December 10, 2012

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 66

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today at the earliest possible occasion to raise a point of privilege

before this House. This is an important matter and, as such, I have already

contacted you regarding the point.

O'Brien and Bosc note that rights and privileges of members of the House

include freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation, and molestation.

Regarding the subject of obstruction, interference, and intimidation, O'Brien

and Bosc say the following about examples of obstruction, interference, and

intimidation:

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as

matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such

constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be

prima facie include the damaging of a Member's reputation, the usurpation of the

title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and

of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information."

Misleading a minister or a member has also been considered a form of

obstruction, and is thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, during last Tuesday's session of this hon. House, I asked the

Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador a number of questions regarding

Bill 47, the Appointments to Boards, Councils and Tribunals Amendment Act. I

asked the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador who he consulted on Bill

47 and how he carried out those consultations. The minister's response to my

question was something to the effect of: If you had been paying attention during

discussions of the bill, you would know I discussed this.

I contend that despite his claim, the minister indeed did not discuss who he

consulted on Bill 47 and how he carried out those consultations. In light of

that, I advised the minister at the time that I would review Hansard to ensure

that he did indeed provide this information; however, Mr. Speaker, at this point

no copies of Hansard are available for that evening.

In fairness to the hon. House, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the transcript

of Hansard, I am formally requesting that you review the video recording of the

House proceedings that evening in order to authenticate the minister's statement

to this hon. House last week. Mr. Speaker, if you find that the Minister of

Service Newfoundland and Labrador misled this House with his statement, I ask

that you rule the minister is out of order and that he immediately apologize,

not only to the members of this hon. House, but to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador for making such a misleading statement in the House. No member of

this House has a right to mislead another; to do so is a violation of privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of

privilege.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe clarification first before I respond, so I am accurate. Am I correct

that the member said this happened Tuesday past? If I am not permitted to ask a

question, then I will simply give you a response. I thought I heard him say

Tuesday past. My understanding would be the earliest point to raise a point of

privilege would have been Wednesday or Thursday of this past week.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the connection of the member

not providing what the hon. member considers to be a full answer to the

question, as one to be this minister misleading the House. This minister made

himself fully aware in that particular debate, both during second reading and in

the Committee stage, and there was ample opportunity for members who were

present in the House at that point in time and Hansard does not reflect that,

unfortunately but the minister expressed himself very clearly, I think, that

evening, and some frustration. Because some questions were being repeated by

some members in this House who did not attend the earlier part of the session, I

say.

I would say very clearly on behalf of the minister, Mr. Speaker, that there

was certainly never, ever any intention to mislead this House. I think it is a

bit unfortunate that someone would suggest that a Minister of the Crown would

actually stand and deliberately mislead the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North, further to the

point of privilege?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed the earliest possible occasion for me to raise this point. I

advised the minister Tuesday night that I would seek to verify his comments in

Hansard; however, no copy of Hansard is available. I assumed this would be

available on Wednesday, and it was not. When it was not made available on

Tuesday evening, I formally requested it from the Clerk's Office. I was

subsequently advised to review the video recording, in the absence of Hansard. I

did do this; however, some of the relevant comments from the minister on the

recording appear to be inaudible, at least inaudible to me. Because Hansard has

not been made available through my efforts and otherwise, this is indeed the

earliest possible occasion for me to raise this point.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, further to the point

of privilege.

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

I understand the train of events that has been suggested there. In my

experiences, it seems to be a first that Hansard is not available sometime

certainly the very next day before the House sits. Usually the Hansard is

available late in the afternoon, in the evening, or the next day.

Having said that, though, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the point

of privilege ought to have been raised in the context that asking the Speaker to

review Hansard, to suggest that we are six days later on a point of privilege

I think Bosc and O'Brien is very clear on that point, that you raise it at the

earliest possible time that you become available of a potential point of

privilege.

We are talking about a potential point of privilege; there has been no ruling

on this. I think the Standing Orders would be very clear that you raise the

point before the House and the Speaker at the earliest time and opportunity you

have available to you, which would certainly have been a lot fewer days than six

would have passed before you could have done that.

MR. SPEAKER: Before commenting on the substance of the point of privilege

being raised, I would want to comment on the reference to the earliest possible

time. The Speaker advised the House that yes, Hansard is an accurate recording

of the House proceedings, but the evening sessions are not always available

immediately after the session is over. Sometimes they tend to not be available

until after the session has adjourned.

The fact that Hansard is not available and the member has suggested that

the audio version of the tape may in fact not be as clear as the Hansard may be,

as the official transcript, the Speaker is prepared to entertain the point of

privilege today as being the earliest possible time. The House will take a

recess while the Speaker reviews the substance of the point of privilege and

report back to the House.

This House stands adjourned for review of the point of privilege being

raised. The bells will reconvene members when we have had a chance to review the

points raised and the records.

Thank you.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

With respect to the point of privilege raised by the Member for the District

of St. John's North, the Speaker had indicated before we took a brief recess

that the printed Hansard is not available until some time after the evening

sittings. Staff and officials are working diligently to try to conclude that

process before the end of the business day today.

The Speaker attempted to review all of the video clips of that evening. You

recall that was on Tuesday evening; it was dealt with in second reading and

quite an extended period of Committee.

I recognize that it is an onerous path to try to conclude that before the

day's session was over, but I have had a chance to review about half of it, I

suspect. I realize that it is going to take some time. I wanted to make sure

that I have had an opportunity to, if not read Hansard for the entire evening,

at least to have listened to all of the video for the entire evening.

The subject matter raised is a serious one; however, the Speaker feels that

it is appropriate to continue with today's proceeding in the interests of

dealing with the people's business today, with the view of providing a ruling to

the House tomorrow.

I would ask that we would now continue with today's proceedings and the

Speaker will agree to provide a ruling with respect to the point of privilege

before the start of tomorrow's session.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the District of

Baie Verte Springdale; the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the

Member for the District of Lake Melville; the Member for the District of

Bellevue; the Member for the District of Humber Valley; and the Member for the

District of St. Barbe.

The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to recognize the seventy-fifth anniversary of the

Springdale Women's Institute.

Formed in 1937, it was first known as the Jubilee Guild with first-year

membership soaring to 121. In 1968 the Jubilee Guild became part of the

Federated Women's Institute of Canada and consequently became known as the

Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institute.

Educating women on the skills of the day such as spinning, weaving, and

sewing was the original aim of the organization.

When the hospital was built in Springdale, home nursing also became a focus,

along with co-sponsoring health forums.

Located in the town hall, with a current membership of forty-three, the

Women's Institute continues to serve the community and contribute to youth

sponsorships, collecting for Heart and Stroke Foundation, donating to the local

food bank, and creating beautiful woven items.

President Sadie Foster says they are a vibrant group that meets every Tuesday

and Friday, adding influence to the craft community.

I invite all colleagues to join me in congratulating the Springdale Women's

Institute upon their seventy-fifth anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is International Human Rights Day, and worldwide, people

are focusing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the UN

General Assembly December 10, 1945.

Today, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, "Over the past century, we have

made undeniable progress along the path of inclusion.

"Yet far too many groups and individuals face far too many obstacles. Women

have the right to vote almost everywhere, but remain hugely under-represented in

parliamentsIndigenous people frequently face discriminationReligious and

ethnic minorities as well as people with disabilities or those with a

different sexual orientation or political opinion are often hampered from

taking

part in key institutions and processes. Institutions and public discourse

need to represent societies in all their diversity."

Today, I honour those who work for the rights of all people, many located in

St. John's Centre: the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission; the

Status of Women councils across the Province; all native rights organizations;

all the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights groups; the religious

social action groups; the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities and all

disability rights groups; seniors and mental health advocates.

Together these groups of dedicated activists work to ensure all people of

Newfoundland and Labrador can live as full participants in society, in safety

and with mutual respect. I invite all members here today to thank them for their

work and say bravo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the communities of

Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River, and Sheshatshiu, as well as the staff

of the Department of Natural Resources, specifically the staff of Fire and

Emergency Services, and everyone who volunteered their time to come together

this summer during the forest fire that threatened the communities of

Sheshatshiu and North West River this past June.

A forest fire broke out twenty kilometres north of North West River near what

is called Sabasquach River, or what we refer to as Sabby River. It raged for

several days and consumed almost 20,000 hectares or forest. It caused the

communities of Sheshatshiu and North West River to be evacuated. The residents of

Happy Valley-Goose Bay did their absolute best to see that the evacuees felt at

home during this emergency, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime volunteers from the surrounding communities as well as the

local fire departments proceeded to cut a fire break two kilometres long to

protect Sheshatshiu and North West River. I was proud to see the communities of

Lake Melville come together during this emergency situation and that no property

was indeed lost.

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

recognizing these communities and their volunteers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: 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 recognize a remarkable group, the Dildo

Playground Committee.

They are a group of approximately twenty members, mostly whom are young

mothers. They began raising funds about a year ago to construct a playground in

the heart of the community. They were met with much support from the community

of Dildo and its surrounding neighbours. The committee has held numerous events

throughout the year, such as Breakfast with Santa, the Easter Bunny, haunted

houses, dances both adult and youth, ticket drives, and children fun days, just

to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, this committee is very dedicated and were the recipients of the

Community Capital Grant from the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The committee has risen just over $40,000 to date and have spent about

$15,000 in preparing the groundwork. Through their voluntary time, commitment,

and dedication, Dildo has seen a great improvement to their recreation

facilities that will provide many activities for the youth of this community.

I ask that all members of this great House join me in an encouraging gesture

to the Playground Committee of Dildo in their fundraising efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to commend the members of the Council of

Independent Community Pharmacy Owners: Wayne Morris, Robert Doyle, Phil O'Keefe,

Mary Byrne, Todd Squires, Doug Stanley, Beverly Vey, and Bill Simmons.

The judging panel for the Commitment to Care & Service Awards, presented

annually by Pharmacy Practice and Drugstore Canada magazines,

selected the board members of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy

Owners as this year's recipient of the prestigious Lifetime Service Award. The

awards gala took place on November 26 in Toronto.

Above all, these individuals are tireless advocates for better health care

for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When they are not running their own

pharmacies and providing innovative services to patients, these individuals log

thousands of volunteer hours annually.

The winners of this year's award demonstrate the leadership that is very much

a group effort, particularly the unique challenges faced by pharmacies in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask all hon. members in this House today to join me in congratulating these

individuals on being presented the Lifetime Service Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge

and commend women's groups in the District of St. Barbe on the invaluable role

they play in the social well-being of their communities.

The Women's Institute in Port au Choix implements home economic, health, and

social activities at the local level; including, but not limited to, craft

production, a walk-away-the-pounds program, and special events for seniors and

children. They support our country with their Packages for Soldiers in

Afghanistan program, and they support the Women's Institute International with

their Pennies-for-Friendship and Walk-Around-the-World programs.

The Rocky Harbour Regional Women's Committee is actively promoting awareness

on women's and girl's issues, hosting Women's Wellness and Women in the

Workplace workshops. Annually, they host a Commemoration Service on the National

Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, celebrate Women's

History Month, host rallies for Take Back the Night, and celebrate International

Women's Day. They recently established a scholarship for a Level III female

student that promotes women's and girl's rights and issues.

Both these women's groups play a significant role in highlighting women's

equality in society.

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

volunteers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Ministers' statements.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the hon. House to recognize

International Human Rights Day. Every year since the United Nations' adoption of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948, International

Human Rights Day has been celebrated throughout our Province and across the

world.

Mr. Speaker, the declaration outlines common principles whether they be

political, civil, cultural, social, or economic rights that individuals,

groups, and countries around the world can use as guiding examples to uphold.

This year, the theme of International Human Rights Day is My Voice Counts.

The focus is on the rights of all people to be heard on issues that are

important to them, and the theme recognizes that it is critical that everyone be

included in decision making.

This theme, Mr. Speaker, is especially relevant to all sitting here today in

this House. By choosing those people who will represent them, the citizens of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador play an important role in making the

decisions that shape their communities. This government continues to encourage

all citizens of the Province to take

part in elections at all levels. It also

continues to support citizens' rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of

expression. In our Province, the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights

Commission has the responsibility of ensuring that the law of human rights in

the Province is upheld. The Commission is committed to promoting an

understanding of and acceptance of human rights as outlined in the new Human

Rights Act which was proclaimed by our government in 2010.

Furthermore, our government has demonstrated our commitment to open,

accountable, and transparent government through the establishment of an Office

of Public Engagement that will ensure effective, targeted, and interactive

public consultations. Indeed, for this government, Mr. Speaker, every voice

counts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing

International Human Rights Day and to reflect on the importance of promoting

equality, understanding, and mutual respect for all.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

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

Official Opposition would also like to join in recognizing International Human

Rights Day.

Here in this Province and in this country, sometimes we take human rights for

granted just because we do live in a blessed place. You have countries like

Egypt and Syria that have internal conflicts over the rights that we take for

granted.

We cannot forget the good men and women in uniform who have fought and died

for us to have these rights, rights like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,

free press, and open elections. Human rights are not about the rights that

government gives us. Rights that are given to us by others are not really rights

at all. We do not have an open, accountable, and transparent government because

government gives those things; we have them because it is our right to have

them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. We must never

take for granted the rights of any people in our society. Rights are not given

but hard won. Our Human Rights Act is a living document that guides us on how we

are to live together in mutual respect and peace in all our diversity.

Transgendered people are the most misunderstood and vulnerable in our

society. It is time for this government to do the right thing as has the

United Nations, the Northwest Territories, Ontario, and Manitoba; Quebec and

Nova Scotia are in the process, as is the federal government and amend our

Human Rights Act to include gender identity and expression as prohibitive

grounds for discrimination. If this government is truly committed to reflecting

the importance of promoting equality, understanding, and mutual respect for all,

they must do so; to not is shameful. Every voice does count.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador

and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

remains focused on the needs of Labradorians and we are committed to ensuring

there is a winter trail system to serve coastal Labrador communities not

connected to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Our Labrador Transportation Grooming Subsidy provides a total of $350,000

annually to participating community groups to help winter snowmobile access

between isolated communities and the nearest service centre during the winter

season.

Our Labrador Affairs Office administers this program and partners to provide

service to Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik, Rigolet, Black Tickle, Norman Bay,

Williams Harbour, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River, and Mud Lake.

The subsidy funding helps pay for groomer equipment, repairs to equipment,

trail marking, and upgrades. Participating communities are responsible for

marking and grooming their portion of the trail and the amount of funding

provided to each group is calculated according to trail length. Trail marking

and grooming takes place when ice thickens and snow conditions permit, which is

usually the case between mid-January and late April.

Mr. Speaker, the travelling distance between most of these remote communities

is considerable and the terrain can be challenging. Our Labrador Affairs Office

employs a seasonal trail inspector to ensure that grooming activity is carried

out in a safe manner and Global Positioning System GPS tracking devices have

been installed in grooming machines so that they can be tracked in real time via

the Internet. This same technology is used in the Cain's Quest Snowmobile Race

and helps to support the safety of trail grooming operators.

I am proud of the positive working relationships we have developed with

participating community organizations and we will continue to work together to

enhance access for Labradorians in coastal communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I do not think any

of us need to reiterate the significant importance of having snowmobile trails

groomed and properly maintained through Labrador's isolated regions. We only

have to look at the many cases of where people are often lost on these trails

and sometimes even a loss of life to realize how important it is to have these

safe trails to guide you home.

Mr. Speaker, there are still regions I know Nain and Natuashish are not

mentioned in this press release, but all communities in Labrador that are

isolated that depend upon these trails need to ensure safe routes.

My colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, is caught in a snowstorm as

we speak in Northern Labrador. He travels his district extensively by snowmobile

in winter and could speak firsthand to the importance of this. I, myself, travel

in and out of several communities in my district by snowmobile in winter and I

know, Mr. Speaker, how easy it is to get lost if you do not have a good, safe

trail to travel on.

Mr. Speaker, I know the grooming program has changed over the years. We have

seen significant cuts by the Conservative government opposite in monies for

trail grooming in Labrador. While it is still being provided to the isolated

communities, it is, no doubt, an industry that could be built upon in Labrador

as in other areas of the Province.

We fund it as a necessity but government may also want to consider funding it

as a great tourism attraction and a way to create economic benefits and business

opportunities for people in the Province as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement

today.

The transportation subsidy is very important to coastal communities of

Labrador. An investment into these communities also ensures that for some the

snowmobile trail network is maintained and an important means of access is also

protected.

We also encourage government to invest in security measures along these

routes by a strong investment, for example, into cellphone strategy, as well as

routes but to have the added security of cellphone service, for example, would

also promote the use in growth of the service, especially regarding the winter

tourism potential. We encourage the government to keep investing in these trail

networks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday of last week the Supreme Court of Canada decision placed the

responsibility with government for the more than $100 million to clean up the

old Abitibi mill which was expropriated, as you know, by accident four years

ago.

I ask the Premier: How can you explain that when you were as Natural

Resources Minister, made this mistake costing the taxpayers of this Province

more than $100 million?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. speaker.

The expropriation was done for one particular reason and that was to reclaim

for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the power assets, the water rights,

the land and the timber which had been given away to foreign interests to other

companies who are now going to abandon the Province and abandon their commitment

to operate a pulp and paper mill. Expropriation was the right thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, we know there was no intention at all of taking

that mill. That is the root of the problem here. Even though we might have taken

back the water rights and the timber rights, that was the right thing to do, but

the right thing was not to take the over $100 million bill that comes with it

from that mill.

Mr. Speaker, government found out about the $100 million mistake a full year

before telling the public. Once again, secrecy prevails with this government.

Government issued an environmental cleanup order to Abitibi. Well, we know who

owned the mill. It was government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why did you keep the details of the $100

million mistake secret for a full year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me refer people back to the debate that took place in this

Province led by the Leader of the Opposition after the election of last year

when they insisted that the House be opened, and be opened quickly.

When we took a decision to expropriate Abitibi, it was something we had to do

quickly, Mr. Speaker, because we knew the intention of the company was to sell

the assets. We brought on board the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of

the Third Party. Mr. Speaker, we shared all of the information that we had.

Mr. Speaker, we decided that we would move quickly. We only had the weekend

to prepare, but we all agreed that whatever risks were ensued and we went on

the best advice we had at the time, including advice from Justice that it was

the right thing to do and that our legislation should protect us. All three

leaders agreed. The former Premier and two leaders who sit on the other side

agreed that it was the right action.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the best advice was not taken because you did not intend on taking the

mill, and you know that. It was a mistake, Mr. Speaker. The cost of going

repeatedly to the courts to offset this mistake in an effort to clean up the

Abitibi site has been a burden now on the backs of ratepayers and taxpayers in

this Province, Mr. Speaker. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed

this with cost, meaning the government will also have to pick up the tab for the

legal fees.

I ask the Premier: How much money will the taxpayers of this Province be on

the hook for after these three failed court cases?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all three leaders agreed to act expeditiously in a very short

window of time, not doing the normal due diligence that would be required. We

had to do it to protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Inadvertently, Mr. Speaker, the mill was expropriated even though it was not

intended to happen that way. Longitude and latitude got mixed up in the

translation of the legal documents and we ended up owning the mill in Grand

Falls.

Mr. Speaker, we did not expropriate Buchans, we did not expropriate Botwood,

we did not expropriate Stephenville, and we are still landed with the cost of

remediation. We will take action as a government to ensure that these kinds of

things never happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also know that bankruptcy really did not occur until about three to four

months later. We also know that even though there were three leaders there, two

certainly did not agree with taking that mill.

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers are not only paying for the $100 million mistake by

the Premier, they have already paid $72.8 million for the energy assets, and the

federal government has paid in excess of $130 million to settle NAFTA. This

government will have to settle with another group, of course that being Fortis,

who had their property expropriated by the government during this botched

expropriation of Abitibi.

I ask the Premier: What is the status of the Fortis negotiations, and how

much more money will the taxpayers have to pay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, let me also say that when the government

became aware that the mill had been expropriated as well, we made that

information available in February. We have news stories, Mr. Speaker, that were

printed in The Telegram that weekend and an NTV report that will

substantiate that. That they did not decide to pay attention to it until six,

eight, ten months later is something that they will have to explain.

Mr. Speaker, what we did was protect the interests of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is something we are very proud of to this day.

We do have the assets; they are not being taken off the foreign markets to be

processed somewhere else, Mr. Speaker. Although we have not been able to find an

appropriate use for them yet, we will, and they are here for generations to

come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The best place start with the explanation is: why did you take the mill? We

have not heard that yet.

Mr. Speaker, when government made this $100 million mistake, the Premier was

then the lead on this file. Mr. Ed Martin was the CEO of Nalcor; he provided

technical briefings. The current Minister of Natural Resources was the Minister

of Finance, and the current Minister of Finance was the Minister of Justice.

They all played key roles in this botched expropriation.

I ask the Premier: Since the same people of the expropriated Abitibi mill by

accident are now leading the charge on Muskrat Falls, how can the people of this

Province have confidence in this multi-billion dollar project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the Leader of the

Opposition, who did not sit in the House at that time, that his current House

Leader was the Leader at the time. The current Leader of the Third Party was

sitting at that time as Leader, was part of the briefing, Mr. Speaker. We

brought in both leaders of Opposition Parties. We shared every piece of

information we had. We brought down justice lawyers so that they could question.

Mr. Speaker, neither one of these learned colleagues pointed out that we were

expropriating the mill. Based on the best information that we had, the longitude

and latitude that was put before us, and the advice that we had, we were doing

the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was in the room when the current Premier explained the Abitibi

expropriation and then sent us to a technical briefing with Ed Martin. They

stated that they would seize the water and timber rights but would leave the

mill because of the environmental liabilities. That was what was said in the

meeting. What we voted for, Mr. Speaker, was the expropriation of water and

timber rights, not the mill.

I ask the Premier: What we voted for was not what we got, so how can we have

any confidence in any of the information that you are providing on Muskrat Falls

when it is the same cast of characters that is providing the information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has never tried to defend the

expropriation of the mill, Mr. Speaker. It was never our intention to

expropriate the mill. The Opposition understands that as well as we do, but we

have the mill, Mr. Speaker; that sometimes is a consequence of doing things

expeditiously and not doing the due diligence. That is why we do not make the

same mistakes twice. We do not come in a week after an election or a month after

election and open the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. You do the due diligence

that is required.

Mr. Speaker, we did not have the luxury of doing that due diligence and

picking up a translation of longitude and latitude that inadvertently caused the

expropriation of the mill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier: it is due diligence getting a text on a term sheet at

10 o'clock in the morning and announcing it as 2:00 o'clock in the evening.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that we were told one thing, but something

completely different happened. When the Premier finally admitted that she

accidentally expropriated a mill in 2010, she claimed it would not be expensive.

I quote, on April 27, 2010, she said, "the polluter pays and under no

circumstance will we be responsible for remediation that Abitibi is responsible

for. That is the bottom line."

I ask the Premier: The Supreme Court of Canada has given you a new bottom

line; do you still think that well over $100 million mistake is not expensive to

the taxpayers of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out first of all the House Leader has no

idea how much the cost is going to be to that clean up, nor do I the final

cost. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, I have a better handle on it than she does.

The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, we ought not to have to be cleaning up these

kinds of messes anyway. The Supreme Court ruling not only sent a shiver through

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador but every government across this

country and every environmental group across this country because laws we have

passed in our Province that should be binding on companies and industries that

work here have been overruled by a federal court, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sincerely doubt the Premier has a better handle on any of this. In fact, I

will tell you your Minister of Environment said last week that it could be over

$100 million.

Newfoundland Power and the Consumer Advocate have filed lists of witnesses

for the upcoming PUB rate review. In contrast, the Premier has repeatedly denied

calling expert witnesses before the House on Muskrat Falls and is now planning

to remove the PUB from setting power rates associated with Muskrat Falls.

I ask the Premier: Why can Newfoundland Power and the Consumer Advocate call

witnesses to the PUB, but you deny that right to the people of Province on

Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing in fact is following practice set down by the

Liberals when they were government. Mr. Speaker, they removed projects like

Muskrat Falls from review by the PUB and not, as they like to shout across the

House, just the Lower Churchill, which they had destined for export and export

only, forgetting all about the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Granite Canal was developed entirely for the use of

Newfoundlanders, yet they exempted that from the PUB process. This is the most

analyzed and reported on project in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Removing projects and removing rates from the PUB are two very different

things, I say to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has stated that he has no

confidence in the PUB, even though the members of that board were appointed by

his government and the members opposite.

I ask the Premier: How can you allow the PUB to review Newfoundland Power's

rate requests and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's 2013 budget request when you

have no confidence in them? How do you justify supporting them on one review,

but not on another?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time just in this

session that the Opposition is suggesting that we ought to get rid of the PUB.

That is certainly not my view, Mr. Speaker. They perform an important role.

What is most disappointing to me Premier is that we asked them to do a

very specific piece of work on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We gave them the funds well over $2 million. We gave them the time

over nine months and they failed to live up to their obligation, I believe, to

give this government a recommendation, even though their own expert could do so,

Mr. Speaker, and their own Consumer Advocate could do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, parents in this Province have been fighting

against proposed school closures all fall. This week, school trustees with the

Eastern School District will make a final decision on which of these schools

will close. Consistent with the secrecy of Bill 29, the minister has given the

trustees the power to vote in secret.

In the interests of transparency and accountability, I ask the minister: Will

he instruct that these votes be openly recorded?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very emotional time, Mr. Speaker, for all that is involved in this

decision. The people who are elected and I stress that word, elected and a

legislative process that they go through, these are volunteers who take this

extremely serious. They know that their decisions are going to impact upon

students, parents, and all. Mr. Speaker, the process that is being carried out

right now is in legislation, and that process will be allowed to continue as is

in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the process that is in place right now was put

in place by the minister in March, 2009, bylaw 2.11 which lets trustees vote in

secret.

Mr. Speaker, in a letter dated October 22, 2012, the Member for Bellevue

district pressured the Eastern School District to keep Swift Current School

open. This also happened in 2005 during the Exploits by-election when the

minister reversed the board decision to close a school.

I ask the minister: Who decides which schools must close, the school boards,

the minister himself or any government member who exerts pressure on the board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that members, whoever they are on

either side of this House, would represent their constituents. That is what the

MHAs who have schools being affected have done. They have made the points to

school board officials on behalf of their parent community and their student

community, Mr. Speaker.

It is not about pressure. It is their efforts to present the facts so all

these facts are taken into consideration when the school board makes a decision,

Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly the point. These are elected representatives

and they, Mr. Speaker, make the decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with Kiewit in Marystown have been

ongoing for some time. Meanwhile, we continue to experience downtime and delays

with our ferry system all around the Province.

I ask the minister: When will you conclude negotiations with Kiewit so

construction can begin on these much needed vessels?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the hon. member opposite that some of the ferry

services or most of the ferry services around this Province which are

especially the ones that are operated by our own employees, Newfoundland and

Labrador employees. They are public servants. They are services provided by

contractors. I can tell you, since I came to this department, Mr. Speaker, I

have seen great success in the service that has been provided by those people to

remote parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are working with Peter Kiewit, we are working with the

company. I recently met with officials from the company. I met with the

representatives of the union. I have also recently met with the Joint Councils

of the Burin Peninsula. In the near future, Mr. Speaker, I will make my decision

on how we are going to move forward with ferry procurement to Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Section 4.11 of the Muskrat Falls federal loan guarantee clearly notes there

cannot be a change of control or sale of Nalcor, but not so the subsidiaries

that will soon be created.

Section 4.11 is open to the possibility that Muskrat

Falls can be privatized and sold. The response of the Minister of Natural

Resources last week to our concerns over that

section was to say, sale of Nalcor

subsidiaries will not happen and that everything is safe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can she guarantee that Muskrat Falls will not

be privatized?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as was noted here in the House last week, what you see in our

loan guarantee document is normal, commercial arrangements. When you go to

borrow money, to build an asset, Mr. Speaker, the asset is put there against the

loan. So, unless there is some catastrophe in Newfoundland and Labrador and

everybody decides not to pay their light bills, Mr. Speaker, in that

circumstance we might lose the generation facility. I cannot imagine who will

buy it with nobody paying their light bills, Mr. Speaker. Only under that

extreme circumstance would we lose control of the generating facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section 4.11 of the federal loan guarantee makes a clear distinction between

the sale of Nalcor and the sale of its subsidiaries. The language in that

section could not be clearer. A sale could happen after the people of this

Province have paid for Muskrat Falls. That is in that section.

I ask the Premier: Why did she agree to a contract that could allow Emera the

chance to buy part or the whole of the Muskrat Falls Project? It does not say in

extreme circumstances in that section, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this project is going to be undertaken by

subsidiaries of Nalcor and subsidiaries of Emera. What they are going to do is

they are going to borrow money; that is the debt part of the deal. The debt

equity ratio, the debt

part is going to be taken on by these subsidiaries. The

debt is going to be non-recourse to Nalcor. It is going to be non-recourse to

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The provincial government, we will put in our equity. We will put in what is

called a down payment. We will put in our equity contribution. We utilize those

funds; we utilize some from cash flow and some from debt. The revenues that will

be generated by that project will service the debt of that project. The

dividends will then come to us and the dividends will be used to pay down any

debt that we take on.

Mr. Speaker, we estimate the dividends that will come to us will average

about $480 million a year over the fifty years of the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, clause 4.11 is an out clause. This government is prepared to

unload Muskrat Falls when the cost becomes unbearable for this Province, which

they will.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Did Emera or did this government ask for

clause 4.11 to be written into the loan guarantee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the revenues that will go into Nalcor and

Emera will pay off the cost of operating those assets, the cost of constructing

the project. There is also a return that goes to the equity holder. I just

indicated that we will receive, on average, dividends of about $450 million a

year over the fifty years; on average. That is about $20 billion over the

fifty-year life of the project. I think we are going to do very well, and I do

not think we are going to have to ever worry about losing that project. That

project is going to provide stable and fair electricity rates to the people of

this Province for over 100 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So now this government cannot only talk thirty years in the future and forty

years in the future, it is 100 years now.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has signed a loan guarantee which has benefits for

the people of Nova Scotia, benefits for the shareholders of Emera

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: and ironclad protection for the federal government. By

removing the protection of the PUB, the Premier has ensured the only group who

stands to suffer on this agreement will be the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How could she present such a shameful deal to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. It is absolutely unbelievable that a

commercial term sheet is no better understood than this one obviously is here in

the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor is protected. The subsidiary will hold the asset and it

will hold all the debt, not Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, not only will we

earn enough money to pay off the debt, the government itself will earn $450

million, plus it will grow every year for the term of the project. Not only will

we be able to pay off the asset, Mr. Speaker, we will earn hundreds of millions

of dollars from Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, just a little bit of a different topic, but I

ask the Premier: Is this government ready to table the legal costs to the people

of this Province for their bid to try to get Abitibi to pay for the site cleanup

of Grand Falls-Windsor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, because the repercussions of

the ruling of the Supreme Court apply not only to Abitibi. They have

implications for other industrial sites that may be in bankruptcy protection now

or in the future, Mr. Speaker. We have to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that we do not

get left with the same mess as we did in mining until we introduced the right,

appropriate legislative measures to ensure that companies were responsible for

their own clean up.

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Opposition parties again, that we did not

expropriate Buchans, we did not expropriate Botwood, we did not expropriate

Stephenville, but we will be responsible for all of the clean up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, recently in Question Period the Minister of

Justice said the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission advised him

that there are no gaps in the current legislation protecting the human rights of

trans-people. Since then I have correspondence from the commission stating they

support the inclusion of gender identity in the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, on International Human Rights Day, I ask the minister: Will he

amend the Human Rights Act to explicitly include gender identity and gender

expression?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for her question. This is, indeed, a very

important day. That is why I took the opportunity to present a member's

statement before the House a minister's statement, excuse me. We take the

human rights of people in this Province very seriously. It is why our government

actually proclaimed changes to the Human Rights Act in 2010.

Respecting the issue that the member opposite raises, I did in fact provide,

as she paraphrases, that kind of an answer. I have been advised, even as

recently as last week, that there are no gaps in the legislation at this point

in time that prevents anybody from filing a complaint and having it heard before

the Human Rights Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, on Human Rights Day that is a shameful answer.

Mr. Speaker, Planned Parenthood provides thousands of young people with

condoms to help prevent unintended pregnancies and the spread of HIV and

sexually transmitted diseases. Newfoundland and Labrador has a rising incidence

of STDs. Planned Parenthood is basically run by volunteers on a miniscule

budget. They desperately need help.

I ask the minister: Will her department help Planned Parenthood so they can

continue to provide this crucial service to our young people who trust them and

use their services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is an issue that has recently come to us. We have committed

to speaking with the authorities involved. I should point out as well though to

the House of Assembly, and to anyone who is watching, that we do contribute

$45,000 a year in base funding to Planned Parenthood and we continue to support

the work that Planned Parenthood does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, my district has ten communities without

broadband access, with more than 200 communities Province-wide. The last Rural

Broadband Initiative announced service for ten communities. This year's

initiative had reduced funding of just $2 million meaning fewer communities will

gain access. Mr. Speaker, the Tory Blue Book promises to make a concerted effort

to provide Province-wide high-speed access within four years.

I ask the minister: How he plans for Province-wide coverage by 2015 with

continued cuts to this initiative?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member pointed out this is a four-year initiative. We

committed it in the Blue Book; we went to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Since coming to power we have increased by 312 per cent the access to

high-speed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Last year, we invested $7 million and

partnered as well for another $20 million, for a $27 million investment with our

partners.

This year we had a call for RBI proposals; we are reviewing approximately six

proposals right now for the Province, so we are continuing on the line that we

took for four years. We are continuing to build high-speed Internet. We will

continue to see communities, I think, in the hon. member's district, communities

in his district and the Northern Peninsula, continue to invest; we continue to

do that, and we will see the growth of high-speed Internet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, wireless service is unregulated. Many

hotels and small businesses have Wi-Fi or can set up access points for around

$100,

whereas carrier towers can cost millions. The Tory Blue Book promises to

work with service providers to develop a plan to expand digital and cellular

telephone access to more regions of the Province.

So I ask the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development: Will he

commit funds for wireless development that partner small business and mobility

providers for enhanced data service for rural regions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, our initiative looks at all aspects of

broadband, looks at fibre, wireless, as well as satellite. In regards to the

call we made recently in regards to technology used, there could be a

possibility for cellular to grow it out from there; that is something we are

certainly looking at. I have had discussions and dialogue with a number of

service providers in the Province and outside the Province in terms of what

their expectation would be and how we could partner with them to continue the

increase in broadband in the Province. We will continue to do that in dialogue;

anybody who is out there who wants to come and partner with us, we are certainly

happy to talk to them and see what we can do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 25, subsection 5(

a) of the

Financial Administration Act, I am tabling eleven Orders-in-Council related to

funding precommitments for the 2013-2014 to the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

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

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

a bill entitled,

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

Bill 54.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 55.

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of a resolution affirming the

principal of independent electricity rate regulation in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

It will read:

WHEREAS the electricity market in Newfoundland and Labrador is a monopoly

where ratepayers have no choice in their preferred electricity supplier; and

WHEREAS robust, independent regulation assures ratepayers that they will have

access to electrical power at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable

service; and

WHEREAS electricity is an essential commodity for domestic and commercial use

and the oversight of the cost of its service is in the public interest;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House endorses the principle of

independent electrical utility regulation for the establishment of electricity

rates in the Province to protect the interests of the provincial ratepayers.

This motion is seconded by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 63, the

motion just put forward by my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley, will be

called for debate on Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with declining enrolment, distance education by Internet is now an

accepted way to deliver educational services to students living in small

communities; and

WHEREAS students have little to no say in where they or their families

reside; and

WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to relocate so that their

children can access educational opportunities in larger centres; and

WHEREAS many small businesses rely on the Internet to conduct business; and

WHEREAS high-speed Internet permits a business to be more competitive than

does slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the Community of Bird Cove;

and

WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed Internet to residents of this

community;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner

with the private sector and offer high-speed Internet service to these

communities.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I was contacted back in the spring session after having

presented petitions on behalf of some communities regarding high-speed Internet.

The person who contacted me was a high school student in Bird Cove. He was very

concerned that even though the announcement had been made, high-speed Internet

would, in fact, pass his town, which is the only incorporated municipality in

that area, to bypass his town and not reach back as far as his town.

Approximately one to two kilometres away there will be high-speed Internet,

and this young man was very concerned that no petition was presented on their

behalf. I explained to him how the process worked. He circulated the petitions,

and here we have five pages.

This is the petition of the residents of Bird Cove, a community with a fully

functioning town office. They pay for all of their own services and they have

shrunk in size from between 600 and 700, when cod was king, to around 200 right

now a fire department, a great town, but without high-speed Internet. Mr.

Speaker, there are many other towns like Bird Cove in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

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

of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the residents of the Southwest Coast must travel the Trans-Canada

Highway between Channel-Port aux Basques and Corner Brook for work, medical,

educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS Marine Atlantic ferries dock at Channel-Port aux Basques at various

hours on a daily basis resulting in extremely high volume of commercial and

residential travellers using this

section of the Trans-Canada Highway; and

WHEREAS the world-renowned Wreckhouse area is situate along this

section of

the TCH; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a twenty-four

hour snow clearing pilot project in 2008 that excluded the

section of the

Trans-Canada Highway for Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to include

the

section of the Trans-Canada Highway from Channel-Port aux Basques to

Stephenville in the twenty-four hour snow clearing project.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I started circulating very recently. I

believe it was not last Friday, the Friday before. When I went home to my

district this weekend, I went back to my office and the stack of them that had

been returned to me from constituents all over my district was amazing. I have a

stack sitting on my desk that is probably as high as that book, and that shows

the concern that people have, the travellers in this area of the district, in

this area of the Province, that have to go back and forth for absolutely

everything.

The fact is we have the residential travellers that must travel for work.

They must travel to go to Corner Brook hospital for absolutely any service. We

have to go for any specialist service. You have expectant mothers going back and

forth to appointments and are dreading that call that might come during the

winter when the road is sometimes not fit to be on, and you know that the snow

clearing is not going to happen twenty-four hours a day and that the trucks are

off the road at 9:30 every night, no matter the conditions. That is not going to

stop you if you have to get on that road and get to the hospital in Corner

Brook.

The fact is most of us have to travel to the Deer Lake airport or even the

Stephenville airport, but the fact is we do not have the snow clearing there.

You take into consideration that we have the Marine Atlantic ferries which are

docking at all hours of the night and we have the commercial trucks just coming

off, load and go, and heading onto that highway. In some cases, as we saw just a

week-and-a-half ago, they are not fit to be on and we are having accidents where

people are going to lose lives. It is not an uncommon sight to see trucks

flipped over in the Wreckhouse there due to the wind.

What we are asking for here is a service that I think is essential. We must

take into consideration the other factors, not just volume. There is a

significant volume, but we must take into account the number of people coming,

the people who are unfamiliar with that area, and the fact that we have an

anomaly in terms of weather, just with the Wreckhouse area alone.

I appreciate the time to present this petition again on behalf of my

constituents.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very happy to present this petition on behalf of the petitioners.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS we, the residents of the City of St. John's, including the Battery,

Fort Amherst and environs are adamantly opposed to the Encanex Wastewater

Treatment Facility proposal on Pier 17, St. John's harbour front; and

WHEREAS there are potential health risks and ill-effects resulting from such

a facility being positioned in close proximity to residents, including excessive

noise and odour issues, and taking into consideration the risks of spillage and

mechanical error; and

WHEREAS we understand the need for oily waste treatment facilities and

support good environmental stewardship regarding the safe disposal of oil waste,

however, it need not be based in close proximity to our greatest asset in

provincial and city tourism, under the Battery; and

WHEREAS your government challenges us all to take an active role in promoting

our environment. Clean air, water, and land are priceless natural endowments and

protection of these resources and our historic areas such as the Battery bring a

wealth of tourism. As individuals, groups and businesses, and government, it is

our responsibility to protect and sustain this environment;

WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to reject the Encanex proposal for a

wastewater treatment facility that would process petroleum hydrocarbons, total

suspended solids, solids, metals typically associated with hydrocarbons, and

free oil on Pier 17 right under Battery Road on the City of St. John's harbour

front due to its inappropriate location that would place it too close to

residents and in direct conflict with the Province's heavily invested and unique

cultural tourism industry.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, to stand and present this petition on behalf of

the petitioners. There were four members in my district, actually, who came to

me with concerns and took it upon themselves to circulate this petition, which

has been signed by hundreds of people. Mainly people from the area most

affected, but people elsewhere in the city as well who are concerned about what

is being proposed for the Harbour Front at Pier 17.

The points of the petition are so very well written. One of the things they

are pointing out very strongly is where the facility is being proposed to be

placed. That is one of the biggest problems. I was quite shocked myself when I

saw how close it was to residences and the impact it will have on people. So I

do ask the government to pay attention to the petition as it has been put

forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS students who attend smaller community schools are more likely to

participate in extracurricular activities; and

WHEREAS Swift Current Academy's extracurricular school activities, such as

our basketball team and drama club, provide enriching after school programs for

students; and

WHEREAS the proposal to reconfigure Swift Current Academy will deny students

fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy and active school

environment; and

WHEREAS small schools research shows that students who attend smaller

community schools have a greater sense of belonging, feel safer, and are less

likely to drop out and leave school before graduation; and

WHEREAS distance education delivered through the Department of Education's

Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation have proved to be successful for

many students who have graduated from Swift Current Academy and have gone on to

attend college and university programs;

We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to

ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with adequate funds to

maintain Swift Current Academy as a K-12 school.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of schools that are affected by the decision

that will be made by the Eastern School District this Thursday, December 13, at

a meeting in Spaniard's Bay.

I listened to the Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader on CBC

radio last week when he gave an interview that was peppered with outright

fallacies in terms of why we are presenting these petitions in the House of

Assembly. He suggested we were standing here presenting these petitions to rub

this in the face of members opposite. That is certainly not our intention.

We just want to stand here and hand in petitions like this one that I

received in the mail last week from a member of the school council out in Swift

Current. As we know, government has billions of dollars for Muskrat Falls, yet

communities like Swift Current are being asked to make sacrifices with their

schools.

The government ministers say their Muskrat Falls plan will bring our light

bills down but residents in our communities do not want to be the last ones to

turn the lights out in their communities. They want community schools to remain

open, they want their excellent schools with excellent teachers, excellent staff

and students and excellent records of grassroots support to remain open. I hope

the members opposite will think more about those concerns in particular.

Thank you.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS transgendered people face high risk of discrimination, violence,

underemployment and lack of access to housing and other services; and

WHEREAS a recent EGALE Canada survey found that 90 per cent of transgender

youth hear transphobic comments regularly from other students and one-quarter

hear such comments from teachers; and

WHEREAS the Public Health Agency of Canada reports that nearly half of trans

youth seriously considered suicide and one-fifth attempted it in the previous

year; and

WHEREAS all individuals should have equal opportunity to live their lives and

meet their needs without being hindered or prevented by discriminatory practices

based on gender identity or gender expression;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to amend the Human Rights Act to include

gender identity and gender expression in the list of prohibitive grounds of

discrimination.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, when this petition was first introduced, many transgendered

youth across the Province contacted me. They said: Is it really possible that

our government is going to do it this time? Not only did the youth contact me,

their parents contacted me, a number of teachers also contacted me.

Our Human Rights Act is not about just prohibiting discrimination. It is also

about sending out a clear signal to society that discrimination on the basis of

gender identity or gender expression should be prohibited. That requires us as

legislators to take a proactive role to do education, and to do education in the

broader public.

We know that it is time to do this. It is no longer okay for our government

to hold us back. So often we are talking about the lives of our youth. The

statistics show so clearly how vulnerable they are, and also adult transgender

people who face the basest kind of discrimination and violations. The United

Nations has taken this and done something with it, as have a number of provinces

in the Country. All human rights legislators know it is basically time. There is

no good reason not to do this.

I beg this government to do the right thing, to amend our Human Rights Act to

include gender orientation and gender identity and expression in the Human

Rights Code.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS in the District of The Straits White Bay North, despite the $4

million Rural Broadband Initiative announcement on December 22, 2011, only one

community Ship Cove is slated for broadband coverage; and

WHEREAS the communities of Pine's Cove, Eddies Cove East, Bide Arm, North

Boat Harbour, L'Anse aux Meadows, Great Brehat, St. Carol's, Goose Cove,

Grandois, and St. Anthony Bight still remain without services; and

WHEREAS many small businesses within the district rely on Internet to conduct

business; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet permits a business to be more competitive than

slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet enhances primary, secondary, post-secondary, and

further educational opportunities;

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to

reinvest in the rural broadband initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I am certainly encouraged by the Minister of IBRD in his comments made during

Question Period as he is reviewing proposals. This is signed by petitioners in

Bide Arm, St. Lunaire, Bear Cove, Griquet, L'Anse aux Meadows, Green Island

Cove, Cook's Harbour, Sandy Cove, Roddickton, Raleigh, Great Brehat, and Ship

Cove. There are a number of petitioners here.

One of the things we need to look at when we are talking about really getting

a true coverage because Industry Canada has said within seven years we have to

have 97 per cent coverage is building that ubiquitous network. To do so, if we

look at the strategy beyond partnering with the big providers, we can do things

that are grass roots as well, that also include Wi-Fi repeaters, point-on-point

access through radio, and looking at things like copper wire. There are

alternate solutions. The financial implications do not have to be that high. We

can reach coverage and we can bridge gaps to these 200 communities that do not

have service, ten of them which are currently in my district.

The Regional Economic Development Board in the mid-2000s or early 2000s

tapped into the BRAND initiative and levered over $3 million to provide

broadband Internet to over twenty communities on the Great Northern Peninsula, a

very small expenditure by the provincial government and Bell Aliant at the time.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are creative solutions, and I present this petition to

the House urging to move to provide greater coverage to the District of The

Straits White Bay North.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business, and

Rural Development, Order 2, under Motions, for leave to introduce a bill,

An Act

To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961,

and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, Bill 53, and I further move that the

said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Natural

Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Churchill

Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and The Electrical Power

Control Act, 1994, Bill 53, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act,

1961, and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994", carried. (Bill 53)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation

Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. (Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 53 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act, Bill 48.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister for Service Newfoundland and

Labrador, that

An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act, Bill 48, be

now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 48 be read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act. (Bill

48)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act",

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.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3, third reading of a bill.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and

Rural Development, that

An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act, Bill 49,

be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been moved a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 49 be read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act", read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 49)

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second

reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, that Bill 51,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act,

1997, be now read a second time.

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

An Act To Amend The

Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

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

1997". (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Service Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible for the

regulation of pension plans in Newfoundland and Labrador through the Pensions

Benefits Act and associated regulations. Pensions are an important aspect of the

compensation package for many employees and provide a level of security and

income to them upon their retirement.

The amendments being introduced today will give the Minister of Service

Newfoundland and Labrador the authority to enter into a new agreement respecting

multi-jurisdictional pension plans. A multi-jurisdictional registered pension

plan is subject to the pension legislation across multiple jurisdictions within

Canada because of the nature or place of the plan members' employment. This

multi-jurisdictional agreement has existed since 1968.

In 1968, under the former Pensions Benefits Act, the minister responsible in

the Province has authorized authority to enter into multi-jurisdictional

agreements. Through changes in the ensuing years, it is becoming clear that a

new reciprocal agreement is required to establish a clear, legal framework for

the administration and regulation of pension plans across the country.

One key area which will be addressed for the new agreements will be a set of

rules which govern the division of pension plan assets across different

jurisdictions throughout the country. The previous agreement was silent on this

aspect, so it is important that these changes be made. This agreement will be

monitored by a committee which will conduct a full review every five years to

determine any required changes to the agreement. It will also provide a more

efficient regulatory environment for planned sponsors and administrators and

will reduce red tape.

It is important to note, the amendment today is not the agreement itself. In

fact, the amendment today is providing the authority to the Minister of Service

Newfoundland and Labrador and the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal

Affairs, or their designates, to sign this new agreement which will come forward

later in 2013.

Mr. Speaker, the main part of this bill, Bill 51,

An Act To Amend The Pension

Benefits Act, 1997, is it will allow the Minister Responsible for Service

Newfoundland and Labrador, "with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, to enter into an agreement governing multi-jurisdictional pension plans

where the agreement contains provisions that are not in the Act or the

legislation of another jurisdiction." Also, I should note, "This Bill would also

give the agreement the force of law." That is fairly important there.

I will go down through the act in a little while, but some of the things I

think are important that we know in background here is that the federal

government and nine of the provinces have legislation with a pensions act. The

only province in the country that does not have a pension benefits act right now

at the present time is Prince Edward Island. The whole purpose of the amendments

that I am bringing forward today is so it will give us a clearer, legal

framework.

The act as it is right now, what the amendments will do is address some of

the former issues that came forward from the present act. These amendments will

expand the authority that the minister will have in conjunction, I should say,

with the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs so that they can

enter into an agreement to make the changes where they see necessary, and most

of that is to do with the division of assets.

If you go down, there are two sections where there are changes being made in

the act. The first one is in

section 2 of the Pension Benefits Act, 1997. It

will read now, "Section 2 of the Pension Benefits Act, 1997 is amended by adding

immediately after paragraph (

v) the following:" The amendment that I am

recommending, first of all, in "(v.1) multi-jurisdictional pension plan' means

a pension plan that is subject to this Act and to the pension benefits

legislation of one or more designated provinces or of Canada" and "(v.2)

multilateral agreement' means an agreement entered into under

section 8.2".

Basically that is just a description of what the amendment that we are

suggesting means.

Number 2, the act is amended by adding immediately after

section 8 and

there are several amendments under

section 8 that we are recommending. First of

all 8.1 and this is addressing the existing agreement, "8.1 An agreement

entered into under

section 8 continues in force until it is terminated according

to its terms or until the minister and the other party to the agreement become

subject to a multilateral agreement." It is basically saying that the existing

agreement will stay in place until the amendments are put forward and accepted.

The multilateral agreement, 8.2, first of all, "The minister may, subject to

the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, enter into a multilateral

agreement respecting multi-jurisdictional pension plans with the government of a

designated province or of Canada, or with more than one of them." This is to do

with the multilateral agreement.

Mr. Speaker, "

(2) A multilateral agreement may provide for (

a) the

application of this Act and the regulations to multi-jurisdictional pension

plans; (

b) the application of the pension benefits legislation of a designated

province or of Canada to multi-jurisdictional pension plans; (

c) the application

of the multilateral agreement itself to multi-jurisdictional pension plans; and

(

d) the supervision and regulation of multi-jurisdictional pension plans."

Under the status of agreement, the changes under 8.3, the amendments that we

are recommending first of all, "

(1) A multilateral agreement shall specify the

date on which it comes into force and it acquires a force of law in the province

as of that date" and "

(2) In the event of an inconsistency between a provision

of a multilateral agreement and a provision of this Act or the regulations the

provision of the multilateral agreement prevails to the extent of the

inconsistency."

Under administrator this 8.4, "The administrator of a multi-jurisdictional

pension plan shall comply with the requirements in a multilateral agreement that

apply with respect to the pension plan and with requirements imposed under the

authority of the multilateral agreement."

When it comes down to the employer, the changes in 8.5, "An employer or

person required to make contributions to a multi-jurisdictional pension plan on

the employer's behalf shall comply with the requirements in a multilateral

agreement that apply with respect to the pension plan and with the requirements

imposed upon the authority of a multilateral agreement."

The application itself, the amendment is in 8.6 and this basically speaks to

sections 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5, specifying that "8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 do not apply to a

multi-jurisdictional pension plan unless the minister has entered into a

multilateral agreement with a designated Province or Canada to which the pension

plan is subject."

For publication, in 8.7, "

(1) The minister shall publish a multilateral

agreement and an amendment to a multilateral agreement in the Gazette as

soon as practicable after entering into a multilateral agreement or making the

amendment.

(2) A multilateral agreement or an amendment to it published under

subsection (1) is not subordinate legislation for the purpose of the Statutes

and Subordinate Legislation Act."

Basically, Mr. Speaker, what it is doing is it will give the Minister of

Service Newfoundland and Labrador an opportunity to enter into an agreement to

work with other jurisdictions throughout the country. Some examples that I could

give, we have many companies, either private or public, within the country that

have employees or people who are paying to the pension plans who work in

different parts of the country. What these amendments will do is allow us to

step into an agreement with other jurisdictions throughout the country that we

can work together with these pension plans on behalf of the benefactors.

One of the best examples I could use is a company that is in my District of

Labrador West, and that is Rio Tinto or the Iron Ore Company of Canada. They

have employees in Labrador West here in Newfoundland and Labrador and they have

employees in Quebec. In Quebec, they have them in Sept-les, they have them in

Quebec City, and they have them in Montreal. They have employees in other

western provinces within the country, so what these amendments do is if we enter

into the agreement later in 2013, it gives us an opportunity to work on behalf

of all of the pension plan contributors and they can move it.

The important thing is that the province, or Canada themselves, whoever has

the larger amount of employees in that province, they would have control of the

pension plan. For example, I go back to Rio Tinto or IOC; the largest amount of

employees that they have paying into the pension plan are within Newfoundland

and Labrador, so if we enter into a multi-jurisdictional pension plan with, for

example, Canada or with Quebec or Ontario, we would control and regulate the

pension plan because we have the most amount of employees working for that

particular company within the plan. That would give us the right to regulate it.

I guess another example I could use would be Irving Oil. Irving Oil has

employees and members paying into the pension plan that are within most of the

provinces within the country, but most of their employees are within New

Brunswick, so in that particular case New Brunswick would control the

regulations on the pension plan.

I guess one of the important things with the amendments that we are making,

and I spoke about the framework, is that if it comes to a division of assets,

someone needs to say: well, what is the best way to divide the assets? With the

amendments that we are providing here, that will give the jurisdiction that has

the major amount of the employees for a particular plan, the jurisdiction to

say: this is the best way to divide the assets. That is very important so that

control is there.

One of the other points that I would like to make concerning the amendments

that I am putting forward today is that there is actually no increase in cost

for us to bring this amendment forward. It actually will not cost us any money;

we will save money. By putting this multi-jurisdictional amendment in here and

entering into those agreements, we can actually save money and cut out some of

the red tape that we have to deal with now. From a regulatory reform

perspective, we are enhancing the plans rather than adding red tape or not

adhering to our regulatory reform.

Another thing that was questioned: concerns were out there concerning a

private company and a public company and the private company being able to buy

out the pension plan or the assets of a pension plan from a private company or a

public company. That is not something that we as a government would regulate;

that would be a negotiation between the two parties of the plan, the private

company and the public company. It is really not applicable to government or to

the amendment that I am bringing forward here.

I mentioned the multi-jurisdictional plans and the benefits of having a

multi-jurisdictional plan. As I was going down through, researching, there are

several companies within the country that have pension plans within different

provinces or with the federal government. Another example I could use would be

CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which as we all know is in all of

our jurisdictions. That one affects all of the provinces as well as the federal

government. It would be determined then: well, who would control the regulations

on that plan? It would be the province that would have the majority of

contributors to the plan itself.

When it comes to federal grants, the pension legislation, it goes by rules.

There are rules and guidelines that would be followed for the pension plan to be

there.

In conclusion, there are a couple of points I would like to make. I think the

amendments that we are bringing forward are to tighten up and strengthen the

framework that is in the existing act. It is cutting down on our red tape.

Regulatory reform is something that we are strengthening here.

We are giving an opportunity to work with other jurisdictions within the

country and with the federal government itself. This is an amendment that would

allow the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the Minister

for Intergovernmental Affairs, to enter into an agreement which, if these

amendments move forward, we anticipate happening within 2013.

Right now, as I stated, when it comes to pension plans being regulated, there

are federal regulations there. We have nine provinces as well as the federal

government themselves that are already into it. Ontario and Quebec have already

entered into a multilateral agreement, which is something. We are in the process

as well, I think there are maybe seven other provinces that are considering

moving into these agreements now.

I think it is a good thing; I think it is a progressive move for our

government to put these amendments in there, allowing the minister to move

forward and consider an agreement early in the spring.

I recommend that we accept these amendments as put forward and move forward

with Bill 51.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to Bill 51. The government is bringing this bill into force

at a time when we are seeing a lot of major development projects occurring in

the Province and we are seeing a lot of companies obtaining contracts in

Newfoundland and Labrador, some that have been traditionally based here and

employing people for quite some time, but a lot of other companies that are

coming in, companies that operate in all different jurisdictions across Canada

and even outside of the country in other parts of North America and other

countries around the world.

I guess I could see the reason for government wanting to do this. I tried to

follow most of what the minister was saying in his comments, but it is my

understanding that most provinces across Canada do have this legislation, or at

least some of them. I am understanding that PEI is one of the ones that has not

yet bought into this kind of legislation around pensions, but it is my

understanding that most other provinces in Canada have, or will be passing

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the multi-jurisdictional pension plan, as the minister said,

seeks to ensure that there is a minister or manager of a pension plan, even

though it may cross over different jurisdictions or different provinces in

Canada, but there would be one particular province that would maintain that

pension plan on behalf of all of the employees that would be in that particular

company.

The act itself under the explanatory notes states that it will "allow the

minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to enter into

an agreement governing multi-jurisdictional pension plans where the agreement

contains provisions that are not in the Act or the legislation of another

jurisdiction".

I would assume that in bringing this into force, these multi-lateral

agreements would have to be agreed upon by the other provinces. They would also

have to be agreed upon by the employer. That would be my understanding.

It is also my understanding that whatever conditions that are agreed upon in

that multi-lateral contract between these partners or jurisdictions, that would

be the prevailing legislation, that would be the prevailing terms that would

govern that act. So, even if it is not written in legislation, whatever is in

that multilateral agreement would prevail in terms of exercising or carrying it

out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would regulate it.

MS JONES: Yes, would regulate it.

Okay, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that I would want to speak

to, and that is that I am not sure if we have any multi-lateral agreements that

are already in place in the Province to date, or if we have employees of this

Province that are already having their pension funds administered under a

multilateral agreement in another jurisdiction of Canada. It would be

interesting to know that; it would be interesting to know how it is currently

working and if it is working in favour of employees who are under this

particular program or not.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to know what happens in a case where a

province may not agree, or where a company may not agree; then, of course, there

is no agreement, but I guess the pension funds are then continued to be

administered by the individual provinces or would you have a multilateral

agreement that excludes somebody?

So, it could be five provinces that are affected, but only four are prepared

to sign on to a multilateral agreement. Does that then constitute an agreement

or does it not? Can an agreement be broken if one party is not a signatory to

it? That is where I am coming from, because obviously there could be situations

like that; again, there may be cases where a company may not want to have

Newfoundland and Labrador as the manager of a pension fund, even though we may

have the predominant number of employees.

Take IOC, for example, or Rio Tinto, that we talked about. We know that Rio

Tinto has employees in the Northwest Territories; we know that they have a lot

of employees in Quebec; we know they have a lot of employees in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I am sure they have employees in other jurisdictions of Canada. So

say, for example, that because the majority of employees are in Newfoundland and

Labrador in this case, we would become the manager of the pension fund.

What if the company is not in agreement with that and they want to have those

pension funds managed in Quebec where they have their head office and where

everything is more so based, from a management perspective, for their company?

Is it possible to make those requests, or does a unilateral agreement the term

and condition that wherever the most employees are, that is where the pension

fund is managed is that the predominant factor, or is it something that could

be settled in a different way? Those are questions that we would definitely have

around the fund.

The other piece is with regard to the workers. Is there an impact for

employees, for example, where their pension fund is administered? I am assuming

there is not, but I would like to ask the question simply because a company

pension fund, I am assuming, is regulated and applies the same in all

jurisdictions within Canada. That being the case, there should not be any unfair

advantage to any employees within that company regardless of where the fund is

administered. I would like to have that confirmed.

Mr. Speaker, also we have companies in this Province the minister has cited

Rio Tinto and Irving Oil, which as we know are predominantly Canadian-based

companies. We have companies as well like Kiewit that are currently operating in

Calgary, currently operating in Marystown. They have two predominant bases in

Canada, as well as operating in other jurisdictions of the country.

We also know they are both based out of Omaha in the United States. We know

they are predominantly an American-based company. How does that come into play

under the new multilateral agreement on multi-jurisdictional management of

pension funds if that company is actually based in the United States and not

based in Canada? Is there an impact or is there not? Does it even make a

difference? I do not know.

We have another company, Vale Inco or Vale as they like to call themselves

these days that are based in South America for example. What would be the

status on a company like that? We know they have employees in Northern Ontario,

in Sudbury, in Manitoba, in Newfoundland and Labrador. We also know they are a

South American-based company. They are not a Canadian base, while they may have

Canadian subsidiaries.

How does that come into play in legislation like this when that becomes

negotiated? Who are the people who sign on? Is it the based company in South

America that signs on, or is it Vale's operations in Newfoundland and Labrador,

and in Manitoba and in Ontario that would be signatories to this particular

agreement.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of other things with regard to that. SNC-Lavalin,

of course, is another one that has internationally based operations and

international operations. Is that impacted at all or are we just restricted to

Canadian jurisdictions, or do we take in all jurisdictions outside of our own

country?

Mr. Speaker, again, I guess we can look forward to seeing a lot more of these

companies doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the mining

industry and in the oil and gas sector. As you know, we are one of the strongest

players in both industries in this country. We also know we have expertise being

used in this Province that comes from all over the world. These people are

setting up companies and bases of operation here. In that base of operation, of

course, there is a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are employed.

Mr. Speaker, also I would ask: The Province in administering these pension

funds as a multi-jurisdictional partner, is there a cost associated with that?

If so, who pays for that cost? The minister is saying there is not any cost. So

I am assuming that the

MR. MCGRATH: (Inaudible) going to save money.

MS JONES: We are going to save money. So, maybe he can tell me about that

when he gets up, how we are actually going to save money because if we are going

to be administering pension funds for different jurisdictions of the country

where companies have bases of operations, I would be interested to know how that

is going to be a saving to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that would be the premise of most of my questions

today. How it will affect the employees, how it affects companies that have

based operations outside of Canada. What happens when a signatory of one of

these multilateral agreements does not sign on? What would be the cost

associated with doing it, and where the key benefits are for us as a Province

and for people who work with these companies.

I would ask the minister if he could address some of that when he closes

debate in second reading and that will be the extent of my comments. However, my

colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, may have some comments that he would like

to add as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for St. John's West

and Parliamentary Secretary of Advanced Skills and Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly delighted to speak on Bill 51,

An Act To Amend The Pension

Benefits Act, 1997.

I thank the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador for inviting me to

stand and speak in support of this legislation. I would like to call out a few

of the high points and highlights of the legislation to make sure that everybody

watching fully understands exactly what these amendments mean and the benefits

of these amendments because it is a very important piece of legislation

This amendment would give the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador

the authority to enter into a new agreement, with the approval certainly of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, respecting multi-jurisdictional pension plans.

Mr. Speaker, this is an enabling piece of legislation.

The Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair made a couple of very good points

here in how this would affect multi-jurisdictions outside of Canada. I look

forward to the comments from the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador

with regard to that. There are a few assumptions I could make. I worked with a

global company before I was elected here. Most companies do have to register

themselves within the jurisdictions that they operate. I am sure the regulations

would come into play then in terms of protecting pensions of employees. I will

let the minister speak to that.

Service Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible through the Pension Benefits

Act to administer the regulation of pensions in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to multi-jurisdictional regulation, for example between

provinces, the ability to regulate pensions is less clear. It is important

obviously, we all recognize how important it is to protect pensions of workers

if a pension plan winds up or goes defunct for whatever reason.

There are many reasons why that could happen, right from businesses going out

of business, or businesses or corporations making decisions to discontinue their

pension plans. For whatever, and right now that is difficult when jurisdictions

cross provincial boundaries, we have to find ways we can protect the monies

invested for the employees in these plans. This is what this is all about.

Presently the way regulation works across Canada, eight of nine other

provinces have separate regulation that oversees pensions. As recognition of

this and a perceived need to co-ordinate pension regulation, all the provinces

as well as the federal government, as the minister alluded to earlier, are

prepared to sign an agreement around how multi-jurisdictional pensions are

regulated. We are moving forward on that agreement.

The federal government has agreed to enter into this agreement and two

provinces, as mentioned earlier, have actually signed this agreement. I believe

it is Quebec and Ontario. The other provinces are all going through this

enabling type of legislation to allow their authorities' representatives to sign

on this agreement as well, Mr. Speaker.

What this agreement will mean once all provinces sign on is the province that

has the most plan members will end up regulating that plan, which makes,

obviously, a great amount of sense. We end up regulating each other's

jurisdiction on behalf of the other provinces and vice versa. It is sensible, it

is common sense, and it is something that needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, this was not contemplated before and was recognized as a gap in

the regulation of pensions across Canada. It has been talked about for several

years amongst provinces, amongst the federal government, but now they really

recognize with the global economy, with the interprovincial jurisdictions, with

the growth of our economy overall in Canada, that this situation could become

more and more prevalent and we need to make sure that we are protecting the

rights of workers.

How provinces divide assets when pension plans wind down will now be divided

between jurisdictions based on an agreed to formula. So, that formula right now

obviously needs to be negotiated, that agreement obviously is ready close to

being signed is my understanding, and I think they are going down that right

path.

If a pension plan goes defunct, how to distribute funds is very complicated

and not clear, and once this was recognized, provincial governments across the

country have been working on harmonized legislation, and this agreement brings

us a step closer, this agreement will help reduce red tape, and will provide

consistency, Mr. Speaker. This is something not only provincial governments and

the federal government has been asking for, this is something that industry has

asked for as well.

Mr. Speaker, this forty-three page agreement will now set out rules governing

the administration, funding, and division of pension plan assets providing a

more efficient regulatory environment for plan sponsors and administrators. One

of exceptions to note is industries regulated by the federal government, which

will have their pension plans obviously regulated by the federal government.

This agreement and this amendment have absolutely no impact on the public

service pensioners, which are not affected in any way. So, with regard to our

public service pensioners in this Province, they are not affected by this

agreement, or by this legislation and these amendments that we are proposing.

So, we are basically looking at private employers that have operations in more

than one province, that have employees and pension plans, and it is the intent

of this agreement to protect the assets in these plans and protect them in a way

that is in the best interests of the plan members, the employees.

The essence of the amendments and the legislation goes back to, again, the

plan members, the employees, and protecting the monies that they have built up

over their careers in their pension plans.

So, let us recap once again what Bill 51 is all about. Today, Service

Newfoundland and Labrador is introducing amendments to the Pension Benefits Act.

They are responsible, again, through the Pension Benefits Act and associated

regulations to administer the regulation of pensions in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

A new reciprocal agreement is necessary to establish a clear legal framework

for the administration and regulation of pension plans across the country. This

agreement will be monitored by a committee which will conduct a full review

every five years to determine any required changes to the agreement. The

agreement will set up rules governing administration, funding, and division of

pension plan assets across different jurisdictions. It will also provide a more

efficient regulatory environment for plan sponsors and administrators, and it

will reduce red tape.

Just to reiterate, this amendment will give the Minister of Service

Newfoundland and Labrador the authority to enter into this new agreement. This

amendment is not the agreement. It is the authority to enter into the new

agreement, which has basically given him the authority to allow Newfoundland and

Labrador to be a signatory to this new agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this is positive legislation for workers in this Province, and

as a result, I will be supporting this legislation. I encourage all members to

do the same.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is another one of those days and another pension bill. The first thing I

asked myself when these pension bills were coming through last week, I had to

stop and I had to think to myself that something was amiss or something was

happening in this world that was a little bit disconcerting. It is no different

today when we are talking about Bill 51,

An Act to Amend the Pension Benefits

Act. Maybe I am just being a little bit pretentious over this, but there is good

reason for concern when we are seeing the changes that are coming up, especially

when it comes to administration.

Last week we were dealing with the various other groups that are affected by

changes in pensions. For example, we were dealing with teachers' pensions last

week. We were talking about uniformed services. What else were we talking about

but pensions over the last couple of weeks? It brought to mind the reason

possibly why government has had to come back and look at pensions, not only for

the unfunded liability end of things, but out of deep concern over pensions.

Everybody in this Province, if not in the country if not in the world, for

that matter are probably thinking about their pensions more so than they ever

have been. This will just give you some sort of a hint with regard to what

government is thinking about pensions as well when it comes to this.

They do not enter into agreements like this on a willy-nilly basis. They take

their time, hopefully, and they look at the administrative end of things. Again,

even just for simple administration, it makes you question about pensions.

Like I said, it seems over the last ten or fifteen years it has been very

disconcerting when you are talking about, for example, how much the unfunded

pension liability is to the Province and how much the Province has to contribute

in order to catch up and make these plans viable again.

Then I ask myself: well, if I am looking at administration when it comes to

federal-provincial regulations, I have to ask myself: what is the Province

really trying to do here?

I know that some people are probably thinking: listen here, boy. This is

pretty basic stuff; this is about the administration. For example, Air Canada, I

think, was one example that was used that would fall under federal jurisdiction;

for example, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would be something that would fall

under provincial jurisdiction, because it operates within the Province and not

cross country.

Then I sat down and I asked myself, the changing dynamics of the Newfoundland

and Labrador economy here, even begging to question why government has to change

it so fast you turn on the TV every day now, Mr. Speaker, and you are looking

at the changing dynamics of Canadian-owned companies. For example, we saw Nexen

the other day in Alberta being bought out by CNOOC out of China.

The Chinese state oil company now owns Nexen. I would imagine that some

people are going to be concerned over the handling of their pension plan if

there is one at Nexen and exactly how their funds are going to be held in the

future, and how they are going to be dealt with when it comes to pension time,

knowing the effect of what is happening.

We also have the same thing happening up in Labrador, where there are massive

amounts of Chinese investment that are happening up there. Some people may be

wondering exactly what the administration is going to be like of their pension

plan, knowing that they are now partly Chinese owned and there is a massive

Chinese interest in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy.

One of the things I was thinking of was: what about the effect of this law,

for example, on a Crown corporation that belongs to the Province? I thought to

myself, one that has obviously been in the news lately, tied up with the Muskrat

Falls deal: let us talk about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, being one of the proponents in this particular case, or an arm

of Muskrat Falls what could possibly happen, say, if Emera bought Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro down the road? What would happen to the pension plan there?

It should be a direct concern. Government on one hand would be able to turn

around and shake some of the pension liabilities that it would have and it would

be able to just say: hey, I do not own you anymore; Emera owns you, so you are

going to have to look after your own pension plan. I would like to know where

government would stand, for example, there, when it comes to the sale of a

Newfoundland and Labrador Crown asset like that.

It could be Newfoundland Labrador Liquor Corporation. There have been rumours

of privatization talked about for years there when it comes to that. That was a

big concern for me. When it comes to second reading and it comes to Committee of

the Whole, it would be a direct concern of me and a direct concern of other

workers for Crown corporations in the Province, exactly what would happen there.

We are seeing everyday changes, for example, when it comes to health care in

this Province. We are seeing some of the cafeteria workers and everything going

to a private concern. We are seeing some other government workers going to

private companies. For example, Morrison is another company that recently moved

into the Province over the last couple of years.

For example, the people who are doing portering, or the management for

portering now belongs to a company from outside the Province and is no longer

falling under the ring of Eastern Health, or the health department in this

Province. That is the concern where I am coming from, I say to the minister. I

would hopefully be encouraged by some of the answers that he will give later on

to that.

The changes here are reflective of the dynamics of pension plans themselves.

There is no such thing as a solid pension plan anymore. I think, right now, what

government is trying to do with this legislation is come out and put a line in

the sand and say: this is yours, and this is my responsibility. Because it falls

under federal jurisdiction and other provinces have done this over the last

ten, twelve years I think it is now since this type of legislation has been

coming through. I think it is about the last ten or twelve years.

I think readily