December 10, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 43

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the very reasons that members in the type of democracy

that we have in the British parliamentary system exist, is to discuss in an

open, forthright and transparent way the budgetary process, appropriations by

government in terms of the issuance of public service, and the ability of

members to pursue this parliamentary work, not as a privilege but as a

fundamental right within the system in which we operate.

Mr. Speaker, last night, in debate dealing with Bill 8, a bill on

supplementary supply, it was reconfirmed, in our view, that the very laws

concerning the appropriations dealing with the budgetary process, the Financial

Administration Act in particular, were not only breached but were broken by the

very people and the very minister who has been charged with the responsibility

of upholding them.

Mr. Speaker, just let me say for the record that we believe that our

privileges as members, and all members indeed, that their privileges and rights

have been breached and broken. I use page 189 of Maingot to cite the following:

Alleged acts must relate to a member's parliamentary work: words or acts must

amount to contempt. He says, "But it is because of the nature that a valid

question of privilege only arises infrequently. There must be some act that

improperly interferes with the member's rights.... The interference, however,

must not only obstruct the member in his capacity as a member, it must obstruct

or allege to obstruct the member in his ..." - or her -

"...parliamentary work."

Mr. Speaker, on the facts: Last March, while the budgetary process was

unfolding, there were a number of special warrants issued, and they were issued

under the Financial Administration Act,

section 2, where it says: and confirmed

by statements in the House by the minister and others. It says: where the sum

appropriated by the Legislature for a continuing service is insufficient to meet

the requirements of that service during the year for which the appropriation has

been made, then, upon the report of the minister that there is insufficient

legislative provision and that no countervailing savings are available from

other subheads of the head of expenditure concerned, and upon the report of the

minister having charge of that service in question that the necessity is urgent,

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, on the recommendation in the writing of

the board, order that a special warrant be prepared for signature by the

Lieutenant-Governor for issue of the amount estimated to be required.

Mr. Speaker, on March 15 of last year, and on March 27 of last year, special

warrants were issued by the minister in Cabinet totalling $48.1 million. Now,

under the

section that they have themselves quoted as using, it is one of the

only ways in which, as I just cited from the act, government can issue

legitimately without coming to this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the breach of the act occurred this way: because one of the

conditions in issuing a special warrant - and it says very clearly: In the case

where the House of Assembly is open and a special warrant is issued, then that

warrant must be tabled in this House three days after it has been issued.

Mr. Speaker, last year the House of Assembly opened on the March 11. Special

warrants were issued on the 15 th , on the 22 nd and on the

27 th . In all cases - and this is not an opinion but this is one of

incontestable fact - under the sections where the special warrants were issued,

the minister was obligated on behalf of the government to table those special

warrants within a three-day period because the House of Assembly was open. Mr.

Speaker, that was not done.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just a mere oversight. The Auditor General has

confirmed in her reports, and has warned government repeatedly over a period of

several years, that the issuance of special warrants in the latter part of March

not coming to the House of Assembly when we were in session is a contravention

of the act, that the very laws that we were sworn to uphold have been breached.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: On March 25, to add insult to injury, the

Member for Ferryland, in asking direct questions to the minister, asked her

directly, had any special warrants been issued this month, or were any special

warrants going to be issued before this month was over.

Mr. Speaker, the reply - you can search for yourself - is self-evident. The

minister did not answer the question directly. She said there would be nothing

hidden. At the same time - before that question was asked - two days after, went

ahead and issued special warrants.

Mr. Speaker, these warrants were tabled in the House outside the requirements

under the law in the latter part of April. Now to those who would say that, in

responding to questions in Question Period, it is not a breach of privilege, let

me answer it this way. I refer members to page 25,

section 92 and

section 97 of Beauchesne .

First it says, "A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with

a Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties and not to the work

the Member does in relation to that Member's consistency." All of our

duties were breached, in our view, because we were debating the very budget and

the financial appropriations of the Province. At the same time we were debating

that, special warrants were being issued in contravention of the act that denied

us the information to debate thoroughly, prudently, in an open and transparent

way, all of the money that government was using.

The second section, Mr. Speaker, says, "While it is correct to say that

the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions,

it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima

facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt

to deny answers to an Hon. Member, if it could be shown that such action

amounted to improper interference with the Hon. Member's parliamentary

work."

Mr. Speaker, it is our view that we have demonstrated very clearly, supported

by an Officer of this House, that being the Auditor General in terms of the

breaches of the Financial Administration Act of the law, denying members of this

House information that we clearly had a right to have. Government in a willful

attempt, Mr. Speaker, denied us that information and broke the law.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying this: such action undermines the

credibility of the House of Assembly. It undermines the credibility that people

should hold in members in this House. It circumvented information that we had a

right to have. It was not a privilege or something that government could offer,

it was something they had an obligation under the law to offer to members of the

House.

Mr. Speaker, it is this very action that questions the public confidence in

government and questions all member's integrity when it comes to openness,

transparency and accountability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is an attempt to besmirch and

taint the good record of this government. This is what we have, Mr. Speaker.

This is no point of privilege. If this were a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker,

this House would cease to operate, practically.

What this government has done with respect to supplementary supply has been

done ever since my association with this House, which goes back twenty-five

years. Mr. Speaker, I do not recall ever a year when there wasn't

supplementary supply brought in with special warrants. What this government has

done is substantially reduced the number of special warrants that have come to

this House. We have tried to follow the guidelines suggested by the Auditor

General. Again, I do not know the year that the Auditor General did not

criticize a government for bringing in special warrants. The Auditor General

works and calls for perfection. We are not perfect. We are pretty good, but we

are not perfect, Mr. Speaker. We have substantially reduced the number of

warrants coming to this House, but we are a government of compassion. We are a

government that cares. We follow the rules which we are allowed to operate under

in providing these special warrants.

Now, the hon. member mentions about the timing. These special warrants were

tabled in this House April 30. They became public knowledge April 30. We could

not get them to the floor to be debated before this time. There are lots of

things on the Order Paper, but once it is on the Order Paper and once it is

tabled, it is then public knowledge. Nothing was kept from the public, Mr.

Speaker, it was all there. The hon. member debated it when he took up that

nine-and-a-half marathon hours back in the spring, when he took up the time of

the House, wasted the time of the House, with nine-and-a-half hours of debate.

If he had taken normal time, we may have had a chance to debate the supply.

Let me say about the point of privilege first of all, and I quote: If this

government broke the law so has every other government in the twenty-five years

that I have been here, and no point of privilege was ever granted on that

particular issue. If there was a point of privilege granted, as I have said, Mr.

Speaker, that this parliament would be so hamstrung that the government would

not be able to move.

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from Beauchesne , 25. It says, "The

Speaker has stated: On a number of occasions I have defined what I consider

to be parliamentary privilege. Privilege is what sets Hon. Members apart from

other citizens giving them rights which the public does not possess. I suggest

that we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might

add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over

the centuries as belonging to members of the House of Commons. In my view,

parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the

House of Commons and the right of a Member to discharge his duties in the House

as a Member of the House of Commons.'"

Mr. Speaker. That is what our parliamentary privilege is about, free speech

in this House and it does not go much beyond that. This action by this

government did nothing to affect free speech. Indeed, it is the most open

government that we have ever had in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, further, Beauchesne - as I have said,

whatever it is it is not a point of privilege. What it is, Mr. Speaker, is a

government showing good commonsense to address matters of urgency showing

compassion and commitment to the public of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Whatever else this is, it is not a point of privilege. Let me, in conclusion,

refer your Honour to 31.(9), "The failure of the Government to comply

with the law..." that were the case, Mr. Speaker, is the case made by the

hon. Opposition House Leader. This was his sole point of privilege. This was his

big emphatic point, that the government broke the law, that it broke its own

law. Beauchesne says about that in 31.(9), "The failure of the

Government to comply with the law is not a matter for the Speaker, but should be

decided by the courts."

Mr. Speaker, whatever else it is, this is not a point of privilege, I submit

to Your Honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. member under advisement.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate two residents with

connections to the Burin Peninsula who performed extremely well at the Eastern

Canadian Powerlifting Championships in Charlottetown, P.E.I. over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, Jamie Emberly, a native of Marystown who now lives in Nova

Scotia, broke a bench press national record in the super heavyweight - 110 kilos

and over - category at the championships.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I, along with my hon. colleague from Grand Bank, would

like to congratulate Byron Monster of Fortune who was a double gold medal winner

at the same championship event.

Competing in the Masters 1 category, Byron finished first in the overall 100

kilogram category with a total of 1,388 pounds lifted. That included personal

best lift of 550 pounds each in the squat and deadlift and a 308 pound bench

press. Byron also lifted 308 pounds in a separate bench press competition to

claim another gold in the event.

He now qualifies for the 2003 powerlifting national championships that will

take place in Winnipeg this March.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members in this House, I congratulate Jamie

Emberly and Byron Monster for their achievements in this national championship.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In late November, 1982, in the gymnasium of Truman Edison Memorial in Gunners

Cove, a group of young people from the area, and a group of sea cadets from 184

RCSCC Curling in Corner Brook and their officers came together to form the 285 th

Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corp Leif Ericsson.

Mr. Speaker, at that time, as I said, there were about forty-five or fifty

young people involved. Officer Zelda Pynn, Madonna Roberts, Eric Young, Gerald

Hillier, Marie MacDonald and my father, Leonard Taylor, formed, as I say, the

RCSCC 285 Leif Ericsson.

In the twenty years, since that time, there have been many hundreds of sea

cadets who have passed through that organization providing a great opportunity

for the young people of the area to expand their horizons, to experience new

things, to go to sea cadet camp in Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia, go on

tall ship cruises and, in short, I guess, Mr. Speaker, to have a great life

experience.

Mr. Speaker, the Corp is alive and well today. There are fifty-three - I just

talked to one of the officers this morning - cadets on strength in the Corp

today. Lieutenant Debbie Humby who is Commander Officer, Christopher Humby,

Diane Snow, Lisa Pilgrim, Sabrina Humby, and Ida Roberts carry on the tradition

of providing young people in the area with an opportunity to grow and to

experience, as I said, many of the things that the sea cadet organization has to

offer.

Mr. Speaker, over a third of the total youth in the area are involved in the

sea cadet corp here. They have done a marvelous job over the past twenty years

in providing opportunities for these young people. As Christopher Humby said to

me this morning: You know, the great thing about the cadet organization is that

it provides people of all backgrounds equal opportunity. The only thing that

really sets people apart is the amount of interest and the amount of work that

they put into it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend congratulations to the officers and

cadets of RCSCC Leif Ericsson on twenty years of success, and certainly to all

people who are involved and dedicate their time to the cadet movement throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving recently launched a campaign in Southern

Labrador, in which a red ribbon will be distributed to residents to spread the

MADD message.

The campaign was launched to encourage people to drive sober and, because the

red ribbons bring new meaning to the words, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, it is

encouraging that people wear one during the upcoming holiday season.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Jackie Rumbolt and other members

and organizers of this campaign in Southern Labrador, and send out my best

wishes to them.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a young girl by the name of Niki

Rumbolt, who is a Grade 8 student at St. Mary's All-Grade School, in Mary's

Harbour. She was on hand for the launch of this campaign. Niki captured first

place in the 2002 MADD Canada National Writing Contest for the eleven to

fourteen age category. She was presented with a plaque, $250, and other gifts by

MADD Canada.

Mr. Speaker I would like the hon. members of this House to join me as I

congratulate the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers organization for their recent

campaign launch and to Niki Rumbolt for her award-writing essay in the 2002 MADD

Canada National Writing Contest. Her essay, Mr. Speaker, was titled: A letter to

Daddy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Bishop Field Elementary School, located in my

district, on being awarded membership in the League of Peaceful Schools, the

fourth school within the Avalon East School Board jurisdiction to achieve this

designation.

Peaceful Schools International was founded by Hetty van Gurp, a Nova Scotia

school principal whose son died as a consequence of a school bullying incident.

To be awarded a Peaceful School designation, the school must demonstrate a

commitment to creating and maintaining a culture of peace within the school,

with ongoing programs for students supported by staff training for teachers and

parent involvement. At Bishop Field this has involved the direct teaching of

citizenship skills, a peace festival, visits by RNC officers as part of an

anti-bullying program and participation in Remembrance Day and other citizenship

activities.

Bishop Field proudly flies the flag of Peaceful Schools International in its

corridor and I want to congratulate the Principal of Bishop Field School, Judy

Gard-Puddester, the parents, students and teachers who have worked so hard to

achieve this designation. I would urge other schools in this Province to

consider this program as a way to make their school a safe one for their

children, where the culture of peace and respect for each other is demonstrated

and celebrated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education. She is standing on a Member's Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, could I ask leave to present a statement from my

district?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS KELLY: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a constituent of mine, Mr. Maxwell

Hussey, who, last week, celebrated his 100 th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Hussey was born in Herring Neck on December 4, 1902 and

lived on Baccalieu Island where his father was the lighthouse keeper. He left

the Island at age six to attend school in Herring Neck. At a very young age he

began to work with the trade union where he worked as manager at various union

store locations, including Wadham Islands, Ladle Cove and Musgrave Harbour.

During World War II, Mr. Hussey worked on the base in Gander with a company

known as Atlas. From there he began to work with Goodyear Humber Stores in

Gander where he worked until his retirement at age seventy-five.

All of his life, Mr. Hussey enjoyed fishing on the Gander, Ragged Harbour and

Conne Rivers and did so until the ripe old age of ninety-three. Before 1992 he

loved to cod fish and spent time on Duck Island with his family picking

bakeapples.

Mr. Hussey married Bessie Abbott from Musgrave Harbour and they had five

children, sixteen grandchildren, twenty-seven great-grandchildren and eight

great-great-grandchildren. Mr. Hussey currently resides at Lakeside Homes in

Gander since January 5, 1997, and still greatly enjoys visits from his family

and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I have known Mr. Hussey all of my life and it was a great

pleasure to visit him last weekend. They had a great celebration for his

birthday. He has always been a very happy person with a really positive outlook

on life and I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in wishing Mr.

Hussey a very happy 100 th birthday.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Christmas season is a time of giving. Now that we are well

into the season, we once again are experiencing a movement that started in our

Province many years ago. It gives us the opportunity to give to those less

fortunate than ourselves. What I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the Happy

Tree. Throughout our Province organizations are involved in providing this

invaluable service to those, as I said, who need it.

On November 23, I had the opportunity to partake in the official opening of

the Happy Tree at the Placentia mall, which covers most of my district. Each

year the crowd seems to be getting larger and larger. I would like to take the

opportunity to congratulate those involved: the Placentia Lion's Club, CHCM

Marystown and Russ Murphy, the Upper Trinity South Salvation Army Band, and all

of the businesses, organizations and individuals who give so freely to this

worthwhile cause.

Mr. Speaker, this is not unique in my district, as I have said. This effort

ensures that no child is left without a gift under the tree on Christmas

morning. A very important cause indeed. I would like to congratulate all those

involved throughout our Province, and a special congratulations and thank you to

the people in my own district. Because of these people, the Christmas spirit is

alive and well in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance.

In this House on March 25, 2002, I asked the minister a specific question. I

asked her: Have any special warrants been issued so far this month that we are

not aware of, and is it government's intent to issue any more before the end

of this month? On March 15, 2002, ten days earlier, special warrants were issued

for $2,672,000. On March 22, three days before my questions, special warrants

were issued for $10,953,000, for a grand total of $13,625,000. I asked the

minister, was she trying to hide special warrants from the House? I ask the

minister now: Why did the minister tell me that day, five times in her response,

that there was nothing hidden?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to answer the questions again. I can answer very clearly

that in every case the letter of the law has been followed. There was absolutely

nothing hidden.

I would say to members opposite, particularly on the presentation that was

made by the Opposition House Leader about violations of the Financial

Administration Act, and quoting the Auditor General, at no point has the Auditor

General ever commented on a breach of a time frame. Clearly, the Auditor General

and government differ on

definitions of urgent, but I can honestly say that with

every point, with every special warrant, these were tabled in accordance with

the law. There has never been a breach of the Financial Administration Act as it

relates to the dates of issue and the dates of tabling in the House of Assembly.

There is nothing hidden and, in fact, the information is there for all to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Auditor General, in her report, on page 73, indicates they were issued

when the House was in session, and does make reference, I might add.

The Financial Administration Act right here requires that special warrants

that are issued under

section 28.(2) - that these warrants were - must be tabled

in the House within three days of the special warrants. That is

section

28.(4)(

d) of the Financial Administration Act. Those issued on March 15 - and I

have the date the House was open here - should have been tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question now.

MR. SULLIVAN: These warrants on March 15 should have been tabled before I

asked my questions. Those on March 22 should have been tabled around the time I

asked my questions. They were not tabled until April 29.

I ask the minister: Why did the minister not comply with

section 28.(4)(

d) of

the act and table them within three days the House being open?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the question

because again I can say very clearly, unequivocally, that the letter of the law

was followed. The Financial Administration Act was not only never breached; in

fact, it was held up to the highest level in that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Members opposite laugh, but I take quite seriously, as

do all my colleagues, when there have been motives impugned about breaking the

law here, and I take great personal offence, as do my colleagues, when they know

the difference. I think power can do awful things to people when they stray from

the actual facts here, because I think people need to know the truth here.

Let me quote, Mr. Speaker - if I could have the liberty to clarify this

information in answer to the question, I think it is important for the people of

the Province to hear this, if they want to hear it. I will say first, the

special warrant for Works, Services and Transportation issued on September 18 -

was the House open? No. When was it tabled? When the House opened, within the -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Okay, I can get down to all of the other ones if the

member opposite wants to hear them. He says it is not the one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I can clarify every single one, the date they were

issued and when they were tabled, but it is clear he does not want to hear it

because he knows the fact is that he does not know the fact, and that he is

making false allegations about breach of the Financial Administration Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I minister knows full well that the ones that were issued in September and

November were tabled when the House opened, and I am not asking about them. I am

asking about the ones on March 15 and March 22, that the law was broken.

Mr. Speaker, on March 27, two days after I raised that question here in this

House, more special warrants were issued for the sum of $34,631,700. These were

not tabled in the House, I might add, until April 29, when the House sat on

April 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25 and 29.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Why did she continue to break the law,

even after I raised the issue on March 25?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the law was never broken, and if the member

opposite would listen, I will only be too happy to say: On March 27 there was a

special issue warrant. The House was open. When was it tabled? The same day,

March 27, within three days. Okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Education, a special warrant for $10 million. When was

it issued? March 27. When was it tabled in this House? March 27, Mr. Speaker..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Another one, Health and Community Services, Mr. Speaker,

a special warrant of $6.3 million for drug programs for our seniors and our

social assistance recipients. When was it issued? March 27. When was it tabled

in this House of Assembly? March 27.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Further, Mr. Speaker, Health and Community Services, a

special warrant of $10.9 million, Mr. Speaker. When was it issued? March 27.

When was it tabled in this House of Assembly? March 27.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Further, Mr. Speaker, Health and Community Services, an

allocation of $17.5 million for our hospitals for health equipment and services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

When was it issued? March 27. When was it tabled, Mr. Speaker? March 27.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister - I did not hear her say when she tabled

March 15. Could she tell the House on that one, too?

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

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to answer that question as

well. A special warrant for $1.9 million for Justice, issued on March 15, the

House was not open, according to my records. When was it tabled? The very same

time I tabled all the others, March 27, within the requirements of the Financial

Act,

section 28(2).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Further, may I say another one for justice again? Court

recording equipment, when was it issued? March 15. According to our records this

House was not sitting. When was it tabled? The same time as every other, March

27, fully within compliance of the Financial Administration Act. No laws broken,

only motives impugned, I say to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my records show that the warrant was issued on March 15. The

House sat on March 19, March 20, March 21, March 25 and March 26, five days and

it still was not tabled. Minister, that is in contravention of the Financial

Administration Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the question on March 25 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: When I asked the question - I would like an opportunity to

ask a question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 15 warrants were issued for $720,000 and $1,952,000. The minister

said she did not table them until March 27. She just said that. That means five

previous days had elapsed in which she did not comply with that. That is

contrary to

section 28.4(

d) of the act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will she admit, by her own admission

today, showing that she contravened the administration act and will she get up

and apologize for not tabling it in compliance with this act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I will admit is that he does

not know what he is talking about. That is the only thing I will admit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will say this - let me say this, Mr. Speaker, in

response to his very long

preamble. I would like the opportunity to respond to

your

preamble. The member opposite knows, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to get to her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The member opposite knows, when he read from the

Financial Administration Act, that when the House is not in session special

warrants must be tabled within thirty days. I never waited thirty days, Mr.

Speaker. I tabled within fifteen days of the House opening. Strictly within the

law.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is correct. It is written here. Maybe he does not

agree with what is written in the act. Maybe you know more than what is written

as part of the law. I know you are all knowing in many ways but this is the law,

I say to the Member for Ferryland. This is accurate. This is the letter of the

law. You might not like it, I will say to him, but it happens to be the law.

That is what we follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wonder if the minister is clear. Does she understand that

section 22

of the act is money expended already under heads that are listed?

Section 23 of

the act is for a new expenditure not set out. That is the thirty day one. The

one for an over-expenditure on a current one is the one that must be tabled in

three days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is trying to confuse and tell people that it

is a different section.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister: Will she now admit, she said it on the record in

this House, that she broke the law on the March 15 warrant? That is the one I

asked about on March 25, and she hid it from this House. Would she stand now and

tell the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I urge the member, who is the critic - now,

he is talking the whole time I am trying to respond. I listened to what you were

saying and I would like to say that you should read the act -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members, when they are speaking in this House, to address the

Chair.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is written right in the act: When the

House is not in session, and you are making an expenditure on an existing

service -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. minister ought to be directing her comments to the Chair.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: By all means, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the House is not in session, and a special warrant is

issued on an existing service, that information must be tabled within thirty

days.

Now, I say to the member opposite, that there is no new allocation here. This

is an extension of an existing service. It is totally within the law. I say to

the member opposite, he knows he is mistaken. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we

have followed the letter of the law. He knows the difference. He might not like

the law, he might have thought he had a big coup going here today and the big

unwrapping of clandestine operation. I have to say, this government, these

members, have followed the law -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - and we stand by following the law, and will continue

to make those decisions for the people of the Province, for health and education

and other types of community services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, earlier, in Question Period, the minister said

that the only difficulty the government and the Auditor General had over the

Financial Administration Act was not that it was breached or contravened or

anything like that, it was just a question of timing.

In view of that, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice this question.

In any unbiased look at what the word contravene means, it means to violate, to

break or to violate. Let me ask him this question: How does -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice this question. This minister is

responsible for upholding the laws of the Province. How does he, I guess, square

the circle, that the Minister of Finance just said they didn't contravene the

law, when the Auditor General says clearly that they were issued in

contravention of the Financial Administration Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. the Opposition House

Leader that it is not the role of the Minister of Justice or the Attorney

General to give legal advise to him or this House. Perhaps he might consult with

either one of the three lawyers he has in his caucus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my advise to the Minister of Justice is that

you go back and try the socko communications course that he used.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this minister is responsible to

uphold the laws of the Province, not only for the people the laws are to serve

and protect but also to hold all of his colleagues accountable.

I will ask you again: How do you justify the Auditor General saying that you

are in contravention of the Financial Administration Act? How do you, as

Minister of Justice and Attorney General, justify the breaking of your own laws?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there is a distinction between Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, and I will not belabour the time in this response

to explain to the hon gentlemen what the distinction is. If he has a concern

with the Report of the Auditor General vis--vis the actions of our Minister of

Finance, I suggest that he should consult legal counsel, or the RCMP, or the RNC

if he feels that there has been a breach. We certainly have not been advised of

such by the Auditor General.

I would also remind the gentleman opposite that it is not the role of the

Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of this Province to keep anyone in

this House, or in any party of this government, accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, during March and April of this year, Work, Services and

Transportation entered into twenty-eight lease renewal contract for office space

on a month-to-month basis, valued at over $1 million, without calling public

tenders. The reasons given for all twenty-eight leases were to give the

department sufficient time to determine future space plans for each lease. Will

the minister explain why proper procedure was not followed, and why proper

planning was not carried out, before the leases expired in order for tenders to

be called in a timely manner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this department, as you know, acts for all the

departments of government in terms of rental of space. Recommendations come in

from the departments in terms of allocation of space and the way they want space

allocated. Sometimes they are doing a consultation of offices and moving offices

around, and from time to time they need more time to be able to do their

planning in terms of their human resources and they request that the lease be

extended on a month-to-month basis.

In some cases, in small communities around Newfoundland and Labrador,

sometimes it is the only space available. In other cases, there are plans to

consolidate and put all of the government departments in the one building. There

are all kinds of reasons.

As the hon. member indicated in his question, that is the reason that this

department exists, to be able to go out and look for the lease for these

building at the cheapest rate possible. That is what the department has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question because he

does not know the answer to the question.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation entered into five leases of renewal for office space valued

at over $166,000 in March and April of this year without calling tenders simply

because the client department wanted to stay in their current location? Can the

minister explain how this is a legitimate reason for not calling public tenders?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: If we are talking about the Department of Health and we are

talking about Human Resources and Development, we are talking about a service to

the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. These offices are set up in strategic

locations around the Province, in the City of St. John's, the City of Corner

Brook, and all around the Province. Our clients and the people we serve are used

to going to these particular offices. They have become accustomed to going to

these offices. They may be on a major bus route. All the other conveniences are

looked at in terms of providing services to the public.

This government is in the business of serving people. That is what this

government is all about, and this department is in the business of providing

services to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Chair of the

Cabinet Committee on Air Access.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House yesterday because I gave up my

flight to a person from Labrador West who had to get out to visit a

critically-ill family member. That is not the first time, I might add, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a question. I ask him to get to his question now

quickly.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador West are having great

difficulty in obtaining airline travel particularly on weekends. We had cases

yesterday, this past weekend and other weekends, where people have had to travel

the roundabout way, leave Wabush, travel to Seven Islands, Blanc-Sablon , Goose

Bay and St. John's; twelve hours travelling at a cost of $2,300, to get to St.

John's when they had to.

The minister had meetings in Labrador West earlier this year and said he

would push the federal minister to have the airport in Wabush declared a remote

and essential airport. I ask the minister: When will the airport in Wabush be

declared a remote and essential service so that residents of Labrador have some

chance of getting air service that provides enough seats that allow them to

travel when the need arises?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an important issue. As the hon. member knows,

we are dealing with a federal matter but, because this government is concerned,

because the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is concerned about air

access to and within the Province, we have taken on the task of lobbying with

all of the stakeholders and particularly with the federal government. One of our

concerns, as a result of the national air policy which designates airports into

certain designations, is that all of the airports in this Province, with the

exclusion of St. John's and Gander, which have been designated as national,

have been designated as regional and local. That excludes the Labrador Coast.

We have lobbied that this decision be revisited and that Wabush certainly be

classified as a remote airport. This, we believe, would help solve the problem

because, first of all, in order to have air accessability - this is very obvious

- we must have an airport, and an airport that is operating. We are very

concerned about that and yes, we have lobbied with the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the minister that what happened this past weekend is not a

unique circumstance; it is becoming the norm in Labrador West. From Friday noon

until Monday noon, from Labrador West, there are approximately seven or eight

seats available for people to travel. I say that is far from being acceptable.

I ask the minister again: How long will residents in Labrador have to wait

before they see a seven-day-a-week service with a number of flights and seats

that can accommodate the need that is arising in Labrador West, so that people

who have to travel to the Island portion of the Province will be able to do so,

not as an option but as a necessity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, if we had control, if we had the authority to

remediate in that situation, Mr. Speaker, they would not have to wait a day

longer; if we had the authority, if we had the control. All we can do is make

representation, and we have made the representation. We have made strong

representation. We know that Wabush is in a difficult position. We know that

are not going to stop until that is achieved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

It is an important issue to homeowners in the downtown area. It is not meant

to be a confrontational question in any means. The homeowners in the downtown

area are experiencing great difficulty with home insurance policies. Some

insurance companies are sending letters demanding repairs such as electrical,

oil tanks, and so on, be done within thirty or sixty days. Some insurance

companies are sending letters simply demanding that the policy be cancelled,

that they are no longer interested in providing policies for protection to these

homeowners.

I ask the minster if there is anything that he can do, in his capacity, to

alleviate some of the concerns of homeowners in the downtown area, to intervene

on behalf of the policyholders and homeowners, to cut out the short notice

demands to perform costly repairs and the short notice cancellations of

policies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we realize that people are having problems

with the insurance companies and the fuel companies. That was the reason why we

endeavoured last year to set up regulations to ensure that they would continue

getting proper insurance coverage. Unfortunately, some of the insurers and some

of the fuel companies seem to be very aggressive about trying to enforce their

requirements, and we have been talking with them. We had a meeting. The Minister

of Environment and officials of both of our departments called them in for

meetings a few weeks ago, and we are looking at what we may be able to do to try

to get them to ease off on their requirements.

The fact of the matter, Sir, is that we cannot tell insurance companies, and

we cannot tell fuel companies, the conditions under which they will do business,

but we do work with all of the homeowners, and anybody who is having particular

problems should get in touch with us. Some of the homeowners who are having

trouble getting insurance are finding that the rates they are being charged are

becoming very high -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. NOEL: - and they get in touch with our department and we are usually

successful in helping them find insurance options. I encourage any homeowners

who are having these sorts of problems to get in touch with our department and

we will endeavour to help them out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister, it is not only homeowners with oil tanks. There are homeowners in

the downtown area who have had coverage with the same company for decades

without ever having a claim, without oil tanks. These homeowners are having

their policies cancelled with only a thirty-day notice.

How is it that so many insurance companies are cancelling policies, yet at

the same time, the homeowners shop around and can get a policy from another

insurance company at a much higher premium? I am asking the minister if we can

have the superintendent of insurance investigate this to find out why one

insurance company can cancel a policy on one street and offer a higher premium

to a homeowner on another street? I am asking the minister if we can ask the

superintendent of insurance to investigate this to find out if, in fact, the

insurance companies are acting on the best interest of the homeowners,

policyholders in the downtown area?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Service and Lands.

MR. NOEL: We do not need to investigate this to know what is going on. We

are well aware of what is going on. We keep in constant touch with what is

happening in that regard.

The hon. member talks about the problems that people are encountering. He

would be much more helpful if he could come up with some solutions. The fact of

the matter is that homeowner insurance is not regulated in our Province. The

only insurance that is regulated is automobile insurance, and, as everybody

knows, it is not very easy to keep down the cost of automobile insurance even

though we regulate it.

Homeowner insurance is not regulated. These are private enterprise companies.

They are free to operate as they wish. If people think that we should try to

look into regulating such companies, we could do so, Mr. Speaker. But the fact

of the matter is, the insurance companies are not making adequate profits these

days and they are going to keep raising rates, or eliminating risks, until they

do. We are doing all we can to help homeowners, but we are very limited in what

we are able to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order today because I think it is very important to

raise attention to some of the comments that were made here today in the House,

as well as last night, but more specifically today. If any member in this House

were to call another member a liar, I think, Mr. Speaker, by your judgement they

would be asked to recant and apologize.

In this measure today, I know that word was not used, but when somebody is

accused - and I speak about accusations made about the Minister of Finance

breaking the law. I think it affects, not only the Minister of Finance in my

case, but all of us. I have to say that in terms of the magnitude of the

problem, I think it is - Mr. Speaker, in terms of the magnitude of this kind of

accusation saying that members opposite and me, as Minister of Finance, have

broken the law when in fact, Mr. Speaker, not only have I, I think, clarified to

the letter of the law how we have followed the Financial Administration Act by

both the issuance of special warrants through the Cabinet process and then

following up with the tabling of special warrants, not only within the three day

period when the House was open, but on the very day.

When the House was closed I say, Mr. Speaker, within the designated time -

because the House was closed on the dates the member refers to and still special

warrants were issued according to the law. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite

knows this House was not sitting at the time. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the

House was sitting the special warrants were tabled appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on the issue of the accusation of breaking the

law which I take personally most affrontive' as well as I know on behalf of

all of my colleagues, not only as government members but as individuals, when in

fact the case has been made that not only have we followed the law but we

followed the law as it relates to the Financial Administration Act and in

keeping with the rules of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying personally, as a government

member and as a minister, on behalf of my colleagues I ask you to take this

matter very seriously because of the very serious nature and the affrontive'

nature of such very serious accusations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. member

under advisement.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 4, to ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act to Amend the Automobile -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has called for Notices of Motion.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Government House Leader. We are under

Notices of Motion under Routine Proceedings.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Under Notices of Motion, Mr. Speaker.

In that event, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow, Thursday, the

House will not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m. A double motion, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I put forward the following Private Member's Resolution.

WHEREAS the downturn in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador has had such

a negative impact on employment; and

WHEREAS more than 50,000 people have left our Province in the last decade;

and

WHEREAS the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to suffer; and

WHEREAS the government Jobs and Growth Strategy is not reaping the benefits

we are lead to believe it is; and

WHEREAS the government has failed to permanently fill the important position

of Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; and

WHEREAS community groups and organizations in this Province that are mandated

to address community economic development are raising concerns about the lack of

direction and commitment from the provincial government to deal with this

situation;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call on government to

immediately appoint a full time Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development and to convene an emergency meeting in January, 2003 with the

stakeholder groups to address these concerns.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to move the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS faculty members of Memorial University of Newfoundland's Department

of Mathematics and Statistics have expressed concern that they had been kept in

the dark about recent changes to the Province's high school mathematics

curriculum and that they had discovered major errors in the course program; and

WHEREAS teachers in the Province have expressed concern that the curriculum

changes were introduced without adequate teacher in-servicing thereby creating a

situation in which teachers were not adequately prepared to instruct their

students in the new methodologies; and

WHEREAS one of the major recommendations of the 1992 Williams Royal

Commission report Our Children Our Future: Royal Commission of Inquiry Into the

Delivery of Programs and Services in Primary, Elementary, Secondary Education

was that teachers ought to be thoroughly in-serviced before curriculum changes

are implemented;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Department of Education consult with

elementary, secondary and post-secondary educators to determine the need for

changes to the curriculum and to review curriculum changes before they are

implemented;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Education provide adequate

teacher in-service before proceeding with curriculum changes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition on behalf of retired teachers of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and the petition reads:

We, the undersigned, all Members of the Retired Teachers' Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador present at BCM 2002, wish to register our support for

an agreement with the recommendations made within the Brief on the urgent need

for increases to the pensions of this Province's retired teachers. We

respectfully request that you give this matter your immediate attention, for the

retired teacher constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador are facing a very real

financial crisis.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am standing here today to present a petition on

behalf of this group of people who feel that since 1989 they have not received

an increase in their pension benefits. People who have played a very important

role in our society in this Province, the teachers, who are, in most cases -

when we take our children to school for the first time we put them into the

hands of these people. There is a great level of responsibility that these

people put forward. Most of these people have spent thirty years in the

profession, not only in the classroom but outside the classroom in

extracurricular activities, have added much to community life throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, have played a vital role in the all-around education

of our children and, I think, it is very important that we take their concerns

to heart and that we address this issue.

Just as an example, I have a letter from a retired teacher in my district,

Mr. Speaker. If I could take a moment just to read the few sentences that she

wrote to me. She said: I am a retired teacher who is proud of my years of

dedicated service to the children of this Province. Unfortunately, my retiring

years are overshadowed by the inadequacy of my current pension. The Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador last provided an increase in retired teachers'

pensions in 1989. The increasing cost of living since that time places me in a

precarious financial situation. My purpose in writing to you is to request that

government, once again, grant annual ad hoc increases to teachers' pensions. I

respectfully ask that this be made a priority. I appreciate your anticipated

assistance and I recognize your acknowledgment that this request is both just

and timely.

Mr. Speaker, I know this lady quite well. She just recently retired in the

last couple of years and there is no doubt in my mind that she gave incredible

service to the students who she taught, but indeed to the community as a whole.

An all-around person who gave years and years of service to the whole aspect of

education to this Province. I think that her request, along with the requests of

all the people who signed this petition, and all the retired teachers through

the Province, is a reasonable request and something that government should take

seriously and have a look at.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of these

people today and ask that government take into consideration the concerns and

issues that these people have put forward through this petition here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to present a

petition on behalf of the Alzheimer Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

petition is signed by 1,245 people. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province,

humbly sweareth;

WHEREAS Aricept, Exelon, Reminyl are the three medications approved by Health

Canada as safe and effective for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease; and

WHEREAS these medications are not a cure for Alzheimer's disease, but delay

the loss of ability to perform daily activities in some patients in the mild to

moderate stages of the disease; and

WHEREAS these drugs cost approximately $5 per day for each patient; and

WHEREAS according to the Canadian Study on Health and Aging, 5,600

individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador have Alzheimer's disease and other

dementia of which approximately 1,500 are in the mild to moderate stage of the

disease; and

WHEREAS 80 per cent of the Canadian seniors have access to these medications

through provincial drug plans in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and

Manitoba;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to request the

government to include these medications and other drugs deemed safe and

effective by Health Canada to treat Alzheimer's disease as a benefit under the

Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition today on behalf of the Alzheimer Society

of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are lobbying for the coverage of Aricept,

Exelon and Reminyl under the Newfoundland and Labrador drug program.

As the petition states, Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that as many as 5,600

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians may be affected by Alzheimer's disease, a

fatal disorder of the brain that causes a steady decline in memory. This results

in dementia, loss of intellectual functions, thinking, remembering and

listening, severe enough to interfere with every day life. It attacks both men

and women, with those over the age of sixty-five being the most vulnerable to

the disease.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, statistics show that Alzheimer's disease is the most

common cause of dementia, affecting 10 per cent of people sixty-five years old

and nearly 50 per cent of those aged eighty-five and older.

Mr. Speaker, Alzheimer's causes a person to forget recent events and to

have difficulty performing familiar tasks. How rapidly the disease advances

varies from person to person, causing confusion, personality and behaviour

changes. Communication becomes difficult as the person with Alzheimer's

struggles to find words, finish thoughts or follow directions. Eventually,

people with Alzheimer's become totally unable to care for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, while these drugs, Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl do not provide a

cure for Alzheimer's disease -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS M. HODDER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS M. HODDER: Thank you.

It is proven that some patients in mild to moderate stages of the disease may

be able to perform daily activities longer than they would without the use of

these drugs. Currently, the segment of the population who could benefit from

these drugs are part of 20 per cent of the Canadian population who do not have

access to these medications through provincial drug plans.

Mr. Speaker, the 1,245 people who have signed this petition are requesting

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to include these drugs as a benefit

under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, and offer the

1,500 people in this Province who may be able to benefit from these agents

assistance in accessing them.

I will say, in conclusion, that my heart goes out to all persons affected

with this awful disease and especially to the families of those affected. As a

family member, I have had the experience of watching my grandmother and my aunt

fall victim to Alzheimer's. I know what it is like to stand by and helplessly

look on in desperation while an otherwise healthy person just drifts away and

becomes a stranger to all those they dearly love.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Alzheimer Society, and all those affected with

this disease, I implore government to hear and to grant this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a group of residents of this

Province. The petition deals with funding for MS drugs, including Betaseron,

Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif. They want these drugs included under the

Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program.

Mr. Speaker, the names on this petition today come from all around St. John's,

Mount Pearl, the Goulds and other areas around the Avalon Peninsula. I think

what we see happening here, the petitions that I have been presenting on this

issue for the last number of months and years is that there are people all

across this Province, as evidenced by the petitions and where they are generated

from, who are suffering from MS and other diseases like Alzheimer's who are in

need of hormone replacement drugs.

These drugs are quite expensive, Mr. Speaker. I think that when we look

around and see all the areas of the Province that these petitions have come from

over the past while, it is fair to say that there is not one member in this

House of Assembly who does not have people living in their districts who are in

need of these drug therapy prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, because I have been presenting petitions on this issue for quite

some time, some people have asked me whether or not someone in my immediate

family or whatever, has MS. I am fortunate to be able to say that I do not have

anybody in my family, or a relative that I am aware of, who suffers from MS or

the other diseases that I talk about. But, I do know that there are many people

in this Province who are getting wiped out financially; having to choose between

taking a drug to improve their health or having groceries on the table or being

able to enjoy other things from the fruits of their labour in working.

I would like to read a

section from a letter, if I may, that I received

today. It is from the MS Society of Canada, the Atlantic Division. It says,

"It is of great concern to the MS Society of Canada (Atlantic Division)

that individuals with MS in Newfoundland and Labrador are being denied adequate

funding for the four breakthrough medications that have been clinically proven

to reduce the frequency and severity of MS attacks, and actually slow the

progression of disability in individuals with relapsing-remitting MS.

"As you are aware, other provinces have created MS drug specific

financial eligibility criteria, which takes into account the cost of the four

new MS drugs, that they are of great cost and not financially obtainable for

middle-income people who are ineligible for social assistance and income support

programs."

Mr. Speaker, it is terrible to see what people in this Province have to go

through to maintain their health and maintain their quality of life, that they

have to devastate themselves financially before this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: - that this Province imposes on people that they have to

destroy themselves financially, they have to spend any RRSPs they may have

saved, spend any money they may have put aside for their children's education,

and then this government will step in and help out. So, it is not as if this

government will never be able to find the money to supply these drugs, because,

once a person destroys themselves and their families financially, this

government will walk in and help. It is very unfortunate for all the people in

this Province who suffer from MS, Alzheimer's, or need hormone replacement

drugs, that they have to do this to themselves before this government will offer

any assistance.

I say to the minister, it is very important to a lot of people in this

Province, to a lot of families in this Province, that we get in line with other

jurisdictions in this country who provide relief to their citizens. It is time

that we caught up with the rest of this country and did the same for the

residents of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today. To the hon. House of Assembly in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS government has requested the Board of Regents to consider a name

change of our University; and

WHEREAS Memorial University of Newfoundland is excluded under the

Newfoundland and Labrador Act; and

WHEREAS publicly funded universities can be named for a region of a Province;

and

WHEREAS when other political entities changed the name of the university

within that region did not; and

WHEREAS our educational mandate is not limited to this Province; and

WHEREAS the university is on the Island of Newfoundland; and

WHEREAS the first university in other provinces did not reflect the entire

name of that province; and

WHEREAS there will be enormous costs to undergo the name change; and

WHEREAS there are enormous disadvantages to not having a geographic identity

attached to a university; and

WHEREAS another proposed university in the Province is more suitable to have

Labrador added to its name;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to retain the current name - Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by some 593 signatories from Memorial

University, the general public and the Royal Canadian Legion in Marystown,

Burin.

Mr. Speaker, the petition that I am presenting today, I guess the strongest

reason that I see for the petition today would be that of a cost-benefit

analysis. Prior to any change of name of Memorial University of Newfoundland, I

feel that there should be a cost-benefit analysis done to determine what

benefits there would be verses the cost.

The cost to the university would be enormous, to change the name. In these

times of cost constraint and government's cutbacks and so on, tuition fees and

students complaining about the rising cost of tuition fees, one has to wonder

who will bear the cost of a name change, when you look at buildings, streets,

different campus buildings and campuses, in fact, ID for stationery, vehicles,

Web sites and so on, that would have to be changed. Certainly we would not pass

this cost on to students through tuition increases, or pass it on to the

facility itself. Government saying on a daily basis almost that we have to be

aware of our costs and expenditures, although sometimes we question whether or

not they are, will government take the cost of a name change for Memorial

University?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

I ask government, prior to any name change to Memorial University of

Newfoundland, that a cost-benefit analysis be done. Obviously we have no problem

with the university recognizing the entire Province, but we have to wonder

whether or not the cost at this point will provide a greater or lesser benefit

than those funds being put towards other uses. Who will absorb that cost? Will

it be the students? Will it be the taxpayers of the Province? These are

questions that have to be answered, and I would ask that government do a

cost-benefit analysis prior to any name change to the university.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we will get it correct this time, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 4, Mr. Speaker, asks leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The

Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic

Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance Arising From The

Recommendations Of The Select Committee To Review The Property And Casualty

Insurance Industry And The Government's Public Consultation, Bill 28

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance

Companies Act And The Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting

Automobile Insurance Arising From The Recommendations Of The Select Committee To

Review The Property And Casualty Insurance Industry And The Government's

Public Consultation," carried. (Bill28)

On motion, Bill 28 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker, asks for first reading of a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," carried. ( Bill 31)

On motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, continuing on with Motions, we will do, if I may,

Motions 6 and 7, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. today and not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11,

that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10, 2002.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11,

that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10, 2002.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Order 19, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, Bill 22.

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

Pensions Act." (Bill 22)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to introduce amendments to the Teachers' Pensions Act,

Bill 22. This will, firstly, provide for an annual increase in the pension

payments for future retired teachers; and, secondly, it will permit teachers to

receive pension credit for periods of absences due to legal work stoppages.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments result from the recent collective agreement

negotiated with the Teachers' Association. As part of those negotiations,

government agreed to implement a formal indexing program for the Teachers'

Pension Plan which will provide annual increases of up to 1.2 per cent of the

yearly change in the consumer price index to those pensioners who retired after

August 31, 1998, and who have also reached the age of sixty-five.

Mr. Speaker, eligibility for this indexing program is limited to only those

teachers who retired after August 31, 1998; as those teachers, unlike those

retired before that date, will have their pensions reduced from age sixty-five

because the Teachers' Pension Plan is integrated with the Canada Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, while the annual increase is modest, it is within our fiscal

means and it will provide retired teachers whose benefits are integrated with

the Canada Pension Plan with some protection against inflation in the future.

Also, this program will have no negative impact on the financial status of the

Teachers' Pension Plan, which is a very important point, as both the teachers

and government will pay additional contributions of 0.85 per cent each to cover

the cost.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also permits teachers to receive pension credit for

periods of absence due legal work stoppages. In order to receive the credit for

such services, teachers will have to pay twice the contributions they would have

normally paid provided they elect to do so within three months of signing of the

collective agreement. Again, this ensures that the provision will not add to the

cost of the Teachers' Pension Plan. I think, clearly, this demonstrates that

government is committed to working with teachers and pensioners to address their

concern, while at the same time exercising proper fiscal constraint.

Mr. Speaker, in the bill, again, it goes into the type of recommendations

that we are suggesting here through a collective agreement, a collective

agreement that has been signed, and signed with the intent of bringing this

forward to the legislation to allow these contributions to occur. It is also

important to note that when I said that these contributions will not affect the

integrity of the Teachers' Pension Plan, it is because this indexed portion is

put aside in a separate fund and those paying in will also receive the benefits

from that. Those prior to 1998, in August, will not, for the reasons I have

already mentioned. Also, no teacher will be required to pay obviously more than

1.2 per cent. Also, you have to be of the age of sixty-five, which is similar to

the Public Service Pension Plan as it relates to the indexing component. Right

now, the Teachers' Pension Plan would be indexed, the Public Service Pension

Plan would be indexed.

I think that, again, this speaks to a lot of the issues that were raised

during the recent round of collective bargaining with the cost of inflation with

long-term pensioners who have brought forward the case quite clearly on the

impact of a pension over time without an indexation program. Albeit a small one,

as I mentioned, it is certainly one that we believe is affordable, and

particularly in the case of the Teachers' Pension Plan; it is separate and

apart from the main plan with their unfunded liability. That was one of the

concerns that both parities had, that we not do anything to actually destroy the

integrity of a very fragile Teachers' Pension Plan. As we know, even with the

major contributions that government have made over the last four years with

respect to significant amounts - $76 million into the Teachers' Pension Plan

to try to extend it, and to continue to minimize the unfunded liability even

though it is still quite a concern. We will continue to address that. These

pension plans are guaranteed by government. This particular component of the

indexation, which is really what this speaks to, the two pieces - the

indexation, as well as the ability to buy back pension service during a work

stoppage provided they do it within a three month period.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that this will be accepted by the Legislature.

I think that, again, it speaks to the commitment that we have made to the

teachers through the collective agreement that we have, in fact, signed on the

premise that this would come forward to allow those contributions to be made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to make a few comments on this particular bill. Having been a teacher

myself, I would like to say it does not affect me, actually, because changes are

after 1998 and it has no effect on me personally. Anybody retired prior to that

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not in receipt of a pension anyway, I will tell the

hon. member. I am not in receipt of a pension for teaching. Even if I was - and

I can become eligible to receive one; I am eligible but not of age - it still

would not apply. It only applies for teachers who basically - when they

eliminated the stacking provision in the contracts it opened up that, I guess.

Inflation was eating away at the dollars. All public service pensioners, for

example, up to 1989, did not have pensions indexed but they were given increases

by the previous governments prior to 1989 to help offset some of the cost of

inflation. That was stopped in 1989 and nothing was done since.

This a positive bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill is positive because it is one

that is negotiated between government and The Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Association. This legislation is enacting an agreement of the members, an

agreement of government, who participated in this, and I guess the School Board

Trustees Association.

I just want to comment on a few aspects of it. Obviously it is based on the

consumer price index. It makes reference to clauses, and I support these.

"A teacher who has a period of absence due to a lawful strike or lockout

may have that period credited as pensionable service." But, if you are off

due to a lawful strike you have to pay not only your share of the premiums but

you also have to pay the employer's share of the premiums and you will pay a

double amount. If that occurred before September, 2001, you would have until

July 31 of this year past, basically, to have that period of absence credited as

pensionable service. You would have to have your decision made, actually, months

ago, before the bill actually got discussed here in this House - almost five

months ago, basically, four-and-a-half months ago they would have had to make a

decision on legislation, basically, that was not even here in the House. That

particular aspect there certainly would indicate that we are dealing with

legislation here when time limits have already expired.

If a teacher had a period of absence due to a strike after September 1 of

this year, they would have only three months, basically, to signify it. One

thing different, I guess, in normally contributing or buying back the service

for lost time due to a lawful strike or lockout is that basically here you would

pay the full amount on that, which seems to be fair because strikes or lockouts

are labour disputes and so on but the provision is still there to do that.

A payment under this, too, they are indicating, cannot be made - a lot of

people buy back pensionable service and get it deducted from their cheque. In

this case, if they want to buy back service for being off on strike or an

absence, whatever the reason pertaining to this section, they would have to do

it in a lump sum payment. I think that seems fair and that is agreed - I assume

that it is here as a part of an agreement that is agreed to by the affected

parties, because then they are making that election quickly on what they want to

do and they are paying the lump sum so there is no other accrued cost or

liabilities incurred by government, by having to wait to collect the rest, or

factoring in an amount of interest that might be due during the course of paying

it back on that particular basis.

Now, there were discussions in bargaining as to when indexing should begin.

There were certainly a lot of interesting people getting indexed at age sixty. I

guess, at age sixty there would be a higher price attached to indexing. Indexing

is being shared, I understand, on an equal basis between the parties in the

collective agreement, one half by the employee and the other half by the

employer. That is fine, but there is a cap on the particular amount of indexing.

It is up to 60 per cent, basically, of the consumer price index for that year

and the previous year, but not to exceed a maximum of 1.2 per cent. So, if the

consumer price index is at 2 per cent for those years, at 60 per cent you will

get a 1.2 per cent increase in your pensionable amount. Now, if it is higher

than that, if the consumer price index is 4 per cent, at 60 per cent it would be

2.4 per cent. It would be double that, but you still only get 50 per cent, in

that year, of the consumer price index. So, if inflation goes rampant, which we

hope it doesn't, there is a faster erosion, then, of the amount of dollars

that you can take home. That applies not only to teachers, but to the public

service who have been indexed. Yes, the public service and the teachers have

been indexed. I think government employees, in general, most have now come under

this particular provision.

It goes on to mention here, too -

section 4, subsection 26.1(2) says,

"...only applies to a pension or survivor benefit where the teacher to whom

that pension or benefit relates retires after August 31, 1998." Because

that would be the date, I would think, when the previous agreement expired, with

the stacking provision. I am not sure if the minister said that in her opening

comments, but certainly she probably can when we get to a particular aspect,

when she closes debate, or in the Committee.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What was that, Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: The question I asked was: I would assume stacking ended on

August 31, 1998. I didn't go back to check the agreement, but that would be

the reason why, commencing on September 1, we would have this indexing applying,

because obviously those who got stacking are not going to get indexing.

Therefore, indexing will apply to the first agreement since stacking was

eliminated. The minister nods saying that is the case.

"The amount of a pension or survivor benefit being paid to a person

shall not decrease by reason only of an adjustment under subsection (1)."

Is it indicating in that, that even if the consumer price index is negative, the

cost goes down, I would assume we are not going to see a decrease in the

pensionable amount? I will just ask the minister that question, too, when I get

her attention, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask a question. I assume I am making the

right assumption here, that in

section 4, subsection (3), "The amount of a

pension or survivor benefit being paid to a person shall not decrease...",

that is in case the consumer price index shows a negative and goes down, you are

still going to get your same amount? Obviously, there is not going to be a

decrease in your pensionable amount.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You get the minimum of what you paid in.

MR. SULLIVAN: Exactly. You won't get anything less even if we get a

period of negative.

MR. MATTHEWS: De-inflation.

MR. SULLIVAN: De-inflation, whatever you want to call it, not stagnation,

not inflation, worse even more so. Things get cheaper. In this day and age I do

not think we will probably face that to any great extent, but at least it is not

going down and there is a benefit. As least you can benefit by 60 per cent of

the inflation rate, assuming the inflation rate does not exceed 2 per cent. Mr.

Speaker, if it exceeds 2 per cent you are only going to get declining

percentages of that rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index

and released by Stats Canada.

Overall, it is another area, I guess, where I think it is important to look

at, in collective agreements, the long-term because many people retire on

pensions very, very small, from the public service and elsewhere. Many people

today are not even fortunate enough to have a pension plan but those who do, it

is important that they are not going to get poorer and poorer as time goes on,

because that is what is happening. There are some people, too, I know - because

petitions have been read here in this House - who do not fall into any of these

categories. These people are the unfortunate ones who are not touched by this

legislation. Of course, they were not a part of the collective bargaining that

applies to the current membership there. These people are lost in the shuffle

there. They are seeing their dollars eroding and less and less dollars of

disposable income to be able to put food on the table and carry out the basic

things in life, and necessities that they need. They find they are getting

poorer and poorer. They wait for the Canada Pension to kick in to give them a

little kick. When Canada Pension kicks in at the age of sixty-five we will be

seeing a clawback. You will see a clawback on your Canada Pension, on the

provincial pension in lieu of receiving Canada Pension. That is another one, so

it is difficult to get ahead. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to make gains because

there is always another little catch there to take back some more of that

income.

This is a duly, negotiated agreement ratified by the membership and so on. We

were a believer that when agreements are reached between two parties and it is

acceptable to them, that agreement should - unless something extraordinary. I

know they are basically servants or teachers of the Province employed by the

Province and taxpayers. That is why the concern. We always have a concern from a

perspective of legislators in this regard. They have entered into an agreement.

I think it is a positive thing to have in the agreement there. We certainly

support it. We will not spend too much time at all, I might say, Mr. Speaker,

very little time in prolonging any particular debate on this particular bill

here.

I will conclude my comments with that and I am sure our education critic

would like to have a few comments on this too.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the Member for Bellevue talk about a conflict of interest even before

I got to my feet. Certainly, I would be the first to say that I came through the

teaching ranks and at present, I am on leave from my position in Amalgamated

Academy in Bay Roberts and any chance, I say to the Member from Bellevue, that I

can get on my feet and talk about teachers and talk about their

part in the

society here in Newfoundland and Labrador, I shall do it.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that certainly I am not in a conflict of interest because

this act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act, Bill 22, indeed, is an agreement

between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the NLTA, the School Boards

Association, and it is brought forth to this House for ratification more so

than, I suppose, debate, but in any bill that comes through I believe it is

important that there would be a scrutiny of the particular bill, regardless of

the circumstances in which it is presented.

I would say to the Minister of Finance, I am in full support of Bill 22; and,

in support of it, I would have to say that the pension issues, not only of

teachers, but certainly of the public service and other groups over the last

couple decades, have been a very difficult journey for all parties. I can talk

about the pension issues of the 1970s and 1980s, but certainly more of the 1980s

and into the 1990s as, I guess, there were attempts made to make sure that the

individuals, in particular, teachers, who were coming up for retirement, that

the fund was there in the amount that could sustain the amount paid out to these

teachers in the years they would be in retirement.

Following the last Collective Agreement, this act to amend the Teachers'

Pension Act was drawn up to take care of five or six points that were negotiated

by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. With regard to

pensions, one of the areas which need to be addressed, in any pension plan, is

to try and maintain the standard of living that the teacher, or any retiree,

enjoyed at the time of retirement.

This gets to be a tricky manoeuver, I guess, as we look at - I heard some

comments about inflation and deflation. Of course, my colleague from Ferryland

indicated that it was very, very unlikely that the cost of living will decrease,

or deflate, as we move forward. But, who knows what the economy may bring.

This is a safety mechanism, I assume, in tying it in, somehow or another, to

the consumer price index. Clause one establishes that the Teachers' Pension

Act will be adjusted to add terms, consumer price index and pensioner in there.

I guess with the idea of making sure that a certain amount is added to the

pensions of those teachers who retire and reach the age of sixty-five so that

there will be some mechanism in place to make sure that the funding, the pension

that they receive certainly adequately addresses their living costs to ensure

once again that, somehow or another, they are close to the standard of living

that they were when they retired.

It is interesting, as well, to note that the contributions on the part of the

teachers and on the part of the government, they are contributing basically the

same amount, or the same increase. Again, it is good to see that agreements can

be made where both parties are able to thrash out an agreement whereby the

increase will cover the indexing of the teachers when they reach the age of

sixty-five.

The aspect of a period of service lost due to a work stoppage or a lockout -

now, in the past there have been windows that have been available for teachers

to buy back service, whether they went to university or whether they did some

substituting, and, to some degree, with regard to a work stoppage, lockout,

maternity leave, other types of educational leave as well. Again, this Act To

Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act certainly addresses a group of retiring

teachers who perhaps, for some reason or another, needed the time or the period

of service due to a work stoppage or lockout. It is interesting to note, as my

colleague brought forth, that in the first part of it, retiring teachers who

retired as of June last year, I guess, would have had until July of this year to

have bought back that particular period of service due to a work stoppage or a

lockout. I guess I assume, Mr. Speaker, that they were well advised of that by

their association and by their employer to make sure that anyone who wanted to

avail of that was given the information and given the opportunity to do so,

because obviously it is a bill that has not gone through yet but they certainly

would have been given the opportunity to do so.

Of course, anyone retiring after September, 2002, naturally it becomes part

of their package as they prepare for retirement. They know that if there is a

work stoppage or lockout before they retire, they have something like three

months to buy back that particular period of service. The lump sum, again, I

guess, that is not too restrictive. I know in years past there have been some

arrangements that could be made to have it deducted from your regular paycheque

as you took responsibility to buy back some period of service, but given that it

is not a large amount, I suppose, it is double the amount that is normally

charged, it would be not for a long period of time, and that a lump sum is

indeed something that all parties agreed on.

I guess the whole purpose of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is indeed to provide for

the indexing of pension benefits for pensioners once they reach the age of

sixty-five and retire after August 31, 1998. This goes back retroactive, of

course, and certainly gives this group of teachers an opportunity to maintain a

level of pension that provides them with a standard of living much comparable to

when they decide to retire.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, this does address a particular concern of a particular

group but I would be remiss if I did not mention that there is currently a group

of teachers, anyone who retired prior to 1998, and especially those who retired

prior to 1989. When these people retired prior to 1989, these teachers were

given a regular increment for - I think they missed a couple of years, probably

1985-1986, if I am not mistaken - but in the 1980s right up until 1989 there

were regular ad hoc increases, I guess, on an annual basis with the intent of

keeping the standard of living for these retired teachers to a level that they

had enjoyed when they retired.

Since 1989 right up now until 2002, this particular group of teachers from

1998 on has been taken care now, but prior to it - we also have to make note,

Mr. Speaker, that the teachers will not get their increase until they reach the

age of sixty-five. We all know the requirements, basically, for retirement from

teaching is thirty years and out. It is not uncommon to have teachers retire in

their late forties, maybe their early fifties. There is a period of time

anywhere from up to a dozen years or more that they do not get any increases

and, not getting any increases, their buying power or their power to maintain

that standard of living is constantly eroded with each passing year.

Again, this is going to address it to some degree but it still needs to be

addressed for those teachers who are not going to be covered under this

particular amendment to the Teachers' Pensions Act. I do know because I, Mr.

Speaker, a number of days back, and my colleague today from St. Mary's,

presented a petition from retired teachers. These retired teachers - certainly a

good number of them - who retired in the 1980s and into the early 1990s, Mr.

Speaker, are finding it extremely difficult to maintain, as I pointed out, that

standard of living which they had enjoyed during their teaching days and, of

course, the year that they retired. They presented a brief - as a matter of

fact, they presented it to the Premier - and this brief is asking that the

current government look at the situation and look at the possibility of

renewing, or putting back in place, those ad hoc increases on a yearly basis to

address the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, there are approximately 5,000 or more retired

teachers in our Province. Some of them, again, are living on very low pensions,

and they are finding it increasingly more difficult to deal with the day-to-day

demands on their particular fixed income. They are calling upon the government

to look on their brief, respond to the brief, and if a response comes back, they

can build on that as to where they are going next.

So, I would call upon the Premier and the government to address that

particular request from the Retired Teachers' Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador, to look at their request to review their pension situation with the

idea of getting them back to a level where they can live comfortably on their

fixed income.

I will leave it at that, Mr, Speaker, in saying that this bill is a bill that

we would like to see passed. It is a bill that is a response to a collective

agreement that was hammered out between the teachers, school boards, and the

government last year. It addresses a concern. Pensions, pension funds, unfunded

liability, all of these associated with pensions have been problematic over the

last decade or so. We all know in this House how situations have changed with

regard to pensions as it become increasingly more difficult to fund the

responsibilities that the employers, the Government of Newfoundland, have taken

on to ensure that our retired workers in this Province are adequately taken care

of.

So this bill is welcome. It addresses a part of the difficulty, but again I

would call upon the government to make sure that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: I am just wondering about my time there, if I have gone

too long. I am going to clue up and give it to one of my colleagues who wants to

have a few words to say on this as well.

In closing, again let me say that I am in full agreement with this particular

bill,

An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. It is certainly an extension

or a commitment that was made in the collective agreement negotiations of last

year. It addresses a group of teachers who are retiring after 1998, but, again,

I would call upon the government to ensure that they look at that other group of

retired teachers who are not covered by this particular act and to respond to

the Retired Teachers' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador to see if,

indeed, anything can be done to address their serious concerns of a pension that

is slowly losing its buying power as time goes on.

So, on that note I will reserve anymore comments to the Committee stage and I

will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words. I will not be as

long or as tedious or as detailed as the previous two speakers.

I have found out that I am a very interesting speaker up till about ten

minutes. After ten minutes I start boring and I lose my audience. I never want

to do that, so I make sure that I never go over ten or twelve minutes. Hon.

members seem to be automatically locked into twenty minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am glad to be part of a government

that is passing this bill today, a bill that is protecting teachers' pensions

against inflation. That is probably the greatest enemy of pensions, fixed

incomes, is inflation. Unfortunately, we have so many pensioners, so many

teachers who did not have indexation built into their pensions and,

unfortunately, their pensions have eroded to an extent that they are not able to

live the same quality and the same style of life that they did when they worked.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be a part of a government that is

helping our teachers and some of our public pensioners to be able to protect

their salaries against inflation to be able to allow them to maintain a

reasonable standard of living and a quality of life that they enjoyed when they

were working and contributing to the workforce and contributing to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister and commend the government on this

initiative, long overdue and only sad that it is only going to apply to future

teachers. We only wish that it could apply to teachers in the past and public

pensioners but, obviously, there is a limit as to the fiscal ability of the

Province to be able to take care of all of these pensioners but glad that at

least we are making a start for future retired teachers and other public

pensioners. I conclude by commending the government on this initiative.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can tell the minister that we are not going to prolong the debate. As a

matter of fact, I may not be sticking to the twenty minutes but maybe I might, I

say to the member opposite. But when you have a chance to stand on a bill, an

important bill as this is, and we do support, I say to the minister, and

certainly long overdue, as the minister as said. There are concerns, of course,

for prior to 1998 with the Retired Teachers' Association has brought many

issues to the forefront and it is something that has to be also looked at and,

hopefully, over time some of those concerns can be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. It is something

that was worked on through the collective agreement. It is something that is

long overdue, as the minister has already pointed out. In dealing with this in

second reading, which is more of a general sense as compared to getting into

committee, I say to the member, as you get into more details. I think both my

colleagues on this side of the House pointed out some very important points that

should be looked at, and if they do want to go into more detail, I say to the

minister, again, they will have that opportunity in committee and they may use

up more time just to look through the bill clause-by-clause as you do in

committee. That is their responsibility and their right to do that. I encourage

them to do that - any member on any side of the House, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The minister had his few minutes to stand up and made a very

short comment. That is fair enough, and so should any member of this House have

that. I do not know why anybody is continuously chastising people for standing

to take two or three minutes, or ten or fifteen minutes to make a few points on

legislation, no matter what it is. I believe this to be very important. It is

not something we are going to hold up or prolong debate on. It is just to make a

few comments.

I read through the explanatory notes, and I understand that 0.85 per cent in

contribution by both sides is certainly going to contribute to the expense. At

the same time, the point that jumps out at me in more of a general sense instead

of going into a clause-by-clause on committee, which we will do at a later date,

is the fact of teachers retiring. If anybody has seen the statistics on teachers

in this particular Province - in this particular Province we do have a problem

with the amount of teachers retiring. If you have seen the graphs and so on of

the skew towards the right of the number of teachers in the next three to five

years - is the last statistics I have seen of the number of teachers in this

Province retiring. It is a major problem, not just in dealing with the pensions

part of it but actually the shortage of teachers, which is all connected with

this particular bill. Of course, this refers to teachers after 1998.

When you talk about shortage of teachers in this Province - also I had some

information, which I saw just a short while ago in the Province of Ontario. I do

not have the exact numbers in front of me, but it is something to be concerned

about. As a matter of fact, if I am right, in 2006 Ontario will be facing a

shortage of some 30,000 teachers. As we talk about morale in classrooms, and

pensions and all issues related to that profession in this Province, then we

could have a very serious problem on our hands.

When you go into a lot of staff rooms around this Province today and you go

into a staff room - I will not mention the school at this point. I will just

tell you that at least 80 per cent of that staff room, within the next two to

three years, will be retired. How many teachers do we have coming out of our

system who are going to be able to be there to fill those positions? That is

something to be very concerned about. This is all related to this particular

bill because as new teachers look to a profession that they can feel comfortable

in, that they are going to make a longtime career at, then they need to be

comfortable with issues such as pensions. That is a reality of life. As these

teachers look to this profession they are glad to see changes like this. The

Teachers' Association dealt with this. The Retired Teachers' Association has

some very tough concerns about prior to 1998, which this does not address.

So those are legitimate concerns. They are concerns that should be raised

when we speak about this bill. In second reading, it gives us the opportunity to

make those points. As my two colleagues did prior to this, picked different

clauses, which I am sure - and maybe the minister do not want to hear this, but

in Committee stage as we finish second reading on this particular piece of

legislation, which we will support, that they may indeed make more comments

referring to the Committee stage. To protect the integrity, as the minister said

earlier when she spoke, is very important. Also, that we are addressing this

situation today that we can actually vote on this bill, move forward and address

these concerns which are important to all of us, and it is important to the

profession, and it is important that people heading into the profession are glad

to see that these type of issues are being addressed.

Mr. Speaker, without prolonging debate on second reading - and certainly we

will have our chance again in Committee stage - these are the points I will make

today. It is not twenty minutes. I hope the minister made note of that. These

are some general comments at second reading, and I am sure I will be back in

Committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on Bill 22,

An Act To Amend The Teachers'

Pensions Act.

First of all, I want to talk about the things that are in the bill because it

does, as the minister has indicated, act as a legislative implementation of the

results of collective bargaining and provides for pension credits for the time

that would be lost by a legal strike or lockout. That can have implications. In

some respects, it sounds a bit odd that you could actually get pensionable

service for being on strike, but the consequence of not doing that could take

away, in fact, a full year of pension credit for someone who might miss four or

five days, a week, or two weeks if it happened to be on strike. It might take

another semester, another year of teaching, to make up that time. The idea of

being able to buy those credits back is, in some respects, a technicality to

allow the integrity of the pension system to work properly over the lifetime or

career of a teacher. So, that is what that one does. It gives a teacher a right

to pay both. It says to double the amount but what it really is is both halves,

both the employer half and the employee half of the pension service, or pension

premium, to be able to fund the amount of service that gives the pension its

economic viability. There is no increased cost for that. That is something that

allows the integrity of the pension system to work and it is a bargained benefit

by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association with government.

The second one is a start, but really only a start, I would say, over the

introduction of indexing to teachers' pensions. Indexing is very important in

an area of inflation. Indexing is very important where people are dependent upon

a pension for their lifestyle and ability to live in a reasonable manner in

retirement. We do not have it as high now as it has been in the past, but we are

still seeing inflation of 2 per cent, 2.5 per cent, 2.7 per cent in the last

couple of months on an annualized basis. One can easily see that your pension,

over a period of five, ten or fifteen years, can be considerably eroded in terms

of its buying power. If you just took 2 per cent per year of inflation over a

period of ten years you are losing in excess of 20 per cent because that is

compounded each year. You could be losing up to a one-quarter of the value of

your pension benefit by having no indexing in your pension. What we see in the

teachers' pension is that many people retire in their early fifties. This

pension indexing does not kick in until sixty-five. Today, it is sixty-five. So,

it may be, in fact, up to ten years before this actual indexing kicks in in any

event. It is kind of a modest indexing, but it provides, obviously, what has

been able to be negotiated by the NLTA, for its members, with government. Of

course, we endorse the inclusion of that into the Teachers' Pensions Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are two other points that I do want to make, though, and

one of them has to do with the large number of retired teachers who are not

covered by this act, not covered by the indexing, and I am not particularly

talking about the ones who retired in the year before 1998, 1997 or 1996. They

do not get the benefit of this indexing, but I am more concerned about those

large numbers of teachers who retired a long time ago, who received the benefit

on an ongoing basis of an ad hoc increase in their pension from government up

until about thirteen years ago.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) situation.

MR. HARRIS: Many of these teachers are in deplorable financial

circumstances, as the Government House Leader acknowledges. Many of these

teachers were teachers during a time when teachers' incomes were very low,

when the teaching profession - and it is still considered to some extent a bit

of a mission - but there was a time in this Province when teachers were actual

missionaries, where they would go into communities where they never lived

before, where conditions were very rough, where the pay was very low, where they

were providing an education to students in this Province to build up the

education of our population, to build up the school system, to build up the

demand for education, and to literally bring people from a state of illiteracy

in many communities to a state where they had knowledge and ability and

willingness and desire for education and opportunity to learn, because people

went out and taught in these schools.

These people were paid very little wages in the early days, and many of them

retired with a very small pension - a very, very small pension. One benefit they

did have up until 1989, was that they did have the benefit of an annual increase

that applied to their pensions.

I do not know if we need an across-the-board percentage increase to deal with

this problem. I do not know if we need that. I do not think, necessarily, that

we do. I am not suggesting that every single person who is retired as a teacher

should be considered to be in the same category. Can we not do something that

would ensure that those people who are living on teachers' pensions now, who

are living in dire circumstances, with very little pension, below the poverty

line, many of whom living solely on their teachers' pension and the old age

pension - can we not do something to recognize their service to this Province as

school teachers for many years by doing something to bring them up to a certain

minimum level? It may mean that some teachers would get a substantial increase

if you look at percentage. It may mean that others would get very little, or

almost nothing, but can we not look at a way of creating a fund or addressing

this problem by saying that there has to be some alleviation of the critical

situation in which many of our retired teachers find themselves because of the

lack of an increase over the past thirteen years.

I think all hon. members have received letters from retired teachers,

pointing out this problem. They have had a letter-writing campaign. There was

recently, at the general meeting of the Retired Teachers' Association in

Gander on October 2, a unanimous resolution passed, desperately seeking the

assistance of this government to address this critical situation.

I think there is a crying need there and this is a group of people who have

dedicated their working lives to the young people of this Province, to raising

the educational standards, providing basic education, and doing so, in many

cases, under severe hardship conditions, where they were, in fact, carrying out

what would be described in former times as missionary work, as pioneering work,

ensuring that, in the far reaches of this Province, as well as the urban areas,

teachers were available to teach our students and to give them an opportunity.

I hope the Minister of Education will speak to this bill and talk about this

issue, because I am sure she full knows the contribution given by many of these

retired teachers to the basic education of our population, and the fulsome

contribution that they have made. They feel that not only are they not being

treated with respect, they are left, in many cases, in circumstances where their

dignity is insulted by their inability to live a decent standard of living,

because their pensions are so low it does not allow them to live in a decent

way. That is just one point I want to make about what is not in the bill,

something that I think needs to be addressed, and I hope that the government

will do that on an urgent, priority basis.

The second thing I want to mention is the teachers' pension fund itself.

The teachers' pension fund is regarded as part of the Pooled Pension Fund of

this Province, which between the various funds, including the teachers'

pension fund and the public service pension fund, there is in excessive of $2

billion, $2.2 billion to be, well not quite exact, $2,222,207,000 as of the end

of 2001, December 31, 2001, and I suspect several hundred million more than that

right now. This is a fund that has been invested to provide for benefits for

teachers down the road, but it is part of the assets of this Province. It is the

savings of this Province, of teachers and of government, put into this fund to

provide for the benefits that are provided in the teachers' pension plan, in

the public service pension plan, and in other pension plans of this Province. We

also have the Memorial University pension plan, while not a part of the Pooled

Pension Fund, but again it is a publicly supported pension because of the nature

of the pension plan.

In other provinces, particularly the Province of Quebec, we have seen these

funds used, not only to provide benefits for the pensioners when the time comes,

but also to play a role in the economic development of the province. We see, in

the Province of Quebec, CAISSE DE DPT ET PLACEMENT DU QUBEC, which is the

deposit bank of the pension funds of the Quebec pension fund, as well as the

public service pension funds of Quebec, as well as the other pension funds, that

is managed with a couple of goals in mind. Obviously, the clear goal of

maximizing the return for investors consistent