November 27, 2012

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 59

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, before we get into

members' statements, I want to welcome to the public galleries today Mr. Ward

Gosse , who on this past Saturday evening was recognized by the Softball

Newfoundland and Labrador Hall of Fame as an inductee. He was recognized as the

co-winner of the Most Outstanding Player Award for the last quarter century,

1986 to 2012.

Congratulations, and welcome to our gallery, Mr. Gosse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board speaking to a point of order.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to correct comments I made yesterday as part of the second

reading of Bill 43,

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

There were comments relating to the indexation of benefits for survivors who

are under the age of sixty-five. The indexation of benefits for those survivors

is not included in the bill that was tabled yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, there are many issues that we are

evaluating as we are reviewing that legislation and the legislation that will be

debated this afternoon for uniformed services. The issue is currently under

review, but it was not included in the amendments of Bill 43. There will be

discussion of benefits in terms of Bill 44, which we will do today. I apologize

for the error. There was no intent to mislead, and the responsibility is mine.

Thank you.

Statements by Members

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

District of Mount Pearl South; the Member for the District of Bonavista South;

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

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District of The Straits White Bay

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

The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

House to recognize the accomplishments of seven individuals who have given their

time and talents to the sport of soccer in the City of Mount Pearl. Four of

these individuals: Walt Mavin, Dave Legrow, Mike Mooney, and Paul Miller have

been inducted into the Mount Pearl Soccer Hall of Fame in the category of

Builder; Gerry O'Brien in the category of Player; Andrew Moyst in the category

of Player-Builder; and Ed Moyst as the first Honorary Life Member.

Soccer, like many other sports, provides tremendous benefits to our youth,

not only from a health and wellness perspective, but also in providing lifelong

lessons such as the value of hard work and commitment and of working as part of

a team.

I would therefore ask all members of this hon. House to join me in commending

these seven individuals for their contribution to this great sport and

congratulating them on being inducted into the Mount Pearl Soccer Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista South.

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I rise in this House today to

recognize Mr. Calvin Hayley for his timeless dedication to the Town of Elliston.

He has contributed countless volunteer hours over the years through a host of

committees and organizations.

Mr. Hayley was the founding Chairperson for the Bonavista Area Chamber of

Commerce. He was the Chairperson for the Discovery Trail Tourism Association and

Director for Tourism Elliston for a number of years. Calvin was the Public

Relations Chair with Tourism Elliston and can claim responsibility for having

Elliston recognized as the Root Cellar Capital of the World.

Mr. Hayley has ten years of experience as teacher, vice-principal, and then

principal. He was the owner of a retail grocery store for thirty-five years, the

founder of Nanny's Root Cellar Kitchen restaurant, and is the owner of

Jams-N-Jellies wholesale.

He is currently the Heritage Events Planner for Tourism Elliston. He can be

credited with the success of Elliston's annual Puffin Festival, drawing

thousands of visitors each year. He also has a strong involvement in Elliston's

Annual Roots, Rants, and Roars culinary festival, and he is an advisor for

Elliston's Sealers Memorial.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, please join me in recognizing Mr. Hayley for

such significant contributions to the tourism industry.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in this House to recognize Ward Gosse, a former resident of Bay

Roberts, who last week was named by Softball Newfoundland as the co-winner of

the Most Outstanding Player Award of the last quarter century: 1986-2012.

I have known Ward for over forty years, where he began his softball career in

the minor softball program in Bay Roberts. Over the years, I have had the

privilege to coach, to compete with and against this outstanding athlete.

His achievements are many, but I would like to highlight just a few. He is a

ten-time Playoff MVP; seven-time Regular Seasons MVP; numerous provincial and

national tournament awards including MVP, Top Pitcher, and Top Batter. He is the

career leader in home runs, RBIs, pitching wins, and strikeouts, and the list

goes on, Mr. Speaker.

At forty-four, Ward continues to play and adds to his records each time he

takes the field. This past season he was part of his eleventh city championship

team, and a member of the gold-medal winning Three Cheers Pub who won the

Province's first National Fast Pitch Softball Championship.

I ask all hon. members to join with me on congratulating Ward on this

remarkable achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to Thomas Rodgers, who passed away on August 21.

Thomas was a

seventeen-year veteran of Commissionaires Newfoundland and Labrador. His

final post was here at the House of Assembly.

Tom was very professional, but he was always smiling. I am sure I am not the

only member with pleasant memories of his good humour.

Thomas had a long career with the Armed Forces, retiring in June 1995. He

served as the Commanding Officer of RCSCC Terra Nova and HMCS Avalon here at

home, HMCS Gimli in Manitoba and HMCS Qu'Appelle in Saskatchewan.

Thomas spent more than forty-one years with the Navy League of Canada and is

renowned for his involvement with the sea cadet movement. He is survived by his

wife of forty-eight years, Mary; five children: Craig, Blair, Paul, Kellie, and

Colleen; and eight grandchildren.

He, like other Commissionaires, was pleased to be a part of the history we

all made here in June when they, like the rest of us, were here for the longest

filibuster in this Province's legislative history. Throughout that whole

filibuster, Thomas' good wit was unfailing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to remember this fine man and a

former constituent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute my constituent Rex Saunders of St.

Lunaire-Griquet. In July, Flanker Press published his autobiography.

Mr. Saunders' story is a compelling one. He was born in St. Lunaire, then

called St. Leonard's, and spent his first years there and he is very clear that

he was a bit of a hard case in those days. After working in Main Brook, he moved

back to St. Lunaire to raise his family.

While all of Mr. Saunders' story is fascinating to me, the part that made

headlines nationwide happened in 2009 when he was sixty-six years old. He set

out for a day of sealing and, after a phone call to his wife, ended up stranded

on the ice flow about fifty-three kilometres from his home, with nothing more

than his floatation suit, a five-gallon gas can, and his very strong personal

faith.

Rex is the second eldest of Fred and Olive Saunders' ten children and is

married to Irene, nee Earle. They have five children and six grandchildren.

I assure all hon. members his book, Man on the Ice , is a great read

and hopefully it will be under many Christmas trees this year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour a constituent who has personally helped hundreds of

people from different countries settle into new lives in this Province. Bridget

Foster immigrated to Canada in 1978 and she has been Executive Director of the

Association for New Canadians since 1984.

In the almost thirty years that Bridget has been Executive Director, the

Association for New Canadians has grown from a small organization to a

full-service immigrant settlement agency. She was awarded the 2012 Paul Yuzyk

Award for lifetime achievement in Multiculturalism, an award given by the

federal government for dedication to advancing diversity, multiculturalism and

the integration of newcomers into Canadian society.

There surely could be no more appropriate winner of this award than Bridget

Foster.

I was delighted to award Bridget a Jubilee Medal in September this year in a

surprise presentation in front of 150 of her friends, relatives, Association for

New Canadians clients and co-workers. She thought the ANC was honouring students

for participating in the Terry Fox Walk instead, we were all honouring her.

I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking Bridget Foster for her decades

of work in helping to build this Province, as well as the country, and

congratulations on receiving the Queen's Jubilee Medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to remind the people of the

Province that the deadline to apply to become a founding member of the Qalipu

Mi'Kmaq First Nation is November 30.

Nation on September 26, 2011. The Qalipu Band has the distinction of being a

landless band, that is, while members have First Nation status, the band itself

does not have reserve lands and thus members live in various communities

throughout the Province.

The Qalipu Band was created with an initial list of close to 21,500 members

and since that time, thousands of people in the Province have made application

to become a member of the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq First Nation. It is anticipated that

applications could reach upwards of over 60,000.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supports members of the Qalipu

Mi'Kmaq First Nation in efforts to unite in sharing culture and heritage. Also,

members will be able to access all federal programs and services available to

status Indians, including the Post-Secondary Student Support Program and

Non-Insured Health Benefits.

Mr. Speaker, November 30 is the deadline for receipt of applications to

become a founding member. Further information is available at www.qalipu.ca.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance notice of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the leadership of the Qalipu

Mi'Kmaq Band on their pursuit towards a land claims settlement, if you may. Mr.

Speaker, as a beneficiary, as an Aboriginal person who was involved in and part

of a land claims agreement that spanned some thirty-five years, I certainly

support them in their trials and tribulations in pushing forward.

It is good to hear the minister talk about the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq receiving

education and health benefits. It is certainly very important, and these are two

very important issues that should be put forward.

I also encourage all potential members to come forward with their

applications before the end of the month. It will be a proud day for all

Aboriginal people when we see another Aboriginal settlement in our Province. I

wish the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq all the best in their future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Congratulations to the Qalipu Nation. It has been a long time in getting

there, I think almost fifty years. It has been a long and sometimes rough road

of negotiations, but after all this they have achieved something historic.

It is encouraging to see so many people take an interest in their Aboriginal

heritage. This interest was shown recently in the latest round of historic

elections. I encourage anybody who thinks they may qualify to apply before the

deadline, not just because of the benefits but as well as a celebration of their

heritage and their culture.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight a tourism

partnership that is helping to promote Atlantic Canada as a preferred

destination.

Earlier this month, representatives from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities

Agency, provincial governments and industry associations responsible for tourism

in Atlantic Canada, gathered to announce a three-year renewal of funding for the

Atlantic Canada Tourism Partnership.

The approximately $20 million agreement provides an opportunity to position

Atlantic Canada as a leading travel destination. The partnership enables us to

expand the industry through two research-driven marketing campaigns, one

promoting the Atlantic Canadian provinces in the United States, and a second in

key overseas markets, such as the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are committed to building

partnerships in Atlantic Canada and in our own backyard. In 2009 we released the

vision Uncommon Potential and established the Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism

Board as a public-private partnership. We have led the way in the country in

tourism marketing through our award-winning Find Yourself campaign, which has

won more than 170 regional, national, and international awards since 2006. In

fact, the provincial tourism campaign swept the ICE Advertising Awards last

week, winning an astounding sixteen awards, including Best in Show.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, working with our partners, we will continue to

build the tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. We too on this

side also say it is great any time that we can find funds and work with

partnerships to promote Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot to offer: snowmobiling, hiking, summer

destinations. Newfoundland and Labrador is a place that a lot of people come to

enjoy and relax.

Anything that we can do here as Opposition to help the government promoting

tourism and promoting Newfoundland and Labrador, we are willing to help. If

tourism helps in Newfoundland and Labrador, it helps all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, the new me: I think the ads are great.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. There is

certainly no question that our tourism marketing campaign is paying dividends

and I commend the renewed partnership with ACOA. I would like to express a need,

though, for adequate supports for our cultural and heritage sectors to advance

programming.

Beyond marketing, we need to make sure that we have appropriate financial

investments for our tourism and cultural industries. Infrastructure, such as

good transportation and telecommunication links, is vital.

I also look forward to hearing about other campaigns and partnership

initiatives from the minister.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, from November 12-18, two people from Newfoundland and Labrador

took to the rural stage to represent Canada and showcase excellence in

cabinetmaking.

Justin Bennett of Corner Brook, a College of the North Atlantic graduate, and

his instructor, Kelly Tompkins of the Codroy Valley, participated at the

WorldSkills Americas Competition in So Paulo, Brazil.

Mr. Speaker, after competing among 800 elite tradespersons from twenty

regions and countries of North America, Central America, South America and the

Caribbean, Justin Bennett received a bronze medal for his efforts. He also

helped Canada earn nine medals in total and placed third overall at the

prestigious international competition.

Mr. Speaker, Justin Bennett was selected and sponsored by Skills Canada to

join Team Canada based on his stellar performances at the Skills Canada National

Competitions in 2011 and 2012. The provincial government is pleased to support

Skills Canada Newfoundland and Labrador in building awareness of the skilled

trades and technologies in the Province.

As a College of the North Atlantic graduate, Mr. Speaker, Justin Bennett

learned from the best. The college is producing world-class skilled

tradespeople, and its cabinetmaking course is no exception. The hard work,

passion, and skill of instructor Kelly Tompkins led to the formation of this

program.

Through Mr. Tompkins' guidance and support, Justin Bennett has made this

Province very proud. This is the first time ever that Skills Canada has sent a

national team to the WorldSkills competition.

I ask all hon. members to join me in offering congratulations to Justin

Bennett and Kelly Tompkins. They have demonstrated excellence in their skills,

and are outstanding global ambassadors for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

I too would like to congratulate Mr. Bennett and Mr. Tompkins for what they

have done in representing this Province. I think we all need to recognize that

what we have here in this Province, and in the College of the North Atlantic, is

we are not just great provincially or nationally; we are being recognized

internationally for the good things that we are doing. I think that says a lot

about the quality of education at the College of the North Atlantic.

I am very lucky to know Mr. Tompkins. He is from the Codroy Valley and he

teaches at the campus in Port aux Basques, which is where Mr. Bennett was

trained, so very happy to speak to the success coming out of the Port aux

Basques campus of the College of the North Atlantic. I also think it speaks to

the success promoted by Mr. Jan Peddle and all the staff at the College of the

North Atlantic in Port aux Basques.

We have a great thing going there. The cabinetmaking is just one example of

the great programs that the college is offering. Kudos to Justin, Kelly, and the

entire college for what they are doing in representing this Province on a global

stage.

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.

Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I would also like to congratulate Justin and Kelly on their WorldSkills win,

one of the many great things that are happening at the College of the North

Atlantic. As we celebrate this success, Mr. Speaker, of students and staff at

the college, I hope that government will also look forward to the future and

ensure that the college has the resources it needs to build accessible and

innovative programs in the area of skilled trades and technology training.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Harper has directed Minister MacKay

on at least two occasions this year to find a new role for 5 Wing Goose Bay. The

Premier seemed to be taken by surprise when told of the letters, despite her

claims that 5 Wing has been one of her main priorities in the last election.

So I ask the Premier: With the daily back and forth with the Prime Minister

on a loan guarantee, why did you not have prior knowledge of the new proposed

developments at 5 Wing Goose Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, I have had a very close

contact with the federal minister, Minister Penashue, concerning 5 Wing Goose

Bay. I have had several meetings with him, as well as several phone calls, and

we are keeping a close eye on the Happy Valley-Goose Bay 5 Wing, and are

hopefully going to see something move there very soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's letter to Minister MacKay

calls for the establishment of a clear sovereignty protection mandate for 5 Wing

Goose Bay. Even our federal Cabinet representative, Peter MacKay, says the Prime

Minister will fulfill this promise.

So I ask the Premier: What will be included in the clear sovereignty

protection mandate for 5 Wing Goose Bay, and have you been privy to any

discussions with the Prime Minister or Minister Penashue?

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

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in the last question, I have had several meetings with Minister

Penashue. I am constantly keeping in touch with him, and through him, with

Minister MacKay. We are keeping a very close eye on 5 Wing Goose Bay and Happy

Valley, and as I said, the Prime Minister has made commitments there. We are

hoping that he will stay and stick to his commitments. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the CEO of Nalcor has said publicly that if

Muskrat Falls is not sanctioned by the end of November, timelines for the

project will have to be pushed. This will force Nalcor to revisit numbers on the

cost estimates.

So, I ask the Premier: The end of November is just three days away; how can

this government possibly meet this deadline?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there have been various time frames that we have dealt with,

with this file. It has been ongoing. We are in the process of finalizing the

loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker. Certain work has taken place at Muskrat Falls, as

the member opposite knows. Essentially, what we are doing is trying to get to

the stage where we can make our decision on sanction. Once that decision is

made, we will proceed from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, well, the question was more about pushing the

timelines and what you would do in this situation.

Mr. Speaker, the spending spree at Muskrat Falls continues, with Nalcor

spending $35 million on the project in September. Last week, Nalcor promised to

release their October expenditures, but we still cannot find them; they are

still hidden.

I ask the Premier: How much did Nalcor spend on Muskrat Falls in October and

how much was the transfer that you made to Nalcor to cover those expenses?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In October, Nalcor spent $28, 487,781. I am to understand that is also gone

to the Liberals, Mr. Speaker.

To this point, the only money that has been released from Natural Resources

has been the $45 million that was discussed in the House last week. There have

been no further monies released.

Mr. Speaker, I should also remind the member opposite that the Lower

Churchill project prior to 2003, there had been over more than $100 million

spent on the development of the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While government is touting the main benefit of Muskrat Falls as the ability

to shut down Holyrood, we have twenty-one communities along the Labrador Coast

on diesel generation paying some of the highest rates commercially anywhere in

the Province.

Why is government prepared to bypass the coastal communities of Labrador to

bring a transmission line to the Island, to Nova Scotia, and to the cottagers of

New England, yet no long-term power solution for Labrador's communities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ratepayers on the Coast of Labrador subsidize to the tune of $40 million

through our rural subsidy, which means you, and I, and everyone else is paying

for that, Mr. Speaker. The residents of Coastal Labrador currently pay 3.28

cents a kilowatt hour for their first 1,000 kilowatts, which is 5 per cent of

the true cost. Commercial customers pay 18.14 cents, which is still less than 25

per cent of the cost.

Mr. Speaker, the total demand on the Coast of Labrador, it is my

understanding, is ten megawatts of power. There was a Coastal Labrador study in

2010, Mr. Speaker; we are updating that study and we will be in a position

within the next few weeks, we will be receiving a proposal on small hydro for

the South Coast that looks at either the St. Lewis River or the Alexis River to

provide four megawatts of power for Port Hope Simpson, Mary's Harbour, and

Charlottetown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is being built in Labrador and it should benefit

all Labradorians who live adjacent to the development.

I ask the government today: What is government prepared to do to protect the

interests of Labradorians and to ensure that they receive maximum benefits from

this project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Residents of Labrador currently pay the lowest rates in Canada in terms of

residential rates, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing here: Muskrat Falls will

create billions of dollars in economic benefits to the Province as a whole, jobs

in Labrador with the Innu to receive the jobs first, then other Aboriginal

peoples, then residents of Newfoundland, the Island.

We are acutely aware of the need for power. The Premier, when she was there

as the minister, commissioned this study. We are also looking at if Voisey's Bay

goes underground, that will allow us then to provide power to Nain and

Natuashish. If the Paladin development goes ahead, that will allow us to provide

power to the closer communities such as Postville.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is we are trying to provide power. We are looking

at also wind to provide to the Northern communities with small hydro (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Muskrat Falls is going to see the same power go to Maritime Canada at a

cheaper rate than it will to Newfoundlanders; however, in Labrador we have

communities that are obtaining power from the Lake Robinson system in Quebec.

They pay 55 per cent more for that power than the residents of Quebec do.

Where is the fairness in that argument?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is exactly one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why we can no longer rely on

Quebec and one of the reasons that we have to build Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I have heard members opposite and critics say we should

re-buy our power from Quebec, Mr. Speaker. Well, Quebec has never given us a

good deal in the past. We are not going to get a good deal in the future.

Muskrat Falls allows us to escape the geographical stranglehold, Mr. Speaker, to

take charge of our own future and our own destiny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Environment and Conservation stated in this House that the

recommendations of Aboriginal groups regarding environmental assessment of Lake

Melville have been considered. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government

supported by the Joint Review Panel recommends an environmental assessment to be

carried out in Lake Melville.

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs: Why are the

recommendations of the Nunatsiavut Government and the Joint Review Panel being

ignored?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the member for the question. Metal mercury certainly is a

concern we take very, very seriously. Nalcor, during the environmental

assessment, has consulted with Aboriginal groups, key stakeholders, and the

general public in the Upper Lake Melville area to gain insight into concerns of

the community members. Feedback from these consultations has certainly been

considered throughout the entire environmental assessment process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the Joint Review Panel concluded that the

Muskrat Falls Project would have significant adverse effects on traditional

activities by Aboriginal people, including the harvesting of food in Lake

Melville.

I ask the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs: Will you direct Nalcor

to reconsider their decision not to do an environmental assessment in Lake

Melville?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are always aware that increased metal mercury concentrations will occur

with flooding. It is a known impact of hydroelectric developments with utilities

such as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, and Manitoba Hydro are

just three examples.

Consumption advisories are the key mitigation measure for increases in this

concentration. These advisories, established by Health Canada, educate residents

on the amount of fish that can be safely consumed. These advisories are

currently in place in reservoirs such as Cat Arm on the Island.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all contingencies and doing what is

necessary to ensure the safety of the people and their eating habits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this government is forcing school boards to

close schools all over the Province. The fallout, as we have seen in the news,

is an anguishing, emotional, and divisive process whereby school boards are

pitted against children and their parents.

I ask the minister: What is his government's policy regarding school

closures?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, any time there is the motion to close a school

it is very, very emotional. Anybody who has been involved in it realizes that,

as are the people who are going through it right now.

Mr. Speaker, there are some realistic facts that we have to take into

consideration here. Over the past ten years, we have had a reduction of 20,000

students. Mr. Speaker, that means that in parts of our Province we have schools

that can accommodate more students and whatnot.

We have an elected board, Mr. Speaker, that goes and offers a process of

consultation with parents and the community at large, and then decisions will be

made. To this point, people have made their representation. I encourage them to

do so and continue to do so, and then in due course the boards will make their

decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, during the 2005 by-election, the then Premier

Danny Williams overturned the school board's decision to close Leo Burke Academy

in Bishop's Falls, arguing that the school is viable and it should stay.

I ask the minister: Is school viability a consideration for his department,

or is viability only considered during elections?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to stoop that low. Mr. Speaker, I

refuse to stoop that low. We have people who are elected school board officials

who are going out and we know how emotional those issues are, and, Mr. Speaker,

I refuse to stoop that low.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the original tender for the facelift of the

Confederation Building was $39 million. The completion date has passed and the

cost has risen dramatically.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: How much of taxpayers' money

have been spent to date on this project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the hon. member opposite asked the question because I get asked the

question on a regular basis, what is happening here at the building with the

construction that is going on here.

This is a building that has been the centrepiece of democracy in Newfoundland

and Labrador for generations, Mr. Speaker. It has been here since the 1960s. It

has never undergone any significant repairs or upgrades

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has never undergone any significant repairs or upgrades to the exterior,

which is taking place. There is replacement of windows, replacement of brick,

repairs to roofing that is underway. It is a significant piece of work that

needs to be done to continue for this building to be operational for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: I say to the minister, the former minister stated that the

windows are being tinted blue while line-ups at the food bank are rising in the

Province. That is a waste of money going on here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, multi-million dollar projects

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: - often have been significant cost overruns. The project hits

directly at taxpayers.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: How much will this facelift

cost the taxpayers of this Province over and above the original estimate,

including the cost to tint the windows blue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I can tell you, I am the minister in a department that is very big but I have

not dug down to find out what it cost to colour windows, or framing around

windows as of yet, but if he wants to know that I can try and find it out for

him.

The windows that are being installed and the replacements that are being done

in this building will also increase the economic feasibility of the operations

of this building. It will improve the air quality for the people who work in

this building. As well, it will repair the building so it lasts for generations

to come and serve the people as it has before, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again, I am sure the minister

knows, to date, how much this project has cost. I am sure of it. If not, the

minister should go up and check it. When the minister does check it, can you

tell us what the estimated cost is of completion of this building? Because I am

sure there are engineers in your department who have given you an estimated cost

to complete this building.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite pleased to stand here in the House and answer questions to the

hon. member opposite, but when he asks what it cost to colour windows, I am not

sure that is what is in the best interest of the use of time here in Question

Period. If he wants to know the cost of the investment that we are making in

this building, I do not mind answering that and I will provide details to him if

he is interested.

The initial cost was in the range of $40 million when the first initial

assessments were done. Since that, the assessment now on the complete and total

cost what happened, Mr. Speaker, is when we got into actually opening up the

envelope, as it is referred to in the construction industry, you sometimes find

that there is more work to be done within that envelope, and inside those walls

than previously anticipated. We anticipate the cost now, Mr. Speaker, is the

range of $50 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, the former minister okayed

to change the tint of the windows, and he said it in Estimates in this House of

Assembly.

My question to the minister: How much has been spent to date? What is the

total cost, as estimated by your department, has been given to you at the cost

of the taxpayers of this project?

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

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I clearly answered his question. If he has some other information he

wants to know, I will be glad to supply it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, 5.3 per cent of the Province's population

used food banks last year, which is over double the national average. No other

province or territory has a higher percentage.

I ask the minister responsible for poverty reduction: With all the resource

wealth, and a Poverty Reduction Strategy that they have touted as leading the

way, why is our food bank usage double the national average?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government was serious back in 2003 when it took over

government, and at that time we looked at the poverty rates in Newfoundland and

Labrador, compared it within Canada. At that time, Mr. Speaker, we had the

highest rate of poverty in Canada. We set out over a ten-year period to create a

Poverty Reduction Strategy, which we invest approximately $150 million annually

to insure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador benefit from anti-poverty

strategies.

Mr. Speaker, today, this Province, as opposed to being the highest, is now

the third-lowest ranking in poverty (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his review of the Muskrat Falls Project, International Energy

Expert, Dr. Gordon Weil said the federal loan guarantee would protect against a

bad deal, and the details and conditions of the federal loan guarantee are of

critical importance.

Yesterday, the Premier once again gave an indefinite answer to when we will

see the loan guarantee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is this government

hiding from the people of this Province about the loan guarantee negotiations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the loan guarantee is to reduce interest rates on

this project, which, in turn, will reduce rates for the people of the Province.

That is the whole purpose of the loan guarantee and why it is critical to this

project, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, we are negotiating with the federal government, and detail is

important. We have shown that time and time again in the agreements that we have

negotiated, particularly in our offshore, Mr. Speaker.

When the negotiation is complete and the document is ready for signature, Mr.

Speaker, then we will share with the people of the Province the good news of the

loan guarantee and the benefits it will bring to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I will be really happy when it finally does happen because it has been one

moving target for the last six months a moving target.

Mr. Speaker, this government started off saying the Lower Churchill would

supply markets in the Atlantic Provinces and the US. Two years ago, we were told

Muskrat Falls would replace the Holyrood plant. More recently, government said

Muskrat Falls is needed for Labrador mining interests. Two months ago, the

Premier said in a speech the project would get us out from under Hydro-Quebec's

thumb.

The Premier is moving target again a moving target; this time, her

communication strategy moving target lacks credibility.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: What is the real reason for proceeding with

Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, let me simply say: all of the above.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House

we do not have a myopic view of the world. The sky is not falling as far as this

government is concerned.

Our number one rationale for developing Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, is to

provide needed electricity to the people of the Province from 2017 forward, and

to make sure that we are providing that electricity at the cheapest possible

rate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we will also enable development in

Labrador. We will also break the stranglehold that Quebec has over us and we

will engender and empower development here for years to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been here over a week asking questions and getting nothing new in

reply. Government is sealed in a hydro bubble, while the rest of the world is

changing. There are predictions of a worldwide drop in oil prices and of the

disappearance of long-term markets. Every week we hear of sea changes in global

energy markets. The rationale for Muskrat Falls could very well be evaporating.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why does she continue to wear blinkers that

keep her from seeing what everybody else knows?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and time again, this is the most studied

project in our history. We have released more information on this project than

any other project in the history of the Province.

We have experts at Nalcor who provide their analysis, Mr. Speaker. We have

experts from all over this country and the world validating the expertise at

Nalcor and the good project that we have under development here. Yet, the Leader

of the Third Party has yet has yet to provide one iota of evidence to say

that what we have said is incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, meeting Labrador mining interests is the most recent

justification by government for their Muskrat Falls Project. The Premier has

stated if Muskrat Falls was not built, mining companies would be forced

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: to go to Hydro-Quebec for power. With a surplus of power

and close proximity to these projects, Hydro-Quebec is already able to provide

competitive rates to these companies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What would stop mining companies from playing

Hydro-Quebec off against Nalcor in a race to the bottom for cheap power rates?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual circumstance to stand in the House of Assembly

in Newfoundland and Labrador and have elected officials advise the government to

allow development in Labrador to remain in the hands of Hydro-Quebec. It is

absolutely unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

Not only are we living with the Upper Churchill contract, Mr. Speaker, in

which Hydro-Quebec to date have earned over $20 billion, where Newfoundland and

Labrador have only earned $1 billion, we have failed attempt after failed

attempt two by the previous Liberal Administration to get a deal that was

favourable and advantageous to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now she

wants us to turn over all development in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fire services in the Province are suffering due to a lack of staff at fire

halls around the Province. Volunteers are hard to come by in a Province where

going away to work is still the order of the day. It is difficult to retain

volunteers to keep the basic emergency services operating.

Can the minister please tell this House what his department is doing to help

retain volunteer firefighters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where he is getting his

information, but I have been in many fire halls over the last number of months;

there is not an issue in regard to volunteers coming forward to provide that

service to their communities. As a matter of fact, I was on the Burin Peninsula

just this weekend and they have gone beyond their complement, actually, to be

honest with you, in regard to what they need.

The other thing we are doing in this Province is investing in our fire services.

We have been investing ever since we created Fire and Emergency Services, since

2007. You should get out and see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess he is not in the same places where I have been over the last couple

of months, because there is a shortage of volunteer firefighters, and you and I

know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, government has been re-announcing investments in

fire trucks and associated equipment for firefighting, which are all good

investments, to be fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: The fire truck tour continues, however. Municipal Affairs

have close to sixty requests for fire trucks that are badly needed in this

Province, Mr. Speaker. There will be new requests for this next Budget year.

Can the government tell firefighting services in the Province how it will

meet the need after it cut over $2.2 million more in the Budget than in last

year's fire truck tour?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, one other thing I forgot about in regard

to volunteer firefighters is the tax credit that will put approximately $1,000

in each one of the pockets of volunteer firefighters in this Province, I say to

the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Since the creation of Fire and Emergency Services, we have

invested over $20 million in regard to equipment and vehicles in this Province,

and we will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government constantly talks about its support for

affordable housing initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, will this government put its money where its mouth is and stop

charging the provincial portion of HST on affordable housing projects in this

Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, every time the hon. member gets up and talks about the housing

circumstances we know there are people throughout our communities who from

time to time have challenges in their lives, and sometimes that deals with

housing. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things going on in housing in this

Province as well a lot of good things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: This morning I had the great benefit of visiting the Lilly

Building, down on Bond Street in St. John's. It was a project by Choices for

Youth, built about three years ago by youth from our community, young

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who actually hands-on built this project. It

was part of what they call a Train for Trades program.

That Train for Trades program has continued since then. These young people

are now actually working on retrofit projects at Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing units. They are working in the community, Mr. Speaker. Eighty per cent

of the participants are now working full-time or are now in post-secondary

education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: That was an interesting non-answer, Mr. Speaker.

Usable land is a key to building affordable housing in planned communities.

Will this government, Mr. Speaker, commit to freezing the sale of all

government-owned land and vacated buildings until a solid, comprehensive housing

policy and strategy is in place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad again to have the opportunity to get up and talk about some of the

good work that has been going on. As we progress and deal with such important

needs as housing and homelessness, one of the things we have had great success

on is partnerships.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province we are now partnering with private developers

who are building affordable housing. We provide them with assistance and

support, and they build affordable housing for seniors and people who are most

in need of housing in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the future of housing

and that is the future of success as a government, Mr. Speaker: work with

partnerships and the people on the ground who are providing the services to

those people who need it most.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, government boasts about spending money on social

housing, yet many people are still facing a housing crisis, uncontrolled rent

increases, and zero per cent vacancy rates, with no relief in sight. Single

folks and young working families often spend over 35 per cent of income on

shelter and heat, leaving little for food, clothing, and transportation.

They are not getting the rent supplements; they are not housed in the new

Affordable Housing Initiative units. These programs assist only the most

economically disadvantaged.

Mr. Speaker, what will this government do to address the uncontrolled rent

increases these people must pay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the hon. member opposite mentioned rent supplements, because for

twenty-five years the budget of the Province of the day was set at $4 million.

Mr. Speaker, we have doubled that we have doubled that. The annual budget now

given to rent supplements in this Province is set at $8 million annually. Last

year, we created 375 new rent sups for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, not only that, but an interesting gauge you quite

often use is the wait list. The wait list in 2010 in Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing was 1,215 and this year it is down to 890, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table the Board of Commissioners of Public

Utilities reference to the board, review of two generation expansion options for

the least cost supply of power to Island interconnected customers for the period

2011-2067, Mr. Speaker, and I refer the Leader of the Third Party specifically

to page 65 and 66. She has read the executive

summary, Mr. Speaker, now we will

try to get her to the rest of the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province

Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils and Tribunals. (Bill 47)

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

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

point of order.

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a point of order regarding the petition given yesterday

by the Member for St. Barbe. I want to note that in the prayer of the petition,

in the fifth clause that states:

WHEREAS the amount of $677,000 in grants

awarded to the District of Trinity Bay de Verde is factually incorrect.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that in his commentary he indicated that

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

Speaker, that is factually incorrect, it was the second round.

Further to that, he also indicated that the highest number and amount went to

Trinity Bay de Verde when, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the highest amount right now

has gone to Burgeo La Poile. Trinity Bay de Verde is not even in the top

three.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order?

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think it is a point of order but we certainly appreciate the

clarification for the House. Oftentimes when petitions come to MHAs from their

district they are worded in a way that the people of the Province are seeing a

particular issue, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Member

for St. Barbe so that the information can be passed along.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for the District of 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 early childhood educators are trained professionals essential to the

operation of child care centres and indispensable to many parents and children

across Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS on the occasion of Early Childhood Educators Week in May 2012,

government conveyed its support and recognition for the role of early childhood

educators and expressed its appreciation for their value; and

WHEREAS early childhood educators working in child care centres receive

salaries that are the lowest in Canada amongst ECEs; and

WHEREAS government's 2012 increase in subsidies paid to ECEs applies only to

Level I ECEs working in child care homerooms and Level II early childhood

educators who operate child care centres; and

WHEREAS all early childhood educators are highly educated, skilled, and

deserving of a fair and equitable wage subsidy; and

WHEREAS government is discriminating against some of the most skilled ECEs in

Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

House of Assembly to urge the government to revise the enhancement to the Early

Learning and Child Care Supplement to include all early childhood educators

working in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that was started after government's

announcement last spring. There are approximately 650 additional signatures to

the petition that I am presenting today.

It is timely because last week in the House of Assembly we celebrated

National Child Day here in the Province. I think there was just a study that was

released yesterday, or perhaps it is today, by TD Economics which shows that

there is quite a high return on investment in education in the early years. It

showed that for, say the average child the return was up to $3 for every $1

investment. For children who come from disadvantaged situations, more

challenging say socio-economic backgrounds, the payoff can be even higher than

that.

Investments in early childhood education are a great thing; there is a high

return on investment. I know government has done a number of things to date. I

would encourage them to continue to look at this particular issue, because there

are a lot of ECEs in Newfoundland and Labrador who are dissatisfied with the

subsidy situation right now.

All of these additional signatures on this petition are evidence of that. I

hope the members will consider this and hear the pleas of these petitioners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

on a point of order.

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to raise a point of order. My

understanding, according to the rules of the House, Standing Orders 90-97, it

says when a petition is presented to the House it should be presented by a

member in his or her place who shall be answerable that it does not contain

impertinent or improper matter.

The member just mentioned that our ECEs are the lowest paid in Atlantic

Canada, Mr. Speaker. This is not the case. I feel that this is an improper

manner in which he is presenting it before the House. They are, in fact, the

highest paid in Atlantic Canada. I would like for him to table where he received

that information.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North, to the point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the exact wording here on the petition is,

"Early Childhood Educators working in child care centres receive salaries that

are the lowest in Canada amongst ECEs".

Thank you.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, because there have been a

couple of petitions where the accuracy of the information has been referenced. I

appreciate, for all members, that they receive petitions and they fill incumbent

to bring them to the House.

I would ask you, as Speaker of the House, to give consideration and to rule

section 90 in the Standing Orders of the House. It puts the responsibility,

Mr. Speaker, for the accuracy of information for petitions not on those who sign

the petition. It puts the responsibility, as I see it, in here, clearly on the

shoulders of the member presenting the petition before the House.

I would respectfully ask if you would consider that and give a ruling on how

we accept petitions from here on in and how we validate them.

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

MS MICHAEL: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have my copy of O'Brien and Bosc open, but I do know that in

O'Brien and Bosc it does refer to the fact that the members feel an obligation

when petitions are presented to them, whether they agree with them or whether

they do not agree with them, to present the petitions on behalf of the

petitioners.

To me, that means that whatever is in the petition does get presented. So, in

doing your review of the points that have been just made, I would like to have a

ruling of my understanding of O'Brien and Bosc that if a petition is presented

to us and the petition goes to the Clerk of the House and it gets certified by

the Clerk, then we speak to what the concerns of the people are, as expressed in

the prayer that they have signed.

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

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.

With respect to the comments just made, I would ask you to do a couple of

things, respectfully, in your ruling. First of all, I think it is very important

that the House have a clear understanding of what takes precedence as orders and

rules for this House, whether it is O'Brien and Bosc, I believe, that was

mentioned a few moments ago which, if memory serves me, it is the big green

book we have that relates to the House of Commons in Ottawa or, does first

priority go to our own Standing Orders, referred to as Standing Orders of the

House of Assembly, titled Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, as I said a

few moments ago, it very clearly outlines here the responsibility has to be

placed upon members.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I believe, and it would be government's belief that

notwithstanding the petitions presented here, all members in this House, when

they stand to present information, you cannot use as a shoulder the fact that

somebody else misquoted or misrepresented information on paper. You have an

obligation. People in this House and people throughout the Province who listen

to us speak in this House expect that we bring accurate, reliable, and truthful

information here.

I believe, as I would ask you to rule, that the fact somebody else wrote

something on a paper does not give any member of this House justification to

come in here, present it, and argue it for three minutes as being factual in the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North, to a point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister and the Government House Leader are interested in where that

information comes from, they should refer back to the Early Years Study 3 that

was released last fall that showed Newfoundland and Labrador was lowest in the

country on every metric that the authors of that study looked at.

If you want that information, that is where that is written. Go read it. If

you are not up on it, then I have serious concerns about your ability to manage

this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am looking at

section 92 under petitions in our Standing Orders. I do

not read it the way that it has been read by the Government House Leader. "Every

Member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the

statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached

to it and the material allegations it contains. In no case shall the Member

occupy more than 3 minutes in so doing, unless by permission of the House upon

question put".

There is nothing in that about responsibility for the content of the

petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KING: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I say, with respect to members opposite, there is no need for any member to

stand in their place and insult other members of the House. We are merely

debating a point of order in this House, as every member in this House has a

right to do and a right to raise their opinion, there is no need to insult

people or suggest that people cannot read information. We will certainly do our

homework, but this focus is on the point of order about Standing Orders.

Specifically to the comment made, the Leader of the Third Party is reading a

paragraph not that I quoted. I refer to you specifically that I quoted

section

90, not

section

Section 90 reads, and I quote, "A petition to the House

shall be presented by a Member in his or her place who shall be answerable that

it does not contain impertinent or improper matter"

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has heard

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has heard multiple representations with respect to the point of

order raised by the hon. Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services. I will

take all of them under advisement and report back to the House at a future date.

Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope there is not going to be a point of order on my petition.

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 the crab being processed in Area 2J is currently landed and processed

in Area 2J I am pretty certain about that, Mr. Speaker; and

WHEREAS this ensures that processors and plant workers adjacent to the

resource benefit appropriately from the resource that is pretty certain, too,

Mr. Speaker; I have consulted with a lot of them; and

WHEREAS any changes to this practice will be detrimental to communities where

processing plants in communities adjacent to Area 2J it goes without saying,

Mr. Speaker: if they do not have the resource, they have no reason to open;

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

House of Assembly to urge the government to commit to maintaining this practice

and disallow any Area 2J crab to leave Area 2J to be landed or processed in

other parts of the Province.

That is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what people are asking in

the district. They are doing so because of a regulation that came into place in

the early 1990s. It was there to protect the crab industry in Labrador, to allow

for companies to go into Labrador, make significant investments in processing

plants, in infrastructure, and in port facilities, and they would be guaranteed

a quota to maintain that operation and to stabilize it for the long term.

What we are seeing now is a review of that policy by the provincial

government. The review has been undertaken simply because there have been two

processing plants that have closed down. Some of these processors had

investments in harvesting operations and enterprises. Those enterprises are now

looking to be able to sell outside.

I totally disagree with it, Mr. Speaker. The reason the policy was put in

place in the first place has not changed. There is a huge dependency upon those

quotas being landed and processed in Labrador, and because of policies like that

we have seen stability in the crab fishery in Labrador when we have seen

complete instability in other areas of the Province.

I will give you an example: there have been years when the crab fishery was

shut down in this Province by processing companies, when they shut their plant

doors and they forced enterprises, fishermen, to tie up at wharves with crab

aboard their boat and they refused to buy that crab.

That did not happen in Labrador. It has never happened in Labrador. There has

always been a working relationship between the processing companies, between the

fishermen, between the plant workers. There has always been give and take. There

have been times when fishermen have taken cuts in quotas; there were times when

plants have been able to reinvest more money to help communities than they

probably could have, but, Mr. Speaker, it all works because they work hand in

hand, and part of that success is the Province

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: Could I have two minutes to clue up? (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have two minutes?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I have one minute?

MR. SPEAKER: The member has been granted one minute to clue up her

comments on a three-minute presentation.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In order for this to work in Labrador, the government has to be a partner in

it as well, the provincial government, and they have been since the early

nineties. The people are asking that you continue to be a partner with us, and

you continue to work with the shrimp company, with the harvesters, with the

plant workers and with the communities to ensure that we maximize this resource

and that it works to provide employment and stability in the industry for all

those who are affected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with the passage of Bill 29, the Access To Information And Protection

Of Privacy Amendment Act, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

weakened citizens' access to information, and has reduced government

transparency and I believe that to be true; there is nothing redacted here in

this petition, Mr. Speaker; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has moved towards greater

secrecy and less openness; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is breaking its own

commitment for greater transparency, accountability, and freedom of information,

which it said at one time was the hallmark of its government;

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

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

the passage of Bill 29.

As in duty bound, you petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I keep getting copies of this petition delivered to my office

from people from all over the Province. The people of the Province are outraged

about Bill 29. They do not believe that this is the direction that they want our

democracy to go in.

They do not want less transparency; they do not want more secrecy. They

believed this government when they ran on a platform of greater openness, and

greater transparency and accountability that this government would provide that.

In fact, this government has turned its back on the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador and provided the exact opposite.

I have a petition here signed by people from St. John's, Mount Pearl, Torbay,

St. Phillips, from Paradise, Portugal Cove, Conception Bay South, Paradise

again, Mount Pearl, Lord's Cove, Gander let me see, from all over the

Province. From Coachman's Cove, from Glovertown

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: from Brigus Junction, from Foxtrap. Mr. Speaker, we have

people from all over the Province signing this petition saying that they want

this regressive piece of legislation to be repealed. From Marystown, from Burin,

from across the Province, the people of the Province want their voice heard on

this particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have a petition. 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 home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain

within the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people

to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care

workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011 as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne

committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people

the option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to

implement paying family caregivers;

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

House of Assembly to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers

in the 2012-2013 Budget.

And in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first petition for family caregivers that I have

presented in the House. Unfortunately, I do not think it is going to be the last

one that I present in this House.

I should say a time commitment has been put in place by the minister and that

was about six months ago, it was very, very soon. In the last week, now that has

been upgraded to very soon. I am looking forward to hopefully the next question

I ask it is going to be soon.

The fact is, this is something that is needed all over this Province, and we

know it. The fact is people did rely on that promise. The promise was made and

we all hope that it is going to be committed to. I understand that it is a

challenge because it is not an easy thing to implement. It is a huge procedure,

but if it was promised it should be lived up to, Mr. Speaker, and I am hoping

that it can be done.

We hear stories on the radio of people in very drastic situations who are

relying on this and not getting the help they need. I am pretty sure I can

virtually guarantee there are not many members in this House who have not heard

of this issue from one of their constituents at some point or another and they

will continue to hear about it.

Again, in this case the petition is coming from the Diamond Cove, Rose

Blanche Harbour Le Cou area of my district. These people are hoping that this

promise will be fulfilled, as am I, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind members, who are presenting petitions, of a ruling the

Speaker made in the last session. The petitions, before they are presented on

the floor of the House of Assembly, are first to be presented prior to the

sitting to the Table Officers of the House. Those petitions will be initialled

by that individual doing the review, and only those petitions that have been

initialled by one of the Table Officers prior to the session and the member

presenting such a petition, only then will the member be recognized to present a

petition on the floor of the House. I remind members of that earlier ruling this

past spring.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain

in the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people to

be discharged from hospital earlier

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for St. John's South, given my earlier comment, is the

member presenting and tabling a petition today that has been signed by one of

the Table Officers who are sitting today?

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, I believe a copy of this petition has been accepted by

the House. It has been presented by other members.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the one you have there presenting on behalf of yourself

today, has that one been presented to the Table for authorizing before it is

being presented to the House?

MR. OSBORNE: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, I will do that.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Before we get into Orders of the Day, on November 22 the Member for St. Barbe

raised a point of order with respect to comments made by the hon. Minister of

Service Newfoundland and Labrador during Oral Questions which the member called

a mischaracterization of what he had said.

The Speaker has reviewed Hansard from that day's session, and the comments

made by both members, and the Speaker believes there is no point of order, but

rather a difference of opinion between two hon. members.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 2, third reading of Bill 43.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board, that Bill 43,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is 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 43 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 Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

(Bill 43)

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

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991",

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

43)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 5, I call for second reading of a bill,

An Act To Revise And Amend The

Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire

Department, Bill 44.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and

Conservation, that Bill 44,

An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting

Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional

Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department, be

now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 44,

An Act To Revise And

Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's

Regional Fire Department, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law

Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire

Department". (Bill 44)

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I had the pleasure in my capacity as the Finance Minister to move

amendments to the Public Service Pension Plan. Today we are, for the most part,

making similar amendments, with some others as well, to the pension plan for our

police officers, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and the correctional

officers. Generally it is known as the Uniformed Services Pensions Act. We are

proposing the name be changed to the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 2012.

All members have a copy of this bill. Defined pension plans are quite complex

and not easily understood, but I think it would be wise for members maybe to

take a chance to read this legislation. It is not only making amendments, it is

really modernizing the legislation as well. There are a number of housekeeping

amendments in here as well. There are a lot of provisions that are no longer

applicable, so they are being removed. So, it is a good act, not to thick, where

members could get a darn good view of a law that deals with a defined benefit

pension plan, and that would lead to a better understanding of these mystical

plans if I can use that particular expression.

So, the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, commonly known as the USPP, is one

of five government-sponsored defined benefit pension plans that we have. As I

said earlier, it provides pensions for correctional officers at the government's

penitentiaries throughout the Province, members of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, and a limited number of firefighters with the City of St. John's.

It is interesting to note that as of December 31, 2011, Mr. Speaker, there were

693 active members, and 751 retirees under the plan. So, as our civil service

ages as part of the demographic shift that is happening in this Province, we now

have a situation here where we have more people on retirement than active

members paying into the plan.

As I said yesterday, the pensions in this Province are governed by the

Pension Benefits Act, which is in the Department of Service Newfoundland and

Labrador, but we have these five pension plans for our own employees and they

are handled in the Department of Finance, and that is why I am the minister,

rather than the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, who is speaking

to this legislation today on behalf of the government.

This act, Mr. Speaker, is being amended at this time to bring the text of the

plan in line with the provisions of the provincial Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

As I said, that is the act that regulates all pension plans in the Province, and

of course, it is provincial plans that are regulated. We have plans in the

Province, for example, the RCMP's plan, CBC as an example, federal government

employees, which are regulated by the federal government.

The amendments are also to bring this plan, the USPP, in line with the

requirements of the Income Tax Act of Canada. Compliance with the Income Tax Act

is necessary to ensure that the contributions under that pension plan are, in

fact, deductable for income tax purposes. Most of the changes proposed to the

language are, as I said, housekeeping in nature and will not impact members'

benefits.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, there are some amendments that in addition to

making this pension plan more consistent with the Pensions Benefits Act and with

the Income Tax Act, the members will provide more retirement flexibility for

terminating employees over the age of fifty-five. It will increase the level of

benefits for survivors of some of the older plan members I hope to get it

right today, not like I did yesterday and will ensure consistency in the cost

of crediting periods of unpaid leave among all the public sector plans.

Mr. Speaker, the current Uniformed Services Pensions Plan was enacted back in

1991. It was enacted to comply with changes that had taken place in the income

tax law. Those changes had been implemented to limit the amount of benefits that

employees could earn under a registered pension plan.

The act was changed in 1991 because of changes in the Income Tax Act of

Canada. The plan, at that time, provided more generous benefits that were now

permitted under the new income tax law and the regulations there under. As part

of the transition to the new tax compliant plan in 1991, members of the

Uniformed Services Pension Plan who had more than twenty years of service were

given an option. They could either keep the benefits, the more generous benefits

that were in place at the time but pay higher contributions, or they could move

to the new Uniformed Services Pension Plan that was brought in at that time.

Those who opted to stay in the old plan were identified as a separate class

called RCA employees. These members have now all retired, so the necessity to

maintain the separate class of employees has now lapsed; therefore, removing

reference to this group and the unique benefits that they had will result in a

much easier act to understand and to administer. That is one of the things that

is happening under this legislation.

The first amendment that we are making to the plan provisions and I think

it is contained in

section 20 of Bill 44. It provides an actuarially reduced

pension for a member who is age fifty-five and has at least five years of

service, and who currently would not qualify for a pension before the age of

sixty. The way the act reads right now is that you have to wait until age sixty

to get a pension, but if your pension is vested, in other words if you have more

than five years of service, then when you hit the age of fifty-five by this

amendment, you can now receive an actuarially reduced pension.

This amendment will provide the member upon retirement with access to an

immediate actuarially reduced pension from as early as age fifty-five. The

actuarial reduction is necessary to ensure that the early payment of pension is

cost-neutral to the plan, thus resulting in little impact on the plan's

liability. While the member's plan is reduced, it does give the member

additional flexibility with respect to accessing a pension. You can retire early

with a lower pension rather than wait until sixty to get the unreduced pension.

The second amendment to the plan provisions are set out in

section 27(6) and

(7) of the amendment. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will adjust the benefits of

certain survivors of plan members who died after January 1, 1997.

When the act was overhauled in 1991, the old plan benefits, which, as I

mentioned earlier, some of the members had the option to keep, those plan

benefits provided that the survivor on death of the member would get a benefit

equal to 55 per cent of the member's pension upon the death of the plan member.

That 55 per cent survivor benefit is not consistent with the requirements of the

Pensions Benefits Act; therefore, Mr. Speaker, this amendment will increase the

survivor's benefits from 55 per cent to 60 per cent.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will be retroactive to January 1, 1997, and it

will impact sixty-five survivors, approximately. This will increase the annual

pensioner payroll by $76,000 annually and the cost to the pension fund of the

retroactive amendment will be approximately $500,000.

Mr. Speaker, the third amendment that is set out in the plan provisions is to

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that employees of government can take a

period of leave without pay where they may go and take a position somewhere

else, but their position is held for them and they have the right to return to

that position. I am talking about things as parental leave and educational

leave.

Uniformed Services Pensions Plan who are purchasing periods of unpaid leave to

be consistent with those that are in place for the Public Service Pension Plan

and the Teachers' Pension Plan.

Currently under the existing law, USPP members can at any time prior to

retirement purchase periods of unpaid leave by paying the contributions on the

salary they would have earned during the period of leave while the employer pays

the matching share. When the employee takes the leave and then returns, the

employee can wait until retirement before paying for the unpaid leave. He will

pay for that leave based on the salary he would have been earning during the

time he was on unpaid leave.

This ability, Mr. Speaker, to delay the purchase until retirement means the

employee would not be paying the true cost of the pension that is related to the

period of leave. The Public Service Pension Plan and the Teachers' Pension Plan

require that plan members purchase the period of leave within ninety days of

returning to work, if they want to pay the contributions with the employer

paying the matching share. Once the ninety-day period is up they are required to

pay the full actuarial cost based on their current age and their salary at the

date of purchase. This will ensure that the cost to purchase is neutral to the

plan and therefore fair to everybody. This amendment will ensure that the

crediting of periods of unpaid leave will be cost-neutral to the Uniformed

Services Pension Plan as well.

Mr. Speaker, to accommodate members who may have existing periods of unpaid

leave which they have not yet purchased, we have to have a transition period for

them. We are going to be giving them a window period to elect to purchase at the

favourable rate. Members will have 120 days from the date this bill receives

Royal Assent to make an election. They can elect to purchase the unpaid leave by

paying the contributions they would have been required at the time the leave was

taken with the employer paying the matching share. Alternatively, Mr. Speaker,

if the employee does not elect within the 120-day period they will be required

to pay the full actuarial cost of the service.

The last amendment, Mr. Speaker, is contained in

section 10(3) of the

legislation before you. It has to do with providing more flexibility to

terminating members. Under the current provision, a member leaving the plan has

to decide within 180 days whether to take a lump-sum payment or instead to elect

to take a deferred pension.

Someone who is terminating their employment, and they are vested that means

they have worked for the government for more than five years; they are not

eligible for a pension because they have not reached the age of fifty-five for a

reduced pension or age sixty for the full pension. They have to decide whether

to take a lump-sum payment or accept the deferred pension. The lump-sum payment

would be a payment that would be made to a deferred life annuity or that would

be made to a locked-in RRSP.

At the expiration of 180 days, if they do not make the election they are

deemed to have accepted the deferred pension, which means that they will wait

until they are fifty-five or sixty in order to access their pension. We are

amending the plan, Mr. Speaker, to give the employees, similar to what we did

yesterday with the Public Service Pension, to give the members of the USPP the

option to take the lump sum after 180 days with the amount calculated on the new

day, because we know that for a lot of people, it is difficult for them to make

the decision. They defer making the decision; they are seeking advice from

others and do not get it. I think this will be more fair to our employees.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated previously, as I did yesterday, that registered

pension plans have to comply with the Income Tax Act of Canada in order for the

contributions to be deductable for tax purposes. Amendments that we are making

to this act relating to Income Tax requirements include applying a limit on

years of service that can be credited under plans for periods of unpaid leave,

leaves of absence, to five years plus an additional three years of parenting.

As I said, employees can get unpaid leave, but the Income Tax Act provides

that there has to be a limit on the pension that you can purchase during these

unpaid leaves of absence. The limit is five years plus an additional three years

for parenting, and we are amending the act to comply with that.

Specifying that transfers to the USPP from a member's former plan can only

occur if the other plan is willing to transfer 100 per cent of the member's

entitlement. If the plan can only transfer out less than 100 per cent, such as

80 per cent, then under Income Tax rules the transfer cannot be accepted.

We are requiring a returning employee wishing to reinstate prior service

where the contributions were paid into an RRSP to use the RRSP funds to

reinstate the prior service and specifying that a refund of contributions

payable upon the death of a member can only be paid to the member's estate and

not to the member's personal representative.

The other changes, Mr. Speaker, are very minor. They are housekeeping in

nature or they are simply repealing lapse provisions that will not impact an

employee's pension entitlement under the Uniformed Services Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, we had a good discussion yesterday of pensions and the changing

environment which is having an impact on the pensions that we have. Mr. Speaker,

we have not placed, as I said yesterday, any specific proposal before the unions

at the bargaining table for collective bargaining.

Because of our concern that the plans may not be financially sustainable,

government is reviewing options for the plans. We are only reviewing options for

pension reform, nothing specific has been decided. No specific proposals have

been put forward.

I am looking forward to a meeting that I will hold in my capacity as Minister

of Finance with the public service union. I have spoken to the

Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress to seek the input of that

organization into the problems that pension plans are facing across the country.

We are going to be having a telephone conversation this week with the

Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress and some of their experts on

pensions.

It is fiscally responsible for government to review the pension plans. We

need to look at all our options to ensure that our pension plans for our workers

are sustainable over the long term. I said yesterday that many other

jurisdictions were in fact reviewing their plans, particularly in the light of

long-term projections for demographics where the workforce is aging and workers

are retiring earlier, but fortunately are living longer, and the fact that

investment returns over the last number of years have not been sufficient to

fund the pension benefit.

I mentioned New Brunswick. New Brunswick had a pension commission which has

completed a review just this past summer. I read a very interesting statistic,

somebody said: How can someone who is contributing a contribution of 10 per cent

over the period of their work life, which could be thirty years, expect to

retire for the same amount of time, thirty years, receiving 10 per cent of their

salary? The math just does not add up. Contributions of 10 per cent and benefits

of 70 percent, the math simply does not work.

We must ensure the pension plans are sustainable over the long term and

allowing the liabilities to grow jeopardizes that sustainability. We cannot move

forward under the assumption that governments will have the fiscal capacity to

continue to contribute billions of dollars to the pension plan as governments

have done since 1997. I mentioned the figure $4.7 billion.

Unfunded pension liabilities and the other post-retirement benefits comprise

a very significant portion of the Province's long-term debt, currently at

approximately 50 per cent. Governments have worked very hard to tackle the

liability, paying $4.4 billion into the plan since 1997, but there is more work

to be done. This year, this government is putting another $258 million into the

fund. These monies that are going into the fund are monies that are not

available for the other things that members raise in this House: affordable

housing, new hospitals, and new, important programs.

During the time we have all worked to reduce our direct debt, the pension

liabilities have continued to increase. As I said, any special payments or any

additional payments that governments and taxpayers provide to address the

unfunded liability divert funds from other programs and services. While the

problem can be defined, the solutions to solve the problem are complex and will

require careful review and analysis.

I am looking forward to hearing from members opposite, from our public sector

unions, from the taxpayers of the country, from the academic community, and from

experts in this area to help us find the correct solution.

Mr. Speaker, with that, this pretty well covers what is in the amendment. I

look forward to hearing the discussion from hon. colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a few minutes to respond to the minister's comments

on Bill 44 and the amendments that were outlined there, the three amendments

that he mentioned. This is obviously very similar to what we discussed yesterday

with Bill 43. Indeed, we will support this, but I would like to make a few

comments regarding the amendments being proposed here.

For instance, the minister did mention the value of a defined benefit plan.

Of course we all recognize this and the importance this has to the 693 active

members and the over-700 retirees who participate in this plan. Of course, this

all becomes part of the five plans that are administered by the provincial

government through the Pension Benefits Act, 1997, as was mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, there are three areas that were discussed here, and I must say,

we did attend a very good briefing session from the Department of Finance about

this piece of legislation. Indeed, a lot of it is just really around compliance

with CRA, and getting this pension plan, really making it not conform and be

similar to what we see with other pension plans in the Province.

One of the things that the ability to buy back was mentioned and this being

an anomaly in this pension plan. It really was an oversight in the previous act

but is being corrected in this bill. Members will now have this ninety-day

option to through other pension plans they would have a ninety-day option, but

in this particular case they will be given 120 days to make that decision.

One of the questions we raised about this was the ability to pay for

proportionate amounts in this particular pension plan so that we could just in

case the member did not have the ability to buy back all the years of service,

that they would indeed be given the ability to buy a proportionate amount of

time back. This is important because when you look at the different financial

situations that many of the members could find themselves in, to do this on a

proportion is important. Giving members that option to do this makes sense in

our opinion, Mr. Speaker.

I do understand that even though there will be some changes that will be in

this pension benefit plan here, that the members who are affected by this have

been notified. I think what happened is they had been notified when the bill was

first read in the House of Assembly. So, we do expect that there would be some

time for the employees and the retirees who are affected by this, they would be

given time to respond. We expect for that to happen, and we certainly do not

anticipate there will be much of a reaction to this, but it is something that

would need to be considered here throughout all of this.

The minister mentioned about

section 20 of Bill 44, who can receive the

reduced pension plan from age sixty now to age fifty-five. Again, this is

something that just brings this piece of legislation in-line with what we see

with the Public Sector Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, most of what we see here are things that we did discuss

yesterday. It really brings this piece of legislation and it is time, it is

time that we do catch up here. The leave of absence, the ability to pay for five

years of unpaid leave plus the three years that could be accrued through

parenting, this essentially means the pensioner could buy upwards to eight years

here of leave of absence without pay. Mr. Speaker, these are all things that we

see very similar in other pieces of legislation.

One thing I do want to speak, just for a few minutes, about is the ability of

the pensioner to be able to transfer 100 per cent of the pension from one

location to another. We have seen this from time to time of certain members of

other plans. This is becoming more and more of a problem with some other plan

holders. We have seen people who would leave a particular employer and then

expect to transfer their pension from the previous employer into the area of new

employment. Unless the plan is 100 per cent funded then the plan cannot be

transferred, and we see this.

I know in my own situation here, I have seen many people who would have

transferred from let's say working with a company like Kruger, and as they

would move into an area, wherever they go, that if the particular plan they are

leaving from is not fully funded, well then, of course, this cannot fit into a

plan like this. The ability for the employee to fund that plan themselves, that

option is not there. Indeed, when it comes over it would have to be funded by

the previous employer.

This is something we are seeing happening more and more today. The plans are

just not performing. As of yesterday, we know that in order for this plan to

work it needs to perform at a rate of 7.25 per cent on an annual basis, which we

all know is very difficult in today's environment.

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly pleased to see that the survivor benefit of 55

per cent is now increased to 60 per cent. This is now made retroactive to the

survivors of the plan. This is something that we can support. This is $500

million that will go back in a retroactive basis to the subscribers of these

plans.

MR. MARSHALL: It is $500,000.

MR. BALL: Sorry, $500,000. Thank you for the correction there, Minister.

It is $500,000 that will go back into retroactive payments to the benefactors of

these plans.

There was one thing that did come out of our meeting at our briefing session;

it was about the contribution changes that have been made over a number of years

and the evaluation that was done back in 2005 from the Uniformed Services

Pensions Act. Back in 2005 the contributions would need to be increased, and

they were; an example of that would be, for instance, the percentage of the

proportion of the employee's salary that is the employer's basic exemption under

the Canada Pension Plan.

We have seen that move from, in 1991, 6 per cent, to in this bill, 9.95 per

cent. This is something that I understand has been in place a number of times.

The amendment to this act and the changes here will actually make the

provisions will be made within this piece of legislation. This is something that

the employees have been doing now for a number of years and something they are

fully aware of.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, this is an amendment that we will be supporting,

these three amendments we will be supporting to Bill 44, the Uniformed Pension

Plan. Even though considered to be housekeeping to many extents, it is something

that we need to do to get all of our pension plans in compliance not only with

CRA, but indeed, our own Pension Benefits Act in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continued discussion on pension plans. I

am sure there will be lots to talk about over the coming months; again, the

three amendments that we are discussing here in Bill 44 are amendments that we

will support and I look forward to the continued debate in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I would like to thank the minister and his department for the

great briefing they gave us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: I would also like to thank the minister for the last

couple of days, the education part that he has given us. I think we have been in

lesson 201 on the pension plans in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: 101.

MR. K. PARSONS: 101, I believe.

Anyway, the minister has spoken the last couple of days on the importance of

pensions and the importance that they are to the people of the Province and how

important they are, especially, to our public service. Today we are speaking

about the uniformed service, where we are talking about our firefighters,

policemen, and correctional officers.

Mr. Speaker, the Uniformed Services Act, 2012 is one of five sponsored

Defined Benefit Pension Plans provided by our government. Like I said, it goes

to the correctional officers at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, members of the RNC,

and a limited number of firefighters in the City of St. John's. As the minister

said, right now there are 693 active members and 751 retirees.

Mr. Speaker, there are three parts to this bill, and they are technical, key

points that are there. The amendments will reflect changes in policy. The

amendments will comply with the Pension Benefits Act and also with the Canadian

Income Tax Act. Mr. Speaker, it will comply with and bring everything in line;

what we are doing here is making all pensions in compliance with these acts: the

pensions act and the Income Tax Act.

There are several amendments to the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, and like

I said, they are mainly policy changes and housekeeping to repeal pension

provisions. Most of these changes are consistent, again, with the pensions act

and the tax act. These bills will repeal and replace the Uniformed Services

Pensions Act, 1991 to modernize and clarify the laws respecting uniformed

services pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points in the bill I would like to speak

to. First of all, I would like to speak to where we allow survivors of

pensioners, certain members or survivors, to now be able to collect benefits of

60 per cent. Before, it was 55 per cent. That is going to be retroactive back to

1997, which will affect sixty-five people who are survivors right now. That is

important. It is important they get treated fairly like everybody else. That is

what it is going to cost the purse, as the minister said: $76,000. It goes

retroactive to those people back to 1997, so it is going to mean monies in

peoples' hands who deserve it and should have gotten it in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the uniformed services group are a dedicated bunch of

individuals. Most of these, and I know a lot of residents in my district, are

the pillars of our communities: Her Majesty's Penitentiary wardens down there,

the firefighters, and the RNC. Mr. Speaker, these bills will just make them in

line with all the other pension acts we have here with the government.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak a little bit about the service they supply

to the people of my District of Cape St. Francis and to the Province as a whole.

I think we are very lucky. I look at today the investments our government has

made in the RNC. I look at so many of the young officers who are here today and

are getting trained right here in Newfoundland at Memorial University. It is

important that we as a government make sure we support them. They have an

important role in society where they protect us and make sure that laws are

upheld and people are doing things that are right. It is important that they get

served with proper pensions and whatnot.

Mr. Speaker, also I have a little bit of allegiance to the St. John's city

fire department and the fire departments in general. My dad was a firefighter;

my brother was a firefighter, who is retired. My father served with the federal

fire department down in Pleasantville and also, earlier years, with the St.

John's Regional Fire Department. Firefighters play a very important role in our

society today and they protect us, as well as the wardens down in the pen; I

know quite a number of those.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member across the way, the Leader of the

Opposition, that this is a housekeeping thing, it is policy changes, and it is

good for the people who we are doing this for today. In closing, I just support

this bill 100 per cent.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am glad to stand and be able to speak to Bill 44 relating to the Uniformed

Services Pensions Act, 2012. It is an important piece of legislation, as are all

pieces of legislation in this House or any House. Legislation is what is

required to keep good order in our Province and governance is what we are about

here. In actual fact, there is no piece of legislation that is not important.

Obviously some carry heavier weight than others. This one is actually quite

important because it is all about protecting and making sure we have good order

with regard to the pensions that relate to the uniformed services here in the

Province.

As I did yesterday, I would like to thank the minister and the people from

the Pensions Division of the department for the briefing that we received on

Bill 44, to make sure that we understood the import of the bill and if we had

any questions to have them cleared up. I am not going to repeat everything that

the minister has said and that others have said ahead of me. I will acknowledge

that I, of course, will support the bill; it is essential.

Basically, as the minister has pointed out, a lot of what is happening in

this bill is modernizing of language to bring a practice up to where it is using

the correct language and the correct determinations with regard to the pensions,

who is getting the pensions, and all the rules and regulations regarding the

pensions. Instead of just making changes in the old act which went back to 1991,

the department did the logical thing and wrote a new act, because there were

certain things that had to be changed over and over in the act.

For example, the reference to the retirement compensation arrangement, which

no longer had any meaning because under the retirement compensation arrangement

there were no retired workers any more who fit into that category. I understand

that there were quite a number of references to RCA in the old act. So, it made

absolute sense that a whole new act would be written. Although there are a few

new amendments that have to do with policy, most of it is the modernization of

language and making sure that there is nothing that has no meaning in the act.

So, I am very glad to see that we have an up-to-date act, and

an act that is

referring to realities as they are.

I, too, want to point out the Christmas gift, if you would, or Hanukkah gift

or whatever December celebration gift one celebrates in this act, and that is

the money that will be given to survivors of workers who had pension plans,

survivors who, since 1997, have not received the adequate amount of money that

they should have been receiving. The minister has referred to it, as has the

other speakers.

The $76,000 a year that it will cost is obviously not large in terms of our

budget, but for the survivors whose benefits will go up from 55 per cent to 60

per cent of the deceased member's pension, it is going to mean a lot, and the

lump sum that has to be paid, well, it has to be paid. I am really glad to see

that we are correcting this situation for people who were and it was not

deliberate, but not fairly treated over the past years.

So, I do not want to go into all the detail, because the minister has gone

into it, and anybody who is interested in the details is going to be able to

read Hansard and get all those details. I do want to use the opportunity to

continue to say to the minister and I do believe the minister is very sincere

about his concerns with regard to our defined benefit plan, one that we have

ourselves, but the ones we are talking about here are the plans for the

uniformed services pensioners in our Province. We have to find a way to protect

those plans in this country. We have to find a way to make sure that those plans

continue. As the minister has pointed out, sometimes people refer to the plans,

for example, of the public service sector as gold-plated plans. They are not

gold-plated plans. They are plans that, as the minister has said, ensure that

people who have worked hard all their lives have further protection and benefits

that they have worked for and paid for over those years. We have to find a way

to be able to make that continue for people.

People who have worked whether it is in the public sector or not; we are

talking about the public sector, and in this case we are talking about uniformed

services. In talking about the uniformed services we are talking about members

of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, correctional officers, and certain

firefighters of the St. John's Regional Fire Department.

Just looking at them it is not only because of them, but these particular

groups of people are in working situations that are not easy working situations.

They are in situations where, in some cases, they actually put their lives in

danger in order to be of service to us. I think that when we are looking at the

pensions for these people, it becomes something that is symbolic of why we have

pensions; it is because pensions recognize how people should have the same

quality of life after they are earning money through their work as well as they

did before earning, because the work that they are doing is beneficial to the

economy and beneficial to the community.

Whether it is somebody who is in the uniformed services, whether it is

somebody who is sitting in a desk up in Transportation and Works, or whether it

is somebody who is not in the public service sector at all, everybody in our

society who is working in our society and that is both for paid and unpaid,

actually are bringing a benefit to our society. Their work has benefited

society, and that work if we do our economic analyses correctly gets counted

in who we are as a country and as a Province.

We have not become sophisticated enough, I do not think, with regard to

looking at how we really determine our economy. There are economists out there

who do much more sophisticated analyses of our economy than just looking at the

gross domestic product. Counting people's unpaid work, counting the actual work

of people, period, in doing our economic analyses becomes essential. When you do

a more sophisticated analysis it becomes essential to looking at what our worth

is as a community.

Pensions are an essential part of that. As I pointed out yesterday, just from

the raw dollars perspective, our pensions in Canada the pension programs, the

investments that are made through the pension programs in this country

contribute $1 trillion to the economy. They are essential to the fabric of our

economy, so we have to find a way to make it work.

I know the minister does want to do it in a consultative way. I know that he

believes government, with all of the different players involved, has to sit and

have to find a way to make it work.

The thing that is disturbing, and this is something that is way beyond us,

obviously, in terms of something we have control over, is that we do not let

me put it another way; I am not going to put it negatively. In our society, and

on a global level, there are all kinds of money. The investments that people

make as individuals and the investments that people make in groups are essential

to the economy, but unfortunately an awful lot of the money in our society is

controlled by a small group of people. My concern is that we not allow something

like that, Public Service Pensions, to suffer from an economic system that tries

to convince people like us that we do not have enough money. The thing is, the

money is there; it is how the money is distributed and how the money is used.

I do encourage the minister, as he continues to lead the discussion on behalf

of government with regard to our public service sector and the pensions for our

public service sector whether we are talking about those who are in uniformed

groups or whether we are just talking all public service sector that he be

committed, as I am sure he is, to try and find a way that is always going to

benefit the worker, always going to benefit the individual, benefit the person.

We have to look at the fact of people being secure right to the day that they

die, not just secure for five years or ten years after they retire; until the

day they die, they have to have that security. They deserve to have the economic

security and we have to find a system that makes that work.

I know that the minister believes, because he has said it publicly - he has

said it to me privately, and he has said it publicly - that the very best way to

do it is through the defined benefits. We have to make sure that we try to make

that work.

Along with the Defined Benefits Pension Plans, the public plans that are

based on the workplace, I would encourage the minister too, in discussions with

the federal Finance Minister and in discussions with provincial Finance

Ministers, especially with them, to pressure the federal Finance Minister with

regard to our public pension system. Our public pension system is still

essential in order to keep our defined benefits plans as well, because it is a

back up for the defined benefits plans.

The defined benefits plans, on their own, are not adequate not here anyway,

and we know that. Our public pension system in Canada is the back up. One of the

big pieces in that is the Canada Pension Plan. Everybody who has a workplace

pension plan also pays into the CPP. The CPP is absolutely essential to really

ensure that our workers especially our public service sector workers because

that is who we are talking about do have security in their retirement years.

We do know that the CPP right now, the benefit levels are way too low. There

is a lot of study going into the CPP. I know governments are looking at it. Some

of the provinces have taken a position with regard to the CPP, increasing the

benefits. I actually think this Province did say it supported changes that were

being proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress with regard to the CPP.

The work that has been done by the Canadian Labour Congress shows that a

doubling of the CPP benefits would be something that would really secure people,

that would really help people have a better lifestyle after retirement, whether

they have a workplace pension plan to go with it. Now, obviously, if you do not

have a workplace pension plan life is harder, but for everybody, we have to

expand the CPP. It virtually covers all Canadian workers right now and it offers

a guaranteed income to all retirees, but we have to make sure that the benefits

are adequate.

Work has been done with regard to the amount of