November 26, 2012

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 58

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of order in relation to comments made by the Leader

of the Third Party on Thursday, November 22, 2012.

I read from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, a question, comment put to me by the Leader

of the Third Party and Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, "Mr. Speaker, a

report from the Harvard Kennedy School suggests a worldwide glut of oil

production could drop the price of oil to below $60 a barrel for some time. This

downward movement in the price of oil erodes the government's rationale for

their Muskrat Falls Project."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there is an obligation on members of this

House when referring to reports or making comments in this hon. House to be

accurate in the information put forward, especially as this information is

relied upon by the public. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, there is a

reference to a price of oil, a report, and specifically then relating it to

Muskrat Falls.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I obtained a copy of the report, it is called "Oil: The

Next Revolution", it is by out of the Harvard Kennedy School a Leonardo

Maugeri, June, 2012. Mr. Speaker, I have gone through that report, and nowhere

in that report is the quote attributed to the author, by the Leader of the Third

Party referenced. Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Third Party states that

a report suggests a worldwide glut of oil production could drop the price of oil

to $60 a barrel for some time.

Mr. Speaker, if you will just read the executive

summary, you will see that

the references there are to the fact that the author uses the assumption of $70

a barrel of Brent, in order to make his predictions. Also, Mr. Speaker, the

author in this case is dealing with shale oil production in the United States

and how that could impact the global oil business, in terms of the United States

becoming potentially self-sufficient. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the comments mirror

the report released by the Department of Natural Resources on PIRA's forecast

methodology by Dr. Mark Schwartz, which was released at the same time we release

electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, the only other reference that I can find in this report is that

the shale oil would have to drop to $50 to $65 a barrel before it would be

uneconomical, Mr. Speaker. What we have is a situation where the Leader of the

Third Party references the price of oil, references the Muskrat Falls and there

is no reference in a seventy-five page report to the comment that she makes.

Mr. Speaker, in fact when you look

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: When you look at the predictions of oil, and I have looked

at now I have PIRA, Sproule Associates, GLJ Petroleum Consultants, their

latest forecast all indicate from 2012 to 2030 a barrel of oil will not go below

$100 a barrel.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is the Leader of the Third Party providing

inaccurate information to the public and I would suggest that that is not

consistent with the role of a member of this House, and if she has not read the

report that is even worse. If she is relying on the information provided by

someone else, that is even worse.

Mr. Speaker, what we do on this side of the House, we rely on experts. We do

not rely on what people tell us, who are non experts, Mr. Speaker. I would

suggest that in this particular case the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

apologize and withdraw her comments and not do it again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, to the point of order.

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

I guess I am a bit surprised at this being called a point of order. There are

all kinds of pieces of information that are out there around the issue that we

are talking about, when one is putting a

preamble together for a question then

it is very possible that shorthand can be interpreted in many ways by different

people.

There was no intent

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: There was no intent in any way, Mr. Speaker, to mislead the

public or mislead this House. The intent of the

preamble, the intent of the

question I think was very clear and I absolutely do not see any point of order,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will undertake to review Hansard and review the

comments referenced and report back to the House at a later point.

Before we start proceedings today, I want to share a comment around consent

with the House. This comes about as a result of a practice that had evolved over

some time in the manner which the House has dealt with unanimous consent. I want

to formally read for you a ruling that the Chair is making with respect to how

we deal with consent in the House, and I would ask the House to be guided by

this as we move forward.

In our House it has been the practice, when a member requests leave to "clue

up" a speech, for the Speaker to ask if the member has leave. If no one objects,

the member is given such leave. In this particular case, the question is very

vague and the procedure very informal. The amount of time allocated to the

member is not specified. We have allowed an individual member, on the basis of

the consent being given by the House, individual members periodically will, on

their own, withdraw such leave, and as a result the Chair has withdrawn leave.

This practice is an anomaly, as in other cases once leave is given it cannot

be withdrawn, as once the decision is made the House is seized of the matter and

the change can be effected only by another unanimous decision of the House.

For example, the Speaker has ruled that once leave has been given to waive

the rules for a certain purpose it cannot be withdrawn in the middle of the

proceeding for which leave has been given. Leave given to revert to Ministerial

Statements, for example, was not allowed to be withdrawn before the Official

Opposition had responded, as the statement and response are a unit. You will

find that in Hansard, March 11, 1991, page 153.

Similarly, when leave has been given to forego Private Members' Day in favour

of government business, leave could not be withdrawn during that day. The

Speaker ruled that the Order Paper had been prepared as per the agreement and

the proceedings thus far had been in accordance with that agreement. It was an

order not to withdraw leave. You will find that in Hansard, July 24, 1996, on

pages 1168-37.

In other jurisdictions, once leave is given it cannot be withdrawn with the

exception of another decision of the House: unanimous consent is again required

or, if such a decision was taken on a motion, by another motion.

In cases of leave to exceed speaking time, in future, unless a specified

amount of time is requested, the member asking for leave will ask for leave for

a very specific period of time. In the absence of that happening, and the

consent is given, from here on in presiding officers will specify that the

amount of time allocated for leave to clue up will be two minutes.

If members are asking for leave to clue up, in the absence of specifying an

amount of time that they have, the Chair will automatically assume it is two

minutes. Leave cannot be withdrawn in that period of time, but, at the end of

the two-minute period the leave will expire.

This should deal with the whole issue of unanimous consent. I would ask

members to recognize: when the House provides unanimous consent to do something,

it should not do it lightly. Recognize that once you have given it, the House is

seized with it and you will not be able to withdraw it. I would ask members to

be guided by this as we move forward.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from: the Member for the

District of Humber West; the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor

Green Bay South; the Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair;

the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the Member for the District of

Mount Pearl North; and the Member for the District of St. John's South.

The hon. the Member for the District of Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this House to

congratulate the Forget Me Not Committee for their tireless efforts in bringing

about remarkable enhancements to Remembrance Square in Corner Brook.

The work of local sculptor Morgan MacDonald is nothing short of remarkable

and is on full display in the square. Through the work of the Committee, there

are now three sculptures that adorn the cenotaph; they include a caribou

unveiled in July 2012, as well as sculptures of a First World War veteran

modelled after a Lewis gunner and a modern-day soldier styled after those who

have served and continue to serve in Afghanistan, both of which were unveiled on

November 10 of this year. The Lewis gunner, as it is positioned closest to St.

John the Evangelist Cathedral, really gives a feel for the past, while the

modern-day soldier provides a feel for the present by flanking the new city

hall.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Forget Me Not

Committee, as well as sculptor Morgan MacDonald, for their incredible work, and

wish them well as they embark to finally complete the project with a couple of

more additions in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor

Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate seven-year-old Christopher Higgins

of Grand Falls-Windsor on his keen and creative art and writing skills.

Christopher is not writing and colouring his drawings just for fun; he loves to

help people and he has put all his abilities together to write books.

He decided to put his talent to work as a fundraiser for the Central

Newfoundland Regional Health Centre. He loves action heroes and draws and writes

books and sells them to family and friends. He has sold fifteen books and has

about thirty left to sell. He has raised $89.20. This money he makes goes to the

hospital because he heard on the news that they needed extra money.

I ask my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in thanking Christopher for

sharing his talent and money, and wish him every success in future book writing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate Mr. Terry Casey on receiving the

Distinguished School Administrator of the Year Award for 2011-2012.

This award is known as the Victor May Award and is presented every year by

the Western School District. Formal nominations are submitted and his nomination

was submitted by the school council in the Labrador Straits region.

Mr. Casey is currently the principal of Labrador Straits Academy. He had

taken on that position when the new regional school was built in the area just

over two years ago. He has spent over twenty-seven years in the education field

and he has been instrumental in the lives of so many young people in that area

throughout his career.

Mr. Casey believes in working in partnership with community, with teachers,

and with parents. No doubt that has been a large part of his success as an

administrator.

I ask members in the House to join me in congratulating him on being

presented with the Distinguished Administrator of the Year Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 17, I had the pleasure of

attending the Meadows Volunteer Fire Department fortieth anniversary

celebrations. It was a great evening honouring the contribution and dedication

of this group of firefighters who have given their time and services to the

town.

This evening also marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Firettes who

have given unwavering support to the fire department. On Sunday night they

demonstrated this again by donating $7,000, bringing their total to almost

$70,000.

Mr. Speaker, the evening also recognized Mr. Derek Hann, the longest-serving

member of the department, for his forty years of service. In recognition of his

service, Mr. Hann received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, as well

as being award the Firefighter of the Year Award.

In addition to Mr. Hann, five other residents were presented with the Diamond

Jubilee Medals for their long-time contribution to the town. Recipients of the

medals were: Jim and Phyllis Brake, Roger White, Mayor Ken Marche, and Fire

Chief Colin Tucker.

Mr. Speaker, it was very fitting that on the department's fortieth

anniversary they took the liberty of their new 1050 pumper fire truck, which I

had the honour of presenting on behalf of the minister.

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

to the Meadows volunteer firefighters, Firettes, and the Diamond Jubilee Medal

recipients on their contribution and dedicated service to the town.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate O'Donel High School student,

Hannah Jardine, on her recent success in the sport of basketball.

Any day now, Hannah will sign her contract with the University of Delaware,

where the University of Delaware Blue Hens is ranked seventh overall in United

States women's college basketball. Playing NCAA Division One basketball on a

full scholarship is a tremendous achievement that requires celebration by both

Ms Jardine and her friends and family.

Already having experience playing internationally, most recently Hannah

helped Team Canada win a bronze medal at the FIBA Under-17 World Championship

held in Amsterdam this past August. She has been turning the heads of basketball

scouts for quite some time. Along with her promising basketball career, Hannah

will also pursue an engineering degree while attending university.

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

Hannah Jardine on this significant achievement, as well as wishing her all the

best with her academic and basketball career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, today I acknowledge the work of a consistent in

my district, Karen Moores, who this month is leading efforts to raise awareness

of pancreatic cancer in this Province. In honour of her late mother, Karen is

raising funds for Pancreatic Cancer Canada through Purple Hope, an on-line

auction.

Purple is the colour promoted by the national office of Pancreatic Cancer

Canada during November, Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. Please wear the

ribbons on your desk to support the many Newfoundland and Labrador families who

know first-hand the devastating impact of this cancer.

Pancreatic Cancer is among the most lethal cancers: approximately 74 per cent

of people diagnosed will die within a year; 4,400 Canadian families will face

the horrors of this cancer this year.

Through Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month and activities like the Pancreatic

Cancer Purple Hope Auction, we can work to change the face of this cancer here

at home and around the world.

I applaud the work of Karen Moores in honour of her late mother and wish her

and the Pancreatic Cancer Canada Team the best as they work to raise funds

towards early detection and research for this cancer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services

and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to announce the start of the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's third annual Purple Ribbon Campaign to

increase awareness and education on violence against women.

The campaign, which is funded through the Violence Prevention Initiative,

will run until December 10, coinciding with the 16 Days of Activism Against

Gender Violence.

Women in Newfoundland and Labrador experience physical, sexual, emotional,

psychological, spiritual, and cultural violence, as well as verbal and financial

abuse and neglect. According to RNC and RCMP data, from 2006 to 2010 over 14,000

violent incidents were committed against women over the age of eighteen in our

Province. Unfortunately, we know that the actual number is likely quite higher,

as only 10 per cent of women will report victimization to police.

Our government's response to violence in the Province is our Violence

Prevention Initiative, a six-year, multi-departmental, government-community

partnership to find long-term solutions to violence against those most at risk.

Over the past year, we have been completing a comprehensive consultation and

evaluation process on the first phase of the violence prevention initiative. We

are also currently finalizing the Phase II Action Plan, which will help us

continue to address violence against core populations most likely to experience

violence and abuse.

Violence against women is an issue that we must all come together to address.

The Purple Ribbon Campaign is a great example of how the provincial government

and the community works together to prevent violence in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, both and men and women can help spread the message that violence

of any kind is unacceptable. Over the next sixteen days, I ask all residents to

show their support for ending violence against women by wearing a Purple Ribbon

pin and placing a Purple Ribbon magnet on their vehicle.

Purple Ribbon Campaign materials are available in communities across the

Province, through municipalities and Regional Coordinating Committees Against

Violence. To find out where you can obtain Purple Ribbon materials or to get

more information on preventing violence against women, please visit

www.respectwomen.ca.

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 her statement.

The Purple Ribbon Campaign was launched a couple of years ago to help create

awareness and prevent violence against women. I am always encouraged whenever I

see people sporting the magnet on their cars because it is creating more and

more awareness of what is actually happening in our society. In the news today

we hear a story from Natuashish where police are searching for a woman who was

physically assaulted on Friday in that community and is now in hospital.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the MHA for Torngat Mountains has lobbied

government to reconsider the mandate that Aboriginals be given special treatment

in sentencing. I commend him for his honesty and advocacy regarding violence in

Aboriginal communities. Certainly, we know violence against women happens in all

cultures, but if you look at the statistics they show that Aboriginal women are

approximately three-and-a-half times more likely to experience some form of

spousal violence than non-Aboriginal women.

The 2008 Statistics Canada survey revealed that only 4 per cent of women are

unable to identify their abuser. Unfortunately, and sadly, 85 per cent of cases

of violence against women, their perpetrator is their spouse or their partner.

Women are most at risk in their own homes, and that is a very chilling thought.

Separation is a particularly dangerous time for women, as we know, with 80 per

cent of murders are by ex-spouses and they occur within a year of separation.

Many of us know of women who live in fear with a partner or a spouse and we

need to ensure there is protection and there are options and services for women

who have the courage to walk away from their abuser. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it

is critical and it is crucial that we demonstrate our intolerance for violence

against women by supporting the provincial government's Purple Ribbon Campaign

and continuing to advocate for justice for all women inflicted by violence in

our society.

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 an advance copy of her statement, and thank

you to all those who have worked so hard on this campaign.

The lack of safe and affordable housing is a major barrier to women being

able to get out of abusive relationships. Women are staying longer in transition

houses and second-stage housing because they cannot find affordable housing in

the community to start a new life with their children. Rents and housing prices

have doubled across the Province and any form of housing is scarce.

Women and children escaping violence are also entering a world where single

moms live in poverty, where Income Support, even with child supplements is not

enough for women to raise their children on. I hope that Phase II of the

Violence Prevention Initiative will address the barriers of housing and income

for women escaping violence.

Thank you.

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.

We learned this morning through a CBC investigation that another proposal for

the former Abitibi mill in Grand Falls-Windsor is dead. The Minister of Natural

Resources stated in May that there were serious discussions ongoing with York

Energy.

I ask the Premier: Why did you abruptly cancel these negotiations on this

proposal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

York Energy was seeking $12 million from the government and an allotment of

fibre to proceed with what they said would be a wood pellet facility, thermal

plant and sawmill. The first proposal, Mr. Speaker, was received on November 26,

2010. For almost two years, Mr. Speaker, we were in conversation with this

group. There were numerous areas of uncertainty and an inability to obtain

financial information.

In July 2012 sorry, I am not allowed to point over that we were told

there would be no sawmill. Mr. Speaker, at that point, that was the last straw.

We indicated to York Energy that we were no longer interested in proceeding with

them. There will be an expression of interest sent out in 2013.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The situation is like government's previous attempt to negotiate a deal with

a German paper company. That company turned out to be bankrupt. Here we go

again, back and forth with York Energy for over two years, as the minister said.

What do we actually know about York Energy? Apparently nothing, because nobody

has really heard of them.

I ask the Premier: What due diligence is given to potential investors in our

resource-based industries? Will you please table all the documents related to

the negotiations with York Energy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There were three government departments involved in this file; there was

Finance, IBRD, and my department, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite has actually

hit upon the main issue: that we could not find the information to verify what

York was saying.

We kept going back and saying: provide us with the financial information,

provide us with the financial information. They said they had backings, Mr.

Speaker, of different investors. I was on one phone call where there were

investors from Toronto on the call.

Mr. Speaker, we did what we could, because we feel that we have to do what we

can to ensure the growth in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We have done what

we can in Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker. We wanted this mill to work. We are

not going out on a limb and wasting government money, and $12 million is simply

too much to ask in this case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that this government has not only failed the people of Central

Newfoundland by failing to land a credible proposal for the mill, but they have

also allowed the property to fall into disrepair. The mayor of Grand

Falls-Windsor even stated that the property is deteriorating on a weekly basis.

I ask the Premier: When are you going to clean up the hundreds of millions of

dollars of mess that you accidentally expropriated?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have gone forward with expressions of interest, letting

everyone know what is available in the Central part of our Province. We have

developed reasonable terms to talk to people, to encourage development. It just

has not happened.

We are not going to put $12 million on the table unless we have a good, solid

business plan and a prospect for success, Mr. Speaker. Until the possibilities

are completely and totally eliminated for the use of the infrastructure in Grand

Falls, we will continue to maintain it. When the opportunities no longer exist

and we are sure of that, Mr. Speaker, then we will deal with the issues in Grand

Falls with regard to infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: The question was more about the environmental damage that is

being done out there. We all know there have been serious changes made, even

around security.

Mr. Speaker, another question. Back on April 26, I asked the Premier to

release the terms of reference to the Ziff study on natural gas. At the time the

Premier agreed, but never followed through. Last week, a former energy advisor,

Mr. Cabot Martin, issued a scathing review of Ziff's report on natural gas.

So I ask the Premier: After committing to the release of the terms of

reference on April 26, why are you still holding it back? Why are you still

hiding that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When Dr. Stephen Bruneau gave his presentation at the Harris Centre, he made

some serious proposals, something we felt had to be looked at. We retained Ziff.

They watched the Harris presentation of Dr. Bruneau, but then we decided to go a

step further.

Unlike Mr. Martin, we will name our experts. What I have here in my hands,

Mr. Speaker, is a report from Wood Mackenzie, a highly-recognized international

energy advisor, which says: in Ziff's report on the natural gas pipeline, the

analysis and conclusion were reasonable, but if anything, Ziff's estimates of

cost were lower than what Wood Mackenzie's would have been. They went on to say

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador may find it difficult to enter

a contract.

We will be releasing this report this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When he is tabling that report, why don't we put the terms of reference of

Ziff on the table as well?

Mr. Speaker, environmental and Aboriginal groups are in court in Ottawa today

fighting the limited scope of the environmental assessment on the Muskrat Falls

Project. While these proceedings are ongoing, the Premier is barrelling through

with this project.

I ask the Premier: How can you justify ploughing ahead with this project

while water management agreements are untested, Emera is not confirmed as a

partner, and Aboriginal environment claims are unsettled? How can you do this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, the terms of reference

of all reports will be released over the next couple of days: not just Ziff, but

MHI, PIRA, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the claims that are being heard in Ottawa today,

as we have seen in this Province in recent times, anyone can take someone to

court. We have seen it with Mr. C, Mr. Speaker.

What we have here in Ottawa is an Aboriginal group who feels they have a

claim. It is their right, Mr. Speaker, to have their application heard. It does

not mean it is valid and it does not mean that we will allow anyone who files a

claim to shut down a project. In these particular circumstances, Mr. Speaker,

the matter is before the court and it will be determined by the court if there

is any validity to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In early November, the Premier stated that she would try and gauge the level

of interest of the new Quebec government in working with our Province in

developing Gull Island. The Premier had the opportunity to meet with Premier

Marois last week in Halifax, but we have yet to hear how those discussions went.

So, I ask the Premier: How did the discussions go, and is Quebec a willing

partner in the development of the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting Premier Marois this weekend. It

was certainly an interesting conversation, to have a dialog amongst Premiers

with a sovereignist at the table. It was a new experience, certainly for me, Mr.

Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, Premier Marois and I did not discuss the development of the

Lower Churchill at COF this weekend; it was not the purpose of COF. We had a

full agenda, and I am happy to talk more to that if the Leader of the Opposition

has other questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Recently,

government hired Eric Dunne to conduct a review of the 2J crab policy in

Labrador. This policy has allowed for stable employment growth and investment in

the Labrador fishery. To change it would mean a significant impact on the

Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company and communities in Southern Labrador

my district.

I ask the minister: Will you maintain the policy, given that the shrimp

company is a perfect example of how future fisheries should be working in this

Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the hon. member for the question. The crab stocks in 2J in

Labrador and the reduction in capacity with the closure of plants obviously is a

serious issue for the industry in Labrador. We are very cognizant of that, Mr.

Speaker, and obviously that will all be factored into some of the decisions we

need to make around the whole issue of restrictions for processing crab in

Labrador.

What we did do was hire Eric Dunne a respected individual in the fishing

industry to do a review for us, to do some consultations on the ground, and

look at the implications of the current restriction and what impact it would

have, particularly around capacity and around the price paid to harvesters. So,

when we do get that review, Mr. Speaker, we will certainly render a decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier. Government's own report has concluded that

should all the potential mining opportunities come to fruition in Labrador, the

power requirements would be 1,400 megawatts by 2020, which is just seven years

away.

I ask the Premier: Should this scenario happen, who gets the priority for

power: the Island, Nova Scotia, or Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the member opposite has had an opportunity to review the Labrador mining

paper which was released by our department, you will see that there are various

phases that a company has to go to before they get to mine. Mr. Speaker, what

essentially this is, from our perspective, is first-come, first-served. He, who

signs on the dotted line, gets the power.

What we have seen at this point is that there is no one who has come forward

with firm offers. People are watching the commodities market very closely, Mr.

Speaker. As the Chinese economy goes, so goes the iron ore market. Although we

know there are great investments in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, potentially $10

billion to $15 billion of development, we at this stage have not the firm

contract offers to be able to say where the power is going to go.

We hope to see it all proceed because, Mr. Speaker, it does not only benefit

Labrador, it benefits Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have always seen fluctuations in the price of iron ore and in the markets

when it comes to the mining industry, and I am very hopefully and optimistic

that we are going to see a lot of these mines come to fruition over the time

period that Wade Locke has defined by 2020.

I ask the government: You have maintained that power will be available for

the mining companies, but how will these companies access the power from Muskrat

Falls? Where will they plug in to a line?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The $16.2 billion that is the cost of the Newfoundland and Labrador share of

this project includes the building of a line from Muskrat Falls to Churchill

Falls, which is approximately 250 to 300 kilometres. We would then, Mr. Speaker,

have to build another line to the Labrador West area, which would be shared by

the mining companies based on the industrial rates policy which would have a

generation component, Mr. Speaker, and also a transmission component.

Now, once we get to other parts of Labrador such as

the Menihek region , we will have to have discussions

with the companies who are there. I will be meeting again in the very near

future with Tata Steel to have a discussion with them as to what do they propose

in terms of the development of their mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer because we all know that the existing

transmission lines have reached their full capacity.

I guess my question to the minister and to the government is: Through Nalcor,

will you become directly involved in the building of new transmission capacity

for the Labrador mining industry and industrial customers in Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Lab West area is easier to use because we have

Alderon over there , we have Julienne Lake, we have IOC,

and we have Wabush Mines. There is a cluster of mines there. If you were to

build a line, Mr. Speaker, the way that it is generally done, there is a one

rate which applies to per megawatt hour, but that is a generation component and

a transmission component.

We would build a line, or Nalcor would build a line, Mr. Speaker. Users would

pay, as they pay now, based on their use of the line. Essentially, Mr. Speaker,

over a period of time the line would pay for itself.

At this point in time, the only line that appears to be feasible would be the

building of the line from Churchill Falls to Labrador West. Again, Mr. Speaker,

so much is dependent on the iron ore markets and on the commodity markets in

China and the price of iron ore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. We now know that the Maritime Rescue

Sub-Centre in Quebec will stay open for at least another year, until the fall of

2013. The Quebec centre was supposed to close at the same time as the Maritime

Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's.

I ask the Premier today: Have you had any further discussions with Stephen

Harper? How did it come to be that Quebec remains open while Newfoundland and

Labrador is closed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is only this morning that I have

confirmed that the federal direction will not be delayed. As a matter of fact,

they are not going to be backing away from that direction. They are taking the

phased-in approach; St. John's was the first phase. The second phase is to move

the western part of Quebec into Trenton or the first part of the phase is

going to be into JRCC in Halifax, I am sorry. The third part of that phase is

going to be into Trenton, taking the West of Quebec. They are not moving away

from it. As a matter of fact, it is moving rapidly.

Our position has always been, and it will remain that way, is that the

sub-centre in St. John's should never have been shut down. We will continue to

advocate for more resources when it comes to search and rescue in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this government and Ocean Choice International

have entered into a secret agreement to give away 75 per cent of unprocessed

yellowtail to China rather than maximizing processing jobs here in this

Province. The new minister has stated repeatedly that a final decision will be

made soon.

I ask the minister: Has he yet decided to stand up for our people, or will he

join the long list of those who give everything away?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is last week, the member continues to

confuse the fishery issues. He just said we are into an agreement and then he

said we are waiting for the final decision. Which is it? It is just like

aquaculture, do we want to shut it down or do we want to do more?

Mr. Speaker, our position certainly with OCI is an issue that we are

considering, and considering in terms of their request for an exemption and work

with the people of Fortune. Ultimately, these decisions are ones we make in the

best interests, the economic benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just like we do with aquaculture, Mr. Speaker, when we see there is a benefit,

we will make the right decisions for these communities and we will do the right

thing for Fortune as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a number of small processors in this Province

are interested in processing a portion of OCI's yellowtail quota. Further, the

FFAW has called for a developmental quota to be allocated from OCI's yellowtail

and redfish quotas.

I ask the minister: Has government received any proposals outside of OCI,

and, if so, what decisions have been made on those requests?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, something I have come to grips with very early

in dealing with the OCI Fortune issue is there is significant emotion attached

to this issue, as well as a strong business economic case as well.

Since becoming the minister, and obviously hearing from OCI and the FFAW, and

the people of Fortune, I have also taken my time to listen to the concerns and

requests that have been submitted, calls, e-mails, all kinds of things that have

come forward, Mr. Speaker. It is a due diligence process, I guess, that I will

follow and certainly inform the member and the other people of the Province that

I will consider all of those in rendering a final decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in January, 2012, our Fisheries Minister met

with his federal counterpart to discuss OCI's landing obligations associated

with the company's licence. This licence is set to expire in less than five

years and thereafter, OCI can land this quota anywhere.

I ask the minister: What is the status of this request to Ottawa to keep the

company landing our fish in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the federal government allocates the quotas,

whether it is companies like OCI or whether it is individual quotas to

harvesters. In this particular case, OCI had bought FPI's licences and have been

allocated a quota for nine years, of which four years are left. We have made

representation to the federal government around this issue but, ultimately, Mr.

Speaker, there is no decision made beyond the four years. At this point, we

would assume that quotas will be reallocated as they are to all harvesters and

companies in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, all three rounds of this year's Job Creation

Partnerships programs, or JCPs have been missed by months. The second round was

never publicly announced and the third round is still unknown. There has been a

complete lack of communication on this program.

I ask the Minister of Advanced Education: After three months of delays, when

will you announce the third and final round of JCPs for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a substantial portion of the budget from the Department

of Advanced Education and Skills that goes into our job creation project every

year. Mr. Speaker, we do have a changing labour market in the Province and we

want to make sure that we use the money appropriately to ensure that people who

are most in need, those collecting EI, have access to the jobs. We do a

proportional basis of how that money is allocated, Mr. Speaker. To date we have

spent $9.7 million in the Province on JCPs and I am happy to report that as of

today, 1,100 people in Newfoundland and Labrador have been able to benefit from

the JCP program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier said her government is charged to be

stewards of the Province's fiscal situation. She also said the Province's money

must be managed appropriately with every project that they do, including a

hospital requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to build.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why isn't it appropriate to put the Muskrat

Falls project which requires billions of dollars back in the hands of the

regulatory body mandated to review such a project?

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 project has had more scrutiny and more review than any

project in the history of our Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we brought this project to the Public Utilities Board and spent

over $2 million and nine months, and at the end of that process did not receive

a recommendation from the PUB even though we were able to get one from its

expert and get one from its consumer advocate. We are not prepared to delay the

project for a year, Mr. Speaker, and add in excess of $300 million to the

project for ratepayers to increase rates, to go through the same process again

and probably end up with the same result.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a news conference on Friday in Halifax, the Premier, discussing the

dispute with Quebec over the Old Harry formation, said she wanted to follow the

established process, and the only fixed position she had on negotiations was she

wanted to see fairness and transparency determine the outcome.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why won't she practice what she preaches and

offer those same standards to the people of her own Province when it comes to

the Muskrat Falls project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of these days I would be absolutely delighted to hear from

the Opposition Parties both the Liberals and the NDP what their issues are

around Old Harry, because I do not believe either one of them understands the

project.

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago there was an attempt to develop a boundary

between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador; a boundary was arrived at, but it

was not ratified amongst the provinces. The position of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador is: we are not prepared to ratify the boundary on Old

Harry based on fifty-year-old information. We are saying to the federal

government and to our neighbours: we need to update the information.

The Old Harry boundary may be in the same place at the end of the day; our

only caveat is that it be done fairly and transparently, like all things we do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I invite the Premier to read my question later in Hansard and see what my

question really was.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Premier stated that the PUB in the executive

summary of the report on the Muskrat Falls Project agreed with Nalcor and MHI

that based on Decision Gate 2 numbers, we did need the power and indeed it was

the least-cost alternative. I have read that document and I believe it says the

opposite.

I wonder if the Premier read the same report as I did, Mr. Speaker. I ask

her: Will she show this House where in the PUB report's executive

summary it

says that they believe we need the power, and that they believe Muskrat Falls is

the least-cost alternative? They say the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to provide same, because unlike the Leader

of the Third Party, I read reports before I quote them in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The Premier is going to get some shock when she reads that

executive

summary herself.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources, like his colleagues, likes to

dodge and weave around questions from this side of the House on Muskrat Falls

rather than actually answer them.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will he give the people of the Province a

firm, guaranteed price per kilowatt hour that will appear on their monthly bill

when Muskrat Falls comes on-line? Yes or no.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have released a paper that deals with

electricity rates. We look at three profiles: the 90,000 people who do not use

electric heat, the 140,000 people who use electric heat, and we put the 230,000

people together and we come up with an average profile, Mr. Speaker. We take

into account the different alternatives that could exist.

What turns out, Mr. Speaker, is at the end of the day, and this is very

interesting, with Muskrat Falls or excuse me, let me put it this way: without

Muskrat Falls, the increase in power rates will double after 2017.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, earlier this fall, a parent of a child with Down

syndrome had to resort to contacting the media to gain access to appropriate

special education services for her child. Five years ago, the ISSP/Pathways

Commission recommended that the Department of Education create a transparent

appeals process for parents who experience frustration in accessing special

education services.

Why is this minister more focused on turning a blind eye to problems faced by

students with special needs, instead of taking responsibility for this

government's failure to adopt this key recommendation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that some parents seem to

find themselves in that situation, but one thing about it, there is a process in

place. It is called the ISSP process, sanctioned by the various groups that

participate within education. Within that system, Mr. Speaker, you have

teachers, students, parents, all coming together to develop a plan for all

students.

Our efforts on behalf of special education students in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, are top-notch. The challenges that come with special education

students, Mr. Speaker, are always a concern and a priority for this government,

and will continue to be a priority for this government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the ISSP/Pathways Commission was clear about the

need to offer emotionally upset families an effective avenue to resolve their

concerns. Instead of providing an appeals process, government is forcing parents

to bring their problems to the media instead of a mediator.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government refusing to accept the fact that they are

failing vulnerable children with special education needs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we are not failing the students with special

needs. In fact, the investments of this government have been second to none. The

investments in putting an additional 250 student assistants into the system, our

funding of programs, Mr. Speaker, it is ongoing. Mr. Speaker, the ISSP process

works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, community supported agriculture, such as community gardens, have

been sprouting up in urban and rural communities across the Province and

country, helping local people get access to fresh produce. Fishers in this

Province are restricted from selling their catch directly to local consumers;

yet, fishers in other jurisdictions of Canada and the US can.

Will the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture look into amending

legislation that prohibits fishers from selling direct?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That issue has been raised a number of times to us and we are giving it

serious consideration. Again, looking at, as we do with all aspects of the

fishery, what the economic benefit is to the whole fishing industry and how this

will impact both the harvesting and processing side as well. Mr. Speaker, we

have it under review, and we will certainly report to the House when we are

concluded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, reports indicate a resurgence of cod in our

waters; yet, commercial cod quotas remain stagnant, fish buyers few, and prices

hovered around fifty cents a pound. The local market demands access to fresh

cod, and without amending legislation the department can issue a new buying

licence to co-op or development organizations to start a buyers club and pursue

small-scale, community-supported fisheries.

I ask the minister: Will he permit the new issue of fish-buying licences or

will he continue to support a repressive structure for selling local cod?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, two points that I would have expected the

Fisheries critic from the other side to be aware of. One is the issue of the

resource, the cod, what is available, and what is available to be processed is

an absolute federal issue. They are the ones who assign quotas, particularly in

the cod fishery, but I am happy and pleased to say in this House as well, that

we have seen significant increase in cod and we are certainly encouraged by

that.

On the other issue of licences, Mr. Speaker, we have a licensing process in

place in this Province independent of government. I certainly encourage the

member to invite all those who are interested, to follow that process.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, fishers on Fogo Island and Change Islands

have successfully implemented sustainable fishing practices that bring

high-quality cod by using cod pots to sell their catch to niche markets. The

difference is really dollars versus cents.

What is the Minister of Fisheries doing to further promote cod pot

initiatives in other regions of the Province which puts more money back in the

pockets of fishers and high-quality of cod sold to the local market?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

response, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: I certainly appreciate the member opposite raising a very

important issue, very important for the people in my district, Mr. Speaker.

The Fogo Island, Change Islands, and Twillingate area is certainly a

prominent area in this Province in the fishery, Mr. Speaker. It is very much

engaged and proactive in what is happening in the fishing industry. We have had

some good success with cod potting, Mr. Speaker, but again, that comes from

support from this government, our support for science and research. We will

continue

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the 2011

Annual Report for the Public Accounts Licensing Board, the 2011 Annual Activity

Report of the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board, and the 2011-2012 Annual

Report of the Chartered Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with

section 19.(5)(

a) of the House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table minutes of

the House of Assembly Management Commission meetings held on January 25,

April 25, and July 4, 2012.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to put a motion forward:

WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of the Public Utilities has the mandate

through the Electrical Power Control Act Board to ensure that the Province shall

have the most efficient production, transmission, and distribution of power at

the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable services; and

WHEREAS the proposed development of Muskrat Falls will leave profound effects

on the rates paid by electricity users of the Province for decades to come;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to compel Nalcor to submit the proposed

Muskrat Falls development to the Board of Commissioners of the Public Utilities

for a complete and unrestricted review.

Mr. Speaker, this is seconded by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I table the following private member's

motion, a resolution regarding access to information.

WHEREAS free and open access to government information is essential to the

function of the democratic process; and

WHEREAS publicly held and publicly funded information should be released to

the public unless there is a clear and sufficient reason to keep the matter

confidential; and

WHEREAS this government has amended the Access to Information and Protection

of Privacy Act, ATIPPA, through Bill 29, which has created new and expensive

categories of secret information;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges the government to repeal Bill

It is seconded by the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As per Standing Order 63, I give notice that on Wednesday, we will call the

motion put forward by the Member for Humber Valley.

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

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: 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 humbly sheweth.

WHEREAS Job Creation Partnerships are used to assist unemployed workers in

gaining work experience and developing skills, and to assist unemployed workers

in areas of high unemployment; and

WHEREAS there were at least twelve applications for JCP projects made by

sponsors from the northern area of St. Barbe district, an area of high

unemployment; and

WHEREAS all but one of these applications were denied funding and the one

that was approved received only partial funding; and

WHEREAS the District of Trinity Bay de Verde is an area of such low

unemployment that recently an employer, unable to find enough employees, was

forced to hire twenty temporary foreign workers; and

WHEREAS thirteen JCP projects were awarded in the District of Trinity Bay

de Verde for a total of $677,000 in grants, even though there appears to be no

available unemployed workers to avail of these public funds;

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

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

and revise the manner that it awards JCP projects in this Province to a more

equitable manner, based primarily on the need of the applicant area, type or

work experience proposed, and the long-term economic benefit to the region.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sore point for many areas of the Province. The

government recently rolled out the first round of JCP proposals. In the JCP

proposals, the minister very carefully awarded the highest number and the

highest amount to Trinity Bay de Verde district, then awarded the

second-highest amount to her critic, my colleague for Burgeo La Poile. After

that name, she awarded the absolute bulk of funds next available to a series of

ministers in succession.

It appears, Mr. Speaker, like absolute political pork barrelling. It causes a

loss of confidence in government. We can see on an ongoing basis that the JCP

projects are still unawarded'. Businesses that expected to receive JCP awards,

non-profit organizations that expected to receive JCP awards, Mr. Speaker, for

the tourist season, not the winter tourist season but the tourist season just

started approximately at the beginning of this summer are still waiting.

This program was administered in such an inept fashion that third rounds were

called for before second rounds had been approved or rejected. Applicants did

not know if they were going to receive second round funding and were being told

now to apply for third round funding. Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are

absolutely amazed, distraught, concerned at such an improper way of awarding

these JCP funds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 the Eastern School District is considering a multi-year plan to close

Catalina Elementary in June 2013; and

WHEREAS it has been proven by the spring CRT 2012 results, that Catalina

Elementary exceeds the district and provincial numbers; and

WHEREAS the educators at Catalina Elementary are qualified and provide a

strong academic program with a full curriculum; and

WHEREAS Catalina Elementary has developed grounds, including a playground,

soccer field, and basketball-hockey court, as stipulated in the Active and

Healthy Living Guidelines of the Bonavista School District provided through

community support; and

WHEREAS Catalina Elementary, being a newer school, is structurally sound,

with a music room, science lab, and cafeteria; and

WHEREAS the parents, business operators, social groups, and concerned

citizens of the municipality of Trinity Bay North, in the Eastern School

District, request to rescind this proposal.

Since Catalina Elementary has met and exceeded all aspects set forth for a

viable school, we the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the

government to ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with

sufficient funding to keep Catalina Elementary School open.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again present this petition on behalf of

the school council at Catalina Elementary. I note that the Eastern School

District will begin a second phase of public consultations on the proposed

closure of Catalina Elementary tonight in Bonavista at Discovery Collegiate.

That meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.

Parents will once again have an opportunity to raise their concerns with the

trustees. Of course, we recognize the autonomy of school district trustees to

make these sorts of decisions, but we also recognize that school districts work

within finite budgets that are provided by the Department of Education. Mr.

Speaker, we could say that as go our rural and small schools, so goes our rural

and small communities.

I was recently provided with some interesting research done by the school

council at Catalina Elementary. I would like to note a point from a research

article titled, "Should We Keep Rural Schools Open?" It says, "Smaller schools

have more positive educational outcomes...Changes in the educational system,

such as consolidation, must ultimately include learning outcomes as part of the

cost savings equation. If consolidation leads to saving money but impacts

negatively upon student performance, then what really has been saved."

I would say, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the government has billions for

Muskrat Falls, yet this particular school in Catalina is proposed to close at

this time. I hope the members opposite will think about that and hear the

concerns of these petitioners.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allocated time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. the 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 the Regional Economic Development Boards diversify, grow, and

strengthen economies throughout the Province by providing training

opportunities, marketing advice, proposal writing, leveraging funds,

collaboration, and other means; and

WHEREAS the federal government's decision to cut funding to the Atlantic

Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) is resulting in the elimination of funding to

the RED Boards and their termination in May 2013; and

WHEREAS 75 per cent of the operational funding for the RED Boards, roughly

$3.6 million, is provided by ACOA with the additional 25 per cent from the

provincial government; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development has $200

million in their suite of programming, some of which as poor uptake; and

WHEREAS just 1.5 per cent of the Business Attraction Fund of the Department

of Innovation, Business and Rural Development was used last year, $366,800 of a

$25 million budget;

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

commit bridge funding in its 2013 Budget, which may come from the Business

Attraction Fund, to help preserve the RED Boards in Newfoundland and Labrador,

provide support to municipalities, communities, organizations, and businesses.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition has over 500 signatures on it from communities in

Bonavista, Port Rexton, Catalina, Englee, Sandy Cove, Roddickton, North West

River, Portugal Cove St. Phillips, Norman's Cove, Rocky Harbour, Carbonear,

Clarenville, Port Blandford, Parson's Pond, Steady Brook, Forteau,

L'Anse-au-Loup, Colliers, Deer Lake, Birchy Bay, and a number of other

communities.

Mr. Speaker, we see that with a loss of Regional Economic Development Boards

on the ground, the partnerships, the institutional knowledge they have, there

will certainly be a void left for co-ordination to develop initiatives and to

move forward. There is not a long period of transition to pass this along.

Seeing that the Province had cut funding even earlier than what ACOA has, it

certainly sees that we are having a real loss of collaboration. We cannot work

in a vacuum here. We have to look at what is government going to do? What types

of initiatives will it have so that we can truly move forward on regional

economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador?

There was a start for performance-based management. What was the point of

going into performance-based management if it was going to be cut and if

poor-performing boards were not going to be phased out and to keep

high-performing boards? I do not see the point in looking at saving the $1.25

million versus keeping maybe five of the top performers, or looking at

elaborating on the Rural Secretariat and maybe saving office space and using

their resources as well to really promote policy and economic development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated to the member has expired.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly for Newfoundland and Labrador

in session assembled:

WHEREAS rental rates in the city have increased considerably within the past

number of years; and

WHEREAS the rental component of benefits provided to those receiving Income

Support has not increased at the same rate; and

WHEREAS the availability of affordable housing is becoming more and more

challenging, making it more difficult for those who receive Income Support to

rent suitable housing;

THEREFORE, we the residents of St. John's wish to petition the House of

Assembly in Legislative Session to review the living allowance portion of Income

Support that is used to pay rent.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition that I have signed today, one of the

individuals who signed the petition and provided me with their signature has

informed me that their apartment is rented at $450 a month. That apartment could

be rented for $600 or $700 a month. The only reason that they are renting it for

$450 is because there is a friend in the apartment. That friend has applied for

a rental increase through Income Support and has not received that. The

householders have been forced to increase the rent by $50, and wish to increase

it more, but are unable to or the tenant would have to move out; they wish to

increase the rent even more because one of the household earners is off on

injury.

So now you have two families that are affected because the rental supplement

provided by Income Support is not high enough. So, it is having an effect, a

real effect, on real people, real families in the City of St. John's.

The Budget consultations are coming up, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking

government and the ministers involved, especially the minister responsible for

Income Support, to review the amount of rent that is provided to those on Income

Support, with a view of increasing it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 transgendered

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.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, again, as stated a number of times in this House, transgendered

youth are among the most vulnerable in our society, as are transgendered adults.

They face incredible violence and discrimination. This is no longer acceptable.

In 2012, it is no longer acceptable in our society.

We know that they are our brothers, our sisters, our mothers, our fathers,

our uncles, our cousins, our neighbours, our co-workers. We know that Ontario,

Manitoba, and Northwest Territories have already amended their human rights

legislation. Nova Scotia has tabled it in their House last week, as has the

federal government, hearing it in their Justice Committee.

Two years ago, our own Human Rights Commission specifically recommended to

this government when they were amending the Human Rights Code to a Human Rights

Act to include gender identity and gender expression in our Human Rights Code.

Worldwide, human rights legislation experts are all of the same mind: that

this is important, that this is necessary. They are recommending that it is

explicitly stated in human rights legislation: gender identity and gender

expression.

It is the right thing to do. Our Human Rights Act is not just about

responding to violations and discriminations in the past, but it takes a

proactive role as well in education, signalling to our most vulnerable people in

society that they are explicitly protected.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2, third reading of Bill 42.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and

Community Services, that Bill 42,

An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province

Respecting Annual Reports, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the bill be now read a

third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 42 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 Various Acts Of The Province Respecting

Annual Reports. (Bill 42)

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 Various Acts Of The Province Respecting

Annual Reports", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the

Order Paper. (Bill 42).

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Order 3, I move seconded by the Minister of

Advanced Education and Skills that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole to consider Bill 46,

An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And

All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for

the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole is considering Bill 46.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles

Act". (Bill 46).

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And

All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 46)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced

Education and Skills, that the Committee rise and report Bill 46.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 46.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The Member for the District of Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the

matters to them referred and have asked me to report Bill 46 carried without

amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee

of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have carried Bill

46 without amendment?

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 46 be read a third time?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again the next call?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and

Community Services that Bill 46,

An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And

All-Terrain Vehicles Act, 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 46 be now 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 Motorized Snow Vehicles And

All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And

All-Terrain Vehicles Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as

on the Order Paper. (Bill 46)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Order 6 of the Order Paper. I call second reading

of Bill 43,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that Bill

43,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second

time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 43,

An Act To Amend The

Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

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

Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill 43)

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand here today in my capacity as the Finance Minister of

the Province to introduce the amendment to the Public Service Pensions Act of

1991. There are a number of amendments. This act is one of five

government-sponsored Defined Benefit Pension Plans, and provides pensions for

full-time employees of government departments, of the health care institutions,

of the school boards, Crown corporations and agencies, and also the colleges. As

of December 31, 2011, there were 32,000 active employees and 15,600 retirees

under that particular plan.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to this plan at this time, there are some

amendments that deal with policy issues. We are going to make three policy

changes with this legislation. There are also amendments that require this

particular plan to be in compliance with the legislation Canadian legislation

and Newfoundland and Labrador legislation that regulates pension plans in this

country. One is the Income Tax Act of Canada. There will be a number of

amendments to ensure that this particular pension plan complies with the Income

Tax Act of Canada, and there are other amendments that ensures that this

particular pension plan is in compliance with the provincial benefits act of

I think people would be interested to know that it is the Department of

Service Newfoundland and Labrador that regulates pensions in our Province, and

they do so through the Pension Benefits Act. My colleague, the Minister of

Service Newfoundland and Labrador, can speak to that.

The other act, of course, the Income Tax Act of Canada is

an act of the

Defined Contribution Pension Plans, Defined Benefit Pension Plans, the money

that goes into the plan, of course, is deducted. The Income Tax Act, 2000, has

rules and regulations as to the maximum amount that can be deducted.

Mr. Speaker, we have, as I said, five government pension plans, five Defined

Benefit Pension Plans; there are also Defined Contribution Pension Plans for

employees as well. They are administered out of the Department of Finance. That

is why I am introducing this particular bill, or moving second reading of this

bill rather than the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said,

there are three amendments that are essentially policy changes that will lead to

benefits and enhancements for people who are in the plan.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing is that we are going to increase the indexing

benefits for the survivors of deceased pensioners. As members know, the

Newfoundland pension plans provide indexing for our pensioners, our retirees,

which is from the date of the age of sixty-five. It is 60 per cent of the

increase in the CPI, capped at 1.2 per cent annually. That was brought in, I

think, in 2002 by the previous government.

A lot of our pensioners do not realize that. I discovered that in meeting

with different pension groups. Some will adamantly say to me their pension plans

are not indexed. They have been indexed since 2002, with a modest amount of

indexation. What happens is that the pensioner, to get the indexing, the

indexing starts at age sixty-five. As you know, if the pensioner dies leaving a

spouse as principle beneficiary, the spouse will then receive a survivor's

benefit that is equal to 60 per cent of the deceased's pension.

We have an anomaly. We could have the pensioner receiving an index pension

from age sixty-five, and then when that person dies and the spouse obtains the

survivor's benefit, if the spouse is under sixty-five then the pension had to be

un-indexed until the survivor became sixty-five. We, in this amendment, are

changing the law so that once the pension is indexed and passes to the survivor

that the indexed pension passes. It will remain indexed even though the survivor

may be under the age of sixty-five. I think most people will agree that is a

good thing.

Mr. Speaker, the other policy change has to do with what is called an

actuarially reduced pension for a plan member who is aged fifty-five and has a

vested pension plan; in other words, that person has worked for government for

in excess of five years and the pension is therefore vested.

That person normally would not qualify for a pension before the age of sixty.

The amendment that we are putting forward here today will be to allow that

member to access a reduced pension from as early as age fifty-five instead of

having to wait for sixty. The actuarial reduction is necessary to ensure that

the early payment of pension is cost neutral to the plan and thus relates little

impact on the plan's liability. While the pension is reduced, it does give the

plan member additional retirement flexibility.

I think what we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, is that you could have

somebody who works for the government for a while as a member of the pension

plan and then terminates the plan. That person may let's say they go out west;

they stop working for the government and they may go out west, and they have a

pension plan, but they are not sixty so they could not access the plan. If they

elect to leave the plan there, in other words, they could access the plan and

get a pension when they are sixty.

What we are doing here is that since under our pension plan you can either

get a pension at sixty or you can get an earlier pension at fifty-five, which is

reduced, we are now allowing that person to take advantage of that provision as

well. I think that is a very good thing.

Mr. Speaker, the third policy change that we are making is to remove from the

plan one employer who does not meet the criteria of public sector employer. The

Public Service Pension Plan, Mr Speaker, is designed to provide pensions for

government entities only. One of the participating employers is the Public

Service Credit Union, which is now a profit-making entity subject to Income Tax,

and is therefore ineligible to participate in the Public Service Pension Plan.

The credit union joined the plan in 1976 as a credit society that was

established originally to accept deposits from provincial government employees

only. Now it is a full-service financial institution. It is serving not just

government employees but the entire general public and consequently should not

continue to participate in the PSPP.

To transition this change, we now propose in this legislation to permit the

participating employees of that credit union, as of January 1, 2013, to remain

in the plan; existing employees can continue to remain in the plan, but any new

hires after that date will participate in other arrangements that may be

provided by that particular credit union. The employees who are there now, Mr.

Speaker, will be grandfathered, but new employees will participate under

arrangements that the Co-operative Credit Society will provide for its members.

Mr. Speaker, there are the three policy changes we are making. I now move on

to talk about I am sorry; there is one additional amendment that has to do

with providing more flexibility to terminating plan members. My notes here say

this is a policy amendment, but I think this may be an income tax amendment.

Where a terminating employee terminates from the pension plan because that

person is moving on, and the person has five years of service with the

government and therefore the pension is invested, that person has a number of

options. One option, as I said earlier, is they can leave the money in the

pension plan here and elect to receive the pension many years later when they

reach the age originally of sixty and now with a reduced pension at age

fifty-five. That is one option. The other option is to transfer the money to

what is referred to as generally a locked-in RRSP, known as a LIRA or a LIF.

Another option, of course, is if that person goes to work for another

employer with a pension plan. Maybe their pension plan will accept our pension

plan and our pension plan can be rolled in. Another option is to purchase a

deferred life annuity. That is available as well.

The terminating employee has to make the decision within 180 days whether to

accept the lump sum or to accept a deferred pension, payable from the earliest

eligibility to date. At the expiration of 180 days, if they do not make an

election, they are deemed to be a deferred pensioner. They are deemed to have

elected to take the deferred pension if they do not make the election within 180

days.

You know what happens, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people mean to make the

election, but they forget to do it, or they are not sure what they should do

given the options, as I listed previously, the options that are available to

them. They may not be certain and they may intend to get advice from somebody,

they may not get the advice, and 180 days go by.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is we are going to amend the plan. We

recognize that, so we are going to amend the plan to allow the employee to make

the determination to take the lump sum at any time, whether it is 180 days or

not. The amount would be calculated as of the new date.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated previously the pension plan has to comply with the

Income Tax Act in order for contributions to be deductible for tax purposes. We

have a number of amendments to comply with that act.

One of the things that our employees can do, Mr. Speaker, in the public

service is that they can take unpaid leave. With the permission of the employer,

they can take unpaid leave and go to work somewhere else. They may want to go

out West and try something new and see if they like it, but they reserve the

right to go back to their position with their government.

They are permitted, if they do decide to return, to buy up under the pension

plan the periods of time when they were on leave. The Income Tax Act requires

that there has to be a maximum to that. The maximum is now five years plus an

additional three years for parenting. We are amending the legislation to comply

with the Income Tax Act there.

The amendment is also specifying that transfers to the Public Service Pension

Plan from a member's former plan can only occur if the plan is willing to

transfer 100 per cent of the member's entitlement. If the plan transfers out

less than 100 per cent, say, 80 per cent, the Public Service Pension Plan under

the income tax rules cannot accept the transfer. We are bringing our law into

compliance with the Income Tax Act. Also, the amendments will require a

returning employee who wishes to reinstate prior service where the contributions

were paid into an RRSP, to be able to use the RRSP funds to reinstate the prior

service.

The last one dealing with the Income Tax Act is an amendment specifying that

a refund of contributions payable upon the death of a member can only be paid to

the member's estate. That is where a member's pension is not vested. As I said

earlier, in order to be able to access the pension plan, a member has to

accumulate at least five years of service and it says that the pension then

vests. Members who die within the five years are only entitled to a return of

the contributions that they have made to the pension plan, together with

interest on that investment.

Upon the death, the contributions made by the member are returned, along with

interest, and that money has to be paid to the member's estate. The legislation

reads that it will go to the member's personal representative; I believe there

is a misunderstanding of what that means. I think the lawyers in the House will

know that the personal representative of an estate is usually the executor or

administrator. If the money is paid to the estate, again it is the executor or

administrator that would receive the monies on behalf of the estate. The intent

was to make clear that the money had to go to the estate.

Mr. Speaker, there are some other amendments to the legislation to comply

with the Pension Benefits Act. One of those is an assignment of the pensions.

The Pension Benefits Act has specific language that prevents a pension that is

in pay from being assigned, from being attached, to being charged, and it is a

practice that such actions are governed by the Pension Benefits Act provisions.

Sections 27 and 28 of the Public Service Pension Act have similar language,

but for greater clarity the act will now be amended to reflect the same language

that is in the Pension Benefits Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other income tax amendments that I

neglected to mention. One has to do with payments of interest on an over

contribution. When a plan member or an employer contributes more than is

required under the act, usually in error, and is reimbursed, the plan is not

permitted to pay interest on those over contributions.

Section 5 and 6 of our

legislation are now going to be amended to comply with the Income Tax Act to

remove the payment of interest on over contributions.

Section 7 provides for the payment of a refunded contribution I already did

that one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are also a number of housekeeping amendments. Unless hon.

members opposite want me to go through those in detail, I will pass, but if

there are any questions, any specific ones, I will certainly deal with those

during the Committee stage of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, the whole idea of pensions is now becoming part of public

discourse in our Province. Public pensions are very, very important. What I am

talking about here is occupational pensions. There is a crisis in this country

right now, and I do not know if the proper wording is to call it a pension

crisis but I think it is a retirement savings crisis. What we are finding is

that there are certain sections of the population, people in the middle range in

terms of incomes, who are not or have not, and are not now putting enough monies

aside to provide for their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that our lives are divided up into three phases

and that in the first phase we are trained. We are educated to prepare us for a

life of work, or life of employment, or a life of being a professional. The

second phase is working and living. Probably the most interesting part of our

lives is where we go to work and we receive a pay. We receive an income which

enables us to purchase or rent a home, to purchase or lease a car, to pay for

our children's education, to pay for the benefits that we want to provide to our

children; going out and playing hockey, figure skating lessons, or what have

you.

That is a tough time, because it always feels there is not enough income

coming in to meet all of the commitments that a family has. It is during that

time you have income from your employment, or income from your profession, or

income some people go into business and create businesses from a business.

That gives them the income to meet their commitment.

The final stage is retirement. We know that the middle stage, when the income

is coming in, is going to come to an end at some point. When it does, when that

second stage comes to an end, our income comes to an end. We therefore are in

retirement and we no longer have an income from employment. Maybe we stop

working because we are ill and we cannot work anymore, maybe we are too tired,

maybe we are fed up, maybe our employer says to us it is time to move on. It is

time for some fresh blood.

What does the person do when they are in that third stage of life, when the

income has stopped? How is that person going to support themselves? Where is the

retirement income coming to support that person and a spouse during the stage

when there is no income coming in from employment, or business, or the

profession?

The answer to that question I know some of us feel that maybe at that age

of retirement, maybe we have to give up on the dream that the Leafs or the

Canadiens are going to call us and sign us to a multi-million dollar contract.

Maybe we know that if we go out on the golf course, maybe we are not good enough

to beat Tiger Woods. Maybe we know, and we do know, that the odds of winning the

lottery are very, very remote. We know that Hollywood is not going to call and

offer $10 million. Maybe the Speaker will get that call, but I think for most of

us we are not going to receive that call.

How do we provide money for that retirement? The way to do that, and the only

way to do that, is to do it while you are working. You have to take a certain

section of your income and you have to save it and you have to invest it. The

tax-deferred, in order to help you put money in the pot.

No matter how tough it is, it is money that cannot go on the mortgage. It

cannot go on the car loan, it cannot go to send the kids to a hockey camp, and

it cannot go to take a trip to Florida. It has to go into a fund to provide for

the retirement. You have to, each year, put it in. That contribution will grow

and hopefully you will get a pool of monies that you will accumulate during your

working life. Then you can use that pool of monies each year while you are

retired with the hope that you outlast your money.

It is important that people retire. If you do not work for someone who has an

occupational pension plan you are going to have to put the money in yourself.

The federal government helps with what is called an RRSP, where they will give

you that tax deduction to help you make the contribution.

provides an Old Age Security. Now, there is a difference between an occupational

pension and Old Age Security. Old Age Security is given to everyone who has

lived in the country for a certain number of years. I refer to that as a social

transfer. It is different from an occupational pension. An occupational pension

is paid for by you and your employer. Number one is the RRSP.

Some people have the added advantage of working for an employer that offers a

pension plan. There are basically two major pension plans, although there is a

third one that has recently been introduced in New Brunswick.

The first one is a defined benefit plan. The defined benefit plan works very

similar to the RRSP, except what is happening here is that in addition to you

making your contribution to the plan every month, your employer is going to

match it. It is called the defined benefit sorry, it is called the Defined

Contribution Plan because your employer's obligation is limited to that

contribution. If you put 6 per cent in, your employer may agree to match it.

Once the employer has put in the 6 per cent, once he has made his contribution,

that is the end of the employer's responsibility.

The employee under a Defined Contribution Plan runs the risk, number one,

that they will run out of money before death; number two, he also faces the

investment risk. He faces the risk that the money may not grow quick enough; it

may not grow enough.

If you invest the money in a Guaranteed Investment Certificate, if you are a

nervous investor like I am, you put the money in a guaranteed fund. You hope

interest rates will be high enough to enable your pension, your pot of money, to

grow.

Interest rates have been very low lately. When I was doing it years ago,

interest rates were 8 per cent, 9 per cent, 10 per cent; now they are very, very

low. When they are low, you cannot go to your neighbour and say, hey, I was

hoping for 5 per cent and I only got 2 per cent, how about topping me up? That

does not happen in an RRSP, and that does not happen in a Defined Contribution

Pension Plan. If you only get 2 per cent instead of the 5 per cent you were

hoping, you cannot go to the government and say, hey, I did not do as well as I

had hoped; how about you topping me up? You cannot go to your neighbour and say,

hey, I did not do well enough, how about you topping me up? You get what you

get. You earn what you earn.

There is another pension plan called a Defined Benefit Contribution Plan. It

is referred to as a gold-plated pension plan. I do not consider it gold plated;

I think it is a great pension plan. It is a pension plan that our employees

have. It is a pension plan where the benefit is what is defined, not the

contribution.

A formula is set up where the employer agrees that the employees will receive

a pension plan of a certain amount. Then what has to happen is that the money

has to be invested into the plan in order to get the money to fund that payment

promise. That is where the problem is today, because there are big changes

happening in our society.

Years ago, when the Defined Benefit Pension Plans came out, people retired,

say at age sixty-five, and when they retired they lived a certain period of

time. While they were alive they would receive their pension. Mr. Speaker,

nowadays people are retiring much earlier, and what is a good thing because of

health care in this country, because of improvements in health care people,

thank God, are living a longer period of time. It means that they are relying on

the pension for a long period of time, which means more money is going to have

to go into that pension plan.

Years ago, the markets did very well; years ago, as I said earlier, interest

rates were high, but now the markets have not been doing well for the last ten

years and interest rates have been very low. You have two problems. The

liability of the pension plan is higher because people are leaving earlier and,

thank God, they are dying later; because of that they are on pension for a

longer period of time and therefore more money is needed than has been going in.

That is increasing the liability.

On the other hand, the money to fund that liability has not been coming in.

The contribution is made by the employer, the contribution is made by the

employee, and that money is invested to earn a return; because the returns have

been low, the money is not there to meet the pension promise. So the employer,

who has to pay this pension, some of them cannot do it and they are going

bankrupt because they cannot do it.

Some of them are saying that they cannot compete with their competition that

does not offer Defined Benefit Pension Plans. I know in Corner Brook, Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper and the Kruger organization, their competition is Abitibi,

and their competition is a company called White Birch, both of whom went into

bankruptcy protection and got pension obligations reduced. Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper has not done that; they have the full pension obligation. They have to

come up with the money to fund the pension obligation and that is money that

they cannot put in capital expenditures. That is money they cannot use to

aggressively market their business.

What you are seeing in the United States and what you are seeing out in the

private sector, because these employers cannot come up with the money to pay the

unfunded pension liability, they cannot come up with money to pay the pension

deficit and they are either shutting down or that they are moving or trying to

move to what are called Defined Contribution Pension Plans.

Now that is the problem, the liability is higher and the amount of money

coming in is lower, so circumstances have changed. In our government, we are

fortunate because our government can tax the people of the Province to make the

special payments. The money that is going into our pension plans from the

employers and from the employees have all been made. The contributions have been

made. We still have this large unfunded liability. We have this large pension

deficit.

The government of this Province, which means the taxpayers of the Province,

because governments do not have any money the only money governments get is

what they get from the taxpayers. The taxpayers of this Province have paid $4.4

billion of additional, extra, special payments into the pension plan since 1997.

It was not all our government. The previous Liberal governments in 1997 started

making special payment. Our government, the $2 billion that Premier Williams

negotiated with Prime Minister Martin, that went into the Teachers' Pension

Plan. We also borrowed another $962 million and put that into the Public Service

Pension Plan.

Since 1997, $4.4 billion of extra, special payments have gone into the

pension plans. In spite of all those additional payments, the pension plans are

still unfunded to the tune of about $3 billion. Our unfunded pension liability

is now, I am told, about 50 per cent of our net debt. We have been paying down

our direct debt.

Money that governments have borrowed in the past and that have come due, we

have been able to pay that out of cash flow;

whereas in the past, when a bond

issue came due, what previous governments used to do was simply go out and

borrow the money from somebody else and pay off the loan that was coming due so

that the debt stayed the same. Because of the wealth that this Province has been

experiencing coming from the oil industry, and from the mineral industry, we

have been in a position that out of cash flow we can pay those loans as they

come due without having to borrow more money.

The government has not had to borrow for operational purposes since 2004.

That is terrific. During that time our net debt has come down by $4 billion;

yet, our unfunded pension liability keeps going up, for the reasons I mentioned

previously. So, we have to do something about it. It cannot go on. Even this

year, I mentioned $4.4 billion, this year we are putting an additional $258

million in additional, special funding into the plan. So that will bring it to

$4.7 billion, and in spite of all that, the unfunded liability continues to

grow.

We have been paying down the debt that is coming due, our direct debt,

monies that governments have borrowed some time ago we have been paying that

down at a rate of about $400 million a year. As it comes due, we have been

fortunate enough we can pay it out of cash without re-borrowing. With the

unfunded pension liability, our pension expense is going up $500 million, $600

million, and in the future it is going to go up a heck of a lot more. We have to

do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the government that has to look at this. It is

important that the unions that have access to a lot of people who are

knowledgeable about pensions, they have to come to the table and have a

discussion as well. Our pension plans are unsustainable. That means they are

going to run out of money. When the $2 billion went into the funds, I think the

plans were up to about 85 per cent. They are a heck of a lot lower now, and I

will run through some of the numbers here.

As I said, there is supposed to be enough money going in every year from the

employer and the employee that those contributions will earn a return to pay the

pension, but there is not enough going in. As a result, we are having a large

liability. The assumption is, as I said earlier, we are supposed to have enough

money in the pension plans, assuming they are earning 7.25 per cent a year, to

meet our pension obligations in the future. Our earnings have been less than

7.25 per cent.

Our wage increases have been much higher than expected. Wages are higher;

pension is higher. As I said, our employees are retiring earlier than expected

and our retirees are on pension longer than expected. It could also go the other

way. We can have something called surpluses, but we have never had one with our

pension plan and we do not expect one for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, our total plans, we have 38,792 employees and we have 24,710

retirees, pensioners. When these plans were brought in and when the pension

promises were enhanced, when governments in the past would add to the pension

plan, people were young. The employees were young. The problem of those, the

cost to pay for those additional enhancements, well, you do not have to worry

about it. It is going to happen some time in the future. Well, the future is

here. Now we have the baby boomers who are retiring. As I said, 23 per cent of

the employees are eligible for retirement over the next five years.

The pension ratio for the Public Service Pension Plan that we are debating

here today is not 85 per cent anymore. It is 56 per cent. If things continue, it

is going down much lower. The Teachers' Pension Plan is 58 per cent. The

Uniformed Services Pension Plan and we are going to debate their bill is 41

per cent. If you total all the pension plans together, you have liabilities of

$10.6 billion. That is the liability of our pension fund. That is the money that

we need in the plan, assuming it is earning 7.25 per cent, that is the money we

are going to need to pay all of our pension benefits. There is $6 billion in

assets invested in different assets. Our funded ratio is 57 per cent.

Our pension liabilities have been growing every year in spite of the special

payments. In 2005, it was under $8,000. In 2011, it is $10 billion. In 2011, it

is $10 billion in total liability, $6 billion in assets, so you have an unfunded

pension liability of $4 billion.

Without the recent payments, the $2 billion that Premier Williams negotiated

with Prime Minister Martin and the $962 million that we borrowed and put in, if

we did not do that the plans would only be 40 per cent funded.

Our net debt, as of March 31, 2012 was $7.8 billion. That was direct debt of

$5.4 billion, unfunded pension liability of $4.9 billion, less amortized gains

and losses of $1.8 billion. So the net unfunded liability of $3,100,000,000.

We have other post retirement benefits of $2 billion that is for the health

benefits and the drug plan and we have our financial assets less our

liabilities is $2.7 billion. So a net debt of $7.8 billion.

What are the challenges? The pension plans will continue to be challenged.

Future evaluation assumptions and you know that every three years an actuary

comes in and does an evaluation of the plan. Then, the actuary says this is how

much you have to put in to meet your promise. Of course, they are predicting the

future and we all know predicting the future is not an easy thing, no matter

what some people say on the Open Line shows.

I have said in this House before there is an old biblical saying: Man plans

and God laughs. When it comes to predicting the future, that is absolutely

correct.

For the pension plan, the actuary figures out how much you have to pay based

on what you want in the pension plan. For the retirement there is a certain

amount. If you want survivorship, it is a certain amount. If you want health

benefits, it is more. If you want indexation, that is the most expensive of all.

If you want full indexation, it is an awful lot of money. You could have a

lesser amount of indexation, it is less money. Each of those things are costed

by the actuary and that is what makes it up. So, the money has to be put in, in

order to get it out. The problem is that it is not enough.

Future evaluation assumptions will change to reflect the fact that mortality

will continue to improve and that is wonderful; people will continue to live

longer. I think life expectancy is improving about one year a decade. Our

interest rates our low. That means your liability is high when you use the

discount factor, the liability is going to be high. Low interests are also going

to hurt us on the income side. If interest rates are low and you put money into

guaranteed investments or bonds, the amount of return you are going to get is

even going to be lower.

So, this will increase liabilities by $500 million to $600 million. Pension

expense is expected to increase from $650 million to $820 million for 2013-2014,

and it will continue to increase in the out years. We have to take steps. We

have to make steps to fight the challenges that are causing our pension plans to

be unsustainable. We have to work on this together. The academic community

should be involved, the business community, the labour unions should be

involved, all Members of this House of Assembly, because this is a ticking time

bomb.

What is happening, what government is doing, is that government is taxing the

people of the Province to top up these funds which are not earning enough. So,

people who do not have defined benefit pension plans, people that do not have

pension plans at all, or those that do who are not doing very well in their

plan, they are also taxed to top up the defined benefit plans that government is

paying to its employees.

We are also going to have an inter-generational problem, because our

employees as we get older and retired, who is paying the taxes? You have a

younger generation paying the taxes to pay for all of this, and there are less

of them than there are going to be retirees. We are going to have to modify our

investment strategy. We have to de-risk our portfolio with a less aggressive

asset mix to put further pressure on the.

If nothing is done currently our unfunded pension liability, which

represents 60 per cent of the Province's net debt, assuming the investments do

earn 7.25 per cent a year, and all other actuarial assumptions are in fact

realized, the Public Service Pension Plan will only be funded by 41 per cent in

2029, with a projected unfunded liability of over $8 billion one pension plan.

The Teachers' Pension Plan will be 21 per cent funded in 2029, with a projected

unfunded liability of $4.5 billion.

The Auditor General has expressed concern for over twenty years. He has

commented specifically on the financial position of the pension plan in

cautioning that government needs to monitor the situation closely. In his 2012

report, the Auditor General said that the unfunded pension liability is a

significant portion of the Province's debt and that if no corrective action is

taken, the Uniformed Services Pension Plan will be exhausted in 2021 exhausted

the Teachers' Pension Plan will be 21 per cent funded in 2029, and the Public

Service Pension Plan will be 41 per cent funded in 2029.

Until 2009, payments to the fund, the contributions paid in by the employees,

exceeded the benefits paid out to the retirees, but since 2010 the opposite has

occurred. We now have more money being paid out to pensioners than is being paid

in by the employer and the employees.

The credit rating agencies have expressed concern. The Dominion Bond Rating

Service agency has noted that unfunded pension liabilities continue to place a

burden on the Province's finances and represent a significant part of our debt

burden. I quote them where they say: Despite paying down market debt, the debt

burden has remained constant as unfunded pension liabilities continue to go.

Mr. Speaker, this is a ticking time bomb. The taxpayers of this Province are

looking at the amount of money that government is taking and putting into the

pension plan and they are saying: Why isn't that money going into things like

hospitals, health care, or better programs? We have to deal with this issue. It

is not just for the government. It is for all of us.

It is for pension plans facing the private sector as well. You know what they

have been doing. They are either going broke or they are switching to Defined

Contribution Pension Plans, which is not an area where I would like to go. That

is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of all my colleagues.

In England, the Conservative government hired a former labour minister of

employment and pensions. His name is Lord Hutton and he said the same thing. He

said they have the same problem as we are experiencing. Well, I guess it is

everywhere. It is a demographic problem. He called going to Defined Contribution

Pensions a race to the bottom and he said we should not go there. Now, this is a

labour politician, and I am not saying he is right, but I will tell you what he

recommended. He recommended that the age of receiving a pension be increased to

sixty-five. He recommended that people start contributing more, that both

employees and government contribute more to the pension plan. He talked about a

different pension plan for new hires.

New Brunswick had a commission on pensions. Two of the members of the New

Brunswick commission we invited down. Officials in the Department of Finance

the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Director of Pensions, and myself met with

them. What they did is they came up with a new pension model called a Shared

Risk Pension Plan.

What they have done is they have changed their law, their Pension Benefits

Act, to allow a Defined Contribution Pension, to allow a Defined Benefit

Pension, but also to allow a new type of pension called a Shared Risk Pension.

As I understand it, under that type of pension arrangement, everybody will get

what they have earned to date; on a go-forward basis it will depend on market

return, but there would be guaranteed returns as well. I think that is something

we have to examine.

I know that some of the labour unions in New Brunswick have bought into this,

and I asked why, knowing how important Defined Benefit Pension Plans are to

their members. What I was told by the pension commission is that there was

recognition they have the same problem there as we have here; they are having

it in England, and they are having it everywhere in the world that these

pension plans are going to go broke, that they are not sustainable. They are

truly not sustainable. It is better to have maybe a smaller but improved pension

that is going to last in the future than simply being blind to the problem that

is happening, and being blind to what we are going to see in the future as the

liability increases and the returns continue to be lower.

I know in the auto industry in the USA, they have a two-tiered system with

older employees having the benefits from before but new employees under a new

system with fewer benefits. I know the problems with that.

Another option is what is called a Hybrid Pension Plan. Our pension plan runs

at an accrual rate of 2 per cent times your best five years, times the number of

years you worked. That is the formula. Maybe you have a hybrid plan where 1 per

cent is defined contribution and 1 per cent is defined benefit. That is an

option as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem we have to deal with and this is a problem we

all have to work together to come up with a solution for.

Mr. Speaker, we have not put any pension proposals forward in this current

round of collective bargaining. I understand the Leader of the Opposition may

have been on Open Line I did not hear him, but I understand he said that there

were proposals to strip the pension plan. That is not correct. There are no

proposals dealing with pension plans.

What we have said is that we did reserve the right to bring forward

proposals, which we may or we may not do. At the present time, there are no

proposals presented and there are no proposals ready to be presented. We have

been reviewing the pension situation. We see the problem and we have to come up

with a solution all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is enough today. I have spoken long enough. I think

these amendments that are happening here today, maybe some members opposite

thought that there were proposals in what we were presenting today that was

going to cause concern. Obviously, the amendments here today are going to help a

number of people. I am certainly interested in hearing, if not today but over

the future what members opposite will have to say with this problem, which is

facing governments not only in North America but across the world.

With that, I will urge passage of the legislation and I will answer any

questions that are during Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I guess after looking at the amendments to Bill 43, of course

just the three amendments that were suggested here, one about increasing the

indexing benefits of survivors, which allow for indexing. As the minister

mentioned, a lot of the actual members of the plan did not realize that this

actually existed, which was put there in 2002 by the Liberal Administration at

the time. I know the indexing is not really tied to the cost of living, there is

a cap on that, yet that indexing as the minister said is there. Once the pension

is indexed and passes to the survivor, it remains indexed, even if the spouse is

under sixty-five as the minister had mentioned.

The other change that we are looking at in this amendment is to allow a

member to access the reduced benefit at age sixty-five and to remove the Public

Service Credit Union from the plan because the credit union is now a full

service credit union. Essentially, what has happened there, the credit union

that was actually originally part of the public pension plan has now evolved to

the point where it is now seen, I guess, as an institution that could actually

administer and provide a pension program for the benefits of the employees.

There are a couple of other things, I guess, or a fair amount of stuff that

was mentione