December

3, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 34

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome Ms Joanne MacDonald who was recently

named chair of the first Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of

Persons with Disabilities. Ms MacDonald is also accompanied by other members of

the community of persons with disabilities and we welcome you to the House of

Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

the Member for the District of St. John's East; the hon. the Member for the

District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune

Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits &

White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale;

the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this

hon. House today to pay tribute to the St. John's Lions Club in observance of

their sixtieth anniversary.

During this time their members have tirelessly been serving the needs of

those in St. John's. With projects ranging from the Bannerman Park Swimming

Pool, St. John's Memorial Stadium, and the Lions Park; the St. John's Lions

Club is committed to bringing the unparalleled services of Lions Club

International to St. John's.

This club has a long history of charitable work in the city. In earlier

years, they donated $65,000 to new dormitories at Mt. Cashel, $25,000 to

purchase a new VON mobile health van, $25,000 towards construction of a new CNIB

building, and over $65,000 to the Candlelighters to purchase special microscopes

for the Janeway Children's Hospital.

In recent years, the club has donated over $100,000 for an Argon Laser at the

Health Sciences Centre and at present have committed $15,000 to the new

"Teen Room" at the St. John's Boys and Girls Club. As one would

expect, they also continue to collect used eyeglasses to be shipped and

distributed to Third World countries.

Mr. Speaker, for sixty years, the St. John's Lions Club has sponsored the

510 Air Cadet Squadron and this represents the longest continuous sponsoring

committee of an air cadet corp. across Canada. Since 1976 they have supported

the Lion Max Simms camp for the handicapped.

Truly, Mr. Speaker, if volunteerism is the heart of the community, for over

sixty years the St. John's Lions Club has exemplified this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join with me today in congratulating

the St. John's Lions Club on sixty years of service to St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de

Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, at the recent Municipalities Newfoundland and

Labrador Convention in Gander, the towns of Bay Roberts and Spaniard's Bay

were presented with provincial awards.

The Town of Bay Roberts received the Tidy Towns award for a population

category over 3,500. This award is due to the work that the town and its

residents put into becoming more environmentally conscious and improving the

town's overall look.

The second award was shared between the towns of Bay Roberts and Spaniard's

Bay in the category of environmental sustainability for their efforts at the

Shearstown Estuary. This award was the Torngat Municipal Achievement Awards

program, an initiative of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador recognizing

the exemplary efforts of member municipalities in serving their residents and

improving quality of life in their community and in the Province as a whole.

Environmental sustainability is at the forefront for both of those

municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the towns of

Bay Roberts and Spaniard's Bay on their recent provincial awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la

Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Mi'kmaq people of Conne

River, and in particular, the literary talent of Chief Mi'sel Joe. This summer

at the annual powwow in Conne River, Chief Joe released his second book,

entitled: Mi'sel Joe: An Aboriginal Chief's Journey .

This book chronicles not only his own life, but it also provides a very

accurate depiction of the history of his people and his community during the

1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and provides us with some insight into the Mi'kmaq

history, traditions and cultural heritage. His next work will tell the story of

another remarkable Aboriginal, Sylvester Joe, who guided William Cormack in his

travels of the Province and Island interior. We look forward to this book, as

well as the sequel to his first book, Muinji'j Becomes a Man . It is

through literature such as this, that we can all learn about and understand the

challenges, successes and special skills of our native Mi'kmaq people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join with me today to

deliver accolades to Chief Mi'sel Joe on his second publication. We look

forward to more to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits &

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to extend

congratulations to the residents of Conche on being named the winner of a 2009

Tidy Towns competition, in the 350 residents or less category. This is the first

year for Conche entering this competition, and to be named this year's winner

is a tremendous accomplish.

The school children, town council, and team of eighteen volunteers

spearheaded the cleaning effort, some of which included clearing the fish gear

from around the wharf and cleaning the beaches. The school children collected

recyclables and also adopted a piece of property in the town that they were

responsible for cleaning and maintaining.

Mr. Speaker, the undertaking by this community to improve their beautiful

surroundings has not only been an educational experience for the children, but

has also given the residents a community of which they can be proud.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations

to the Town of Conche on receiving this honour, and best wishes for continued

Tidy Town success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am beaming with pride as I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate

and recognize the Kinsmen Club of Green Bay for capturing not one but two

national awards. One, the Ken Pierce Membership Growth Award which honours a

club whose membership has increased within a Kin year; two, they were the proud

recipients of the National Outstanding Boake Efficiency Award in recognition of

effective and efficient administration that promotes a standard of excellence in

Kin clubs. President Norm Dicks and his club are to be applauded for their

outstanding service and dedication to their community and, indeed, to the entire

region.

Hon. colleagues, please join with me in saluting the Kinsmen Club of Green

Bay for achieving these two prestigious awards. I wish them continued success in

their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the House is not open on Sunday I would like today to mark

the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal massacre. Fourteen young women were

murdered because they were female engineering students. Decent people throughout

the country were shaken by this horrific event.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, women in our Province have not been spared from such

brutality. In 1984 an Inuit woman, Marguerite Dyson, living in what is now my

district was viciously killed in a boarding house. From her tragic death has

sprung a wonderful initiative, a supportive housing unit for women poignantly

named after her, Marguerite's Place, but the work must continue. In the past

twenty years, more than twenty women have been murdered by their partners in

Newfoundland and Labrador and many more have been injured.

I urge all Members of the House of Assembly and all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians on this solemn anniversary to join together and let their voices be

heard to say: stop the violence, because women deserve to live with dignity,

respect and equality in our society.

I ask that all hon. members remember December 6 by attending the vigil on

Sunday at Memorial University in the Engineering Building in room EN-2006, or

whatever event is occurring in their own communities.

I would also like to ask the Speaker if he could ask all members in the House

to stand for a moment of silence to remember Marguerite Dyson and the fourteen

women who were killed on December 6, 1989.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS BURKE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to make a point of order during

members' statements, and I know that in the Standing Orders the subject matter

of a member's statement in our Standing Order 25(4) it says, "The subject

matter of a Member's Statement may be an anniversary, historic event, some

particular accomplishment, the death of a notable person, matters of local,

provincial, national or international significance of a non-contentious

nature."

Mr. Speaker, the next minister's statement is going to be by the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women who is addressing a very similar issue. I

know that these statements have been distributed in advance. Mr. Speaker, I

would certainly like, before we do the moment of silence, to be able to hear

from the minister and have the response as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's statement certainly meets the

qualifications of members' statements, there is no doubt about that. The Chair

has no way of knowing what the Ministerial Statements are. Ministerial

Statements are given to the minister by the name of the minister who is going to

be doing a statement, but maybe in the future, to avoid something like this,

that when the Ministerial Statements are put on the Order Paper, let the Speaker

know the content and the Speaker is aware of the members' statements as well,

and there might be able to be some collaboration if we see the two of them are

about the same topic.

If the hon. minister is going to raise the same topic and if part of that is

standing to observe this tragic day, then I certainly have no problem with that,

and I am certain that the hon. member, hopefully, will not have either. I will

wait to hear from her, but it is certainly reverence of an event, an unfortunate

event that happened.

To that point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I did speak to the Speaker yesterday about my statement and he did receive it

this morning in due time as he was supposed to receive. I would be very pleased,

Mr. Speaker, for us to hold the moment of silence until after the minister's

statement, which I, too, did not receive until around 1:10 p.m.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Assembly today to

honour the memory of fourteen young women who were killed during what we now

refer to as the Montreal Massacre.

It will be twenty years ago on Sunday, December 6, that the lives of these

women were taken at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique. These women were working

toward futures in engineering when a man shot and killed them because they were

women.

Now, two decades later, this horrific event is a chilling reminder of the

devastating effects of violence against women.

In 1991, in memory of these women, the federal government designated December

6 as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. On

Sunday, flags at Confederation Building will be at half-mast from sunrise to

sunset to mark this day.

Mr. Speaker, far too many women in our Province live with violence every day.

Our two police forces reported over 4,300 incidents of violence against women in

the two-year period between 2006 and 2008.

Equally alarming is the fact that, of the 218,000 women over the age of

fifteen living in this Province, more than 100,000 of them will experience at

least one incident of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime. Another

shocking reality, Mr. Speaker, is that only 10 per cent will report these

incidents to police.

These facts represent a huge societal issue that we all have a responsibility

to address. Through our six-year, $12 million Violence Prevention Initiative,

our government is proactively working with communities and volunteer

organizations to identify long-term solutions to preventing violence against

women.

Our violence prevention efforts are currently focussed on preventing male

violence against women. Our Respect Women campaign includes a Web site of

information and resource materials, as well as print and television

advertisements. It is designed to draw attention to the important role and

responsibility of men that they have in nurturing the young boys in their lives.

In this campaign, we are using positive messages to encourage men to teach

young boys how to respect women. By doing so, we are addressing the very root of

violence, which is inequality, Mr. Speaker. We hope that this campaign will help

in nurturing today's young boys to grow up respecting women.

The purple ribbon on your desk symbolizes the memories of women we have lost

to violence. Mr. Speaker, let this ribbon also symbolize the hope that comes

from our collective efforts to end inequality and violence against women.

As a reminder to all of us of the events of December 6, 1989, I want to read

the names of those fourteen women who died that day into the record of the House

of Assembly: Genevieve Bergeron; Helene Colgan; Nathalie Croteau; Barbara

Daigneault; Anne-Marie Edward; Maud Haviernick; Barbara Klucznik; Maryse

Laganiere; Maryse Leclair; Anne-Marie Lemay; Sonia Pelletier; Michele Richard;

Annie St-Arneault; Annie Turcotte.

I encourage all members and residents of the Province to learn more about

what you can do to help bring an end to violence against women. To learn more

about our social marketing campaign, please visit our Web site at

respectwomen.ca

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like it if we all stood in a moment of silence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All rise.

[Moment of silence]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the minister for a copy of her statement today and to say

that I want to join with her and my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, and all

members of this House, and indeed all those across our country who recognize

December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against

Women in our society.

Mr. Speaker, the violence against fourteen women that occurred in our country

in 1991 will always be a dark and devastating reminder that is felt in the

hearts of women and men right across this country. I think any time that we see

violence against women, just because of our gender, just because we are women,

it is unacceptable and we all have a role in society to change that and to

ensure that we eliminate it, Mr. Speaker.

It was just last year when I listened to an RNC report, and I remember at

that time they were saying that 50 per cent of all violent crimes that were

being reported in Province were crimes against women.

I also remember, Mr. Speaker, that the number of cases in recent years of

violence against women that were being reported, has not declined a whole lot.

In fact, last year there were still 800 cases in this Province of reported

violence against women. As we have already heard here today, only 10 per cent of

a lot of these cases get reported. In fact, a common concern, Mr. Speaker, that

I have heard from women's shelters, in particular in this Province, is that

although many women are fleeing violence in their home and seeking the refuge of

shelters, many of them are not reporting the incidents. They are not reporting

out of fear of custody and care for their children.

I think that is not a concern I have heard in just one region of the

Province, I have heard it in many regions. I think it is one area that, as a

government and as parliamentarians, that we need to look at to ensure that these

women not only are able to seek refuge, but also have the ability to be able to

report these incidents free from stress and burden in their own lives and know

that they and their children will be protected.

Mr. Speaker, in order for women to continue to seek safe havens, we have to

continue to provide them. Our Violence Prevention Initiative has done good work

in educating, in promoting and encouraging people and groups in this

organization to take an active role in violence against families and women. I

think we also need to ensure that many of our women's shelters out there are

adequately funded, have adequate programs and provide for the proper transition

of women when they come out of these shelters; another common concern that we

keep having raised.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just clue up my comments by saying today that we would certainly

support any programs that are being put in place and implemented to support

women and children in our society. We are more than prepared to do our part to

ensure that the number of cases of violence against women in this Province

continues to decline. I certainly hope that this will remain a priority for

government in its agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I do thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I am more than pleased to stand with the minister and with the Leader of the

Official Opposition in recognizing the twentieth anniversary of the Montreal

Massacre and to join with all of the members in the House and everybody who is

watching with us today.

I think that we need to remember that because of December 6, twenty years

ago, our federal government brought in gun control. Unfortunately, some weeks

ago in Ottawa, there was a vote on long gun control and to remove the registry

of long gun control. This has been very disturbing for me and I know for many,

many women in this Province.

I think I am correct in saying this; if not, I am to be corrected. My

understanding is that women who have been murdered by guns in this Province,

especially in the last twenty years, have been murdered by long guns. I say to

all of us, and I say to us here in this House, that while this is a federal

ruling and it has not passed totally through the whole process yet, it does put

an extra onus on the government and on all of us with regard to the fact that

long guns will no longer be registered if this goes through.

So I just put that out. I know this is something that would concern the

minister and would concern all of us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons with

Disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize that today, December 3, is

International Day of Persons with Disabilities. This is an annual observance

created by the United Nations to promote understanding of disability issues,

foster respect for the rights of persons with disabilities and highlight the

benefits of having persons with disabilities engaged in all aspects of life in

their communities.

Mr. Speaker, this occasion is about mobilizing action toward creating a fully

inclusive society. As Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons with

Disabilities, I am proud to say that 2009 was certainly a year of action for

this Province.

On June 1, the Williams government officially opened the new Disability

Policy Office, which was created to promote inclusion of persons with

disabilities in all aspects of society, while helping government departments

ensure their policies and programs are inclusive and barrier-free. The opening

was met with tremendous approval from the community of people with disabilities

as it represented a new era of partnership between government and the community.

This partnership has been strengthened by the establishment of our new

Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities,

which was announced last week. This council is comprised of seventeen members

and features cross-disability representation from all regions of the Province.

This will help ensure government fully appreciates all perspectives within the

community of persons with disabilities.

The newly appointed chair of this council, Ms Joanne MacDonald, is present in

this hon. House today, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my

gratitude to her for accepting this role.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Ms MacDonald has spent decades advocating to improve

advocate and role model. Her achievements have earned her a nomination to the

Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and appointment as an Officer of the Order of

Canada. We are very fortunate to have someone with her insights and her standing

within the community to lead this endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by advising this hon. House that this morning I

had the privilege of celebrating this very important day at the Independent

Living Resource Centre. This inspiring event included the presentation of

awards, including the Local Government Award for Independent Living.

I am so proud to announce that the Department of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment was the recipient of this award which honours those who have

challenged, lobbied and succeeded in implanting substantial change by breaking

down barriers faced by persons with disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: This is very important work, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage

members of the community of disabilities to continue to partner with this

government so that together, we can continue to build a more progressive,

inclusive society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and to say

that we, in the Official Opposition, want to join all of those who are in

observance of the International Day of Persons With Disabilities.

I also want to, on behalf of our Opposition members, congratulate Ms

MacDonald on this very important appointment. I have seen this lady work in

various areas, with Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador quite a few years ago,

I have seen her come to Lions Clubs and make presentations on behalf of those

with disabilities, and I have to say that her work in advocating for people with

disabilities will truly be a spearhead with this new committee that has been set

up. I am sure that she will meet with employers, and many people have concerns

with regard to what things they should do within their employment areas, so that

they too can take part with people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, there are some staggering figures in our Province. Approximately

75,000 people in our Province have at least one disability. Whether it be

mobility, vision, hearing, mental health, or intellectual disability. The

Canadian Paraplegic Association stated recently that 50 per cent of people in

our Province with disabilities are unemployed.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is much that has been done, however, there is much to

be considered. Today as we speak, we know that there are fourteen individuals

who are in the workforce with disabilities who are on strike today. So there is

much to be done. We know that there are people who cannot access many buildings

in our Province, whether it is their own homes because of ramps, whether it is

facilities where they cannot get to the washrooms. So, Mr. Speaker, by working

together, and I am sure with the guidance of Ms MacDonald, that by working

together we all can become an inclusive society.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I am very pleased to join with her and with everybody in this House in

recognizing December 3, which is the International Day for Persons with

Disabilities. It is so important that we do mark days like this. Sometimes it

feels like there is a day for everything, but everything for which there is a

day is something that is important.

I am very pleased with the announcement that was made by the minister of Ms

Joanne MacDonald as the chair of the council. I know the work of many of the

appointees, and I know that we have excellent candidates and a council that is

going to do excellent work for the Province. I know that the minister is

certainly going to be there to work with them because everybody in this

Province, and especially persons with disabilities, want action. The time for

talk is over. Good intentions are not enough. It is action that we want. That is

what this council is about, and I really look forward to the actions that come.

Probably one of the ones that we need to see sooner rather than later comes

from a revelation that happened, that came about this week in the Province. I,

myself, was surprised to find out that there were no accessible washrooms in

either of the general hospitals in St. John's, in the area where patients are

admitted. I know there probably are some downstairs in other parts of the

hospital maybe in the ER, sections like that, but not where patients are

admitted. This is not acceptable. I have heard explanations from the CEO of

Eastern Health, but I have also heard the voice of the coalition of persons with

disabilities. Something has to be done sooner rather than later to deal with

this issue. I am sure it is one that the council is going to take up, and I

encourage them to do so, and I really encourage the minister, along with the

Minister of Health and Community Services, to take this issue - to put it on the

desk and to really take action on it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Quebec's Minister of Natural Resources rejected

the Province's attempt to reopen the Upper Churchill deal. In response to

questions in the House yesterday the minister stated that they were still

waiting to hear from Hydro-Quebec. Well, yesterday the President of Hydro-Quebec

also rejected the idea in the public.

I ask the minister: Now that both the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources

and the President of Quebec Hydro have refused to reopen the Upper Churchill

contract, will the Province now commence court action?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is almost as

difficult to communicate with as is the Government of Quebec on Hydro-Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are not proceeding

with any action against Hydro-Quebec at this time. Mr. Speaker, CF(L)Co has

written Hydro-Quebec asking them to reopen the Upper Churchill contract. They

have given them until January 15 to respond. Mr. Martin, President of CF(L)Co,

said he is waiting to hear in writing from Hydro-Quebec and when he gets the

letter and the response and the answer, whatever it is, he will then decide -

CF(L)Co will decide what their next steps will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is not really talking to anyone else in the country but maybe

she is talking to CF(L)Co. So maybe you could tell us, now that they have had

their suggestion rejected by Quebec Hydro will they now take court action,

minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I refer the Leader of the Opposition to yesterday's edition of

The Telegram where the President, Ed Martin, the President of CF(L)Co

said, "It's steady as she goes." He wrote a letter to Hydro-Quebec.

He is waiting for a response in writing. Once that is received, CF(L)Co will

decide what their next steps will be. That is pretty straightforward, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night the Premier and his counterpart in Nova Scotia released to the

media a letter written to New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham asking for a

commitment that new transmission lines would be built in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today: Why are you not engaging in real

discussions with New Brunswick, and why is it that this government continues to

commence negotiations through the media?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I again reference the Leader of the Opposition to all the

editions of The Telegram for the last month and to do a media scan where

she should already know, but obviously does not, that there were formal talks

with Minister Graham in Churchill Falls at the CAP meeting. There were certain

assurances given by Premier Graham at that time that Premiers from Newfoundland

and Labrador and Nova Scotia asked for in writing.

The discussions have been had, answers were given, and what the two Premiers

had asked Premier Graham was to put in writing what he had said to them in

Churchill Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the way this government does business. Earlier in the week we saw

them trying to commence a negotiation on the Upper Churchill with Hydro-Quebec

through a media conference. Last night we heard them trying to commence another

negotiation with New Brunswick through the media on two very important issues,

two very important issues: one, building a transmission line through that

province and access at a rate that would be installed at this particular time.

I ask you minister: On important issues like this, why is it that you, your

Premier or someone else is not sitting down at the table with the Premier of New

Brunswick, with the Government of New Brunswick as opposed, Mr. Speaker, to

fighting the war in the media? Why is that not occurring?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members, are they going to allow the minister to answer the

question?

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we all hoped when Premier Grimes retired that

we were going to get a different approach with a new Leader of the Liberal

Party, but it is the same old thing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: It is the same old thing. In the media on Monday, Mr.

Grimes was saying: Negotiate; sit down and talk. On Tuesday, he was saying: Sue.

Mr. Speaker, in like manner, the Leader of the Opposition is all over the

place. We had discussions. Both Premiers had discussions with Premier Graham in

Churchill Falls several weeks ago at the CAP meeting. Both Premiers referred to

it publicly. Premier Graham has referred to it publicly.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition really has to get in the loop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are going to find out who is in the loop when

this is all done. We will find out who is in the loop, because the minister has

yet to have a meeting with anyone. She is the lead minister and she is yet to

have a meeting with anyone on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, does the Province have any plans maybe she can tell me this

to cover any of the costs that are associated with the construction of a new

transmission line or the cost that is associated with an environmental

assessment process to establish a transmission line through New Brunswick?

Tell us that, Minister; you thought it all out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely

right; we have thought it all out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Something they should have done, Mr. Speaker, before they

tried to give it away the last time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, wherever there is going to be

transmission, whether there is existing transmission or new transmission,

anybody who is using that transmission, including Newfoundland and Labrador,

will have to pay a tariff to use the transmission or help pay the cost of the

transmission. We have said that day after day after day in the House of

Assembly. They just are not listening, Mr. Speaker.

Of course we do not expect somebody to build transmission and let us use it

for free, Mr. Speaker. We are more than prepared to pay our way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say the only thing the minister has not thought out at this stage is

how she is going to get us out of the hole that their government has dug us in

on this Lower Churchill deal, Mr. Speaker. They have not an ally left in this

country to negotiate this deal with; not one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I appeal to members for their co-operation. There are important questions

being asked.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been recognized.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The truth of the matter is that they have no one left to talk to, they have

no one left to negotiate with, they have no market for the power, they have no

access to transmission, they have no money to develop the project, they have no

environmental assessment completed, they have no Aboriginal claims signed off,

Mr. Speaker, and every day is smoke and mirrors -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question now.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister at this stage to table what the cost will be to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador to build a transmission line through New Brunswick,

Mr. Speaker, to transport power for the Lower Churchill. She says they are

prepared to do it. She says they have thought it out. I would like to know what

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we saw a shining example of the research

capacity of the Opposition. They do not know what they are doing, Mr. Speaker.

The sad thing about all of that is they did not know what they were doing over

here when they were trying to negotiate a deal on the Lower Churchill with all

of the expertise of the public service at their command, plus any external

advice or support they needed. I will guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, they know even

less about what they are talking over there now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Every time there are no answers the only thing you get is all fluff from the

other side, Mr. Speaker. A great big bowl of fluff is what we got coming across

there today.

Mr. Speaker, my next questions are for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, our office received a very disturbing report. I referenced it

yesterday in my comments in the House of Assembly concerning the delivery of

education and social issues facing Jens Haven Memorial School in Northern

Labrador, in the Community of Nain.

This report, which was completed in 2006, was never released to the public. I

ask the minister today why that document was kept hidden.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: From one minister to another, Mr. Speaker, she continues to

come with lies, innuendos and half information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are some things that the Speaker will wait until the end of Question

Period to deal with, there are other comments that are made here, language that

is used that he won't, and I ask the hon. Minister of Education to withdraw

those remarks and withdraw them now.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. KING: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the report that the hon. member

is referencing, there is no secret report. The report was produced by an

administrator of the school of the day, several years ago. It was used as part

of an advocacy effort to try and lobby for more resources for the school, Mr.

Speaker.

The Department of Education has responded in part to that report. We have

allocated more teachers to that particular school, Mr. Speaker. We have engaged

in discussions of the review of the curriculum in the school, Mr. Speaker, and

we have engaged with the local community to look at what other things we can do

to strengthen education delivery in that school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the document was provided to the Department of Education.

I ask the minister: Why was it that your government and the department did

not move to further investigate the issues that were provided for in that

documentation, and why have there been no targeted initiatives designed to bring

down the statistics that were outlined in that report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, for the record, the hon. member opposite should

know that report was not commissioned by government. That report was like many,

many other documents, Mr. Speaker, which we receive on a daily basis from people

who are advocating for a particular cause.

We received the report, Mr. Speaker, we have assessed the report, and like

for every other community in this Province, we made significant investments in

education to try and strengthen the program for all children throughout the

Province, and that includes Nain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This report was submitted to the Department of Education. Any report that

shows up on a minister's desk that says: In a school in this Province, 72 per

cent of the students have been directly affected by suicide of a close family

member; two-thirds of these students require either moderate or intense support

to be able to follow the provincial school curriculum; 0 per cent of Grades 4 to

7 students are performing at an advanced performance level; and the retention

rate is only 46 per cent of those in the school actually graduate.

Now, Minister, whether you commissioned the report or the report showed up on

your desk, it is an alarming uncover of statistics of students in one school in

this Province

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask you today: What initiatives were targeted for this school to ensure

that those rates were reduced over the last three years?

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, the report was not

commissioned by us. That was a matter, a point for the record, Mr. Speaker,

because the suggestion was made by the Leader opposite that we hid away a report

that we commissioned, and we did not commission that report. I state that for

the record for this House, that it was a document that was received, the same as

hundreds of others that I receive on almost a weekly basis, people looking for

extra resources. Now I will repeat, Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to listen,

I will repeat the things we have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: We have invested in human resources in that particular school.

We have invested in resources to update the assessment of students and we have

addressed issues around student absenteeism and we are continuing to work with

the local school board and the local community on a daily basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits &

White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, in February the FFAW met with the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture to discuss the challenges in the fishery for the

coming year and what solutions would be forthcoming. Well, 2009 was a

challenging year with a serious depletion of markets as a result of global

economic crises, and the FFAW, coming out of their symposium, has put your

government on notice that there will not be a fishery this year based on the

prices that were offered last year. It is just not economically feasible, so

they say.

I ask the minister: What is your government's plan to deal with the warning

from the union and the industry, and unlike this year, will your contingency

plan be ready by early spring so that harvesters are not forced to fish late in

the season and under dangerous circumstances as was the case in 2009?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately at this time of global recession,

the fishery is being struck rather hard, there is no doubt about that.

One of the things that I said to the hon. member yesterday that our

government has invested in and is committed to is $800,000, Mr. Speaker, to an

MOU that we hope the harvesters, the fisheries union, the processors and

government can enter into and then come up with a way forward, because we are

faced with this on an annual basis. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to make

progress that is simply where it has to be. Protests, ultimatums, are not going

to cut it, Mr. Speaker. It has to be an agreed path forward, and we are

committed to investing in that, Mr. Speaker, and we are certainly hoping that

the other sides are committed to it as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits &

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, price for the product is paramount in the

operation of this industry, as any industry. The processors and harvesters need

a certain price to make this industry economically feasible. This past fishing

season I constantly heard from fish harvesters in my area of the inequity in

pricing compared to other Atlantic Provinces and how other provinces offered a

price that was substantially higher, a price that would make their enterprise

economically feasible.

I would ask the minister: Can he tell us why there is such a difference in

pricing from one province to the other?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are faced with I do not know if you would call it a dilemma or

whatnot, Mr. Speaker, in this Province. On the one hand we have the harvesters

who are asking for certain measures to be taken around the selling price of

fish. On the other hand, we are faced with the challenge of having the product

processed in this particular Province, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the member opposite; if he has any solutions I would certainly sit

down with him any time. Being new in his role, maybe he has some new, fresh

ideas. I would be certainly willing to sit down and speak to him about that, Mr.

Speaker. One thing about it, if we are going to make any way forward, we have to

sit at the table. This means the processors, the union and government. Mr.

Speaker, if we commit and other parties commit to that, we will have success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Monday of this week I asked the Minister of Justice about the pretrial

detention centre planned for Happy Valley-Goose Bay and asked when the tender

might be forthcoming on that because it has been delayed for quite some time.

The minister was not very specific. He talked about some preliminary work being

done. The records will show that the planning monies for this were in the Budget

of 2008. The $2 million for the construction of the facility was in 2009, yet we

still have not seen the tender.

I am wondering if the minister can give us some more specifics as to why this

is being delayed, and can he make a commitment that it will be announced in this

year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something that was said in the hon.

gentleman's question on Monday. I think he prefaced his question by stating

that the pre-detention centre was one of the seventy-seven recommendations in

the Decades of Darkness report and that is not the case; it was not one of the

recommendations of the Decades of Darkness report.

Having said that, to reaffirm my statement read on Monday, we are committed

to improving the justice system in Labrador, including the pre-detention centre

for women. We have made significant improvements, Mr. Speaker, in our judicial

system and in our correctional institutions. We have spent $7 million in the

last year on improvements to our correctional system; on planning and staffing

and programming. We will continue to do that.

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, I visited Happy Valley-Goose Bay and talked to

all the stakeholders in the justice system down there. I must say that I was

impressed with the response that I got. Certainly, the circumstances that

presented the need for this facility still very much exist. We are still working

on it, Mr. Speaker. We have some planning; we had some money to spend on

planning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We have spent some money on planning. We have a couple of models presented.

We are investigating it further. We have still some more work to do on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we will see this pre-detention centre take the same road in terms of

progress as we have seen with the hospital in Labrador West, announced six

times.

Well, Mr. Speaker, contained in that report, the seventy-seven

recommendations, one of the other ones was that it showed that 90 per cent of

the inmates in Her Majesty's Penitentiary suffer from personality and

addictions disorders, and government responded with a commitment to fund an

addictions counsellor for HMP and for the Clarenville Women's Correctional

Centre.

I ask the Minister, to date we know that the department has not as much as

even advertised for that position, let alone fill it, and this report was made

and this recommendation was made and commitment was made a year ago. So I ask

the minister: Why the delay again in getting that position filled?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the addictions counsellor for HMP is being

hired and currently waiting classification from Treasury Board.

With respect to the Labrador correctional institution, correctional centre;

we have in that particular facility increased our psychological services for

inmates in that centre. We have hired a full-time fetal alcohol syndrome co-ordinator.

We have increased the nurse practitioner's hours to twelve hours per week. We

are, as well, hiring an Aboriginal liaison training co-ordinator.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing these things as they unfold. We are spending a lot

of time on them, a lot of planning on them, and they are being done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the minister must have been referring to the wrong page of notes. The

position I talked about was for the HMP and for the Women's Correctional

Centre in Clarenville. In any case, that is fine.

My final question to the minister is: Minister, there was an incident that

happened at HMP when a gentleman by the name of Mr. Aylward, Austin Aylward

passed away. He had been taken off his medications while he was at HMP. In May

of last year, the former Minister of Justice announced that retired Justice

Robert Wells would be conducting an independent investigation into Mr. Aylward's

death, and that was announced in the local media. Yet, we have heard nothing of

it since. We are all aware, of course, that Justice Wells became involved in the

Cougar investigation after that, but I am wondering if you could

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

Can the minister tell us what the status of that investigation is that

Justice Robert Wells was supposed to undertake with respect to Mr. Aylward's

death?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, Justice Wells completed his review into the

circumstances surrounding the untimely and unfortunate death of the inmate. Mr.

Speaker, at this time I would like to extend condolences to the family of that

inmate for that tragedy.

The review was commenced on March 18 and the department has received the

report. The family of the inmate has been provided a copy, stakeholders in the

Department of Justice, the Crown prosecutors' office, Legal Aid, both police

forces, Adult Corrections, the Law Society, the Bar Association, all have been

given the recommendations from the report and have been asked to respond to

these recommendations by February 26.

This report contains very personal information, Mr. Speaker, and consequently

we will not be releasing the report in its entirety, but if Members of the House

of Assembly would like to receive a copy of the recommendation we would only too

happen to provide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, government recently closed the controversial New

Harbour dump in Trinity Bay, but the concerns of the people about the

contaminated site are by no means closed. Allan Williams of New Harbour, in

partnership with the environment organization known as Friends of the Earth,

made an application to the federal government. By the way, his application was

accepted.

I ask the minister: What is your department's plan for dealing with this

investigation and the accusation that this site remains in violation of the

federal Canadian PCB regulations and prosecutions may be imminent?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition member pointed out that government closed the

site. I would just like to clarify that it was the Trinity Bay South Waste

Management Committee who closed the site, and I commend them for doing that.

That was, in fact, done on September 26 and now their waste is coming to Robin

Hood Bay.

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, this is a federal investigation and

certainly our role in it will be to follow that investigation. In the meantime,

we are very committed to the New Harbour site. To date, we have spent $750,000

and we will continue to do work there in terms of monitoring, site modifications

and putting a liner on the site to close it out properly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, today is International Day of Persons With

Disabilities, as we know. As we have learned today from the Canada Paraplegic

Association more than 24.8 per cent of people living with disabilities in our

Province are unemployed. Mr. Speaker, just this past year government set up a

Disability Policy Office again, as we know, to deal with barriers to inclusion

in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Does this Province have a concrete plan in

place to deal with barriers to employment beyond the two already existing

programs under Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and if so, Mr. Speaker,

could the minister describe the plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons

with Disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite so rightly pointed out we do have a

Disability Policy Office in place now under the very capable leadership of Mary

Reid. That Disability Policy Office, in conjunction with the newly announced

council that we recognized here today, is in the process now of investigating

those exact same concerns and putting into place some new programs that will in

fact address all of the concerns that you have raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister; I look forward to hearing more from her in the future.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much publicity over the past few days about the

absence of accessible washrooms in the two St. John's general hospitals. Mr.

Speaker, it is unbelievable that today we still have to fight to have our public

buildings made accessible. Making facilities accessible is basic infrastructure.

Accessible washrooms are not benefits or perks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services if the

government is going to ensure that Eastern Health will make the necessary

changes to help people living with disabilities who are admitted to these two

hospitals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party this is a very serious issue

and one that we will take very seriously. In conjunction with my colleague, the

Minister Responsible for Persons with Disabilities and the new office of

disabilities we will certainly look into it.

I have read the comments made by the individual on CBC and also the comments

of Vickie Kaminski, the CEO of Eastern Health. This is an issue that we will

address and I have to say it does cause me very grave concerns also. We are

striving as a government to ensure equal access for all and it is something that

we will consider seriously and look at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

The Coalition of Persons with Disabilities has stated that there is an

affordable way to provide accessible washrooms in the short terms, and I think

Ms Kaminski, publicly, has also made a similar statement. One private or

semi-private room can be made accessible in each

section of a hospital at a cost

of about $25,000 each. This seems to be a small amount of money for government

to invest to stop discrimination against people with disabilities. I think the

minister probably will agree.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will government work with all of the health

authorities to provide immediate short-term solutions for the lack of accessible

washrooms in hospitals wherever they are needed in the Province, not just with

Eastern Health?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can indicate to the member opposite that our commitment will be to the

people of all parts of this Province, as we have indicated as a government

throughout our mandate. I have read the comments made on Open Line by the

executive director of the coalition. He indicated at that time an official

request would be coming forward, and I certainly look forward to receiving the

same. I am aware of the comments being made as to the cost of how this can be

done. I will certainly, over the next short period of time, have discussions

with Ms Kaminski, Mr. Lane and any other interested parties.

Again, I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that our commitment to persons with

disabilities has been indicated by the establishment of this office. We will do

what we can to ensure equal treatment for all persons in our society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Present Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: In compliance with the House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity Administration Act, I hereby table copies of minutes of the Management

Commission for June 24, October 7, October 20, and November 4.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, An Respecting Condominiums. (Bill 48)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act Respecting Public Accountants. (Bill 49)

I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The

City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 51)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl

Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation

Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008, Bill 44, and I further move that the

said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the

Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008, Bill 44, and that Bill 44 be

now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 44 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008", carried.

(Bill 44)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008.

(Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 6, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend

The Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2, Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 38,

An Act To Amend The

Memorial University Pensions Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

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

University Pensions Act No. 2". (Bill 38)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to take a few moments this evening to speak to the amendments to

the Memorial University Pensions Act.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial University was founded in 1925 as a living memorial to

our war dead. Over the eighty-plus years since that time, we have grown to be

the largest university in Atlantic Canada, offering a wide degree of programs,

more than 100 to be exact, to a student population of greater than 17,000.

As you are all aware here today, Mr. Speaker, the university employs many

thousands of individuals, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we have been

able to attract many people to the Province through employment at the

university. Professors and other professionals there have become important and

permanent members of the university and of our community.

Mr. Speaker, the university is governed by the Memorial University Act and

its operations are guided by other pieces of complementary legislation,

including the Memorial University Pensions Act which governs the university's

pension plan. This plan provides a defined benefit pension, similar to that

provided to the provincial public service. The university pension plan provides

retirement benefits to full-time employees and qualifying contractual employees

of Memorial University.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, employees of certain separately incorporated

entities of Memorial are also eligible to participate. MUN's Board of Regents,

Mr. Speaker, recently approved amendments to the Memorial University Pensions

Act to address a number of significantly outstanding issues. As members of this

House may recall, in the spring of 2009 session of the House we amended this act

to ensure the plan's compliance with the age requirements of both the Human

Rights Code and the Income Tax Act of Canada.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we will address the remainder of the proposed amendments

identified by MUN's Pension Advisory Committee which are required to ensure

compliance with the federal Income Tax Act and changes required by Canada

Revenue Agency. I will go through these amendments, Mr. Speaker, one by one

right now to ensure members of the House are fully aware of them.

The first amendment would be a change to the

definitions. First, a number of

definition changes in the act, Mr. Speaker, will occur. We will clarify the

existing calculation of the best five-year average salary. We will comply with

the provisions of the federal Income Tax Act and we will reflect earning limits

defined under the Canada Pension Plan.

The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, will deal with grandfathering existing,

non-MUN employees. Second, there are currently three non-MUN employers, Mr.

Speaker, who have staff participating in MUN's Pension Plan. These include:

The Memorial University of Newfoundland Students' Union, the Medical Practice

Associates, as well as the Geological Association of Canada, the Newfoundland

section. At one time, staff of these employers were permitted entry into the

plan, however, this practice was discontinued in 2005 when restrictions on

participation from MUN's separately incorporated entities was introduced into

the act. Currently, twenty non-MUN employees are still participating in the

plan. To ensure the act recognizes that these employees as eligible participants

in the plan, it is proposed to introduce language into the act that will

grandfather these existing twenty employees, Mr. Speaker - to grandfather the

existing twenty employees, thus protecting their pension.

The third amendment will be the removal of a disability pension provision,

Mr. Speaker. The disability pension provision will be removed from the act.

Employees are already protected through the mandatory participation in the

long-term disability insurance at MUN. The disability pension provision provides

for the payment of a disability pension should a member become disabled.

However, given the higher benefits available under the mandatory disability

insurance program, it is being proposed to eliminate the provision.

The fourth amendment, Mr. Speaker, is the integration of Canada Pension Plan.

This will reflect the integration of the Canada Pension Plan into the Memorial

University Pensions Act, similar to the current one for the public service.

Fifth, we will improve the bridge benefit under the survivor pension.

Currently, the pension of a retiree who dies before the age of 65 is immediately

integrated with the Canada Pension Plan, thereby reducing MUN's pension

benefits. It is proposed to change this to the practice employed under the

Public Service Pension Plan for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This

means that the Canada Pension Plan integration will be applied at the date at

which the deceased retiree would have reached the age of 65. Thus, the survivor's

benefit will not be reduced until the date at which the deceased retiree would

have reached the age of 65.

The sixth amendment to this, Mr. Speaker, is to improve re-employment

policies for retirees. Currently, retirees under the plan can only be rehired

under contract and must continue to receive their pension. During this

re-employment MUN has a set limit, such that earnings received through a pension

and a contract must not exceed a person's pre-retirement earnings. When both

are combined they cannot exceed the pre-retirement earnings. It is proposed that

the act will be amended so that a pensioner who is rehired can use this period

of re-employment as pensionable time, thereby increasing their future pension

benefits. A similar provision, Mr. Speaker, already exists under the Public

Service Pensions Act, 1991.

The seventh amendment, Mr. Speaker, includes the Income Tax Act limits

regarding periods of unpaid leave and reduced pay in the act. Currently, it

allows an employee to purchase a period of leave of absence of up to a maximum

of two years. It is proposed in the current amendments to the legislation that

we will amend this to provide for the maximum limits allowable under the Income

Tax Act, which allows five years of unpaid leave, plus an additional three years

in respect of parental leave. This is being done in practice, and right now we

are seeking to provide authority to the amended legislation.

Eighth, Mr. Speaker, sections of the act regarding the survivor and dependant

children will be amended to comply with the requirements of the Province's

Pension Benefits Act, 1997. Similar provisions have been made in the Public

Service Pension Plan already.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, certain changes are required to comply with the Income

Tax Act. A part of its regulatory responsibilities for Registered Pension Plans,

for the Registered Plans Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency, reviews plan

texts and advises plan funders where changes are required to ensure we have full

compliance under the act. In this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, Canada

Revenue Agency has outlined to us a number of changes that are required under

the Memorial University Pensions Act, and those are incorporated here today.

Mr. Speaker, these collective changes that we are bringing forward today will

ensure full compliance for the Memorial University Pensions Act with federal

legislation and it will strengthen the legislation for the benefit of employees.

A stronger pension plan, Mr. Speaker, will mean a stronger university with a

unified workforce and a competitive advantage in attracting new, future,

qualified personnel to continue the strong tradition we have of quality programs

being offered at Memorial University.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this

particular piece of legislation. It is of course complicated for one who is not

used to dealing with pension plans. As we all know, we have a multitude of

pension plans in our Province. We have the MHAs Pensions Plan, the Public

Service Pension Plans. We have the NLTA plans. We have now the Memorial

University plans, which we have had for some time, which is being amended. All

of these, of course, do not only just deal with what kind of pensions come out

on the backend of somebody's work life. They deal of course with tax

consequences as well. So they not only decide what happens between the

individual and his employer when he or she retires, but there are also impacts

from Revenue Canada. Over time, usually because a lot of these different pacts

are negotiated at separate times under different circumstances, you all do not

have the same plan. Of course, you become aware of circumstances that ours is

not like the other one, or this one has some tinkering that we do not have, and

you try to bring it in-line so that you make it the best that it can be based

upon the funding of course that you have in it. That is what we see here again,

is we see an opportunity to try to clean it up, the pension piece, when it comes

with respect to the Memorial faculty and their pension plan.

I am wondering, the minister - usually second reading, of course, is an

opportunity just to say in general terms what the piece of legislation is all

about, and the minister has just alluded to that. I am wondering as well if the

minister could tell us, and maybe I missed this, but I did not hear him say who

exactly were consulted in regard to this particular piece of legislation,

because sometimes we find legislation that comes to the floor of the House here

because it is driven from within government or within the bureaucracy of the

pensions division and so on. At other times this happens because it is generated

and driven by the stakeholders themselves, the people who receive the pensions

or in this case, like Memorial University.

So I am wondering if the minister, maybe when we get to the Committee stage

or even at the end of second reading here, could give us some background as to

who brought this about, who is initiating this particular piece of legislation

and the changes, the extent of the consultations that went on between the

parties here and so on, because I think that is important to know. Not

everybody, for example, who even currently is receiving a Memorial pension knows

that what we are doing here today will impact them. Now they may, depending on,

of course, if their association or whatever has informed them, but I would like

to know exactly what was done to make sure that they were in fact aware of it,

they were made party to this. Because you do not want to find out we passed this

thing and two days later we have a bunch of people screaming and saying, we did

not know anything about this, and this is impacting us negatively and so on. So

it would be nice to know, and just for the record, I am sure there has been

consultation, but just for the record, to appease anyone out there who might be

concerned about whether people were consulted, just to let them know that they

were indeed consulted on this.

The minister's reference of course, to a number of things, the income tax

applications here, and he referred, very interestingly I thought, to the issue

of what we used to always and we always still do call double-dipping. He

made reference to the fact that someone right now, for example, who is receiving

a pension, if you want to bring them back to work they have to come back on a

contract, which, of course, they get their pension and they get their contract

monies for doing that contract. So I have always called that double-dipping. We

see it in a lot of instances, not only in the case of Memorial. There are lots

of instances, for example, where teachers who have retired in our system, they

have retired but because they have a particular skill, particularly, sometimes,

like a French teacher or a mathematics or a science teacher, and if the

department cannot fill the need somewhere in a community, they go out and hire

back a teacher who is retired who has those skills. That person again gets paid

in addition to what he or she has received on their pension.

I have lots of instances in my district. For example, one very good friend of

mine, who was a retired teacher in Burgeo, often goes down the coast. It could

be Franois, it might be Grey River. He goes down on a contractual basis, as

does his wife, who goes to Ramea. I think she was actually the Principal of the

Ramea school last year, because of the same thing, there was a shortage of a

person with those abilities.

We also have it in the case of CONA instructors, which is a different facet

as opposed to the NLTA type pensions and requirements, but it happens in CONA.

For example, a lot of the people who are currently in Qatar and we are all

aware, of course, of the contract that was negotiated years ago. I believe it

was a ten-year contract initially between this Province and the Qataris whereby

we sent over instructors and CONA established a campus over there and so on. A

lot of the instructors who are over there today are retired CONA instructors.

They do have, for example, employees of CONA who are here in this Province and

they have gone over there to continue in that employment vein, but we also have

people over there who were instructors in CONA, retired, but they have now taken

jobs in Qatar, which are in addition, again, to their pensions. I have friends

who are also involved in doing that. I hope to see them soon, of course, when

they return at Christmastime.

I ask the minister: In this particular case here - and you said, I do

believe, that rather than having this, what I call double-dipping scenario in

the future, you said you are going to bring them back. You will pay them, of

course, for the services that they render, but if I heard you correctly you are

saying that rather than be double-dipping, as it were, they will get paid but

the time that they work extra will go onto their pensionable time, so therefore

when they finish that contract, we will call it, or that service period, they

will end up, in fact, with a more or a better pensionable time frame. I just

want the minister to clarify that I got that right, and I believe that is what

he did say.

I am wondering: Do we have, or do we intend to have this scenario carried

over to the NLTA and the CONA situations in future, or are we going to continue

with the double-dipping scenarios in their cases? Do you see what I am saying?

If we have it in MUN, and this is going to be new to Memorial, why wouldn't we

apply the same thing? If it is creative and if it is beneficial to the worker,

and if it is cost-effective and beneficial to the Province, why wouldn't we

also apply that and be bringing back amendments to the NLTA provisions and to

the CONA provisions and so on, and the pensions that govern them? Now maybe the

changes have been made recently, but to my knowledge that is not what exists for

these people, for example, who are retired and are currently over working in

places like Qatar and so on. I understand they get a pension. I understand they

have a contract and it is two cheques, and it has nothing to do with extending

the time on their pensionable time. Some explanation of that as to: Is there any

thought to do that in the future? It would be beneficial as well.

Mr. Speaker, of course when we are talking about Memorial University, there

are a lot of pieces to it than just the pensions, of course. Memorial University

is not only the flagship of our Province when it comes to the educational

opportunities and the standards that we operate at, the people at Memorial

University, not only the students who are top-grade, of course, but the

instructors who are top-grade. Hopefully, our facilities are top-grade. This

government has invested a massive amount of money into making Memorial

University all that it could and ought to be. There is no doubt about it, and

successive governments have tried to do that. Education has always been

paramount. No matter who the administrators and governors of this Province have

been, you always try to make the best educational facilities that you can for

the students of this Province.

Of course, we hit a few rough spots, we had a rough spot last year when the

former Minister of Education tried to interfere in the selection process for the

president. We had that happen last year. That is unfortunate and it was

unfortunate. In fact, we now have a new president. I have not met the gentleman,

but from all accounts and everything I have heard, he is top rate.

The issue still remains, the issue of the selection of the president, no

mater who does it, the issue is: Should there be any involvement from the

government? The current government had its position on that. That is fine, that

is fair ball. The government had a position. It so happened that a lot of people

disagreed with that position. I give the government full credit for how they

withdrew themselves from that process. It happened, it should not have happened.

The Premier came out, when he was asked later on, months later when he was

doing a Cabinet shuffle and he was asked down in Government House - I believe

the new minister who is there now was appointed probably. Someone in the media

asked the new minister: Well, what do you think of the Memorial University

piece? I believe the minister did not respond, but the Premier responded and

said: We are hands-off. That is good to see - I do believe that is what

happened.

In fact, there was a conference or a briefing meeting which announced the

appointment of the new president. I would not pronounce his last name for fear

of not doing it properly. The gentleman is from Alberta. It sounds

AN HON. MEMBER: Kachanoski.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Kachanoski. I apologize for butchering the

pronunciation of that word. There was, in fact, an announcement when they

announced him. They told the involvement, they said there there were notes

put out as to what involvement the current Minister of Education might have had

in the selection.

We all remember that after that debacle happened, the government appointed

Mr. Robert Simmonds, who is a noted lawyer here in St. John's, to be the Chair

of the Board of Regents. The selection process was begun anew, and I must say it

did not take Mr. Simmonds too long and the Board of Regents to come up with a

selection. It is good to see that it happened and it does appear to have been

arm's-length.

Again, people make mistakes sometimes. Even this government makes mistakes

from time to time. I think it has been acknowledged by them, and certainly

acknowledged by the Premier, that we made a booboo here. It is no good to have a

top rate educational system and talk about autonomy and how good it is and where

it is going to go in the future in terms of research capabilities and all of

that stuff. Then you start putting your fingers in and interfering with how it

is run and interfering with who runs the place. You have academic freedoms and

everything to think about in this day and age, you always had them, for a long

time.

There was a case where the government transgressed. They crossed the line, I

do believe. Anyway they got their fingers suitably rapped, and they withdrew. So

it is nice to see that piece got moved and put on.

Of course, there is still some confusion, I would think, in the public mind

as to where we are going to go when it comes to Memorial, vis--vis the Sir

Wilfred Grenfell piece. About three or four years ago, the current Minister of

Finance, the Member for Humber East I mean he has been out chanting for

years and years and years now about the independence of Sir Wilfred Grenfell

College as a stand-alone university in the Province. This government is

committed to it; committed to make Sir Wilfred Grenfell stand-alone.

Now, it has been debated extensively in the public, not only here, but even

people from outside of Newfoundland and Labrador have commented that it seems to

be a foolish idea. I have heard arguments pro and con as to whether we should or

we should not. This government, in its wisdom, decided that it was going to

happen. I never ever did hear many good reasons why it was going to happen yet.

I heard it was going to happen. We had money put in the budget not even this

budget for 2009 and 2010. We had money put in the budget years ago, three, four

years ago, to see that this happened.

Even more importantly, we had commitments from this government months and

years ago that we would see the legislation come before this House to establish

the autonomy of Sir Wilfred Grenfell. Well, we have not seen it. We have not

seen it. Now, it is another one of those cases where maybe you had yourself out

there before you realized that whoa, we have not thought all of this through. We

have not really thought this through, what is involved in it, what is the cost

of doing this, what are the pros and cons of this, have we consulted with

everybody that we want to.

Anyway, it is out there now, and they say it is going to happen. We are

hoping that some time in the twenty-first century we will see the legislation

that is going to get it done. Other than the lip service that the government

seems to be paying to it, we have not seen any legislation on this at all. So,

it would be nice to see where it sits now. It is sort of a wish that the Member

for Humber East wanted, and he got his wish, and now we cannot seem to see the

government carrying through on it.

It would be interesting, too, to see how the new president because I

noticed he very astutely, and I believe, properly, when he was asked after his

appointment the other day, what he thought about the old former debacle as to

the selection process for the president, he said: I have no opinion.

Now that was a pretty smart move, I believe, on his part. Why get embroiled

in something that you do not need to, you had no part of? Let's move on. He is

thinking very positively I believe. He said he wants to have a very positive and

open relationship with the government. He also made it very clear that he wants

the autonomy of the University to be respected. There is a fine balancing act,

he said. There is a fine balancing act between it.

So I am looking forward to seeing where the new president, as well, and the

Board of Regents and the Senate, where they all go now with respect to the issue

of the autonomy for Grenfell. We are several years out, and hopefully, as I say,

we will see the government - maybe there will be more money in the Budget next

year to sustain the idea to do further study, but hopefully we are going to do

something a bit more substantive than that.

Before we know it, the Member for Humber East will probably be retired and

never see it achieved here. I was looking forward to the day when he might get

to vote on the piece of legislation or explain it.

Anyway, those are a couple of issues. It is good to see that the minister is

bringing forward this bill today to clean up some of the pieces that are

involving the pensions. As I say, there are lots of issues out there that

involve Memorial University that have, over the last few years, kept it in the

forefront; kept it, sometimes, in the media, and it did not want to be there. I

refer, of course, to the president's piece. It just keeps lingering around,

for example, the Grenfell piece.

There are a lot of people want to know. Are we or are we not - for example,

the people on the West Coast. I represent a district on the West Coast and

usually what happens is the kids from out in my area would go to Corner Brook

for the first couple of years and then they find themselves having to go to St.

John's to finish off their degrees. Of course, there are a lot of people out

in my district who would love to see Grenfell have full autonomy. Your children

are closer to home. It costs less to travel.

I would submit it costs even less to live in the City of Corner Brook than it

does to live in St. John's. I have known and had the benefit of seeing people

have to do both. I have had my own children who had to come here and friends of

mine who had to go to Corner Brook. It is quite substantially more expensive to

come to St. John's if you live in a place like Port aux Basques or the Codroy

Valley than it is to go to Corner Brook to live. Say nothing of the fact that

you can easily get home on weekends and so on, which you cannot easily do if you

live here, 563 miles away.

There are a lot of people out there anxiously awaiting this. So do not take

my comments to suggest that I am anti-Grenfell. I would just like to see all the

arguments laid out there. I listened to the late principal when he made his

announcements and why he thought it should happen, but I have not seen it out

there so that we can debate it and say, okay, what are the pros, what are the

cons, and who you consulted to get the view of some people.

For example, the gentleman who is now the Lieutenant-Governor of this

Province, he was at that time the Chancellor of Memorial University. He made his

views quite clear, what he thought of it. He ruffled some feathers when he did

that, but he was never the gentleman known to be afraid of ruffling feathers. If

he had something to say, whether it was to Sheila Copps or to the Premier of the

Province, he always said it. You have to appreciate him for that. He was very

candid. He spoke like he felt. If he felt it, he usually had it thought through,

and he did not say it just frivolously. You cannot condemn somebody just simply

because they say something. You have to look at it, particularly where it is

coming from, and say: did that individual put any thought into that? You might

disagree with them, but you cannot disagree with their right to have an opinion

that is different than your own. Obviously, he is not in a position now where he

would speak out. He is in a position now where he is neutral. He does not

comment on these issues anymore in the public domain, but he made his positions

known before he went out of view and he made them quite clear. You have to

respect the comments of some of these people.

So anyway, we are not going to be opposed to the piece of legislation that is

here right now. It is nice to see that the minister, as I say, is obviously

listening to someone to get this done. We would just like to know more detail as

to who it was that brought this forward and so on. My understanding is, and

maybe the minister can clarify this, my understanding is that this particular

change is not going to be positive for everyone. Maybe the minister could give

us some explanation as to how many people are going to be negatively impacted by

it as opposed to be positively impacted by it.

I notice the minister has a lot on his plate and he might not have heard what

I suggested, but I think it is very important that it is our understanding

from the reading of this legislation that not everybody who receives this

pension from Memorial is necessarily going to be positively impacted by these

changes. My understanding is that there may be some, albeit minor, negative

impacts, but there may be some negative impacts. I am wondering if the minister

can give us some further clarification on that, because our review of it seems

to be that not everybody is going to be 100 per cent positively impacted by

this. Yes it is the right to do, yes it needs to be done, particularly the

integration piece with Revenue Canada, but that is not necessarily going to

impact everybody positively because some people, not all people, under the

pension plan have the same circumstances. So I am wondering if the minister

could clarify that for us as well.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is all the comments I had to make on second reading

on this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Chair, while he did not interrupt the hon. member as he was

speaking, I would like to remind members who are speaking from this time forward

with this particular pension bill, it has nothing to do with the new President

of Memorial University and has nothing to do with the viability of the Sir

Wilfred Grenfell campus. It is to do with a change in pensions and to make in

compliance with the Canada Pension Plan and the Income Tax Pensions Act. So I

ask members if they would keep their comments pertinent to the piece of

legislation.

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

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

I am glad to rise and speak to Bill 38 which deals with Memorial University

pensions. It is an important piece of legislation, though it is housekeeping. It

is housekeeping that is essential and that needs to be done.

The issues that are raised here are pretty basic issues to pensions and I

think it is good that at this point in time the government, along with the

university, have seen fit to make changes to bring the pension plan up to where

it should be in terms of compliance, especially with the Income Tax Act of

Canada. This is extremely important that there is unity between pension plans

that we have provincially and with federal regulations.

I have done some homework and I have learned that there was consultation, as

I hoped there might have been, between the department and the university. It is

my understanding that the MUN University Pensions Committee and its amendment

subcommittee were involved in the consultations. It is also my understanding

that the major groups at the university who are affected by this pension plan

are in agreement with the amendments that are being suggested.

I want to applaud the government and the department and applaud the minister

on the approach that they have taken. That is an approach of real consultation

where the changes that are made are changes that are acceptable to those who are

going to be affected. I think that is extremely important and I am really glad

that this has happened.

With regard to our pensions and I think it is important to look at what

is happening here at MUN with the pensions there in the light of all pensioners.

I encourage the government to use the same sense of consultation that they had

in making the amendments to the Memorial University Pensions Act, to use that

same consultation in relationship to what is happening with regard to the public

pensioners in this Province.

As we know, there is a pensioner's coalition that was formed in May, 2008,

to draw government's attention to the plight of about 22,000 retirees whose

pensions have largely been frozen for almost two decades. Well, it is two

decades actually, because it was in 1989 that the then government decided that

there would be no more indexation of the public sector pensions. One of the

things that that coalition wants is what Memorial University got. They want

consultation. They want government sitting with them. They want government

looking at how this impasse is going to be changed.

I really would encourage government to look at how the Department of

Education worked with Memorial, and the groups at Memorial, to come up with the

amendments to their pensions act because the government has a responsibility to

all of the pensioners in the public service sector. The coalition that has been

formed, of course, covers NAPE, NAPE retirees, CUPE retirees, it covers

teachers, it covers nurses well, not nurses - it covers teachers for sure,

the retirees from the teachers' association. It covers a broad spectrum of

retirees and they have been asking for a long time - not just to sit and talk,

and people say yes, we are listening, but to really work together to make the

change that has to be made for them.

Some of the changes to the Memorial University pension are definitely going

to benefit members who are receiving pensions now, and that is extremely

important, but we have to be sure that all our public service sector is being

treated fairly when it comes to pensions. We do know that some of the people who

are on public pension are - for example, NAPE estimates that its pensioners

receive $13,000 a year annually on average. Well, $13,000 average means there

are quite a few below $13,000 and there will be others above. I would reckon to

bet that those who are below $13,000, along with what they get from OAS, from

the Old Age Security, is not bringing them up to the poverty line. I know that

it isn't and we know that we have public pensioners who are living in poverty,

who are going to food banks. This is unacceptable. We have to be just as

concerned about our public pensioners, whether they are at Memorial University

or whether they are people who are cleaning the buildings that we work in, no

matter the work they did, their work was valuable and necessary and they should

have the benefit of that work right through to the day that they die. That

benefit should mean that just as they worked hard throughout their life and

worked for their money and paid into their pension plan, they should now be

protected and they should know that the pension that they are going to get is

going to give them a life that is one of dignity, one where they do not have to

beg after spending their lifetime working for the pension that they have.

So I encourage the government to look at these pensioners, to look at the

pensioners' coalition, to sit with them, to have real conversation, to work

with the unions to see how this impasse can be corrected, how things can be

turned around for everybody, how a system can be put in place so that indexation

is brought back in.

I know the complications. You have to find out who is going to be paying into

that. If there is going to be indexation, how is that going to be paid for.

Those things can be ironed out because I do believe, and I have always believed

that where there is a will there is a way. So, if there is a political will to

make this happen, it can happen. My concern is, perhaps up to now, it does not

look like there has been a political will. We are at a point in time in our

Province where we have the ability to finally deal with this issue. I know I did

not agree with what happened in 1989, even though we may have been in difficult

financial times twenty years ago, but there is never a reason that can justify

taking money away from workers, because they have worked for that money. Getting

rid of indexation, basically, was doing that. With every year that they were

getting their pension and the pension was not worth as much as it had been the

year before, they were losing money and having money taken away from them.

I thank the minister for bringing this document to the table. As I said, I am

really glad that these changes are being made to the Pensions Act. I am glad

that the government worked in partnership, and used real consultation in working

in partnership with the bodies at the University who should have been consulted.

I also hope that it is a sign that the government will become more concerned

about the other public service sectors and the other pensioners who need to have

changes made to, not so much the plans that they are part of, but with regard to

the public service sector pensions, the system of their receiving a pension that

reflects where things are in today's economy. So I am very happy to have had

this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

There is one other thing that I would like to mention. There is a bit of a

move underfoot that disturbs me a bit, and it has to do with unlocking pensions.

Obviously, it has not happened with this pension, and I would not expect that it

would, but it is something that we need to be concerned about. The purpose for

pensions and I think this is the role of government, and that is why this

bill is so important, bringing in the amendments - is to give people security

after they stop working, when they are retired, and they pay into the pension,

the employer pays into the pension. The role of government is to protect those

pensions and to protect the funds and to protect how the pensions operate.

Sometimes there are people who, at a moment in their life, might be under

pressure and might think, well, if they could get their hands on that money,

which is their money, as they see it, because they have paid into it, but so has

the employer. Sometimes they are so pressured that they think, if I could get

that money now, it would benefit me now and I will make it up for my future, and

it will be okay. A lot of research shows that allowing pensions to become

unlocked and for people to take their money out of pensions is really a very bad

way to go, that it actually can lead to a much worse situation for those people

when they retire.

I think government's role to protect, by legislation, those funds, to hold

those funds in trust for people's retirement, is a very serious responsibility

of government. So just as making sure that the way in which the pension unrolls

is important, just as it is important to make sure that all of the pieces that

were amended today, for example, things that it is housekeeping, it sounds

like they are not important. All of these housekeeping amendments also protect

the pensions, and it is just as important that government see its responsibility

for protecting the funds and to not allowing legislation that would unlock

pensions.

It may sound to some people, they way I have put it, that it may sound like:

Oh, you are treating workers or people who have pension plans like children,

government is keeping the money or will not allow legislation for the unlocking,

but in actual fact, the full welfare of the society is government's

responsibility, and I think maintaining locked-in pensions is part of that

responsibility.

I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to have raised some of these issues,

and I thank the minister for the presentation of the bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for The Isles of Notre

Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments about Bill 38 and

recognizing some changes to the legislation that will ensure that we are

compliant with the Canada Revenue Agency and the Income Tax Act as it relates to

Memorial University Pensions Act.

It was interesting listening to my colleagues across the House. As a former

teacher, I was certainly pleased to hear that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi had her homework done today, and disappointed that the Member for Burgeo

& LaPoile did not get his homework done, but that stuff happens, we are used

to dealing with that.

Mr. Speaker, as well, I certainly respect the Speaker's reference to the

fact that MUN presidency and Sir Wilfred Grenfell autonomy does not necessarily

relate to the pensions act in which we are dealing with today, but I would like

to take the opportunity to congratulate Dr. Kachanoski and the Board of Regents,

the search committee, and Mr. Simmonds in their selection. I certainly welcome

Dr. Kachanoski an opportunity to provide his leadership and his strong

background to join with the leadership at Memorial University, the strong

faculty presence there and the great students that we have at Memorial, and

indeed, the presence and strong position that Memorial University has, not only

in our Province, indeed, the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker earlier ruled on the relevance within the bill, and I would ask

the member to keep his comments relevant to the particular bill we are debating.

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just took that opportunity to congratulate Dr. Kachanoski.

In light of that, this particular bill does reference Memorial University. It

is one aspect of Memorial University and there are so many things there

referenced today about issues that continue to linger, and I certainly would

charge that the Opposition are certainly responsible that some of these issues

continue to linger. There are a lot of great things at Memorial University that

are occurring each and every day, and certainly it speaks well to where our

government has supported Memorial University and where it is going.

In terms of the university itself, Mr. Speaker, the people at the university,

the employees, they have spent many, many years dedicated to improving the

post-secondary system that offers so many students so much benefit in this

Province. It is important that as a government we continue to support them.

Today, in terms of the pension act, Mr. Speaker, this is just another

highlight of where we are going to support Memorial University. Our government

is committed to supporting post-secondary education in this Province. We have

seen it demonstrated with substantial increases in funding. In terms of

supporting the capacity, ensuring that we have access and affordable education

for students; ensuring that the public post-secondary institutions that we

support are certainly in terms of operational and also in terms of capital

investment.

Mr. Speaker, we are making great strides to support the employees of the

university, both in St. John's and in Corner Brook, by enhancing the system to

support the employees and students through various Student Aid initiatives;

advances in the delivery of distance education courses. We are seeing

investments in programming that will better prepare students for the workforce.

We are seeing growth at Memorial University; we are seeing an increase in

employment options and opportunities, all of which of course supports the

current existing staff at Memorial University.

The government has also provided funding to Memorial University to expand

capacity and develop programs in a number of areas. We are seeing funding has

resulted in improved skilled trades, we are seeing an increased demand in our

society for skilled trades and it is important that we support the university in

programming areas that will ensure that they continue to grow

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DALLEY: - and continue to support the need in our society.

MR. SPEAKER: I have to remind the hon. member again that we must try and

keep our comments relevant to the particular piece of legislation we are

debating. Bill 38 pertains to the pensions within Memorial University.

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, getting through

AN HON. MEMBER: He never done his homework -

MR. DALLEY: Oh, the homework is done. It is a very broad

interpretation,

Mr. Speaker, if I might say, as we relate and go down through Bill 38 and we

look at the long-term employees and look at where Memorial University has grown

and the number of employees that have retired from the university. We have a

long legacy and a legacy that we all have attached to Memorial University and

great respect for the people who work there. It is through this process, and

through the whole process of recognizing what their needs are, Mr. Speaker, the

reason for Bill 38, in consultation with the advisory committee and the Board of

Regents that we see the changes necessary for today.

Again, I just think it speaks to where we are as a government in supporting

and staying on top of, and certainly working with Memorial University to ensure

that we continue to be able to get the necessary changes that are needed, to

ensure on a very positive path. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that we are

seeing the changes today.

At that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to close debate on

this important piece of legislation. I will catch my breath from Question

Period, I am sorry.

I want to thank previous speakers who raised some very important issues,

specifically to the Opposition. A number of questions were raised, one

respecting: Who was consulted on the legislative requirements? I think,

specifically, was where the changes would have been initiated. The answer to

that, Mr. Speaker, is the changes would have been initiated through MUN's

Board of Regents based on some legislative requirements that we make the

changes. It also engaged a pension advisory committee. So, it was the Board of

Regents in consultation with a pension advisory committee that actually engaged

here.

The second question, Mr. Speaker, focused on, I think, the concept of

double-dipping and whether or not the changes being brought forward here today

for consideration by the House apply to other pension plans. I am advised, Mr.

Speaker, that individuals who participate in other public service pension plans

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador do also have the same

opportunity and the same right to avail, for example, of an opportunity to go

back to work, to park their pension and to accrue further pensionable service,

and then when they leave the workforce again, to draw the pension down.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly an important piece of legislation and I am

very pleased to bring this forward. It is part, I guess, of a whole suite of

important decisions we have made in this Province and important initiatives we

have taken. I am certainly very pleased to hear the member opposite talk about

the MUN presidency and we are very pleased, as a government, to have had the

opportunity over the last period of time to see a new president introduced at

Memorial, and very pleased with the direction that we are going to see for the

future at Memorial, Mr. Speaker.

As this government and the Premier have said on many, many occasions, we

recognize the value of education and we recognize the value of Memorial

University of Newfoundland to our Province, to the past, to the present, and to

the future of the Province. So I am certainly very pleased that we have turned

the corner there and we have an individual who is highly respected and comes

well recommended and certainly looking forward to him taking his place.

Also, Mr. Speaker, reference was made to Grenfell, and government's

commitment to Grenfell. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that we have continuously

repeated, I have repeated and the previous minister has repeated our commitment

to work with Grenfell, to strengthen Grenfell as a strong university and grow

the programs there and grow the student enrolment. It is a commitment that we

are continuing to follow. Discussions have been ongoing over the last months and

days and weeks and hours with officials at Grenfell on the kind of investments

we need and the kind of decisions we need to take and the kinds of directions we

need to take. We recognize, Mr. Speaker, the kinds of things that need to be

done to strengthen Grenfell, to market Grenfell, to grow the student enrolment

at Grenfell, and we also recognize the importance of Grenfell College to the

whole Western part of the Province and the economy of the Western part of the

Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my debate on the bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 38 be now read a

second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act No.

2. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act

No. 2", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House presently, by leave. (Bill 38)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order

7, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009.

(Bill 42)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of

Aboriginal Affairs that Bill 42,

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009

be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 42,

An Act To Amend The

Vital Statistics Act, 2009 be read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Vital Statistic

Act, 2009". (Bill 42)

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to get up here today in regard to bringing forward three

amendments to the Vital Statistics Act which was proclaimed on October 1, 2009,

replacing the outdated Vital Statistics Act which was enacted in 1990. I think

the most recent update in regard to that act was amended in 2004.

Since the time that the actual act was written, there has been numerous

trends and changes in regard to certain aspects of the recording or the

necessary requirements of recording under the Vital Statistics Act, such things

as the registration of same-sex marriages; in the technology side in vitro

fertilization and that kind of stuff; and information management was not

addressed under the act of 1890.

We came forward with a new act to address these issues. I might also say if

people do not understand, in regard to watching this hon. House today, that the

Vital Statistics Act requires that certain information on birth, marriage and

death in the Province be in a centralized agency and that is what this act is

all about in regard to setting out the perimeters under which the certificates

of these events can be provided.

As each act are before they are proclaimed, we do a review procedure to make

sure that everything is right in regard to the act before it is proclaimed, then

we can make a decision in regard to non pro-claimant, or we can make a decision

in regard to future amendments that we may have to bring forward to address the

issues that was found in regard to that procedure. We discovered, in regard to

that review procedure, that we needed to make three changes under the new act.

They are only minor in nature, but they are very, very important to ensure

consistency in the legislation.

There are three areas in the act that we have to address. One, is the issue

in regard to allowing nurse practitioners or registered nurses to certify deaths

and stillbirths; the second one was to extend the time that was allowed for the

registration of marriages; and the third was to allow authorized persons to

obtain certain certificates of deceased persons. I will address each one of

these in turn, which should clarify to each and every member of this House and

anybody else that is interested in regard to the Vital Statistics Act why they

are important and necessary in this hon. House today.

The first one will be to allow the nurse practitioners or registered nurses

to certify deaths and stillbirths. In the past, in the old act, they were and

did, do that procedure. Where that pertains to, where that is very, very, very

important is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where there might not be a

practitioner, there might not be a medical examiner available to sign-off on

that certificate of death. However, when we enacted a new act, and with the

change of wording on the Vital Statistics Act, and it specifically says: medical

practitioner, we were contacted by the Association of Registered Nurses of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and they believe now that nurses did not fit within

the new title and therefore they cannot legally perform the functions.

These issues arise, as I just said before, in rural Newfoundland, but they

also arise in regard to long-term care facilities, because sometimes a

practitioner is not available, you have a high death rate in regard to these

long-term facilities as well so a nurse will be the practical person to sign off

on death certificates. Also, if we do not have that there you would have a

creation of a delay process in regard to the families, which is stressful enough

as it is that they are losing a loved one, now they have to wait for a medical

practitioner or medical examiner to be found to sign off on the actual death

certificate. So that would be a delay in regard to addressing the issues that

the family would have in regard to the burial process too.

I think this is a very important piece here. It is probably the most

important amendment that is there because it addresses an issue in regard to

registered nurses and nurse practitioners, but also it addresses the particular

families that might be involved in this process with regards to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador and the stress that they find themselves in with the

death of anybody within their family unit. So I think this is a very, very

important piece of work.

The second piece surrounds the extension of time to allow for the

registration of marriages. This one, mainly, is really a housekeeping piece of

work because under the Marriage Act it specifically says seven days and under

the Vital Statistics Act it says five days. So, we are going to amend the Vital

Statistics Act to mirror the Marriage Act, and this sets the timelines for when

a required marriage document can be returned to the marriage licence issuer.

Also, it gives a little bit more time. Five days seems to be a lot of time

maybe, but a seven-day period would be more reasonable in regard to getting that

marriage certificate back into the hands of the issuer. So that is a

housekeeping piece that we needed. We addressed that issue in regard to these

amendments, too.

The third piece, in regard to the amendments, is to allow the authorized

persons to obtain birth certificates of the deceased persons. This is a piece

that clarifies exactly who will be allowed access to this piece of important

information, it addresses privacy issue, too, in regard to what we find

ourselves in today, in regard to the fraudulent activity in regard to foundation

documents, et cetera. So we have to move forward on that and protect the privacy

of personal information.

The access will be limited to a surviving spouse or a cohabiting partner,

parent, adult child or adult sibling of the deceased, or the executor or

administrator of the estate, or a person authorized in writing by one of these

people, or a person with a court order. So, what I am saying is, in that regard,

is that you still have access to that important piece of information if it is

required for some issue surrounding the person that has passed away, that it

would address issues in regard to their estate or whatever it may be. You can

still get access, it is not bound that they cannot get it, because, in the

simple way, if there are none of these people in regard to the sibling, or the

administrator of the estate itself is not available, well then the person that

is requesting the information can seek a court order to get that information

released. In that case, there is access, we are not limiting the access, but we

are protecting the privacy of the information itself in making sure that the

proper processes are in place in order to get where it cannot be just got or

received and then used for fraudulent activities.

So that is really the three pieces of the act, the amendments. I think they

are important. Certainly the first one, I put a higher priority on in regard to

the importance. The other two one, in particular, the second one is a

housekeeping piece, but all of them are important, because we have to

consistency within the act itself. These provisions will certainly harmonize the

wording and legislation relating to vital events.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have clarified the three amendments. I will

look forward to any comments by my hon. members across the House. I also hope

that they will support these amendments because they are very important to the

actual process and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today with regard to Bill 42,

An Act To

Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009. I guess to go along with the minister's

last comments; yes, I will be supporting those amendments to this act. Even

though the explanatory note says they are only minor attachments, I think they

are very important changes and additions to this particular bill.

As the minister stated, there are three components to it. One is with respect

to registration of marriages; the other one allows for nurse practitioners and

registered nurses to be able to sign off on medical certificates, the portion

with regard to death registration forms. The other one has to do with obtaining

a birth certificate of a deceased person.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to subsection 14(3) and that is the one to do with

the previously under the old act it was only the medical practitioner who

was in attendance at a stillbirth or a death of an individual, or another

medical practitioner who was not at the scene but I guess within that facility

could sign off. I can assure and verify what the minister said, this ca