her new accomplishments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the achievements of

Tramore Productions Inc. Tramore evolved from the Tramore Theatre Troupe, which

was founded in Cuslett on the Cape Shore in 1999 by Agnes Walsh and Arlene

Morrissey. It was established to promote the unique cultural legacy of the Cape

Shore and Placentia Bay.

Tramore has become an established and very successful arts organization,

which offers cultural events unique to the area. Throughout its activities, it

has increased the regional and provincial profiles of one of the most attractive

areas of this Province. It has a direct connection with the country of Ireland

with its artist-in-residence, Agnes Walsh, who works with artists and community

groups in West Cork, Kerry and Waterford. It provides first-class professional

theatre, which is the only one of its kind to use the oral history of the

ordinary people, depicting our Irish ancestry.

Tramore just completed another successful season, performing at the

Irish-Newfoundland Conference at the Fairmont in March, hosting the ICH

Conference Field Day Trip in June, performing Tramore's Festival of the Arts

Synge Fest in July, and performing local plays in August, including its new

play, "A Family of Strangers", as well as participating in the

Festival of the Sea Cultural Collaboration Conference in September, just to name

a few.

Mr. Speaker, Tramore Productions has a larger vision of the Cape Shore as the

home of a cultural-academic centre, designed to facilitate and host artists and

academic exchanges between Newfoundland and the world, with an emphasis on our

Irish heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Tramore

Productions, of the tiny community of Cuslett, in wishing them well in their

future endeavors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues of a local company and an

educational institution currently benefitting from two new programs born from

government's Innovation Strategy.

The College of the North Atlantic is using $50,000 from the Innovation

Enhancement Program to investigate establishing a Centre for Northern Peninsula

Diversification at its St. Anthony campus. The college will conduct a

feasibility study to address issues surrounding the establishment of such a

centre. The centre is being proposed to focus on opportunities in the

biotechnology field, with emphasis on the greater use of existing natural

resources, such as berries and non-traditional fish products, in the local area.

MedicLINK Systems Limited, based in St. John's, specializes in developing

innovative software solutions for eye care professionals. MedicLINK identifies

and analyzes the steps required to deliver quality patient care. It has

optimized those steps into its workflow management system called Eyesistant.

The Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development approved a loan of

almost $58,000 from its Commercialization Fund, and approved over $12,000 from

the Business and Market Development Program, to help the company launch its

product in Canada and the United States.

As a result, the company has recently entered into a partnership with two

prominent U.S. medical professionals to create a tool that could revolutionize

the way a typical clinic operates. It is expected the tool will help clinics

become more efficient and automated, leading to improved patient care and

business growth. The company is also in discussions with two investment groups

interested in helping them break into other medical industries.

Mr. Speaker, MedicLINK is a new company that has made impressive gains in a

short time. That is, no doubt, one of the reasons why they were given the New

Start-up Award by the St. John's Board of Trade last week.

Mr. Speaker, our Innovation Strategy programs were created to support

government's vision of transforming our Province into one of the of country's

most innovative. These funds assist companies and institutions to embrace

innovation and to realize their goals.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the College of the North

Atlantic and MedicLINK, and in wishing them every success for the future.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today.

I also want to congratulate MedicLINK Systems. I think it is a locally-based

company that we can all be proud of, and I think the St. John's Board of Trade

recognized that when they, in fact, awarded them the New Start-up Award; so I,

too, want to congratulate MedicLINK Systems.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the whole issue

surrounding the College of the North Atlantic and their spending $50,000 to

investigate the possibility of setting up a centre on the Northern Peninsula.

Now, if that is the extent of this government's involvement in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, make no wonder we are seeing 9,000 people lined up

looking for work in Alberta.

Here we are, looking at the St. Anthony campus, looking at the possibility of

establishing such a centre. I am wondering if we are going to talk to the Burin

campus about the possibility of establishing such a centre on the Burin

Peninsula, and if we are going look at the Bonavista Peninsula, and look at the

possibility of establishing such a centre there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: That is what is happening here, Mr. Speaker, nothing more than

investigating the possibility, with nothing concrete once again for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We, too, would like to congratulate MedicLINK on their latest achievements

and their award that they received from the St. John's Board of Trade.

Mr. Speaker, this, I think, will lead to good potential. Hopefully, this will

take place in St. Anthony; because, if there is one area of the Province, St.

Anthony is an area that has a long history of providing medical service to the

residents of the Northern Peninsula through the Grenfell Mission and it is great

if something like this would happen and occur there. Being a part of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, it also encourages other development in rural areas

that would hopefully lead to further innovations in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador in the years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise in this House

to inform my colleagues and the residents of this Province about the upcoming

Provincial Arts and Letters Awards.

This awards program, now in its fifty-fifth year, encourages and stimulates

the creative and artistic talents that flourish within Newfoundland and

Labrador. Tens of thousands of submissions have been received since the

inception of this program in 1952. An increased number of entries over the last

few years indicates that interest in the Arts and Letters Awards is indeed

growing.

This program affords a special opportunity for writers, composers, sculptors,

photographers and painters alike, both young and old, amateur and professional,

to participate in a program that honours the incredible artistic talent that is

uniquely our own.

Mr. Speaker, the alumni of the Arts and Letters recipients speak to the

integrity of this program and its influence in supporting and inspiring creative

and artistic achievement in this Province. We just have to look at the names of

some of the past winners to understand the significance of these awards: Cassie

Brown, David Blackwood, Scott Goudie, Harold Horwood, Ed Kavanagh, Kevin Major,

Carmelita McGrath, Bernice Morgan, Helen Porter and Christopher Pratt, just to

name a few.

Prizes will be awarded in two divisions: Junior for twelve to

eighteen-year-olds, and Senior for those nineteen years of age and older.

Categories include literary arts, musical composition and visual arts. The Percy

Janes First Novel Award is also presented to encourage Newfoundland and Labrador

writers who aspire to enter the writing profession. As well, for the very first

time, a literary award in the French language will be offered for both the

Junior and Senior Divisions.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to announce today that the total prize money for

this year's awards is $46,000, double that of last year. Compensation for all

awards has increased and we are adding twenty-seven additional awards. I do

encourage all potential applicants to take

part in this program. The deadline

for applications is February 16, 2007. Further details can be found on our Arts

and Letters Awards website www.gov.nl.ca/artsandletters

or by calling the Arts and Letters office.

Mr. Speaker, I do anticipate another highly successful awards program, which

has greatly enhanced this year with our increased investment in support and

development of the arts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Minister, this is quite an achievement. I do believe it was last year when I

had the opportunity to attend the awards and to see a young girl from the

community of Rigolet receive an award for a carving that she had done.

The only thing I will say politically, Minister, is that fifty-five years - I

guess it had to be started by the Liberals, which is a good initiative.

Certainly, Minister, we on this side of the House want to encourage as many

people as possible to submit their submissions, and certainly we want to

congratulate everyone who has taken the time to go out there and play such an

important role in part of a culture that we take very seriously and we are very

proud of in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the minister for the

advance copy of his statement.

I, too, applaud the move to put more money into the Arts and Letters

competitions. I am delighted to see the increase in the money, and the fact of

how wonderful an investment that is, is shown by the artists that you have named

who were recipients.

I do encourage you, though, to continue doing everything that you can,

Minister, to put money directly into the hands of artists. One thing to consider

is a big increase in funding to the Arts Council, which does directly fund the

work of artists. I encourage this and ask you to move further.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is for the Premier.

Premier, concerning the fibre optic deal, we are all aware that the House

passed a resolution here and the Auditor General will be investigating this

matter. I do believe the Minister of Natural Resources was asked last week,

would this government agree to stop and not permit the flow of any funds under

the anticipated fibre optic deal until such time as the Auditor General has

filed his report. The minister here said no, but I think we ought to have an

answer to such an important question from you, the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think what the hon. minister indicated was that, you know, it is now

December, these monies definitely will not be spent until April. We are at least

four months out. It is quite likely, I think, that by the time the construction

starts and gets done we could be into six and seven months. There is certainly

ample time for the Auditor General to come back and give his report. You know,

we will be going ahead. This is a good business proposition, it is good for

economic development in the Province, and we will be proceeding, bearing in mind

that the Auditor General has a good six months to deal with this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Premier.

We are talking $15 million here and we are talking questions of the

contracting awarded to persons who are close friends of the Premier. We are

talking about the due diligence having been done on this contract, and was it

properly done.

The Auditor General advised myself and the Government House Leader and the

Leader of the NDP in a meeting last week that he might not be able to report

until August. It is a fairly straightforward question. We have an opportunity

here whereby the Auditor General can tell us before any money is spent

whatsoever, one penny, whether it was a good deal or not. Now the Auditor

General is usually in a position of tracing money after the fact.

Why would you not agree upfront that not a penny would be spent until the AG

reports? We are not going to pass it until the Budget of the spring of 2007

anyway, so what is wrong with committing that we will not spend a cent until the

Auditor General does his due diligence? If not, what is the point of having the

Auditor General?

Also, as a supplementary, if you spend money and the AG determines that the

deal was not proper, how do you propose we get the money back then?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, you know this is an unusual procedure for

a government to even allow an Auditor General to come in on a very reasonable

business deal, an economic development tool, and allowing him to come in and

even have a look at it. We are giving him lots of time to do that.

It is interesting you mentioned the word penny, because as a result of your

new diligence, as a result of the cross, that we are on the road to Damascus,

where now there is a whole new scrutiny in government, we have decided that we

are going to take a closer look at what they did. Now that you mentioned the

word penny, it would be interesting to note that the brothers of the Member for

Grand Falls-Buchans, since 1998 to 2004, got $76 million in contracts from

Works, Services and Transportation. Now, we are not alleging that there is

anything wrong with that, but we are putting that out for public disclosure

because we are going to disclose all the information. We will even disclose what

your sons got when you were Justice Minister and the legal work that they got

from the Department of Justice. Do you know something? They are good lawyers and

we do not see anything wrong with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to complete his answer now.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Nor do we see anything wrong (inaudible) the table.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I love the way the Premier slips into his bully mood and his personal attacks

when you ask questions that he cannot answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I tell you, Premier, you might bully the minions that you

have over there but (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I ask the Premier again: Premier, instead of trying to deflect here - you

have all the time in the world, Premier, to give the answers and any information

you like about anyone, and I welcome you to give that because we have a problem

as it is getting any information out of you people - I say to the Premier:

Answer the question. You are a smart man; answer the question. Why would you

agree to spend any money under the fibre optic deal before the Auditor General

gets his report done? If it is spent improperly, based upon his report, how do

you propose we get it back? A simple question. How about a simple answer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You know, Mr. Speaker, while we are at it, maybe we

should get the Auditor General to look at a whole pile of deals that happened

over the years. Maybe we should perhaps look at the cost of relocation, which I

think that government indicated was between $7 million and $10 million. Well,

some of the estimates that I have gotten now within the public service, that

cost actually $100 million. That is ten times; that is a lot of money. Maybe the

Auditor General should have a look at that. Maybe the Auditor General should

have a look at the Apollo contract. That might be worth having a look at. Do you

think the Auditor General should have a look at that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Maybe the Auditor General should have a look at Country

Ribbon Chicken, for example. There is a good one for him to have a look at. Do

you want us to keep on going?

If you want the Auditor General to look at every transaction that was done in

government, we have no problem with that. That will be an open book and we will

see exactly what went on while you were in government, and I have lots more.

Just keep coming with the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So much for our open and accountable government. So much for that. Even the

Premier of this Province, who prides himself on being open and accountable,

cannot answer a simple, straightforward question. That is three times you

deflected from that question, Premier. You don't have the courage to answer

it.

I will go to someone else. Maybe the Minister of Natural Resources can give a

few answers here, because the Premier cannot give any.

Minister, what role does the site manager play at Bull Arm with respect to

contracts? Who is the Bull Arm Site Corporation manager at the present time?

When was he hired, and what were his credentials?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I stated here last week, the site manager's name is Mr. Greene. I will

have to find out exactly when he was hired by the corporation. His involvement

in contracts would be those assigned by the CEO of the corporation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is our understanding that the former site manager was terminated by the

former Minister of Natural Resources, Minister Byrne, and that the current site

manager is, in fact, a close personal friend of former Minister Byrne. What role

did the current site manage play in the CSL Services Limited winterization

contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot speak to the personal relationship between Mr. Byrne and anybody,

other than his relationship with me.

Certainly, in terms of the winterization contact, I was the Minister of

Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker, as far as I understand, other than the

day-to-day observation of the work that went on in the site, I am not aware of

any other role that the site manager played in that contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, you told us last Thursday here in this House that the CSL

winterization contract was done outside the Public Tender Act, and, in fact, I

read your press release of today of 12:40 p.m. whereby you confirmed that it was

indeed awarded verbally.

Can you tell us at this time who it was who verbally gave the contract for

the winterization work to CSL Services Limited, and when that was done?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The contact was awarded verbally by the President and CEO of the Bull Arm

Corporation, and I will have to check back, my documentation, to get the exactly

date of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

At least we are getting some answers. I love that. The minister is very

forthcoming.

Minister, you said yesterday, and I quote: I have reviewed it completely.

Justice is having a look at it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That will come later, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

Justice is having a look at it, as well as the Government Purchasing Agency.

There was no intentional wrongdoing or political interference; nor was there any

criminal intent.

Well, Minister, if you determined all of that last week, as of last Thursday,

enough to justify your request to ask for her to resign, Ms Cleary, why did you

feel it was necessary to refer it to Justice if you had already concluded those

things: no criminal wrongdoing, no wrongful intent, no political interference?

What smelled about the winterization contact that made you send it over to the

Minister of Justice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am amused by the Opposition House Leader's newly-acquired sense of smell.

We do not do things by smell over here; we do them the right way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week, we realized that

there had not been any pubic call for bids, tenders, or Request for Proposals.

That was a very serious situation outside the Public Tender Act. As a result,

there were very serious actions taken.

Mr. Speaker, files were reviewed in the office of the Natural Resources

Building in St. John's. Files were reviewed on-site at Bull Arm around any

other documentation that might be relevant in terms of scope of work, all of

those kinds of things. That review concluded yesterday, that we did not have

documentation around the awarding of the contract. In all of our discussions

with the people who have the contract, with the site manager, with the former

CEO, there was no indication to us, Mr. Speaker - and that is all I can speak to

- that there has been any criminal wrongdoing, that there has been any

intentional wrongdoing. I can only accept that information as it is put forward.

I do not have anything to substantiate any other kind of claim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, can you confirm that you have received a request from the Minister

of Natural Resources in regard to the CSL Services Limited contract, and when do

you anticipate that we might be hearing something from it? How long do you think

this is going to take? Is this going to be beyond 2007 as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has a number of

lawyers who provide legal services for various government departments. Those

departments contact those lawyers when they need work done. The minister just

indicated to me that one of the officials in the department, she has referred

that work to that official and in due course the proper advice will be given to

the minister to enable her to carry out her functions and her responsibilities

as she considers appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I questioned the Minister of Justice

regarding a contract that was let for food services at the Labrador Correctional

Centre. The minister said he would try to get that information and I asked him

to table it as soon as possible. In the meantime, the minister could not recall

having any conversations regarding this contract with his colleagues; however,

the Member for Exploits has publicly stated that he has spoken to the minister

regarding this file and even reminded the minister yesterday that these

conversations took place. I hope this is not convenient memory loss.

Mr. Speaker, Station Steakhouse in Central Newfoundland was called by staff

that they had won the first tender. They have written the department looking for

clarification as to why this process was apparently manipulated in favour of a

strong supporter of the PC Party.

I ask the minister: Why have you not responded to Station Steakhouse

regarding their request, and it was brought to your attention that the proper

process appears to have been tampered with?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Member for Bay of Islands

has it wrong again.

Mr. Speaker, the person was the unsuccessful bidder who contacted the hon.

Member for Exploits, who contacted the department, was responded to by officials

of the department on July 13, 2006. First of all, there was a telephone

conversation and a subsequent letter July 13, 2006. So the person was, in fact,

notified.

Mr. Speaker, this particular contract, the person who the Member for Bay of

Islands alleges is a friend of the government, this particular company that was

the successful bidder in this contract for the Labrador Correctional Centre at

Happy Valley-Goose Bay is a company called Atlantic Catering. That company first

was awarded a food services contract at the West Coast correctional centre in

June of 2000. One year later in September, 2001, that company was also awarded a

food services contract at Her Majesty's Penitentiary here in St. John's. Two

years later, in June, 2003, that company was awarded the food services contract

for the Labrador Correctional Centre. All of these contracts took place under

the former government.

Mr. Speaker, I also want -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask ministers if they could keep their responses to approximately a minute,

and I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But they were all probably tendered and they were probably awarded, I say to

the minister.

Minister, the letter that was sent back July 13 to Station Steakhouse said

that the bidder qualifications by your department - the bidder qualifications! I

just find it ironic that it was bidder qualifications. Why was this bidder, who

got the tender, allowed to make the bid on the second tender also if there was a

problem with the bidder?

Mr. Speaker, after Station Steakhouse was advised by officials from the

Labrador Correctional facility that they had won the contract, it took

twenty-two days before they were notified that it had been cancelled and it

would be rebid.

I ask the minister: Why did it take twenty-two days to advise the winner of

the original tender that your department would be scrapping the first tender

process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Member for Bay of Islands

has it wrong again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the proper process in the awarding of this

contract was properly followed and it was followed under the auspices of the

Government Purchasing Agency, an independent, arm's-length agency that

reports, not to the Department of Justice, but reports, with respect to

tendering matters, to the Speaker of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Member

for the Bay of Islands is on the IEC, we should be asking him about tendering

contracts in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair invites the minister to complete his answer

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there were deficiencies identified in the

specifications contained in the original tender call. There were also concerns

regarding compliance by the original bidders with the mandatory specifications

in the call. These deficiencies are confirmed by the Government Purchasing

Agency. As I said, the Government Purchasing Agency is an arm's-length body

that reports on tendering matters to the Speaker, not to the department, not to

the department that issues the call for tenders. The GPA has over -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, I will table a document

from your department to the Government Purchasing Agency asking that it be

cancelled. It was your department that requested it to be cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated to the people of Stephenville and the Bay St.

George region that the Abitibi mill would not close under his watch. He also

gave his personal commitment to expropriate the mill assets, and the Member for

St. George's-Stephenville East said the Premier would meet with the union

executive. None of these things have happened. The Premier has stated previously

that he could not travel to Stephenville to hold a meeting because he needed a

holiday.

I ask the Premier: Will you commit today to hold a meeting with the union

executive and hold a public meeting in Stephenville to discuss the mill

situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have met with the union leadership to discuss the future of the mill in

Stephenville and we do everything we can. We are scanning constantly to see if

there is an interest in that mill. Not only were we interested in talking to the

union members, but we paid their way in here so they could come and talk to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, on a supplementary.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development is saying I am having a bad day. Not as bad as the 300 people who

lost their jobs, I say to the minister.

It was the Premier who made the personal commitment to the union executive

that he would expropriate the mill, not the minister. The Premier made the

personal commitment.

I ask the Premier: Will you go out and meet with the union executive and hold

a public meeting to express your personal commitment that you would expropriate

the mill to the union executive? Yes or no, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the Member for Bay of Islands that he review some of the

editorials from the papers in the region that talk about the good work that is

being done there (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the closure of the Stephenville mill was a

terrible thing. We have responded by working with all of the grassroots

organizations and the municipalities in the area to diversify and rebuild that

economy; $4 million invested to date, Mr. Speaker, and we continue to look for

opportunities to revitalize that mill. Should one become available, then we will

talk about expropriation and other matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier and have to do with further requests for

meetings.

The Concerned Citizens' Committee of Fortune, on August 22, requested a

meeting with the Premier. They are still waiting to hear in response to that

request. I understand as well that the union in Marystown, who are representing

the plant workers there, have been looking for a meeting with the Premier for

months now. In fact, they have asked the Member for Burin-Placentia West to

arrange such a meeting but it has not yet happened.

I ask the Premier: Do you intend to meet with these individuals, and if so,

when?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the issues on the

Burin Peninsula, and have been concerned about them for a long time. I have a

commitment to the people on the Burin Peninsula that we are going to look at all

the issues that are down there; a much bigger commitment, of course, than the

hon. member had when six months after she was elected she sought the nomination

in St. John's and lost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No different, of course, than the Member for Torngat or

the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. They decided to go federal when

they lost the government. And you can stand up, sanctimoniously and piously, on

behalf of the people of Marystown and Fortune when you wanted to live in the big

city. That is where you wanted to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if it was not so serious it would be ironic to

have the Premier stand up and try to bully me in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Business said yesterday that in awarding the

contract for the branding initiative of the Department of Business that they

followed the normal process and used a division of tendering and contracts in

the Department of Transportation and Works. He said we followed the process.

I ask the minister: Now that you have checked with your officials in your

department, is it true that the entire process was handled by the Department of

Business?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Again, as yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I am slightly mystified

by her question because I do not understand where her questions are coming from.

Is she talking about the signs or is she talking about the brand development

strategy?

If she is talking about the signs and (inaudible) with regards to the signage

itself, the purchasing and installation of those signs was conducted through the

Government Purchasing Agency and followed the proper process. Also, the

information includes information from third parties which is privy to the third

parties, and they were received in confidence. Also, if I were to release those,

I would have to notify the third party previous to. Once that follows through

the proper procedure, I would be glad to share it with her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously has no idea how this

branding initiative unfolded or who awarded what contracts, but I can tell him.

The entire process was handled by the Department of Business.

Mr. Speaker, the same company that was given the contract by the Department

of Business was also the company that the government hired, without public

competition, to do a review of government's communications needs. That

company, Target Marketing, did a comprehensive report for the government. In

fact, it was 640 pages. We do not know how much that cost, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Don't you see the conflict in approaching that same

company, which obviously had inside information, and asking them to bid on the

branding project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about the

Request for Proposals in regards to the development of a Newfoundland and

Labrador brand strategy, six proponents submitted proposals in regards to that.

It was not narrowed down to just one. Three gave presentations to a select

committee. Also, from that, there was a recommendation made to Cabinet which

Cabinet accepted, and Target Marketing was the agency of record from that point

forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not acknowledged that there is an

obvious conflict of interest here; even for government to approach the same

company who did all the work.

Mr. Speaker, this government campaigned on a promise to be open and

transparent in contracts and purchasing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Taken right from the Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, yet we have

contracts being awarded under the guise of being done fairly, and in some cases,

even the Premier apologizing for not following the proper process.

I ask the minister: Would you table for this House, or tell us tomorrow, what

exactly government paid to Target Marketing for that comprehensive review they

did of the communication's plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, the new-found

righteousness that has come over on the other side. This is the same minister

who decided to take her husband on a little trip.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: They went to Australia and New Zealand to see if they

could find Crocodile Dundee maybe - Crocodile Judy. They also went to China and

they dropped into Hawaii on the way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Premier that you should not refer to members by their first

names but by their districts.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I apologize for using the name. I was trying to take

just an angle on Crocodile Dundee, but having said all of that - so you traveled

all around. Now she has a new sense of accountability, and since we have decided

to take a closer look, we took a closer look at some correspondence in her

department when she was minister. This is to one of her employees: Could you,

please, order a case of wine for me, half red and half white, from the liquor

store on Kenmount Road and Howard will pick it up for me tomorrow morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I forgot to mention it earlier and I have some

businesspeople dropping by the house - to drink the case of wine now, mind you -

on Monday and this will be the only opportunity you will have to pick it up for

me. The red is Wolf Blass Yellow Label, and the white is Trapiche. Let Howard

know after you have placed the order. Here is the invoice to the government, Mr.

Speaker. Sense of accountability!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier -

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

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday the minister said I was asking the government to take part of the

$400 million earmarked for the Public Service Pension Plan and use it to index

public sector pensions. That is not what I asked. I applaud the government for

providing this lump sum to make the public sector pension fund more stable. That

is not the issue.

My question today for the minister is: How quickly will the government

adequately finance the public sector pension fund so that it can begin helping

former public sector workers now living in dire poverty?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On September 14 she said publicly that we should not fund the Teachers'

Pension Plan. She said there are more important things to put $1.9 billion into.

Don't fund the pension plan she said, and now she is standing up here and

asking us to fund the pension plan. I would like for her to make up her mind

which side of the fence she is on today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I have never said no money should go into the

plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: What I said was, I did not believe that $1.9 billion should

have gone into the plan, that priority should have been given, that some of the

money....

I will now ask the minister - what I was talking about yesterday was that

additional money be earmarked to make up for the lost income that public service

pensioners have suffered because pensions have not kept up with the cost of

living. We have the funds to do it, with oil revenues at $1 billion per year for

the next twenty-five years.

Will the minister make it a spending priority - and it is priorities that I

am talking about - will the minister make it a spending priority to redress the

public service retirees for loss of income between 1989 and 2003, and take money

from general revenues to pay them a lump sum payment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

She must be getting her advice from Bob Rae, a carryover from when he was in

Ontario. That is where she must be getting it.

She said: Why was it so important to put $1.9 billion into the teachers'

pension when we have a lot of other needs in this Province? Quoted on September

14, 2006, in a newspaper, I think, published in this Province, The Advertiser .

That is where she said it. Now she is telling us we put too much, and now she is

glad we put another four hundred, and when are we going to put more in? That is

what she is asking.

Do you want it put in or don't you want it put in? Make up your mind. You

are on both sides of the fence. Until we find out where she is going - she is

all over the map. She does not know what she wants. She wants everything, and

the next day she wants something different.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for a thirty second question by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi, and an equal amount of time for a response.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: I only want to ask the minister if he would start reading

everything that I have said, every time I have spoken. I have said publicly that

I thought part of that money could go to the teachers' pension fund. I

questioned the $1.95 billion.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I read everything she said, I would change my mind 100 times, and I am in

the habit of making firm decisions and sticking to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

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

In fulfilling government's commitment to being accountable to the citizens

of Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

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

In fulfilling government's commitment to being accountable to the citizens

of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2006-2008 Strategic

Plan for the Labour Relations Agency and the Department of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of

the Transparency and Accountability Act, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment to being

accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to

table the 2006-2008 Strategic Pan for the Department of Government Services.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of

the Transparency and Accountability Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JACKMAN: Likewise, Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's

commitment to being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it

is my pleasure to table the 2006-2008 Strategic Plan for the Department of

Environment and Conservation.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of

the Transparency and Accountability Act, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment to being accountable to

the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the

2006-2008 Strategic Plan for the Department of Health and Community Services.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of

the Transparency and Accountability Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment to

being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my

pleasure to table the 2006-2008 Strategic Plan for the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation.

This is a transition plan developed in accordance with the requirements of

the Transparency and Accountability Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that the House, as per Standing

Order 11, not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday and, furthermore, as per Standing

Order 11, that they not adjourn at 10:00 p.m on Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition on behalf of the residents of my

district. Seeing this is the first time this petition has been before the House,

I will read the prayer of the petition.

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS young children are being left to walk to and from school in dangerous

circumstances; and

WHEREAS the current government has ignored concerns about the safety of these

young children; and

WHEREAS these serious safety concerns could be addressed while incurring very

little additional expense;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the

House of Assembly to enact a policy that ensures that children are provided with

a safe way of getting to and from school.

And, as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace in

presenting a petition.

A number of conversations are going on across the floor, which is

interrupting the procedures of the House.

The Chair asks for your co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the members opposite are eating too much fibre, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of my district are faced with a grave and serious

problem. Young children going to school in the morning, because they are within

the 1.6 kilometres of the school, are being asked and even forced to go to

school on the busy highways.

The highway between Victoria and Salmon Cove is one of the busiest highways

out in Conception Bay North. It is not in the best state of repair. It is full

of potholes and ruts. The kids are being -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members again - there are offences on both sides of the House. We

cannot have talking across the House without both sides being involved in the

conversations. Therefore, I am asking members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, who is

attempting to present a petition on behalf of his constituents.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have always accorded every member in this House the opportunity to speak,

Mr. Speaker, and I have a very serious issue here that I would like to bring

forward to the members of this House and ask for some conciliation.

Mr. Speaker, small children carrying bookbags almost as big as themselves are

walking along a busy highway, traffic going back and forth. Cars, trucks, and

even the buses that these children used to travel on, until this September, are

swerving around potholes and so on, and these little children are walking along

the sides of the road, faced with the perils of that walk every morning and

every afternoon. In fact, in one community, Mr. Speaker, the parents themselves

had to enter into a side agreement with a bus company, paying a certain amount

of money each month to take the children home in the afternoons.

Mr. Speaker, this government took away a very basic service that was there in

place last year. This September, the first week that school opened, the parents

were notified that the children were no longer allowed on the buses. Last week,

when we had the snowfall, the roads were not plowed, there were mechanical

problems with the equipment out there, the plows never got out in time, and

children were walking to school in a foot of snow, splashed with slush and snow

and everything else.

I know, Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I will have another petition tomorrow,

and I hope tomorrow I will receive protection of the House to get my full

message out there.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair had allocated the member an extra minute because of the disruption.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am presenting a petition today in support of the community of Williams

Harbour.

Williams Harbour is on the South Coast of Labrador, and I think I have

probably given close to about twenty petitions with regard to this issue in the

last three years, but it is a very important issue.

Williams Harbour is on an island. It is separated by a body of water called

Winter Tickle, and Winter Tickle is just a small channel that separates the

community from the main land. In fact, you could easily put a bridge across

there so that you could connect a road to that community. In fact, prior to the

government changing in 2003, there was a commitment from the Liberal government

to build a road into this community. It was a road of less than twenty-five

kilometres that would cost $5.5 million. In fact, the bridge was already left in

the area to be used to cross Winter Tickle and, to my knowledge, the bridge is

still there.

The environmental assessment was being conducted, the engineering and routing

work was completed, and this road was well on the way to being built as being

the next community to be connected to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Now, I cannot tell you how disappointed the residents of this community were

when they learned that the Williams' government would cancel the road for

their community. They were very disappointed, and so were the people of the

region disappointed, because it was a small amount of money to pay to connect

this community to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

For those of you who are not familiar with the community of Williams Harbour,

you need to know that there are no medical facilities in this community. People

have to travel outside of the community to seek medical services at a nearby

clinic in Charlottetown or Port Hope Simpson. The children beyond Grade 8 or

Grade 9 have to leave the community to be educated and to go to school. All the

amenities that they require need to be brought into the community. In fact, you

cannot even buy fuel there for your snowmobile or your boat, or home heating

fuel for your house. All of those things they have to go outside to be able to

get, so this twenty kilometre road and this bridge across Winter Tickle at a

cost of $5 million or $5.5 million to the government would have been a very

relatively low-cost initiative for the government to improve the quality of

living for the people in this community.

Prior to the last couple of years, many people in Williams Harbour could

access outside communities from the island by snowmobile, but because of global

warming the temperatures have changed in Labrador and the amount of ice that we

get on an annual basis has deceased. We do not get the ice conditions that we

used to get, and as a result the people in Williams Harbour can no longer access

the mainland by snowmobile. Last year, in the one attempt they made to cross the

ice at Winter Tickle to get to the main land, they actually went through the ice

and two individuals nearly drowned. That is the seriousness of this issue. As a

result of that, they have not been able to use snowmobile transportation to get

off the island in the last couple of years.

I want to encourage government, and press upon government and on the current

minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon the government and upon the minister -

who happens to be the Minister for Labrador as well, happens to reside in

Labrador, and is very familiar with this community and the struggles in this

community - to look at this in the Budget. Even though the government cancelled

this initiative three years ago, it deserves to be re-looked at, it deserves to

be reviewed again, and it is a very small investment to be made on behalf of

these people to ensure that they have safe access to the outside areas and safe

access to the services that they require. I hope that this year we will see in

the Budget a road for the community of Williams Harbour.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition to this

House.

I will just read the prayer of the petition. It is addressed to the hon.

House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a rich culture and a

proud heritage; and

WHEREAS the very foundation of a democratic society is its government; and

WHEREAS it is important to celebrate our history; and

WHEREAS the first Speaker of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and

Labrador was elected on New Year's Day, 1833 and 2008 marks the 175

Anniversary of this event in our proud history;

WHEREFORE this petition urges the House of Assembly to formally endorse the

nomination of John Bingley Garland of Trinity, Trinity Bay, by the Trinity

Historic Society to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada as a Person

of National Historic Significance.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Garland was a native of Poole, England and started his

political career as a mayor. In fact, he served two terms as the Mayor of Poole

before moving to Newfoundland, and was first elected to this Legislature in

The Historic Boards of Canada has several awards and one of them is an award

that acknowledges significant contributions by national figures and they have

identified the award as a Person of National Historic Significance. The Trinity

Historic Society believes that John Bingley Garland, and I endorse that belief,

is a person of such distinction. His picture hangs, Mr. Speaker, to the left of

your chair.

The Historic Society, together with local residents on the Bonavista

Peninsula, are planning a special celebration in 2008 to acknowledge the

tremendous contribution that Mr. Garland made to not only the History of

Newfoundland and Labrador, but particularly to the local Trinity area and the

Bonavista Peninsula.

I am asking this Assembly to endorse the recommendation made by the Trinity

Historic Society to have John Bingley Garland designated as a Person of National

Historic Significance.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a petition that I am presenting on behalf - the

people who have signed this petition for me represent communities throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador. I am asking the Assembly to endorse the nomination

and support the request by the Trinity Historic Society to have Mr. Garland

designated as a person of National Historic Significance.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now move Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House

not adjourn today, Tuesday, December 12, at 5:30 o'clock.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seeing we got such a resounding ovation on that one, I now move Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House

not adjourn today, Tuesday, December 12, at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now call second reading of Bill 64.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 64,

An Act To Amend The

Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read

a second time.

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

Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill 64)

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is very similar to what was done in the spring with the MHA pension.

Anybody who contributes to a pension plan, where the contributions that you put

into the plan were above the amount that would be allowable under the Income Tax

Act, we had to set up a supplementary plan. The same contribution rate - we can

only put in what complies with the federal law Income Tax Act and anything in

excess of that would go into a supplementary plan. Under this piece of

legislation, Mr. Speaker, we are doing exactly the same as we are required to do

by law with all plans.

In fact, back in the mid-1990s the former government had assured the federal

government they would move legislation to do that. Based on that commitment,

they have not taken any action against it and made that contribution as a

taxable. What this bill does now, it just puts the other ones in line. It puts

the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act on the

same footing as the MHA Pension Plan, as we do with all our pension plans,

because we have to comply. If not, contributions will be taxable there and that

is not practical so we moved it to supplementary plan. It is doing the same for

these particular pension plans as we did for MHAs in the spring.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will just close my opening comments there on second

reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand today and respond to the Minister of Finance on Bill

64,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act.

It was interesting, for the past two days our newest member into the House of

Assembly, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi, was questioning the Minister of Finance on the inability of government to

recognize that our pensioners, our public service pensioners, out there have not

been indexed. I think she has been given the cold shoulder by this government in

saying they have no interest in that and will not be including pensioners in the

upcoming Budget in March.

As everybody knows, the union is largely responsible for putting forward the

plight of pensioners and those part of their active union right now, the

workforce. As a result of that, I expect that is largely the problem of why

current pensioners have not been indexed. I could understand that in the past

several years the money was not there to address that need, but I would

encourage union leadership.

The President of NAPE who has - their union has a contract in place with this

government. I would encourage the largest union in this Province, and also

others, to look at the plight of pensioners, public service pensioners, in this

Province. We are now in a financial position in this Province where those

pensioners should really be included in indexing, as well as any other

pensioner.

There are no grounds for the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury

Board, to stand up and say that these were not negotiated as part of the

contract for indexing. There is a certain conscience that this government must

take and must bear. Now that they are in a financial position to look at that

area of concern, it is now high time for them to do that. It does not have to

take rallying around the flag by the union membership. It should be just

government's way of looking after the social net of this Province and the

people who are getting pensions from government. Some of them, years ago, were

very, very small. I know for a fact that the pensioners of this Province who

worked for government, some of them had very low pensions, probably $10,000,

$12,000, $15,000. Everything has escalated in cost, but pensions have not.

Public service pensioners, once they receive their old age pension they are

clawed back. They are clawed back if they go over that imaginary line, the line

that is instituted by Revenue Canada. Their old age pension is clawed back.

There is only one group in this Province that does not have claw backs, and that

is the teachers of our Province. They negotiated a deal several years ago where

there would be no claw backs. They are in the best position of any pensioners in

this Province. You cannot hold that against teachers, either, because they had

to give up benefits in order to achieve that one. It was during a time where

they decided they would not take any raises - government was not in a position

to provide any raises - but, for holding off getting a raise, they negotiated, I

guess, what some people would refer to as a Cadillac pension plan. As a result,

there would be no clawback for teachers when they reached the magic age of

sixty-five, but for the new ones coming on stream today it is a different

matter. Their contributions are higher and they are under the same rules and

conditions.

Now, I know I tweaked the interest of the Member for Mount Pearl. He is very

interested in what I am saying because he is pensioner - no, he is not a

pensioner yet. He is hoping to be a pensioner one of these days.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Minister of Finance to look at the plight

of our pensioners, the ones who have not been indexed, and this is the best time

for anyone to bring up those concerns. The minister is going around the Province

and he is doing those pre-budget consultations, as he calls it. This would be

the best time for him to hear from pensioners, and let pensioners remind him

again of the fact that the Province is in a good position financially. I do not

know how long we will stay in that position but right now, through no

initiatives of this government, I would like to say, the financial position we

are in, it is a carryover from the investments that were made from previous

governments. You can giggle all you like, people in the front rows across from

me, that is the truth.

In the pre-budget submission, by the way, that was made in Grand

Falls-Windsor, I looked over the written submission that was made by the

Exploits Valley Development Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce and I could

not believe what I was seeing. This has been an ongoing plight, I might say. The

Exploits Valley Tourism office in Grand Falls-Windsor, which is located on the

Trans-Canada Highway, they do yeoman service for promoting tourism throughout

the Exploits Valley and they are running it single-handed.

While we were the government, this office or tourist chalet - there was one

in Corner Brook. I don't know if they ever came to any kind of an arrangement,

because they ran into the same problem. The tourist chalet in Grand

Falls-Windsor, on the Trans-Canada Highway, is operated by the Exploits Valley

Development Association. They basically run that tourist chalet from the arts

and crafts that are put in there on consignment, from the revenue they generate

from that. Many times throughout the year there are make-work jobs in the area,

and the administration for running those jobs, part of that revenue goes into

that pot as well, but to supplement the tourist chalet in Grand Falls-Windsor

the previous government, of which I was a part, gave them an annual subsidy of

$10,000. I cannot believe it, that this current government reduced that to

$5,000. In the land of full and plenty, more money than they have ever had since

Confederation, they want to promote tourism - and I saw the Minister of Tourism

stand in his place today and give a Ministerial Statement. That same minister

recommended to the Minister of Finance to cut that subsidy from $10,000 a year

to $5,000. That is hard to fathom. Why would he do that? He is trying to promote

tourism. He is trying to bring up the number of tourists that stop in our

Province and here you have a volunteer agency that is trying to run a tourist

chalet for Central Newfoundland, that are not even getting a decent subsidy from

this government. They reduced the subsidy from $10,000 to $5,000 a year.

How can you operate a tourist chalet on that kind of money? You cannot open

from May to October without a subsidy from government. You cannot do it.

We have a bunch of volunteers who are trying to promote our Province and

Central Newfoundland, and government has cut their subsidy, that they had on

their books for years, from $10,000 to $5,000. This is the same government that

had $130 million surplus last year. There is something wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The Minister of Finance reminded me that it was actually $200

million in subsidy, in surplus last year and still he has the gall and the face

to stand up and reduce the subsidy of a volunteer agency who is trying to

promote tourism in this Province.

Apart from that, when I was the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, one of

the last things, a request that the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor asked for, while

I was the minister, was to have access to Duggan Street. I had approved, through

government, an access from Duggan Street to the Trans-Canada Highway.

As soon as this government became the government, they cancelled that right

away. I noticed in The Advertiser about two weeks ago that the Member for

Windsor-Springdale is trying to lobby government to get that done. Three years

on the job and nothing done since. That is incredible. Who has clout in this

government to get work done in their districts? Who has clout in this government

to get -

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I am so glad that the Member for Gander just brought up that.

I can't wait to respond. I cannot wait to respond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MS THISTLE: I cannot wait to respond.

The Member for Gander, the Minister of Business, just said that the Member

for Windsor- Springdale had clout.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not relevant.

MS THISTLE: It is relevant; it is money!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a pensions act here; it is

not a money bill. There has to be relevance. She should speak to the general

principle of this bill, and that is completely unrelated to the bill that is

presently before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has had some discussion recently relative to relevance during the

discussion of certain bills. The general practice across the parliamentary

systems in Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, is that when we are discussing

items of Bills of Supply or Budget there is a wide-ranging discussion permitted;

however, when we are doing other bills members should be relevant to the topic

of the bill.

The Chair asks the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans - and I am sure she is

going to do this - to make her comments relevant to the bill.

There is a point of order, obviously.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding me of trying to keep

relevance.

There are two ways to look at this bill. It is money, in a sense. We are

talking about the Teachers' Pension Plan, and they do not get this for free.

There was $1.9 billion put into it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: The Speaker is able to speak for himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is asking the member if she could make her comments and make her

presentations, and make them relevant to the bill under discussion.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, there are two areas of this bill that are very

relevant to money, and that is the way that the Teachers' Pension Plan will be

paid out, and actually the requirement by Revenue Canada setting out a

requirement as to how this Teachers' Pension Plan will be administered. That

is the reason why this legislation is coming forward today, for no other reason.

When you look at the Teachers' Pension Plan, there has been a large

injection of Accord money being put into the Teachers' Pension Plan. The

reason why that was put into the Teachers' Pension Plan is actually debatable,

because there were so many areas of the Province looking for funding, but a

decision was made by this government -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill has nothing to do with putting any money into the pension plan or

anything related to it. It is strictly the money that is in the plan, the

premiums that people pay. The premiums they pay have to comply with the Income

Tax Act. A commitment was made several years ago by the former government to

rectify it - it had not been done - and basically they have informed us that we

have to do that to comply with the Income Tax Act. All it is doing is, any

amount of money there that is surplus, that does not meet the Income Tax Act,

goes into a supplementary plan like we did for the MHAs this spring. It is not

any new money. It has nothing to do with that. It is how you would put it there

to comply with the Income Tax Act. That is not what the member is indicating

there.

On the second reading of a bill, Mr. Speaker, in this bill you have to talk

about the bill, and even in Committee you have to speak to a specific clause of

the bill.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to respond to the point of order. I actually

heard the Government House Leader raise it earlier.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, I am addressing the

Chair, which I understand is the proper protocol in this place. I will direct my

remarks to the Chair, and the Government House Leader, if he wishes, can

respond. At least do me the courtesy of listening to me.

Mr. Speaker, the point I was going to make, I happened to be outside the

Chamber when I heard it being made by the Government House Leader concerning the

relevance of the comments of the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans with respect to

this piece of legislation.

I have been here since November 20, I believe, this year in this session of

the House. We have had something like twenty-odd, almost thirty, pieces of

legislation passed, and in second reading it has been understood - there has

been a very wide leeway given here. I appreciate and I agree with the ruling

that the Chair has made. I have absolutely no problem with the ruling that you

have made, Mr. Speaker, with regards to the point of order raised just a few

moment ago by the Government House Leader. All I am saying here is that we have

been here since November 20 and we have put twenty-odd, thirty-odd, bills

through second reading. We have had a wide latitude, and the Chair has allowed a

very wide latitude, and I have at least twenty-two Hansards to prove it. I am

just saying, I find it unique that all of a sudden we are here with three days

left in this session, when the Government House Leader and myself have already

discussed what business in going to take place today, and that is usually how

this place works, and the Government House Leader is up now on points of order.

He knows as well as I know what we have agreed to. As far as I know, neither

himself nor myself have breached any agreements that we have had between each

other, number one. He knows the protocol that is going to unfold here the rest

of the day. He knows when we are going to close here today. He knows as well,

and the Chair knows full well, that we have given a very wide latitude when it

comes to second readings.

Not withstanding, I agree that he made a valid point of order and the Chair

made a very valid point of order. I will just say, there are two ways we can

play this game if he wants to. If you are going to come in here and think that

we are going to have agreements on the one hand, but then he is going to jump up

on points of order and everything else when I happen to be out of the House, it

is just not going to work here, Mr. Speaker.

I think, in the best interests of everybody, we have had a very co-operative

session here and I think we ought to keep things on the rails the way they are,

but if that is the way they want to play the ball game, this place could become

a very disruptive place unnecessarily, I would submit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds members of the rules contained in Marleau and Montpetit,

chapter 13, page 530. It discusses the rules of relevance. A few moments ago the

Chair reminded members that when we discuss supply bills, when we discuss

Budget, that there is a wide-ranging debate permitted in that discussion.

However, when we are discussing bills like we have today, there is more of a

constraint upon members, and this is the subject of a previous commentary of the

Speaker just a few moments ago.

In this particular matter now, the Chair is mindful that there should be some

leniency as contained in the guidance given by Marleau and Montpetit. The

member, I do believe, does have some latitude. The Chair believes that it is

possible for her to make her comments without offending the rules of relevancy

and the Chair would invite her to do that. However, we remind all members that

on second reading we should be mindful of the necessity to keep our comments

focused on the topic under discussion.

The Chair again recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what it is, whenever I get up to debate the members across the

way seem to be very touchy and they are always ready to ask about relevance. I

do not know if it is because I am a woman or if it is because they just do not

want to hear what I have to say or what it is.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of supplementary clauses in this particular

bill. Almost every issue that you will bring up will affect a certain group in

our society; a large group, in fact. We have public service pensioners and we

also have teachers. When you look at the makeup of the public service in our

Province, you have really 40,000 active members today, as I speak, besides all

of the pensioners who are out there as well. You look at the fact that you are

talking probably to an audience of maybe 60,000-plus people who are affected,

those who have worked for government and those who are currently working for

government and those who hope to retire at their pace from government; not to be

fired. Everybody is hoping that the contributions they pay in, as prescribed by

their particular profession, will lead them to a retirement that they can enjoy

and be happy with.

If Revenue Canada comes out and advises the Provincial Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador that they have to make adjustments to their record

keeping of the pension plan, for pensioners and would-be pensioners in this

Province, well naturally the Province has to comply; naturally the Province has

to comply. By me getting up here today and outlining some of the benefits of our

pension plan and the reason why our pension plan is pretty much totally funded

at this point, because there was a large injection of Accord money put into the

teachers' pension plan, I find that totally relevant to my discussion. I find

that totally relevant to my discussion. I know I depend on the Speaker to make

that decision of whether or not it is relevant.

When you are talking about a pension fund in this Province for teachers, had

no injection of money been put into that plan, they would have been pretty much

bankrupt by the year 2015. Under the previous government there was a plan put in

by the Tobin government, I would say. He was the first Premier who recognized

that you cannot keep spending pension fund contributions that ordinary people

are making every payday -

MR. TAYLOR: Tobin did? I think that is the only thing that he was

(inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Tobin did. He was the first Premier who said we have to sit

down and recognize that we are spending - the ordinary man and woman who are

paying in their pension contributions every two weeks into the public treasury,

we have to decide right here and now that we are going to start to try and make

that pension fund whole again. A decision was made in 1998 to fund all the

pension plans. As a result of that, it was done, but paying $200 million or $300

million a year on a big pension plan does not even cover the interest. That is

the reason a large injection of almost $2 billion made a great contribution to

the teachers' pension plan.

There are a couple of things that pushed away any other group, any other

group that was looking for money in this Province, any other group such as

Multiple Sclerosis, those looking for drugs for diseases that are not looked

after today. There are a number of drugs on our formulary that are not looked

after where there are needs out there in the public. We get e-mails everyday.

Instead of dealing with those groups, the government of today decided they would

take the lion's share of the Atlantic Accord money and put it into the

teachers' pension plan. Anyone else who was looking for money would go home

with their tail between their legs and say: That's it, I cannot get any money.

As a result, you have a teachers' pension plan that is in pretty good shape

today, but there are public servants out there who are not in too good a shape.

We all know very well that those public servants never got a chance to settle

their contract the last time. They were sent back to work through back-to-work

legislation and whatever they were given they had to take. We almost ran into

the same difficulty three weeks ago when there was no negotiation for

pharmacists. As a result, pharmacists had to be looked after in a crisis

situation under the guise of the health boards.

By acting on the request of Revenue Canada to set up a proper accounting

system for payment of the Teachers' Pension Plan and the Public Service

Pension Plan, we are complying with Revenue Canada requirements.

Now, there is one clause here that I would like to bring to everyone's

attention. They are talking about pension payments - Revenue Canada - and a part

of this legislation says, "... a pension calculated under

section 18(1)

relating to service accrued prior to September 1, 1991 shall be paid from the

pension fund."

What they are saying is that the pension fund today is going to be in several

pots. Those who were being paid prior to 1991 will stay the same, but for the

new ones coming on stream there will be just an internal accounting system to

look after their payments when they are ready to retire.

Now, the question is, with all the news on the radio and in the media the

past couple of days about the fact that teachers themselves - one-third of the

teachers now who start out teaching in our high schools, our elementary and

primary schools, one-third of those teachers do not stay in the profession.

One-third of teachers do not stay in the profession. Of course, we have classic

examples right here in our House of Assembly. How many former teachers are right

here now today in our House of Assembly, who never got their pension plan? They

never worked their thirty years through the provincial government, through the

NLTA. They never stayed in the classroom for thirty years. They are now here in

this House of Assembly.

There are a good many teachers here who never retired from their teaching

professions. They have taken on political careers. We are getting those type of

politicians at the end of their teaching career, not at the beginning, but what

we are hearing today is that teachers today, one-third to the teachers who

graduate and get their teaching degree from whatever university, and they get

into the classroom, one-third of those teachers are not staying.

Of course, we all know that the teachers are happy with their pension fund

but we are finding out in the past week that teachers are not happy in the

classroom, and they have launched a huge campaign in the media to let government

know that they are not happy in the classroom. It is timely, because they are

launching this campaign prior to the Budget.

Now, they think, by launching this campaign right now, that the Minister of

Finance and the Premier and others who sit around the Cabinet table will hear

their plight and they will make an announcement in the upcoming Budget in March

that will address their concerns. Because, if they do not hear from any group

around the Province that is having a problem, they will go and do whatever they

have on their Budget plan.

I would say the Budget, at this point, is pretty much written. All the

Finance Minister has to do is have someone write the speech, and that will be

day-to-day looking at what is going to happen between today and March 25. So

there will be room, there will be some flexibility in the upcoming Budget in

March to address whoever shouts the loudest between now and March and lets the

government know that they have an issue that must be addressed in the upcoming

Budget.

Now, the teachers in the classroom have a big issue and that is distraction

and not enough people in the classroom to assist when there are different

categories and groups of children there. There is not enough help so that the

teacher can spend the best time, and the most time, on task without having to

deal with all the other issues in the classroom.

I saw three retired teachers last night being interviewed on CBC television.

You can tell that life in the classroom has changed significantly since they

were teachers, from the time they started to the time they finished. I think it

would be pretty rare today to see teachers work beyond their thirty-year

requirement. I do not know of too many teachers today who are working beyond

their thirty-year requirement, because most of them will say that in the

classroom today it is pretty stressful. Most days you have to be probably a

parent or a guardian, a babysitter, a social worker, a guidance counsellor, and

everything that falls under the umbrella of giving good care to children.

Sometimes the time that is left for actual teaching is pretty draining.

Then, of course, there is the book work. How many forms and letters and so on

are you required as a teacher now to complete your assignments so that children

are ready to be taught the next day? How much homework is involved? How many

parent-teacher interviews? How often do they have to deal with new curriculum

with no time to really get adjusted to it before they are in the classroom and

they have to teach it? There has been a problem with math in our schools for

twenty years and there has been no influence from anybody trying to fix the math

problem in our schools. Everybody complains about a math problem in our schools.

Curriculum is something that not all children can adapt to, but we have not

found a way in the past twenty years to deal with the math situation in our

schools. So, right now, teachers are launching a big media campaign because the

onus is on teachers to make sure that every child gets a good education and they

do not want to be held responsible or look in years to come and say: Could I

have done more for that particular child? They cannot do more if they are

stressed to the max and they do not have enough resources to make sure that

every child has the same opportunity.

We have a situation in rural Newfoundland today where teachers and students

have to rely on being taught a curriculum through a TV monitor. Now, that is

hardly good enough. Some subjects are difficult enough, and it is great to have

a face-to-face teacher in your classroom where you can ask a question if you are

not sure, but if you have to deal with a monitor and someone there in front of a

podium teaching hundreds of children all over the Province, that is not the

right kind of situation.

There is a danger, too, now that the necessarily existent schools in our

Province might be changed. Maybe government is looking at a situation now that

necessarily existent schools - that legislation may be changed. Well, I hope

that never happens while I am here in this House of Assembly because I will be

the first one to stand on my feet and say that no government should ever do

that.

Every child, no matter where they live in this Province, has to have the

opportunity to a core education. You cannot put small children on a school bus

and expect them to sit there in the cold for an hour and get up early in the

morning, probably dark. I mean, it is dark now in the mornings at 7:00 o'clock,

and for a child to have to get on a school bus, Kindergarten, Grade 1 or Grade 2

or a Grade 3 student to have to get on a school bus and travel for an hour in

the cold in the morning and then be ready to learn. That child then is probably

having to sit down to a school breakfast that was provided. So, you know, it is

not all rosy. The teacher in the classroom today has a lot to deal with.

That is why it is so important that government should, when this Budget

comes, not take teachers out of the classroom. Keep teachers in the classroom as

they are today. Even though our population is dwindling, we have an obligation

to the children of this Province to provide them with a good education. You

cannot base everything on numbers alone. You have to look and see, there are

faces behind those numbers.

Mr. Speaker, these changes that are coming about by way of legislation now

for this particular act will put in place a proper mechanism that this

government can report to Revenue Canada that all payments made to retired public

service pensioners, and also to teachers, are done in accordance with the

legislation, both federal and provincial. Basically, that will be done.

In closing this part of my debate, Mr. Speaker - and I know everybody across

the aisle are delighted, but I will have another opportunity to talk on another

bill before too long - I want to thank you for the opportunity of being able to

debate Bill 64.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Fitzgerald ): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 64. I was curious

first about what the bill was all about, did a bit of digging and still did not

get an answer. The Minister of Finance did give us the answer today. I am glad

to know that he is concerned about keeping the law. Keeping the law is

important.

One of the things that struck me, knowing why we need this amendment, and

knowing the reality in the Province, while there could, sometime down the road,

I suppose, be a danger of contributions exceeding the Income Tax Act, especially

for the public service sector, or for both, there could be a possibility, it is

not there right now. I think both areas, both the public service sector and the

teachers, pay well under what the Income Tax Act allows. There is certainly no

big danger in the present, but even if there were a danger in the future with

regard to the contributions exceeding what is allowed by the Income Tax Act,

looking at it from the perspective of public service pensioners that I have been

talking to there is certainly not going to be any fear of the benefits payable

exceeding what is allowed by the Income Tax Act.

When I talk to the pensioners who are living in poverty, living on less than

$10,000 a year, some of them, they are never going to have to worry about their

benefits coming out of the new supplementary plan account because there is no

way the benefits going to them will ever exceed what is allowed under the Income

Tax Act.

On the one hand, while I see the need for this act, on the other hand I sort

of smile at it and say it is an exercise. Yes, it is in place, the law is in

place, and the federal government can be content, or the Revenue Agency can be

content, that we have something in place so that right accounts would be kept if

necessary. I doubt that the government is very often going to be using the

supplementary account, especially as I said when it comes to benefits payable.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk a little bit more about

government and pensions. I am not going to talk long, but there are some points

I would like to make. I would like to make my points briefly. Maybe I am going

to have to talk a bit longer and speak more so that I will not be

misinterpreted, and be sure that when I say something I am saying enough so that

members across the way do not misinterpret what I have said.

With regard to this Act, I see the government, when it comes to looking at

its responsibility to the public service sector and to teachers, to all those

who work for government directly or indirectly - government has two

responsibilities. It has the responsibility as the employer and therefore that

employer-employee relationship when it comes to the payment of benefits, when it

comes to paying into pension plans, for example, and when it comes to paying the

benefits that accrue from pension plans. But then the government also has the

responsibility for the welfare, the social welfare, of every citizen. Under that

responsibility, the government has a second responsibility to its pensioned

employees, both employees in general and to its pensioned employees.

When the government has pensioned employees, retirees, who are living in dire

straits, retirees who do not have enough pension coming to them, government has

a double hat that it has to wear. Government, yes, has to say, okay, we were

part of the agreements that allowed these pensions to be so low, and in some

cases the pensions are low because of the time in which people did their work.

Government as an employer has that responsibility to say: Well, what can we do

in negotiations to better benefit the retirees? That is where the unions come in

and that is where government and the unions sit down and hammer things out. I

certainly hope in the next round of discussions, that the relevant unions and

the government will look more seriously at the plight of the pensioners who are

living in poverty.

At the same time, the government is the government. It is not just the

employer; it is the government. As a government, it has to look at the fact that

there are people who worked all their lives and who are living in dire poverty.

It has to look at the fact that these people are senior citizens. While

government, yes, has taken some steps in this year's Budget to improve the lot

to senior citizens it has to do an awful lot more, because an individual trying

to live on $9,000 is not getting much. An individual trying to live on $9,000 is

an individual who is hungry, is an individual who has very little. Government

has to improve how it is taking care of senior citizens.

When it comes to the retirees from the public sector, these retirees expect

two things from government. Government has to fulfill its responsibility as the

employer of these people while they worked and government has to fulfill its

responsibility as government. Government has a responsibility to maintain a

social net that keeps people in the status of living that meets the Human Rights

Code, for example. People have the right to have heat. People have the right to

have a shelter over their heads. People have the right to have food. All these

things are outlined in the Human Rights Code and all these things are outlined

in the Charter of Human Rights. This is the week that we have been celebrating

our human rights, the declaration of human rights.

Yes, I am glad that government is so concerned about keeping the law, that it

has put effort into putting this Act in place, and I am glad that our books are

going to be kept carefully. As I have said, I am not going to take more time on

this because it is a rather simple exercise. We are never going to have to

worry, I do not think, about breaking the law that this Act is trying to meet,

but it is there, it is in place. I would like to think that this government has

plans for the future. I would like to think that this government has plans for

being able to put more money into pensions. I would like to think that this

government has plans for increasing benefits to the point that we will need what

this bill is allowing for. That would be wonderful. If this government has those

plans, I will be happy to hear them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for my time and I look forward to

speaking further today on other items.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Acting Government House Leader speaks now he

will close the debate on Bill 64.

The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleagues on all sides of the House for their

contribution to the debate on Bill 64. I think my colleague, the Minister of

Finance, did his usual admirable job in explaining in detail, minute detail, the

implications of this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, with the minute of his detail and resting on that, I am pleased

to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 64,

An Act To Amend The Public

Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a

second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And

The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 64)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act," read a second time, ordered

referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 64)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 68,

An Act To Amend The

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 68,

An Act To Amend The

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

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

Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

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

I am pleased to rise today to introduce this bill. It is a companion bill of

Bill 55, which I just put through the House a couple of days ago. This basically

is a consensus document also, the same as the previous bill.

This toward the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, of course, will

make it a more modern and efficient Act to follow. It was, as I said, in

consensus with labour, government and the employers' council and so on. It

certainly complements Bill 55, which was just passed in the House a couple of

days ago. I look forward to debate in the House on this particular bill, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am back again. I am glad to be standing and debating Bill 68,

An Act To

Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

I will say from the outset, Mr. Speaker, anything that provides a better

mechanism for collective bargaining in this Province is a good move. I was

disappointed myself three years ago when government decided to dismantle the

Department of Labour because there was a lot of good work done in the Department

of Labour. If you were to ask the business community in this Province about the

strides that were made in the Department of Labour, prior to it being

dismantled, they would all say to you that there were a lot of good strides

made. In fact, there was a lot of activity made around the minimum wage act and

so on. As a result of that, there have been a lot of groups that have

contributed to the actual increasing and the mechanism for increasing the

minimum wage.

This bill speaks to the mechanism now that is going to be in place for

grievances and hearings and so on, and trade unions that have made rulings on

any particular issues surrounding their employees and the mechanism for hearing

these grievances and so on.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Pardon me?

MR. SHELLEY: All parties agree (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: The Minister of - what is your title now?

MR. SHELLEY: Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS THISTLE: Okay. The Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment

has said that all parties agree on this bill. I would be the first to say that,

yes, our party agrees on this bill, but it is also timely. This is what the

House of Assembly is for, to actually debate the bills because lots of times

legislation is made into law, and we do not see it at the time. Sometimes there

are situations where the legislation needs to be revamped or amended because

something that is turned into law today might act as an impediment in actually

administering that particular piece of legislation.

This bill sets out the requirements for the Labour Relations Board, the

number of people who can sit on the board and the actual running of the board.

This board acts as a very important intermediary between, actually the people

who have an issue and the company, or whether it be government and so on. Lot's

of times there are situations around our Province where there is a strike that

goes on for days and days and months and weeks and many times the only way it

can be settled is to bring in a mediator. That is government's job to do when

requested.

Of course, there is a situation out in Deer Lake now as we speak, where the

security people have been out, I think this is day seventy-one. It looks like

there is going to be some movement on that particular strike, as we are hearing

now. I do hope they will get that settled before Christmas so those people can

get off the line and get back into their jobs where they should be. That is a

situation where a mediator is required. Lot's of times when there is a dispute

like that it will take a certain length of time before a strike or a labour

dispute is ripe for a conciliator or a mediator, but an experienced person in

that particular job will know when the time is right.

I look back to when I was the Minister of Labour. I had a deputy minister by

the name of Joe O'Neill. He is still there with the Labour Relations agency,

and what a good person he is. I have nothing but positive things to say about

Joe O'Neill. He has proven time and time again that he can work for any

government, regardless of the stripe, and he can do a good job as an official.

He is well regarded by the business community and by labour groups all over this

Province. He is one of a kind, I can tell you that. He is certainly well

respected in his field. He has a feel for when it is right to step in and when

it is right to step back. That is experience he has gained over a government

career, mostly in Labour. It will be a sad day when he retires. I know he is

close to retirement now, probably two or three or four years away from it, or

maybe less -

MR. RIDEOUT: Maybe within months.

MS THISTLE: Maybe within months, the Minister of Fisheries is telling me.

He was one of the key people, actually, in the Final Offer Selection for our

fishing industry, one that was working, then thrown out. We had a new revised

version of it back again. We know that was the one, with him and Dave Vardy and

others, who had developed the Final Offer Selection and it was the best yet that

we can find which really worked. We have a new version now of that, or a revised

version, that the fishing industry will use this coming spring. He was one of

the people involved in developing that, along with Dave Vardy and others.

When you talk about this piece of legislation, it is important. If you talk

to any of the industry around this Province right now, I am hearing that there

are a considerable number of grievances that need to be attended to in this

Province. I have not heard from the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment about the status of grievances in this Province but I know there are

a lot out there who are waiting for decisions. Having a proper board in place to

deal with these grievances around the Province makes for a better working system

and, of course, improves business.

I will not tarry on this bill today, Mr. Minister. As I said from the outset,

I am pleased with the mechanism in place and I am pleased to speak to this bill

and I will be voting for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment speaks now

he will close the debate.

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

I am glad that somebody is getting the name of the department right, Mr.

Speaker, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments. As a matter of fact, it is

exactly what we are doing today. This is a companion bill with Bill 55, which we

put through the House just a couple of days ago.

The good news about this particular piece of legislation - and the member

pointed it out, too - is that we have had all sides working on this together.

When people in this Province - the Employers' Council, government, the Labour

Relations Board and the Federation of Labour all came together on this document

and the previous bill, Mr. Speaker, and it bodes well for labour relations in

the Province.

I do want to say to the member, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Labour

and the labour agency is running very well. It is not dismantled. As a matter of

fact, there were many compliments in the last number of months of how well they

are working with people. The member just referenced Joe O'Neill, for example,

in the department, with the commission. There are many people in that department

that I would like to name here today, who are doing a great job, and I will

respond to the member in saying that there are a number of grievances. At any

time if the member or any member wants an update on any particular grievance

that is happening in the Province, certainly the Labour Relations Agency is

there to answer questions. We are certainly helping out the situation at Deer

Lake Airport as we speak, and we are always hopeful that a resolution can be

found. I am certainly hoping it can be, especially this time of year, Mr.

Speaker. Any time, really, but especially this time of year.

On this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a

companion bill to what we just passed, dealing with the boards to make it more

effective, to make it more modern, to make it more efficient. I am delighted

that both pieces of legislation have had the support of everybody in the House.

It shows that, besides labour relations and the federation and employers'

council coming together, also we can work together in the House when we have

something positive to bring forward, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): It is moved and seconded that Bill 68,

An Act To

Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 68 be read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining

Act. (Bill 68)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 68,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective

Bargaining Act, has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. SULLIVAN: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective

Bargaining Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House presently, by leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to

consider those two bills.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 64 and Bill 68, and that I do now

leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I call Bill 68,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

CHAIR: The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 68,

An Act To Amend

The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining

Act." (Bill 68)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 15.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 15 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Clauses 1 to 15 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 15 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The

Teachers' Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I think the Clerk may have read the wrong title there.

CLERK: I am sorry.

Oh, yes, I did the clauses.

CHAIR: I think the clause numbers have been read out wrong as well, so

what we can do is revert to Bill 64 and allow everything to fall in order, and I

think the Committee would be in order at that time.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is fine, Mr. Chair, I agree with that. We will not

have to go back over it again.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The

Teachers' Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 64,

An Act To Amend The Public Service

Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Bill 64 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance, President of Treasury Board, and

Government House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill 68,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

CHAIR: Bill 68,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining

Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining

Act." (Bill 68)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 5.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 5 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.