December

14, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 39

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we proceed with regular routine proceedings, I have the pleasant task

today of formally welcoming a new member who has been duly elected in a

by-election. The new member is Mr. Sandy Collins, representing the District of

Terra Nova. I have been advised by the Clerk of the House of Assembly that Mr.

Collins has taken the Oath of Office and the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown as

required by the Constitution, and has signed the Members' Roll.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you today,

Mr. Sandy Collins, the new Member for Terra Nova, who claims the right to take

his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Allow the hon. member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to extend a special welcome to the family

of the hon. Member for the District of Terra Nova who is seated in the Speaker's

gallery.

Today the House of Assembly would also like to welcome two special guests

joining us for today's session in the public gallery. They are: Mr. Jerry

Dean, Mayor of Botwood; Mr. Scott Sceviour, Deputy Mayor of Botwood.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome, as well, the following members'

statements: the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay

North; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; the hon. the Member

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

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

the Member for the District of Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate Rufus

Genge and his family from Anchor Point on the launch of their fishing vessel: KMKA

Voyager .

The Genge family has been fishing at Anchor Point since William Genge built

his big house some 200 years ago. Rufus Genge, who is now seventy-two, started

out as a boy in a trapskiff and stayed with the fishery all his life. He says

the launch of the KMKA Voyager is not only a dream for him and his

father, but also represents the future for his son, Theodore, and his family.

Mr. Speaker, this modern sixty-nine foot dragger was built on the beach in

Anchor Point by owners and operators, Theodore and Rodney Genge; master boat

builder, Warne Marsh; boat painter, Darren Fillier, Jason Sharpe, Dave Simms,

Grant Simms and Calvin Clark.

Built for the future, the KMKA Voyager has increased fuel efficiency

and stability and is built to endure the harsh conditions of the Labrador Coast.

It has also been named for the future as KMKA stands for Theodore's

grandchildren: Kaitlyn, Matthew and Kyle Genge, and Aiden Hughes, who will no

doubt carry on the legacy of the Genge family with fishing off the Northern

Peninsula.

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

congratulating the Genge family on this remarkable accomplishment, and extend

best wishes for continued success as they now prepare the interior of the vessel

for their first trawler load in the spring.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Town of Petty Harbour-Maddox

Cove on receiving a Tidy Town award. Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove is a picturesque

community steeped in unique traditions and history bordering the Atlantic. It is

one of the first fishing villages in Newfoundland and Labrador, with its rich

fishing history dating back to the 1600s.

This award recognizes the outstanding efforts that the town has made in

preserving the natural and cultural heritage of their town and residence. I have

experienced on many occasions the devotion of the town's major, councillors

and volunteers and the pride shown by residents of the area. This past summer,

the weekend of August 46, I had the opportunity to attend the Arts and

Heritage Festival in the town. This festival was a weekend of activities

showcasing the arts and heritage of the town, which was a huge success.

The Tidy Town Program contributes to the promotion of our wonderful Province

and the involvement of residents to take action and become actively engaged in

beautification efforts to improve our communities.

The Town of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove and its residents have, and I am sure

will continue to work tirelessly to make improvements to their town to make it

vibrant for future generations.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating the Town of

Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 11, I had the honour of

joining the Premier, as well as the Member for Kilbride and the Member for Mount

Pearl North at the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Ceremony.

The event took place at GlenDenning Golf Club where forty-one awards and six

certificates of recognition were presented. All achievers were participating in

the award under the special needs initiative.

The following achievers from the District of Port de Grave were presented

with their awards. In the bronze award: Jonathon Dawe, Coley's Point; Jonathon

Gushue, Spaniard's Bay; Ryan Maynard of Shearstown; Laura Vokey, Spaniard's

Bay. The silver award: Miranda Brown, Shearstown; Calvin Galway, Clarke's

Beach; Paul Milley, Clarke's Beach; Dylan Noseworthy, Bay Roberts. In the gold

award: Shawn Dawson of Clarke's Beach, and Bradley Rose of Coley's Point.

All achievers were from the Ascension Collegiate School.

Truly an event to remember, Mr. Speaker, as all participants so proudly

received their awards. Each of them have, and will continue to work hard, as

they accept and meet new challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations

to all those involved in making this event such a tremendous success, and in

particular, to the forty-one achievers who received such a prestigious award. To

all involved: Take the Challenge, Live the Achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Villa Nova Junior High School in Conception Bay South has a long

history on the beautiful shores of Conception Bay. It is located next to

historic Manuels River and provides a quality education to over 600 students in

Grades 5 to 8.

In September 2009, Today's Parent magazine named Villanova Junior

High as one of the top twenty schools in Canada. Readers nominated schools in a

range of categories developed by a panel of teachers, parents and education

experts. Editors with the magazine poured over submissions to make the short

list.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barry Jenkins, Principal of Villanova Junior High, made the

cut. Having previously worked in the information technology field, equipping

classrooms with computers and interactive whiteboards has been a priority for

Barry. He was also commended for his attention to detail, his willing to

collaborate, his concern for each and every student and his timeless leadership.

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

congratulating Mr. Barry Jenkins on being selected by Today's Parent

magazine as a passionate principal, and Villanova Junior High School for being

selected as one of the top twenty schools in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize

100 years of dedicated public service by the Last Post Fund which ensures that

no eligible veteran is deprived of a dignified funeral, burial and headstone for

lack of financial resources.

The Last Post Fund was started in 1909 in Montreal by a small group of

volunteers dedicated to the ideal that veterans receive the respectful

recognition at the end of their lives that they have earned with their service

and sacrifice.

Throughout its 100-years history, the Fund's ideals have expanded

internationally and it has arranged burials and grave markers for over 145,000

veterans in over eight countries.

In 1921, the Last Post Fund began to receive regular government financial

assistance and since 1995, the Fund has been administering the Funeral and

Burial Program of Veterans Affairs Canada. It augments this program through

private donations.

Mr. Speaker, the Last Post Fund recognizes the importance of honouring those

who served our country and keeps their memory alive for future generations. In

Newfoundland alone, this past year, the Last Post Fund has helped over 100

families of veterans with funeral expenses.

Mr. Speaker, my attention today is not only to recognize the contributions of

the Last Post Fund but also to inform the public and members of this House of

this valuable public service for our eligible veterans who meet criteria.

Therefore, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the

Last Post Fund on 100 years of doing the right thing, for in the end, isn't

that what really counts?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to honour four town councillors in my

district for their long-term service award.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Allison Temple of the Town of Norman's Cove-Long Cove has

twenty-five years of service. She has fourteen years as the mayor, one year as

deputy mayor, and a councillor for fifteen years and is presently still serving

as a member of council.

on that council for twenty-five years. She has served as mayor for three years

and as a councillor for twenty-two years. Mary is still serving on the council

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Rebecca Hickey has served on the Town Council of

Terrenceville for thirty years. She had sixteen years as mayor and fourteen

years as a deputy mayor. Mrs. Hickey left office with a record to be commended

and is still an active member of her community.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Theresa Clarke, a councillor of Terrenceville with thirty

years of service is still serving with the Town Council of Terrenceville. She is

a very committed volunteer to her community.

These four ladies are commendable leaders in the communities in which they

serve. They generate a lot of energy not only on the town councils but for

numerous organizations throughout their community.

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

congratulating these four remarkable ladies and thanking them for their many

years of service on council, but also for their countless dedicated hours to

other volunteer organizations that they serve throughout their community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to acknowledge and thank our

Province's health care professionals for their hard work and dedication over

the last number of weeks as our Province experienced the second wave of H1N1

infection.

With only six weeks having elapsed since we started to feel the effects of

the H1N1 virus in our Province, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that

approximately 333,967 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been vaccinated,

which equates -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: - which equates, Mr. Speaker, to over 66 per cent of our

population. This is indeed a great accomplishment and one which is unparalleled

in the rest of this country. While we believe we have reached the height of what

we might see for this second wave of the pandemic, we must continue to remain

vigilant in preventing any future spread.

Mr. Speaker, a number of our residents in this Province have been affected by

the H1N1 virus. While most experienced mild illness, there were others who were

hospitalized. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately H1N1 resulted in the loss of life. We

cannot forget those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have been so gravely

affected by this virus. I extend my condolences to the families and friends of

these individuals.

Mr. Speaker, immunization is our best line of defence against the H1N1 flu

virus, and it is effective in reducing severe illness and death. Even after a

large second wave, many people may not have been infected and therefore they

will remain susceptible to infection unless they are immunized. For this reason,

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraging all residents, if they have not done so already,

to roll up their sleeves and get the H1N1 flu vaccine. The more people

vaccinated in our Province, the better chance we have of avoiding any future

waves of illness.

While we experienced some early bumps in the road with immunization clinics,

we adopted plans along the way to accommodate the vaccine shortage. I commend

all of our health care workers for their professionalism and dedication, Mr.

Speaker, in rolling out the vaccination program with success, and providing

quality care for our residents. I am very proud of the team effort by all.

I would also like to thank the residents of our Province, Mr. Speaker, for

taking the threat of H1N1 seriously and lining up to receive the vaccine, and

for having patience with the process. Everyone pulled together with a united

effort to protect our families, friends and neighbours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of his statement today. Mr. Speaker,

we too want to recognize those individuals in our Province who were out there

dealing with this crisis and administering medication to patients. We know, Mr.

Speaker, that being on the front lines was not always an easy job, especially in

days when vaccines were short and line-ups were long, but I think they showed

their commitment and their dedication as professionals in caring for the people

of our Province, and, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to recognize that and to

congratulate them.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to recognize and congratulate the minister today,

who handled this issue in a very difficult time in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, any time there is a pandemic in a province, there

is never any written procedures or rulebooks as to deal with a lot of these

things, and it really depends upon the leadership that is often brought to the

issue. I want to recognize the minister and Dr. Faith Stratton and those people

who advised them in the professional field in this Province for managing this

through a very difficult time, and ensuring the life and safety of the people of

our Province.

Mr. Speaker, even though we have lost some individuals as a result of this

sickness, I, too, want to offer my condolences to those families, and to say to

the minister that sometimes there are always things that we can never help, no

matter how hard we try, no matter how hard we work, to ensure that all the

proper protocols are in place.

Mr. Speaker, I think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by far are proud, not

only of the people who work the frontlines but also of the people who managed

our Province through this crisis.

Thank you very much.

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 his statement. I am very

happy to join with him in thanking the health care professionals who worked so

hard to get people immunized. I join with the Leader of the Official Opposition

for thanking the minister for his role in that as well. I am glad that he does

recognize and acknowledges that government, that there were bumps in the road as

they got the whole program underway and that government has learned from those

bumps, and I guess the professionals in the system as well.

Armed with the knowledge from H1N1, government will be able to correct the

problems identified in the 2007 report on pandemic planning that was done by the

Department of Health. I know the minister will recall that the report stated

that we have limited, quote unquote, surge capacity in our health care system to

deal with pandemics. I would be interested in knowing how the government will

deal in future with the demands placed on community health nurses who were taken

away from their regular work, and they had to be. I am not saying it should not

have happened, but they did have to be taken away from their regular work in

communities to work on immunization. It did mean the temporary cancellation of

some very important community services, such as programs for pregnant women and

new mothers. So I look forward to hearing more from the minister as they do

future planning for meeting similar circumstances for dealing with regular

programming while pandemics or like emergencies have to be dealt with.

I, too, would like to pass my condolences to families in the Province who did

lose loved ones. I pass that on also to those who lose loved ones from the

regular flu as well because as we know, influenza, whether it is the H1N1 virus

or other viruses, is a killer. I know the government will continue to do

everything in its power to lessen the possibility of deaths from any flu.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope my critics are as nice as the last two who just spoke; I can assure

you of that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to update you on recent

discoveries pertaining to archaeological dig in Cupids, and plans to celebrate

that community's 400th anniversary in 2010.

Gilbert and his team from the Baccalieu Trail Heritage Corporation discovered

the original site of John Guy's 1610 Cuper's Cove Plantation and, since that

time, more than 145,000 artifacts have been unearthed and catalogued. The team

has discovered the remains of the dwelling house and storehouse built by John

Guy in 1610, three other early seventeenth century structures, evidence of a

blacksmith's shop, a cemetery, a stone defence wall and, just this fall, what

may be the remains of a gun battery.

There is also a will, Mr. Speaker, recently discovered in the British

National Archives, of a man named James Hill, perhaps one of the first Cuper's

Cove colonists, or most certainly a direct descendant. The will, written at

Cupids, and dated March 4, 1674, provides valuable information about Cupids in

the seventeenth century.

These discoveries have brought even more media attention to Cupids, following

last month's visit of their Royal Highnesses, the Prince of Wales and the

Duchess of Cornwall. All this bodes well for the planned Cupids 400 celebration

in 2010, which will include a number of special events and activities, and

culminate in week-long festivities to be held August 17 to 22.

Mr. Speaker, the Cupids 400 celebration is not just a plan to mark an

historic event. This will be a significant milestone in the history of our

Province; one that we expect will boost tourism and generate future economic

opportunities. This is a chance for us to showcase to the world the rich

history, heritage and culture which exists in Cupids and throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador.

The Province has, to date, budgeted more than $3.8 million towards this

anniversary event and activities, and in the construction of the Cupids Legacy

Centre. The centre will be the future home of the Cupids museum, the archaeology

investment in Cupids; an investment in the economic future of surrounding areas,

and, indeed, an investment in ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, it is high time the true significance of John Guy's Plantation

in Cupids was recognized provincially, nationally and internationally, and I

invite all of my colleagues in this House to promote this upcoming occasion at

every opportunity, and to celebrate with us in 2010.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

It is not only important, of course, for the Town of Cupids - which indeed it

is, and I understand the town residents there are very, very proud of this event

- it is indeed a significant event for the Province, and this Province has had a

long history of celebrating historic occasions. We have had the Cabot

celebrations, we have had the Bob Bartlett one this year, we have had the

Marconi celebrations, and the Access North celebrations. All of these, of

course, not only do they recognize a particular event but they also are great

economic generators. They create employment. They bring money into the area, and

hopefully this one as well will bring thousands of visitors to our Province and

to the Cupids area.

Congratulations to all those involved and may it be a roaring success.

Thank you.

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 his statement.

Cupids 2010 is an extremely important anniversary, not just for us here in

this Province but in the whole North American context. We only have to look at

sites such as Williamsburg in the United States and Louisburg in Cape Breton to

see how important it is to celebrate and promote our own site here in Canada

internationally and as well in our Province.

One of the ways to help us understand our heritage better is, one, to take

advantage of archeologically sites that we have in the Province and bring our

children through our school system to these sites. The other is to do more

teaching of history of Newfoundland and Labrador in the school system, starting

with compulsory Newfoundland and Labrador history on all levels, from elementary

to high school. We also need to ensure that the schools have the resources to

take the students to the historic sites that we have here in our Province, some

of which are under provincial management, some under federal management. We have

such a rich history.

The minister is very interested in history, as he said in his interview on

Saturday morning. Good work, minister, in your interview Saturday morning. I

hope he takes this interest to new heights, both in his department and working

with the Minister of Education.

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.

On Friday, government announced that significant fabrication work originally

scheduled to be completed in this Province related to the Hebron project had

been cancelled.

I ask the Premier today: Was Nalcor a part of the decision as an equity

partner, and if not, when was government made aware of this loss of work?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, as equity partners we have said many times we have a right

to sit at the table, and Nalcor was at the table with the partners when this

decision was made. The Province was first notified that this change was being

contemplated, Mr. Speaker, in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also stated that the operators will have to complete an equal

amount of work within the Province or pay an equivalent amount of money to the

government.

I ask the minister: Where in the benefits agreement is this outlined, and if

it is contained in the agreement why do government need to make further

amendments to the original contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we negotiate these benefits agreements we negotiate very

specific pieces of work that have to be done here within the Province, and very

specific percentages of work. I do not have the agreement with me, so I cannot

give her the number within the agreement to where this

section is referred.

Overall, we know very clearly and have very definite goals in our benefits

agreement. When it became necessary to modify the project and therefore have an

effect on the amount of work that was to be done here in the Province, there is

a sub-agreement that allows us then to go back in and renegotiate new benefits

to replace the ones that are being lost.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister could provide those sections of the agreement to me after

Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, there are often different opinions between companies and

governments as to the value of expected work and how much needs to be replaced

or paid out in the form of compensation when these things happen.

I ask the minister: What was the assessed value by the government of these

cancelled contracts and can she disclose that amount to me?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As to the whole benefits agreement, I will certainly provide to the Leader of

the Opposition the pieces of it that are not commercially sensitive once the day

moves on.

The answer to the second part of her remarks is the same, Mr. Speaker. We

have expertise within our department that is used on a regular basis to

determine the benefits, the types of work, the person hours involved and so on.

We have not released the amount of money concerning the part of the project that

now needs to be redesigned because it is commercially sensitive information,

particularly at this time, Mr. Speaker, when we have tenders being let.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would beg to differ with the minister; that the assessed value of cancelled

contracts would be sensitive information at this point and we would certainly

expect that that information could be made public.

Mr. Speaker, the value of fabrication work and materials is one aspect, but

there are also the value of salaries and wages that would be paid out to

employees who would have worked on these contracts as well as the spin-off

effects. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there was supposed to be a pre-drilling program

associated with the project that would have created significant direct and

indirect benefits for local drilling and supply service companies.

So, I ask the minister: What value will the proponents be expected to

replace, only the material cost on the contracts or will they be expected to

compensate for all of the associated salaries and benefits of displaced workers,

as well as the spin-off benefits from cancelled programs like the pre-drilling

program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it is only under this

government that very specific commitments have ever been negotiated with regard

to our offshore. Previous to this government, all previous governments did was

commit to best efforts to do certain types of work. We have ironclad, fast

commitments. We allow the project operators the flexibility to do the work, and

to do the work properly and in a timely way, and the value that is assigned is

not only with the fabrication materials but it is also with the labour that is

required to do the work, Mr. Speaker. So, all of that has been taken into

account.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister again: Would this also pertain to any of the spin-off

benefits or contracts like the pre-drilling program? Will there be compensation

for the cancellation of that program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we contemplate the benefits that are associated with the project we

contemplate the direct benefits. Spin off is not something that we count in the

benefit to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that while a certain amount of benefit

will be lost in the Hebron project with regard to the pre-drilling template, the

operators will identify opportunities within the project itself to make up that

value or a cheque will be made payable to the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to be used in a construction project, thereby creating more employment

and more work for the people of Newfoundland that has something to do with

offshore oil and gas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the communities that have expressed concern with these cancelled

contracts is the Town of Marystown. This is an area where the shipyard, in

particular, was expecting a significant amount of the fabrication, and

obviously, depending upon it.

I ask the minister: What impact will this have on communities like Marystown,

in the shipyard, in particular, and its workforce? What is the estimated loss to

the local economy in that area, and can they expect, as well, to be compensated

for this loss of work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, some of these questions are better put to the

operators to explain the scope of work, the magnitude of work, the kind of

expertise that is required and the kind of services that are going to be

required to do this work. All we can do, as a government, is negotiate an

offshore oil and gas project with specific benefits around the kind of work that

is required to construct. In this case, Mr. Speaker, modification needs to be

made in order to reduce delays and proper execution.

In terms of speculating who would have gotten contracts, what kind of

benefits that would have meant to other communities, is beyond the scope, I

would say, Mr. Speaker, of not only the partners, but the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. What we are doing, though, is ensuring that the

commitments that were made by Hebron in terms of fiscal expenditures, the monies

that they were going to spend around

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: this work in the Province, Mr. Speaker, are going to

be spent here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Without going to any of the other partners, I think government should

definitely know what they can be compensated for and what the economic loss will

be in the Province, in particular, to areas like Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, with a different development concept, there often come potential

delays or changes in development timelines. I ask the minister today: Does

government expect that there will be any associated delays with the Hebron

project timelines now that the configuration has been changed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been told by the partners that there will be some time

loss, but that would be very insignificant and there will not be any great delay

to the development of the Hebron project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier in this session, we asked government to move quickly to settle a

strike taking place on the Burin Peninsula that is having a significant impact

on fourteen NAPE workers and the fourteen disabled clients that they assist

through the supported employment program. These workers have already agreed to

government's monetary template, but are striking to stop Treasury Board's

attempt to remove them from the provincial government's classification system.

I ask the Minister of Finance today: Are you willing to allow these workers

to remain in the classification system and to end this strike before Christmas?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the employer, the government and NAPE all value the work that

these work facilitators and job coaches do in Marystown, indeed, what the job

coaches do in Bay St. George and in Stephenville and all over Newfoundland and

Labrador. Government has been supporting employment corporations for over

twenty-five years.

Mr. Speaker, this dispute is about compensation. The government in this

particular case, because of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act,

government is named as the negotiator; they are not the employer. These job

coaches are not employees of the public sector, they are not our employees but

in this case the employer has made a very fair and generous offer in excess of

20 per cent. We feel that is more than fair and generous in the circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that even though funding is provided to a non-profit

board to run these programs, that they have no involvement in settling these

outstanding issues. It is government's demand right now to remove these

employees from the classification system that is provoking the strike.

I ask you, Minister: Why are you continuing to insist that fourteen employees

be removed from the classification system when no other bargaining unit was

asked to do the same in this Province?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there are many organizations in the

Province that offer valued services which are complementary to core services

that government provides. These services can best be managed and can best be

delivered by community-based organizations.

Classification, Mr. Speaker, in the end result, is all about compensation.

Compensation in this case has to be fair and reasonable. The employer in this

case has, in fact, made an offer which most people in these very uncertain

economic times would accept is more than fair and reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue is not around monetary salaries, they have already accepted that,

it is really around the classification system and where that leads them in the

future.

Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate about this is that there are a number of

disabled clients who are caught in the middle and can no longer work without

these facilitators being there with them everyday.

I ask the minister: Instead of causing such disruption in the lives of all of

these individuals, why will government not continue to move forward leaving the

agreement around classification systems in place? After all, it was you,

Minister, and your government who demanded that it be there two years ago.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has said in

this House on a previous occasion that government demanded this. Government did

not demand this; this was something that the union had asked for.

All of these organizations that provide these complementary services which

are complementary to the core services that government performs, there is a

number of them: group homes, transition homes - Stella Burry, for example.

The employees of those organizations, as I have said repeatedly in this

House, are not employees of government, they are not public servants. Therefore,

the negotiation, the compensation is provided by the employers, not by

government. They are not public servants. I know that NAPE continues to try to

argue that they are, but the fact is they have not been for twenty-five years.

The offer made is fair and generous in these circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These workers still fall within the collective services bargaining act which

is the responsibility of government.

Minister, while other employees have this clause in these agreements I have

no idea why government is insistent in keeping these workers in the street,

keeping disabled people off their jobs when you could easily fix this and allow

for them to continue having this clause in their agreement.

Again, I appeal to you today: Will you not do that and settle the strike

before Christmas?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, some of these employment corporations are, in fact, unionized by

NAPE and certified under the Labour Relations Act. In this particular case, they

happen to be certified under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act which

means that government has a role, but the role is as negotiator,

whereas NAPE is

a negotiator for the employees, the Collective bargaining division of government

is a negotiator for the employer corporation.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, 20 per cent over four years is, in these times, a

fair and generous offer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

On Friday, the Minister of Justice stated that a review of the probation

system would be launched after significant monitoring issues were identified.

Minister, why was the individual recently apprehended in Ontario on a murder

charge not being properly monitored by our probation system, and have you

initiated an investigation into that particular incident?

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 point out from the beginning that our probation

officers are very professional people, well-trained and doing a great job. I

have met with a number of them over the last few weeks and I am impressed with

their enthusiasm, the positive outlook and their work ethic, so this review is

not a disciplinary matter, Mr. Speaker, having to do with the probation officer.

This is a review to examine the whole probation system to determine if there are

systemic challenges or concerns in the probation system that we can work on and

improve to make conditions better for the probation officers that we already

have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I wonder if the minister could tell us: What is the current process for

tracking down people on probation who have not reported to their probation

officers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: My understanding of the system, Mr. Speaker, is that

there are various methods of monitoring the person under probation. The whole

purpose of probation, Mr. Speaker, is to rehabilitate the releasee and integrate

that person back into society.

The hon. member, as a lawyer, and a former Attorney General would know full

well that these methods include visitation through probation officers,

visitation to the houses, the homes of the individuals, electronic surveillance,

and so on. When someone slips through the probation system or is unaccountable

for, an arrest warrant is issued. After all other attempts are made, Mr.

Speaker, an arrest warrant is issued and the police are contacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Back in May of this year, we asked the former Minister of Justice questions

regarding inadequate monitoring and workload facing our probation officers when

we had another tragic death that occurred in this Province as a result of

someone who was not complying with his probation orders.

The former minister, in May of this year, said at that time in this House

that he would undertake a review of the system. Here we are now in December and

another minister is saying they are going to do the review. Was the review done

six months ago, and if not, why not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, following the reference of the hon. the

Opposition House Leader, a number of things happened in the system to address

some of the adjustments that were needed in probations with regard to hiring new

people, moving people around, spreading caseloads and that sort of thing. So, a

lot of things happened as a result of that.

Mr. Speaker, this probation - violations of probation happen every day. All

the probation officers in the world are not going to prevent probation

violations. You go down to the Atlantic Place any time, any day of the week, Mr.

Speaker, the docket is filled with probation violations. It is the nature of the

business. Our attempt is to try to reduce it and integrate people back into

society, but we are never going to completely eliminate violations of probation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

With all due respect to the minister's answer, I would say the job that the

Justice department has to do is to make sure that our probation system is

working properly, not say that we are going to be accepting of things that do

not work out.

I ask the minister: Since May of this year, when the former minister

undertook to the do the review, has there been any specific investments in

monitoring bracelets? Have any new probation officers been hired in this

Province, and if so, how many, and how much?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, there are thirty-six adult probation

officers in this Province, including three temporary ones. At the end of the

November, an additional adult probation officer was hired in Grand Falls-Windsor

to help alleviate the caseloads up there. Prior to this hiring, he had been

assisting with cases in Grand Falls-Windsor.

The caseload average is between fifty and sixty, Mr. Speaker. Numbers vary

from region to region. Gander office has two officers, and some realignment of

caseloads have been made in Central Newfoundland, because you can use the office

up there to move in that particular locale.

Mr. Speaker, this review is made in response, as the member mentioned, to an

incident that happened recently. Mr. Speaker, this government is in the business

of responding. It responded to the Lamer Inquiry, it responded to the Cameron

Inquiry, it responded to Decades of Darkness, it responded then, it is

responding now and will respond in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We are well aware that government responded to the Lamer Inquiry, but it was

not this government, it was the former Liberal Administration that responded

with the Lamer Inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, my last question for the minister. Minister, on Friday past, you

committed to doing a review of the probation system. I ask you at this time,

Minister: Would you commit to having this review done arm's-length from the

Department of Justice rather than just having an internal review?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member this is not an

internal review. There will be an external reviewer appointed. We do not have

the name yet, but it will be hopefully in the next few days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been two failed attempts at contracting out used tire collection,

transportation and processing recycling functions with private operators. While

talks have apparently gone nowhere, the cost of storing tires has escalated and

actual recovery of used tires has decreased.

During the Estimates in May 2008, and again, during the Estimates in May

2009, the Minister of Environment stated that an announcement was imminent on

the used tire program, and we have heard nothing since.

I ask the minister: What is the status of that deal you were going to

announce over a year-and-a-half ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct; there have been

two failed attempts to tires and they have happened while that government was in

power. That is why it is so important that when we do this, we do it right and

take our time and do it right.

This is a problem that all jurisdictions are dealing with throughout North

America. New Brunswick have their problems; Nova Scotia just recently announced

tire derived aggregate. As you know, we just recently announced a new CEO for

the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board and when he was in to have the first

meeting with me, I asked that this be top priority.

We are working on a solution to the problem. There are a few roadblocks along

the way, but it is very important that we do this right so we do not end up with

the two failed attempts that the previous government ended up with.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I guess I just got the announcement, and I will

get to the question I am going to ask in this year's Estimates.

The Auditor General noted that since the inception of the Used Tire Recycling

Program, the MMSB has spent close to all the money in storage costs. Storage

costs are increasing each year and there are questions as to whether the tire

recycling program may pay out more money than it collects in revenues.

I ask the minister: Is government planning to raise existing tire levies to

afford the rising cost of storing tires?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the fee that is paid for tires is not only for

storing tires. Yes, $900,000 is spent towards storing tires, but that is also

for the unloading, the proper storage according to fire codes, as well as having

twenty-four hour security on-site at the Placentia site.

You also have to remember too, Mr. Speaker, that some of this money goes

toward collecting tires at over 600 locations in this Province so that when the

plan is announced, all of the tires will be in one location. It will be a great

start for the new operator who will be using these tires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, there has been frustration expressed over the

lack of programs to recycle tires from ATVs, forklifts and others off-road

equipment. Although government has made an exemption for tires, or that is my

understanding, to be sent to landfills, many landfill operators do not accept

them.

I ask the minister: Has government made a decision on how to deal with those

tires?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, while considering the tire plan for the future,

we are also considering all options for ATV tires and off the road tires, or OTR

tires. Once that plan is released, that will include those two types of tires as

well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to follow up with our Minister of Tourism on the questions on

Thursday. In February of this year the Province released a long-term tourism

strategy entitled: Uncommon Potential - A Vision for Newfoundland and Labrador

Tourism, which resulted in a changed mandate for our four destination marketing

organizations.

Mr. Speaker, this change in mandate resulted in the elimination of a position

of marketing co-ordinator on the Northern Peninsula, which I referred to on

Thursday. In a news release on the weekend, the Executive Director of the WDMO

stated that the contractual position was not renewed because the WDMO was forced

to decide what it could afford and what its mandate is.

I would ask the minister today: Why was it necessary to change the mandate of

the western DMO, thus resulting in the elimination of this position?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has absolutely no idea what he

is talking about. Last year we put in $175,000 to the western DMO to offer

professional marketing advice to all sorts of groups in the Western Region, and

I hope I get a follow-up question because I have to get into a couple of e-mails

that were sent to me on the weekend reminding us of what a great job we are

doing, in particular in his area of the Province.

Thank you very much.

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, it was a year ago today that the Burin-Marystown Community

Training and Employment Board and its job coach employees reached an agreement

and notified government of the agreement within the ultimatum deadline announced

by the then Minister of Finance for reaching settlements under the 20 per cent

wage offer of 2008. Mr. Speaker, they presented an agreement in good faith,

based on the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act under which the workers

are certified.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why a year later his government has not

ratified the agreement reached by the board who employs these workers and the

union that represents them?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the union in Marystown-Burin is certified

under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Under that act, the only

difference under that act is that government is a negotiator; we are still not

the employer. Negotiations have taken place. They have gone on for a long time.

The employer has made an offer, which I indicated earlier, is an offer that most

people would think would be fair and generous, and that offer is available to

the union to accept on behalf of the employees that they represent.

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.

That is a disingenuous answer by the minister when he knows there is a

request by them to have the letter with regard to classification taken out of

the agreement that was made back last December. So, it is really and truly a

disingenuous answer.

Mr. Speaker, the workers in question are a group of predominantly female

workers in rural Newfoundland who earn little more than minimum wage and provide

support to persons with disabilities who are also being greatly disadvantaged by

this strike and who are now also sitting at home instead of working. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has shown great concern for people with disabilities,

especially through his sincere support of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, if he will look into this issue and give

leadership in getting this stalemate resolved for the good of the workers and

their clients?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do have, as do all members of

Cabinet and caucus, the greatest empathy for people with disabilities, as do all

members of this hon. House. This is a matter that we have certainly looked at in

great detail; that Cabinet has considered in great detail. It is unfortunate,

the circumstances that have taken place, particularly at this time of the year,

which is a very difficult time of the year. However, the offer that has been

made is consistent with the template that was put forward, and it is not just

simply a template. It is an offer that was made by this government during very,

very difficult times. When the world economy was very uncertain, where we did

not know where it was going. It is an offer of 20 per cent, which compounded

works out to be 21.5 per cent; which by any national standards, right across the

country, is a very, very generous offer. So it is not something - it is not a

decision that we have taken lightly. It is always difficult when it affects

innocent parties, for want of a better term, but it is a decision that we stand

by and that we have certainly very seriously considered.

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.

Mr. Speaker, this government is playing a game with these workers and their

employer. On the one hand, they are demanding that the workers give up items

that other public sector workers were asked to give up, half their sick leave,

market adjustment and extended earning loss. On the other hand, the government

is saying that the workers are not really public sector workers and the

minister insists on making that statement and should not be eligible for

classification. The government cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

So again, I ask the Premier, right now in this season of hope, the season

that we call Christmas, if he will do the right thing and get government back to

the table and get this dispute resolved before Christmas comes, because this is

disgraceful what is going on?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP can say it over and

over and over again, but the people who work with these organizations out there

in society and there are many of them who perform a valued service, which

government supports, and government supports it by providing these organizations

with funds. The work they do is of great value, and in many cases the services

they perform are better managed and delivered by a local community organization,

but they are not, and I have said this over and over again, they are not public

service employees. That is the difference here, but in this case the employer

has offered 20 per cent which is a more than fair and generous wage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

MR. T. MARSHALL: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

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

Board rising on a question of privilege.

MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP released a press

release recently in which she said that I personally had said over and over

again on a number of occasions that the amount of money being offered in the

Home Heating Rebate Program was a small amount of money.

I would ask the Leader of the NDP to bring forward - I certainly do not

recall ever saying that. I would ask the Leader of the NDP to bring forward

examples of where I made those comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: I am happy to table today the independent review and

evaluation of the actions of Fraser March with respect to the decision to remove

him from the Office of the Citizens' Representative. The report has been

prepared and presented by former Mr. Justice O'Neill.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3) we

move the following private members' motion for this Wednesday. Moved by the

Member for Burgeo & La Poile, seconded by the Member for Port de Grave:

WHEREAS two official inquiries have been recently conducted in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador involving the preventable fatalities of citizens;

and

WHEREAS the principal function of our modern civil justice system is to make

whole through monetary and non-monetary compensation any person injured by

another's negligent or intentional actions, whether they are of a physical,

psychological, financial or property nature; and

WHEREAS unlike other jurisdictions in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador's

principal legislation and regulations governing civil compensation are deficient

in that they do not allow family members of a deceased person, whose death

occurs through negligence, to claim damages such as grief, loss of care,

guidance and companionship; and

WHEREAS unlike other jurisdictions in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador's

legislation is deficient in that it does not permit the family members of a

deceased person, whose death occurs through negligence, to claim consequential

economic damages suffered, such as a family member not being able to return to

the former employment due to the loss of a deceased person;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on government to strike an

all-party Select Committee of the House of Assembly to review the deficiencies

in the Fatal Accidents Act, and the Survival Of Actions Act, and make

recommendations the Select Committee feels appropriate to amend those acts.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, that I

shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 15,

2009. Further, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, that I shall move that

this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on December 15, 2009.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, to ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity And Administration Act, Bill 54.

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, Bill 54, and

that Bill 54 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 54 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. Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration

Act", carried. (Bill 54)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 54 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 54 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, Bill 57.

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House

Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Teachers'

Pensions Act, Bill 57, and that Bill 57 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 57 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. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act",

carried. (Bill 57)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 57 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 57 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 57 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Order

Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 58)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House

Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Order Of

Newfoundland And Labrador Act, (Bill 58), and that Bill 58 be now read a first

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 58 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 Natural Resources to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act", carried.

(Bill 58)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador

Act. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 58 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 58 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper, I am going to move to the

third readings.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs,

that Bill 46,

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, be

now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the Government House Leader: Would that be

Bill 46 or Bill 47?

MS BURKE: Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 46.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 46,

An Act To

Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement

Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 46 has now been read a third time, and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims

Agreement Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on

the Order Paper. (Bill 46)

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

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

Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 47,

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims

Agreement Act No. 2, (Bill 47), be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 47,

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2,

(Bill 47), be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement

Act No. 2. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims

Agreement Act No. 2", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as

on the Order Paper". (Bill 47)

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

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

Government Services, that Bill 48,

An Act Respecting Condominiums, be now read a

third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 48,

An Act Respecting Condominiums, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Condominiums. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 48 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Condominiums", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 48)

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

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

Education, that Bill 55,

An Act To Implement Labour Mobility, be now read a

third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 55,

An Act To

Implement Labour Mobility, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Implement Labour Mobility. (Bill 55)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 55 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Implement Labour Mobility", read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 55)

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

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

Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 56,

An Act To Amend The

Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 56,

An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, be now

read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase Pension Plan

Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 56 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money Purchase

Pension Plan Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on

the Order Paper. (Bill 56)

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

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

Transportation and Works, that Bill 60,

An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act,

2009, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 60,

An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009. (Bill 60)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 60 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009",

read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill

60)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 12, second

reading of Bill 51.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 51,

An Act To Amend The

City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's

Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "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: The hon. the Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to bring forth

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.

This act will provide authority to the councils in those cities to require

property owners to attach civic numbers to their buildings and their homes in a

form approved by the cities. Now this amendment, Mr. Speaker, it is about public

safety because certainly having the ability to insist that these numbers be

placed on buildings and homes will improve public safety for emergency response

personnel. As well, these numbers will clearly identify locations of homes and

businesses and would improve navigation for residents and tourists alike.

Now the City of St. John's has requested an amendment to the City of St.

John's Act, which would permit the St. John's city council to require owners

of property on city streets to attach the civic number established by the city

to any buildings on their property. Currently the City of St. John's cannot

require property owners to number their buildings. However, all municipalities

in the Province do enjoy this power as the Municipalities Act, 1999 provides

this authority and the authority to regulate the size and format of the

numbering.

The councils of the City of Mount Pearl and the City of Corner Brook have

similar powers to those of municipalities under the Municipalities Act, 1999,

but their acts were based upon the old language used in the 1979 version of the

Municipalities Act and need to be modernized to clarify their authority.

Mr. Speaker, it is basically housecleaning and just addressing a particular

omission which would give the powers to these cities to again take care of the

size and format of numbering on homes and buildings.

Mr. Speaker, other provinces provide the authority to their municipalities to

require the numbering of buildings and houses within municipal boundaries and to

regulate such numbering. This regulatory power is certainly not new for

municipalities throughout Canada. The proposed amendment would comply with the

request of the City of St. John's and would clarify the powers of the cities

of Corner Brook and Mount Pearl to regulate civic numbering.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment would also make all municipal statutes the same in

relation to those provisions and ensure that civic number regulations are clear

and simplified. In addition, the amendment would improve navigation for

residents and tourists and would improve public safety of area residents through

increased efficiency in emergency response situations.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I leave the amendment now to the debate of the House,

encourage my hon. colleagues to support this amendment and I would certainly

welcome any comments regarded to

such.

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, and I thank the minister

for his comments.

This bill, while it is a simple bill on the surface, is an important one,

Bill 51,

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

Act And The City Of St. John's Act. As the minister has indicated, it has to

do with the naming and numbering of streets. He also indicated that it is

important with regard to safety issues. It certainly is because whether we are

talking about fire services or ambulance services, or even municipal services in

an emergency and people wanting help from their municipality in an emergency,

being able to find a residence or a building of any kind quickly in an emergency

is extremely important. Not just having buildings designated with numbers, but

having those numbers displayed on the buildings is extremely important.

I guess that is what the City of St. John's wanted, is something that was

very clear, that said to them and would say to others that they have the

authority not just to enumerate, but also to make sure that the numbers are

clearly on the buildings, whether they are residences or anything else.

As I have said a number of times in the House, and I am glad to have this

opportunity to say it again, this is an extremely important step in the Province

toward the use of 911 the emergency number. We know that we have very little

911 coverage in the Province and this issue around numeration of houses is

extremely important, and numeration of all buildings is extremely important in

rural Newfoundland where people have not been used to having numbers on their

houses, and in some cases, even having street names.

I remember when I was campaigning in Terra Nova, I went to a man's house,

and I checked his name, and I said: Is this your address? He said: Well no, that

is not the name of this street. It turned out that he still called the road that

he lived on by a name that went back maybe ten years since it was officially the

name of the road, and the municipality had given that particular

section on the

road a whole new name. He did not even know that that

section of the road had a

whole new name, let alone know what the number of his house was.

So, there is going to be a lot of work that has to be done around numeration.

It is not going to be difficult for the cities of St. John's, Corner Brook and

Mount Pearl because this is more of something that has been done in urban

setting. Yet, we still have places in all of those three, especially in Corner

Brook and St. John's, I would suggest, where you still have parts of the city

and the external parts of the city, the older parts, that at one point were

actually more rural than urban, where people may not have had numbers. So, it is

something that is important in the urban settings, but it is extremely important

in the rural.

I assume work has started with regard to discussions between the provincial

government, transportation and works, the emergency services and the

municipalities, the smaller municipalities in the Province. I know discussions

have been going on; I do not know if they are going on at this moment. We do

need, as well, for transportation and works to give leadership with regard to

working in municipalities in the rural areas with regard to getting road, street

and number identification. If we are going to get a fully operating 911 service

in this Province, it cannot happen until we get the street road naming and

building enumeration in rural Newfoundland because the service will mean nothing

if you cannot give the emergency operators whatever the emergency is, the

information they need to find to a place.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is all I have to say on this. This is important,

and I look forward to the day when transportation and works and the minister,

whether this minister or another one comes forward with a full plan from

government with regard to the naming of streets and roads and numeration of

building in rural Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to kind of reiterate some of the comments that the Leader of the

NDP has made as well in that, certainly in terms of fire protection and

ambulance services and 911, having numbered streets and units would be very

important. All of us, I am sure, have travelled in the larger buildings and

so on - to different cities and so on, trying to locate somewhere, and often the

number is not visible and it becomes somewhat of a frustration trying to locate

the place that you are looking for. So I would certainly suggest this would be a

good thing.

In terms of the City of St. John's, subsection 140.(1) again, where

advisable, changing their names; I guess obviously being able to do that would

be important to the city. Again, I am just supporting the bill and the changes

and commending that it is coming forward at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now he

will close the debate on second reading of Bill 51.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to my colleagues for joining in, in the debate with regard to the

amendment. As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is a housekeeping item I suppose,

but it goes a little bit deeper than that because as was pointed out by the

members opposite, that it is about safety, it is about identification, it is

about emergency response. I think we all have agreement that this ability should

be instilled in the acts of the three cities and give everyone throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador the ability to provide the numbers, not only provide

them but also to make sure that the format is a proper one for identification.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 51,

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

City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act has now been read a

second time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 51 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 51 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The

City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act", read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 51)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 13, second reading of Bill 52.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 52,

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, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "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: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a second housekeeping act to amend The City Of St. John's Municipal

Taxation Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The City Of Corner Brook Act, The

City Of Mount Pearl Act and Municipalities Act, 1999. This amendment would grant

municipal councils the authority to choose whether to charge simple interest or

compound interest on overdue municipal taxes.

Mr. Speaker, all towns in the Province are governed by the Municipalities

Act, 1999. Three cities are governed by their own acts. Councils have the

authority, as provided in

section 107 of the Municipalities Act, 1999, to charge

interest on overdue tax accounts, as long as the council passes a resolution

establishing the rate of interest to be charged and when the interest is to be

applied. The City of Mount Pearl also has the power, through

section 131 of its

act, and the City of Corner Brook has this power through

section 132 of its act.

The City of St. John's is permitted to charge interest on overdue tax accounts

section 85.1, and

section 261(3) of its act, as well as

section 23 of the

City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, a special act governing only that

city's taxation.

Mr. Speaker, for overdue tax accounts, some municipal councils in the

Province charge compound interest while others charge simple interest. The

ability to charge compound interest would have a positive financial effect upon

municipalities who choose to charge compound interest on tax arrears. The 2008

decision of the Court of Appeal in Happy Valley-Goose Bay versus Cabot ruled

that the wording of

section 107 of the Municipalities Act, 1999, limits town

councils to charging only simple interest on overdue taxes. The statutes

governing Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, at

section 131 and

section 132 of their

respective acts, have the same wording as the Municipalities Act and would be

interpreted in the same way. The City Of St. John's Act provides for compound

interest in

section 261(3). However,

section 85.1 of the City Of St. John's

Act and

section 23 of the City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act are silent

on whether interest may be simple or compound.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment would provide all municipalities in the

Province and the Cities of St. John's, Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, with the

option to charge compound interest on overdue taxes. Without the proposed

amendment regarding interest charges, municipalities in the Province are limited

to charging simple interest on overdue accounts. This amendment modifies

existing legislation to provide municipalities with additional flexibility, will

ensure that municipalities can charge compound interest, can continue to do so,

and reduces the financial impact of tax arrears among municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and welcome

any comments from hon. members.

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

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, given the court ruling on this matter, of course, it is

necessary for such an amendment in the three cities acts, as well as the

Municipalities Act, to clarify the charging of either simple or compound

interest. While compound interest is certainly not in the best interest of the

taxpayer, it obviously can be an incentive for those who are in arrears of their

taxes to pay off their bills more quickly since, as time goes on, they obviously

will owe more and more. The monthly interest and daily interest, whatever, will

accumulate and increase. There is a physical power in this type of interest, and

municipalities appreciate this wisdom. The value of imposing compound interest

for municipalities is that, of course, they generate more money from their

coffers, as the minister has suggested. So there is a twofold interest, I guess,

in that.

Municipalities, as we know, are increasingly taking on more and more

responsibilities and as such are being asked to assume the costs related to

those roles and services and so on. Obviously, the burden becomes paralyzing for

the other municipalities if the taxpayers of their districts and the

municipalities are not paying their taxes and so on. Certainly, in that light,

it offers that flexibility and hopefully, probably more and more importantly,

not necessarily just a tax base for the municipality but an encouragement to the

taxpayer to try and keep current with their municipality and so on. So, yes, I

would see this as a good move and would certainly support the bill.

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

Vidi.

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

Again, this bill is a bit of a housekeeping bill, Bill 52, amending the three

city acts in the Province, along with the municipal taxation act. As the

minister explained, there was a court ruling with regard to the Municipalities

Act that made this necessary.

I have to say that I do have problems with municipalities charging compound

interest. I guess it is good for them to have the power because there may be

circumstances where it is a penalty that is absolutely needed to bring somebody

who is in arrears into compliance, but there are times when people who are in

arrears on payments municipalities - are going through financial

difficulties, there are times when there are people who may be on fixed incomes

and there are reasons for the fact that they are in arrears. For me, it is

problematic that municipalities actually can charge compound interest, which can

be a very heavy burden sometimes and become more than just a penalty but become

something that could also be even life-changing for people who might have

compound interest charged on them.

I guess the only thing I would want to say - it has to happen; there has been

a court ruling. The changes have to be made because of the court ruling, and for

that reason I will vote for the bill, but I would hope that municipalities would

use their power very judiciously when it comes to charging compound interest,

and to be sure that in any case that they decide that compound interest is the

thing to be used, that it is for something very serious and for something that

is not going to put an undue burden on the back of the person who may be charged

the compound interest as well.

I know that the provincial government has no power to tell the municipalities

what to do with regard to that. They have the power to charge interest. That is

now being specified into a simpler compound, and I just want it on the record

that I do hope, as I said, municipalities will not use their power injudiciously

and would use it with a sense of justice and fairness.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now he will close the

debate in second reading of Bill 52.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I certainly appreciate the comments from my hon. members, and agree

that it is housekeeping, but we do hope that any power that is enshrined in acts

is used in the interest of justice, not injustice, as the Leader of the NDP has

certainly pointed out.

The charging of compound interest is a standard commercial practice and, of

course, the acts were leaving things open to

interpretation. This clears that

up, identifies and establishes the options, and there is a choice that they can

use, and we hope that they will - the municipalities will - act accordingly.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that my remarks conclude and we will

move forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 52 be now read a

second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The 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: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 52 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "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", read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 52)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 14, second reading of Bill 53.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 53,

An Act To Amend The

Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, be now read a second

time.

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

House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act". (Bill 53)

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to get up and speak and introduce amendments

to the Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. As I said the

other day during debate on the government's defined contribution plan and

money market purchase plan, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador offers I

think it is six pension plans for its various employees. I indicated they were

the Teachers' Pension Plan, the Public Service Pension Plan, the Government

Money Purchase Pension Plan, and the Uniformed Pension Plan. This one, of

course, is the Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, which

is the pension plan for members of this House. The other one, of course, is the

Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan. I believe that is all of them.

This originates in the report of Chief Justice Green, which we have always

referred to as the Green report, in which he recommended that for new members

coming into the House at that time that there be a new pension plan for those

members - a different pension plan which he said would be a defined benefit-type

pension plan - and that it would apply to the new members who were elected in

the forthcoming General Election; and he was referring to the election of 2007.

The existing Members of the House of Assembly, those who were already in this

House, were to be grandfathered under the old plan.

Chief Justice Green's recommendation was that a commission be set up - a

commission that was known as the Members' Compensation Review Committee. That

committee, after the following election, was to be an independent committee that

would review and make recommendations concerning the salaries paid to Members of

the House of Assembly - and pensions as well; in fact, all benefits that Members

of the House of Assembly were receiving.

The committee was set up and they made recommendations in the report. The

committee was set up as Chief Justice Green had recommended. It consisted of Mr.

Joe O'Neill, who is a retired civil servant and now active in the private

sector; Ms Cathy Bennett, who is the owner-operator of a number of McDonald's

restaurants in St. John's; and a Mr. Brian Barry from Central Newfoundland.

They would be the committee, an independent committee, to be called the Members'

Compensation Review Committee, to conduct an inquiry and prepare a report

respecting the salaries, the allowances, the severance payments and pensions to

be paid to members. The report came out after public consultations were held,

and there have been a number of recommendations regarding the pensions for

Members of the House of Assembly.

I think we will recall, first of all, that at one point the salaries paid to

Members of the House of Assembly consisted of the salary portion, and another

portion called the tax-free allowance. Chief Justice Green recommended that the

tax-free allowance be eliminated and, instead, the salary increased by an

equivalent amount.

The Members of the House of Assembly Pension Plan was amended back in 2007 to

limit pensionable salary for existing members to 81.2 per cent of the actual

salary. This neutralized the impact on pensionable salary of replacing the

tax-free allowance with an increased taxable salary. The pension of the Members

of the House of Assembly is now not based on their total salary; it is based on

an amount called the pensionable salary, which is equal to 81.2 per cent of what

the total salary of an MHA is.

The amended definition assumed at the time that only existing Members of the

House of Assembly would be covered by the plan; because Mr. Justice Green, or

Chief Justice Green, had recommended that a new plan would be devised, as I said

earlier, for members who would be elected for the first time to what would be

the Forty-Sixth General Assembly of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are four recommendations with respect to the

pension, and these changes will affect members elected for the first time after

December 31, 2009. In other words, the Members' Compensation Review Committee

really did something different from what Chief Justice Green recommended. Chief

Justice Green had recommended that the new members elected would have a

different pension plan, but the committee has recommended that all members

elected in 2007, and all members elected up until today, including the new

Member for Terra Nova and the new Member for The Straits & White Bay North,

would also be grandfathered into what I will call the current plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: I mentioned the new Member for Terra Nova, as well, who

will also be grandfathered into the current plan, but there will be a new plan

for all members who are elected after the end of this year, or new members who

are elected after this legislation comes into effect. The changes will be

well, first of all under the current plan, maybe it will be better for the sake

of understanding if we talk about what is under the current plan and then

compare that to the changes that have been recommended.

Under the current plan, the benefit accrual rate is 5 per cent a year for the

first ten years and it is 2.5 per cent per year for the next seventy years, to a

maximum of 75 per cent of pensionable salary. That will change. For the new

members coming in, that will now be reduced to - the benefit accrual rate will

now be 3.5 per cent per year for twenty years. This will have the affect, Mr.

Speaker, of providing a maximum of 70 per cent benefit after twenty years

instead of the current 75 per cent.

It should also be noted that before a Member of the House of Assembly can

qualify for any benefit, for any pension whatsoever, the member requires at

least five years of service in order to have the pension vested, and service in

two General Assemblies. So I should correct what I just said. The member has to

serve for five years of service, and service in two General Assemblies in order

to qualify for the plan.

As I said earlier, that as a conversion to the new system resulted in a

higher pre-tax salary, Justice Green did recognize the importance of

incorporating this new salary into the MHA pension benefit formula. He

recognized that would have resulted in higher pension benefits for members than

under the former system. So in order to mitigate that and to ensure the pension

would not be higher, he recommended that effective from July 1, 2007 that only

81.2 per cent of the new taxable salary would be considered pensionable. This

act was amended. Members will recall that this act was in fact amended during

the last session to provide for this limit on the amount of the pension.

The limitation was transitional in nature, Mr. Speaker, and it was intended,

as I said earlier, to apply to members subject to the current plan.

Consequently, it is necessary to amend the definition of members' pensionable

salary to include full salary for members elected after December 31 of this

year. That is those members who will be subject to the new pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, the current plan also says that an MHA who is vested under the

pension plan, which is five years service plus two elections, will not qualify

for an unreduced pension. Well, right now it should say, I believe, to qualify

for a pension under the current plan the MHA has to serve for five years, be

elected in two elections. The age of service, I think a combination of service

in the House plus age has to equal sixty before the person can receive an

unreduced pension.

In the changes that are in this amendment, a vested MHA will not qualify for

a pension until they actually reach the age of fifty-five. So in that case, we

do not have a situation where someone who is only forty-five, with fifteen years

of service in the House, who qualifies for a pension. Now to receive a pension

under the new legislation, the MHA will have to at least attain the age of

fifty-five. I believe that is similar to the other pension plans that government

has for its employees.

With respect to a reduced pension, it will now provide that an MHA will

qualify for a reduced pension if they attain the age of fifty, but the amount of

the pension will be reduced by 6 per cent for every year the age is less than

fifty-five. I believe that is similar to what is offered in the other government

pension plans and it is similar to the Canada Pension Plan. I think we all know,

under the Canada Pension Plan you will receive 100 per cent of the benefits

under the Canada Pension Plan at age sixty-five. You can get the Canada Pension

as early as age sixty but there is a 0.5 per cent reduction in the amount of the

pension for each month earlier than sixty-five that you take the plan. If you

accept the Canada Pension at the age of sixty, it will be worth 70 per cent of

what you would have received at the age of sixty-five when you get 100 per cent

benefit. I understand that actually you can also defer taking the Canada Pension

Plan until age seventy, in which case for every month over sixty-five you get a

0.5 per cent bump up as well. Of course, what is the right thing to do? It

depends on how long you are going to live. If you start taking the Canada

Pension Plan at age sixty, obviously you are going to get it for a longer period

of time than you would if you waited until you are age sixty-five, depending on

your life expectancy.

All these changes, I believe that is the last one. All these changes will be

effective as of the date of the amending legislation. They will apply only to

MHAs elected for the first time after the effective date. Members elected for

the first time to the forty-sixth General Assembly, in spite of what Chief

Justice Green recommended, will participate in the current plan. I believe there

is amendment, as well, to make sure that current members are treated

consistently. So it is necessary to amend, as I said before, the definition of

the salary. As the members who are elected for the first time to the forty-sixth

General Assembly will also be grandfathered into the existing plan, and new

members elected after the effective date will be subject to the new

arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, I think that simply is what is contained in the amendments.

Again, these amendments were not determined by the people in this House of

Assembly. They were determined and recommended by an independent commission of

three people who conducted public consultations and they made their

recommendations to the House of Assembly Management Commission and the

Management Commission has written to the government suggesting these

recommendations, which government is now bringing forward. I would say that I

look forward to the comments of hon. members and I would urge passage of the

legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 53.

As the minister mentioned, we had the review of course by the Members'

Compensation Review Committee. It has been public knowledge. It has been put out

there on the airwaves and on the Web site and so on, consisting of persons who

were very well-known in Newfoundland and Labrador, a lot of bureaucratic

experience; Mr. O'Neill, who chaired that committee, as well as some very

well-known businesspeople on the committee, Ms Cathy Bennett being one and Brian

Barry being another. They did not have a lot of time to do the report.

The Management Commission, pursuant to what Chief Justice Green had said,

there had to be such a committee and the Management Commission and the Speaker,

of course, struck the committee and that is who was on it. They did the

necessary work. They did public consultations. People had an opportunity to

appear in person. They could make written submissions if they wanted and so on,

and that was done. It was well advertised. Some people thought it was poor

timing as to doing it during the summer months but I believe because of the

requirement to get it done, unfortunately that is when it did take place.

Everybody was certainly allowed an opportunity to make their views known to the

committee. A bit slow when they started off in terms of the number of people who

came forward to speak, very poor attendance, but as it picked up speed there

seemed to be more and more people who did in fact attend.

The committee came back with four recommendations, as I say, filed their

report and there has been a meeting subsequently. They just did not submit their

report. They actually appeared before the Management Commission. I am personally

a member of that, as Opposition House Leader, as is the Government House Leader

is a member of it. It is chaired by the Speaker of the House.

The committee, all three of them, did indeed appear before the Management

Commission, which is a publicized, televised meeting as well. There was rapport

back and forth between the committee members and the Commission members to get

any further clarification that we felt was necessary on the four

recommendations.

What we have here today, of course, in Bill 53, is the legislative result of

one of those pieces that was dealt with. Basically, there were four

recommendations that the committee dealt with: one was on salaries; one was on

pensions, which we have here today; another one had to do with severance; and

another one had to with certain MHA allowances. Of the four, this is, as I say,

one piece of it. The salaries one will be dealt with again in this House,

openly. It will be done -Bill 54, which was circulated today, that deals with

the salary component piece and the commission recommendation about the 8 per

cent rollback, that will be done in this House sometime this week, I would

assume. The Government House Leader has given notice of it today, it has been

circulated and so on, and so we will probably be doing second reading and debate

on that particular bill sometime before this session is out.

There has not been a lot of time lag here. The committee came forward, put

their report out there, met with the commission, ironed out any details that we

needed, figured which one needed legislative amendments, for example, the salary

component. That has now seen its way to this House by way of Bill 54, and Bill

53, of course, was dealing with the pension piece which they brought forward.

It has been a very open and transparent process that has taken place. A lot

of people, of course, in the general public, that was one of the problems and

the issues that were identified by Chief Justice Green a couple of years ago

when he did his report on the House of Assembly, had to do with a lot of times

when things got done in this House, whether it involved monies paid to MHAs,

monies paid to officers of the House, travel allowances, pensions, salaries and

so on, that it was done sort of under the cover of darkness and nobody ever

heard or saw how it was done. It was not an open and transparent process. In

fact, there was often, in the past, money bills dealing with MHAs that were

passed in this House that were all done in one day. There were cases where you

would have first reading, second reading, committee reading, third reading,

everything done lock, stock and barrel in one day. Chief Justice Green said that

was not proper, that was not open and that was not transparent. You ought to

give notice of it what you are going to do. You ought to let the public see, by

way of the bill, what you are going to do. The debate on itself should be open,

which it is now; we have televised proceedings. Anybody in this House of

Assembly is free to stand up and voice their opinion on how they feel about this

particular piece of legislation concerning the pensions.

Nobody here is impacted by it, by the way. Everybody who currently sits in

the House of Assembly, including the two members recently elected in the

by-elections, they are covered under the old pensions act. A lot of people felt

that was a pretty rich pension scheme, gold-plated, I believe was the words that

some people used, including Chief Justice Green and some members of the

commission.

What they have done now, the basic principle that has been changed is, under

the old act, a member would get 5 per cent per year on your pension to go

towards your pension. That has been changed now; it has been reduced from 5 per

cent down to 3.5 per cent. So that piece has changed.

I would encourage anybody in the public who wants to see the bill, you can

get it on-line and you can access it by way of the Internet. Feel free to read

it, any concerns that you have. This bill is not going to be done in one sitting

today. It will come up again either later today in committee or certainly for

third reading. I would encourage, as a member of the Management Commission and a

Member of the House of Assembly, anybody who reads it, who has any concerns with

this Bill 53 regarding the recommendations on pensions, feel free, e-mail your

member, e-mail a government House member, e-mail this member; anybody you feel

that you want to voice your concern to, so that it is indeed an open and a

transparent position.

As I say, it does not impact anybody here. There were no changes made to the

pensions of anyone who sits in this House today. That is not because we, members

in this House, decided that. That was a decision of the independently selected

Members' Compensation Review Committee, and I would like to make that clear as

well. They were at liberty to do whatever they wished in terms of the pension

plan that existed and this is what they chose to do on a go-forward basis.

Effective January 1, 2010, anybody who comes into this House of Assembly, that

is what the plan is going to be.

I again, encourage anyone there will only be two of the four

recommendations that the committee dealt with coming before this House. It is

this one that deals with the pensions. It is the one that deals with the

salaries, which I say we will be seeing hopefully tomorrow sometime by way of

Bill 54.

The other two issues, one dealt with severance and another one dealt with a

number of allowance issues for MHAs. They will not be coming forward in this

House because they did not require legislative changes. That is not to say that

the process for those will not be open and transparent. They will be dealt with

by the management committee. They will be dealt with through televised

proceedings, so people again, will have - and I encourage them to watch the

debates on that. Any input again, this is a democracy, you have access to it,

voice your opinions and any concerns or comments that you might have. We will be

seeing those coming forward later.

I understand that there is some issue, even by the Members' Compensation

Review Committee members themselves on the severance piece. They made a

recommendation, but based upon their visit here with the Management Commission

and some questions that were asked back and forth, they, themselves, had some

concerns about how they had worded the recommendation on severance. There were

some privacy issues that might have been raised there, for example, because it

talked about getting severance based upon certain circumstances and whether a

person was or was not seriously ill. So, those questions have not been resolved

yet, but they will be, as I say, in an open process, eventually, through the

Management Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been dealt with in a timely fashion. This was not

the case of it was delayed. The earliest opportunity the House was not open

when the commission submitted its report. It was dealt with in a timely fashion

by the management committee. No changes were made to it. Nobody has tinkered

with it or changed it in any manner. Exactly what the Members' Compensation

Review Committee recommended is what has been put into this piece of

legislation. As I say, it is not a case of whether you are for it or against it;

the bottom line is we are following absolutely to the T what the compensation

review committee recommended.

So we will, certainly in the Opposition ranks here, be voting in support of

this piece of legislation, because, again, it is in fulfilment. Justice Green

said how we should go about dealing with this issue. The compensation review

commission has now said how we go about dealing with it. So we, as a House of

Assembly, no doubt will be supporting this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am happy to stand and speak to Bill 53,

An Act To Amend The Members Of The

House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. This act is important, because when

we first received the report from Chief Justice Green, which resulted in the act

that we now have, the accountability act that sets the rules for everything that

we do here in the House of Assembly, one of the things that Chief Justice Green

spoke to was the issue of pensions. We were in - not I, personally, but the

House itself - a bit of a limbo for two years, that people had been elected in

2007 and had no idea what their pension plan was, because the recommendation

from Chief Justice Green really put everything on hold with regard to people who

had been elected from 2007 onwards and because he wanted a Members'

Compensation Review Committee to be set up and that committee would be the

committee that would make decisions with regard to the future pensions of MHAs

in the Province.

Now we have in our Accountability Act, we have details with regard to the

Members' Compensation Review Committee, the fact that this committee has to be

set up in every General Assembly. Initially, in the first act that we put in

place, based on the recommendations from Chief Justice Green, there was no

definition as to when the Members' Compensation Review Committee should be set

up. Just that during every Assembly there should be a Members' Compensation

Review Committee set up to look at the issues of salaries, to look at the issues

of pensions, to look at the issues of other recompense that is paid to MHAs for

expenditures that they make in the context of their work.

This committee, finally this year, almost two years into the life of this

General Assembly, this committee finally got put in place. Now if one goes in

and reads the legislation under the Accountability Act, one will see that the

committee gets set up by the Assembly. It is the Speaker though, who, in

consultation with the leadership of the parties in the House, comes up with the

members who will sit on that committee. I have to say, there was a full

consultation process carried out with the Speaker and the three parties in the

House, and I obviously was part of that. The results of that consultation were

then brought to the Management Commission for final approval by the Management

Commission.

So certainly, the setting up of the committee and the way in which it was set

up was done very well according to legislation. Unfortunately, legislation did

not say how soon into the life of the Assembly the committee should have been

set up. I personally would have liked to have seen it being set up earlier than

it was. I think that notion of trying to set it up early in the life of an

Assembly was understood by the committee itself, because of the committee's

recommendation that when we go into the next Assembly, the forty-seventh

Assembly which will happen in 2011, they have recommended, and it is in the

recommendations that we are voting on. They have recommended that the committee

be set up within the first six months of the Assembly.

I was really quite happy to see that recommendation from the Members'

Compensation Review Committee; that the committee in the next Assembly be set up

early on in the life of the Assembly. I think it is very important. I think if

we do that as well, we can ensure the next time that it gets set up in a timely

fashion so that the work that is being carried out is not being carried out over

the summer. The timing will be excellent actually because the election will be

in October of 2011. The six months brings us into mid-winter. Hopefully, the

committee could get set up even before six months and they could actually have

the public part of their work finished long before the summer season hits people

and people will not be travelling, et cetera.

I think we have learned a lot from the first round of the Members'

Compensation Review Committee, having it for the first time and seeing how it

worked. I would hope that any of us who are part of the process in 2011 will

ensure that it happens in a more timely fashion than it did this time. Not in

terms of the work of the committee itself. They did their work in an extremely

timely fashion. It fit within their 120 days. They did everything. We, I think

as an Assembly, should have had that committee set up earlier on. I think it was

a bit stressful for members themselves who had been elected in 2007 for the

first time, because they were a new member they had no idea what their pension

scheme was. I think the public wanted to see the committee set up because those

who follow the work of the Assembly, they read the acts and they know what is

going on.

Many times I had been asked: so when is the Members' Compensation Review

Committee going to be set up? Anyway, it finally did get set-up. The report came

in, in a timely fashion. I think the report did try to be faithful to what they

heard from the public. I think that even though they had some disappointment

with regard to how many people turned up in person to speak to them, and they

did have written submissions as well and people who spoke to them on the phone.

I think they would have liked to have seen a much bigger turnout. On the other

hand, the issues were out there in the public in a very large way during the

work of the committee. I think through the media, they also received - there was

quite a bit of impact on the committee in terms of everything that was out there

in the broader media, and people taking

part in the Open Line shows and letters

to the editor, et cetera. So I think there were many ways in which they were

gauging the public understanding and the feeling of the public with regard to

the work they were doing and the recommendations that they would come up with.

So, a few comments; obviously, I will be voting for this bill. I think the

committee did a very fine job in trying to be fair and tried to listen to the

public. What I am pleased about is that the committee did continue

recommendations with regard to maintaining a pension plan in the way that we

already have a pension plan and did not recommend moving into payments into

RRSPs, which I do not believe is the best way to plan for our futures. Pension

plans are secure. They give us a security, and certainly in the public service

sector they do. Unfortunately, in the private sector there are people who suffer

desperately because of the fact that their pensions do not have security.

Especially in the case of workers who work for a company that goes bankrupt, for

example. Something we know that workers in Grand Falls-Windsor are concerned

about right now with regard to AbitibiBowater, and in Canada on a national

level, workers with Nortel are going through.

We are lucky. People who work for the public sector and people who are

elected officials, we do have security with our pensions. I think we all

recognize that it is a bit of a privilege. Not everybody has the security of

pensions that we have. At the same time, I do believe in secure pensions. That

is why I am very pleased that on a national level and by national, I do not

mean federal. I mean that all the provinces together, and the territories, along

with the federal government, are looking at the whole issue of pensions for

people in this country and trying to find a way that everybody has better

security and better resources coming in through pension plans.

We know that the Minister of Finance will be meeting, I think, on the

seventeenth of this month with territorial and provincial and federal ministers

to talk about pensions. It is an extremely important issue. Some of the ideas

that are being brought forward are extremely important.

We do have a public plan in Canada called the CPP, the Canadian Pension Plan.

Quebec, of course, has its own pension plan. We always say the CPP-QPP, the two

together. This is an extremely important plan because everybody, the majority of

people in this country, do get some form of cover under the CPP-QPP. As a matter

of fact, 93 per cent of Canadians are already members of the CPP-QPP pension

plan that we have in this country.

The problem is that we need to increase that plan for the sake of some people

only have that plan. Where I am in a privileged position, I have that plan; I

will also have some pension when I retire as an MHA on top of that plan. Some

people only have the CP and OAS when they turn sixty-five. I think we have a

responsibility, not just to take care of our own pensions, as we are doing here

today in approving the recommendations of the committee - and I would like to

point out to anybody listening that it is the recommendations of the committee

and I think they tried to listen to a broad group of people in coming up with

those recommendations. It is not important enough just for us to be concerned

about passing this bill here today; it is also important for us to worry about

the pensions of people in this country.

There are some recommendations that are being made, and I think that will be

ideas that will be brought forward for discussion on December 17 when the

finance ministers meet. One of those recommendations that will be coming forward

is that the top monthly benefit for the CPP-QPP be doubled. That would mean the

top benefit would go from $908 a month to $1,817 a month. That, along with OAS,

would certainly give a much more liveable retirement for Can