The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following private members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a reputable volunteer in Corner Brook and the whole of the West Coast area. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about Evelyn Hancock of Irishtown.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Hancock became involved with the SPCA as a teenager and has not looked back since. She started out as a volunteer with the cleaning of cages, to holding the present position as Shelter Director. She is also recognized as the only Special Constable as peace officer for the SPCA for the whole of the West Coast area. She works jointly with the RCMP and the RNC in investigating any animal abuse.

Ms Hancock spends about six to seven hours a day working with the SPCA, which includes paying her own travel costs to and from the shelter, et cetera. Ms Hancock claims her pay is when she finds a home for an animal she knows will be loved and properly cared for, for the remaining years of its life. She also makes it quite clear the SPCA would be nothing without the core of volunteers behind the organization.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members here today to acknowledge Ms Hancock's thirty years of volunteerism towards the well-being of our precious animals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and recognize Deborah Bourden, CEO of Applecore Interactive.

Deborah was recently awarded the Entrepreneur of the Year Award for Innovation by Newfoundland and Labrador's Organization for Women Entrepreneurs.

Each year NLOWE recognizes outstanding women in business and the important contribution that they make to their communities and economies throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Deborah and the Applecore team of innovative thinkers recognize that technology is expanding and changing our lives daily. Under Deborah's creative and infectious leadership, the team continues to diligently explore new ways to use the Internet and Web 2.0 strategies to deliver their clients' messages to global audiences. Applecore is the only interactive agency in Newfoundland and Labrador to be ISO certified. Again, such a goal of excellence is part of the visionary leadership of Deborah Bourden.

I ask the members of this House to join me in wishing Deborah Bourden and her team continued success in their work and to acknowledge all the other NLOWE award winners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Volunteer Board of Directors of the Community Youth Network covering the region from Cappahayden to Bay Bulls in Ferryland District, and the successful work they are providing in the region.

On February 12, I had the opportunity to meet with the Board of Directors and its operating director, Mr. Robert Moran, in Cape Broyle. The discussion focused on the initiatives of the Network over the past year dealing with activities for our youth, including a Policy and Procedure Manual for the organization, various youth workshops including the topics of drug use and abuse seminars, under-age drinking, and guest speakers on various topics delivered both at Baltimore School in Ferryland and Mobile School.

Mr. Speaker, on March 4, 2009, I attended a special concert at Mobile School put off by the Community Youth Network as part of the Bay Bulls-Bauline Athletic Association's Winter Carnival which saw the band the Navigators perform and saw a student band perform from Mobile School called The Dean Maher Experience.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the first ever newsletter was recently published for the region by our youth, which provides a much needed communication forum.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the youth of the region for their efforts, and the efforts of Community Youth Network Board of Directors. I ask all members to congratulate this group of volunteers on their efforts, including: Beverley O'Brien, Natalie Normore, Sean Walsh and Sandra Kavanagh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here in this hon. House today to congratulate the Trinity Placentia Atom Hockey Team for winning the silver medal at the Bay Roberts Invitational Tournament during the weekend of February 6-8, 2009, defeating the Northeast Eagles.

Mr. Speaker, the silver medal winners are: Tyler Smith, Lyndon Throne, Brandon Barrett, Jordon Barron, Emma Gilbert, Kaitylyn Mayne, Jacob Ryan, Emma Russell, Tyler Kelly, Kyle Elliott, Nicholas White, Tyler Gillam, Ryan Higdon, Lucas March, Ryan Thorne and Alex Day. Also, of course, a great applause to their Coach Paul Smith, Assistant Coach Darren Thorne, and Trainer Bill Barron for their dedication, commitment and for volunteering their valuable time to make this possible for this young hockey team.

I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in congratulating the silver medal winners, the Trinity Placentia Atom Hockey team.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to follow up on an announcement that was made in Budget 2009. This year's Budget committed $1 million for infrastructure projects on the Province's South Coast, with a total provincial commitment of $5 million over two years. We have also been able to secure matching funding from the federal government for a total of $10 million in aquaculture infrastructure funding over the next two years.

The level of aquaculture industry production in this Province has doubled over the last four years. This has necessitated the need for more infrastructure to support a fast-growing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that my department is delivering on this government's commitment to provide for more aquaculture infrastructure on the South Coast of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Earlier this year we had a report commissioned, entitled, the Marine Infrastructure Study for the Salmonid Aquaculture Industry. It was prepared by Rutter Hinz Inc. The process of developing the report involved extensive industry and community consultation. I was pleased to share this report with the aquaculture industry and communities on the South Coast during the past week.

The report addresses the operational and biosecurity needs of the industry and provides a full suite of measures to address the industry's infrastructure needs. The report focuses around three areas: existing wharves, new in-flow wharves, and feed storage facilities.

The study outlines a number of projects that need to be completed, at total cost of more than $24 million. As a first step towards meeting these infrastructure needs, I am pleased to announce that we will be moving forward with four new projects in the near future. These will be in-flow wharves at Hermitage, Pool's Cove, Belleoram (St Jacques) and Harbour Breton. Based on the estimated –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Based on initial estimates, the $10 million budgeted will cover the costs of these four projects.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a need for improvements to municipal waste systems and roads to further facilitate the growth and development of our aquaculture industry. I will work with my colleagues in the appropriate departments to address these needs as well. I am also working with my colleague in the Department of Transportation and Works to advance the engineering work with a goal of starting construction work on these initial four projects during this fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: As well, Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the Aquatic Veterinary Diagnostic Facility that is planned for St. Alban's will go to tender in June with construction to begin this year.

To date, the arrival of the new aquaculture companies in the Province has created approximately 400 direct jobs in farming and processing sectors. More indirect jobs will be created as the aquaculture industry continues to grow and develop.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement, and it is certainly good news for the Connaigre Peninsula, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, anytime that you can have new developments and new industry in small outport communities around this Province it makes a huge difference, whether it is a few jobs or a lot of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this is an area of the Province where we have seen significant aquaculture expansion since 2003. In fact, the industry has practically doubled –

AN HON. MEMBER: Since 2003?

MS JONES: Yes, it has practically doubled since 2003, Mr. Speaker, in terms of its export value.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we need to be cognizant of the traditional fishing industry that also exists in those particular regions of the Province, and the concerns that are often raised by individuals and fishers in those areas.

Mr. Speaker, the aquaculture industry has no doubt become a new prominent industry for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is why it is important that issues that were raised in the Auditor General's report last year need to be taken seriously and need to be addressed, and issues around site operators and inspections, and we certainly want to encourage government to have some real management plans around those issues and the codes of practice for that industry. The Auditor General also raised the issue around the issues of licensing and the need for improved licensing processes.

So I think all of these things are regulatory pieces that need to happen as an industry continues to grow, continues to develop in the Province, and we will certainly be looking to government to ensure that those practices are put in place so that the industry can grow in a way that meets the needs of all the people in that region.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I too am quite pleased to see the growth of the aquaculture industry in the Connaigre Peninsula. I would be interested in knowing how many of the 400 direct jobs are on that peninsula; maybe the minister can let us know that sometime. Well, it says in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and there are other operations elsewhere in the Province. So I would like to know how many around the Connaigre. I think that is fair to ask.

One of the concerns I have and I am sure it is a concern of the minister as well, is the impact of this new industry on the environment and the interaction between the environment and the industry. So I do encourage the minister to – he mentioned working with other departments. I hope that one of those departments is the Department of Environment and Conservation, especially when the minister mentions that there will have to be improvements to municipal waste systems and roads to further facilitate the growth. All of that has an impact on the environment. So I am sure that we will find the way to sustain this industry while at the same time sustaining our healthy environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I get into my ministerial statement, I think it is only appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that someone mentioned to me that it is your birthday today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, they thought you did not look too bad for forty-five.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform members of the provincial government's increased efforts to preserve and promote our heritage resources by increasing professional capacity within the heritage sector.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Budget 2009 provides an additional $150,000 to the heritage component of the Cultural Economic Development Program - or CEDP as it is commonly known - bringing the total annual budget for heritage-related project funding and professional development to $1.3 million.

This funding will be used to enhance professional capacity at our community based, not-for-profit local museums and historic sites, and provide the opportunity for many of our provincial heritage organizations to hire professional staff or offer professional development opportunities to volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, we want to help those working and volunteering within our community museums throughout the Province to be trained in best practices. We want to provide staff with the skills to ensure artifacts are stored appropriately, handled appropriately, and displayed appropriately. We also want to provide the staff with the ability to identify good fundraising opportunities, develop innovative ways to present our heritage resources to the public, and find meaningful ways in which to engage the public and encourage them to learn more about our provincial heritage.

We expect that these efforts will help community-based organizations address some of the changes and challenges of a declining volunteer base, and to ensure museums and historic sites can continue to meet the expectations of the visitors.

I note also that Budget 2009 provides $65,000 through the Health Aging Strategy to encourage more seniors' involvement in museums, archives and heritage attractions. This, too, is designed to address the declining volunteer base in many community-based heritage operations.

Mr. Speaker, since launching our cultural strategy, Creative Newfoundland and Labrador, in 2007, the provincial government has invested more than $25 million –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: - in new funding to strengthen and develop new opportunities within our arts, cultural and heritage sectors.

The provincial government remains committed to the goals articulated in the strategy and, together with our partners within arts, culture and heritage communities we continue to make significant strides towards implementing this plan and realizing its objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of this House to join with me to acknowledge the importance of our provincial heritage organizations and the volunteers and professional staff who dedicate their time and effort to preserving and celebrating our heritage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. There must be a polling period approaching again, when we get these types of statements normally.

MS JONES: Fluffy.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Fluffy statements we call them, a really substantive statement here.

Of course, it is a motherhood statement as well. Anyone would have to support anything that enhances our museums, our historic sites, our cultural capacities, and anything that goes on in those sectors; that is a given. It is nice to see that government is putting some money into these things.

The comment I notice in the minister's statement, too, that really stands out is the issue of a declining volunteer base. That is not only in the cultural and heritage sectors, I say to the minister; we are seeing that around this Province all over. We had Estimates recently with the minister responsible for volunteer and non-profit groups, and we had that discussion at the Estimates at that time that, whether it is your fire department or just local service clubs and people who enhance your community, that base is eroding. I guess we still do not know the reasons why, fully. There are all kinds of suggestions as to what might be happening, but that is indeed a case. So, in addition to putting some funding into heritage and cultural things, maybe we need to put some research and some funding into finding out the reasons for the declines, and doing whatever we can to reverse that particular situation.

We are certainly supportive of anything, of course, that is going to help museums. A lot of these people, as you say, do not have the professional expertise as to how to store artifacts, how to identify them, what to do with them when somebody does bring them in to you and so on. Anything that goes to the enhancement of those things we would certainly be supportive of.

Thank you.

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

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

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

It is good news to know, and I think we have known it through the Budget, of course, that additional funding for the heritage component of the CEDP was going to happen, and it definitely is very welcome.

Our museums around the Province are wonderful places to go, and I love finding new ones and going to them as I tour the Province. Any additional funding that we can give to make those museums as professional as possible is welcome, obviously, by staff who already work there, staff who will be hired, and by the volunteers themselves.

It would be good for us to also look at the whole museum network as a place for training for younger people, not just to be volunteers but to take on careers in this whole area of museums and archives. It is a wonderful career, and setting that as a goal in community economic development, I think, would be a very healthy way to go to maintain younger people in the communities. It is not going to be a major employment point, but it certainly could add to employment in communities.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Fish Price Setting Panel has agreed to reduce the price of crab from $1.55 to $1.40, a move that neither the Seafood Producers nor the FFAW are happy with. As a matter of fact, we have learned just prior to coming to the House of Assembly that as of 6:00 o'clock this evening the processors in the Province will no longer buy crab and will not issue any bait or ice to fishing enterprises.

I ask the minister to confirm that there is a scheduled shutdown for today at 6:00 p.m., and I ask him what action his department is taking to try and sort out the pricing issues that exist in the crab industry right now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I guess my information tells me that the processors are going back to the panel, the Price Setting Panel, with a request; and, of course, it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on that until the panel makes a decision as to where they are going with regard to that request.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is our understanding that the processors in the Province have already made a decision, and that decision will be communicated this afternoon, that the crab industry will be shut down as of 6:00 o'clock today in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister: If they are going back to the table, what involvement do you and your department have at that table to find a more favourable pricing solution for this industry so that it can continue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, from the aspect of my department, our responsibility is to provide the intelligence, the research that is necessary for the panel to make the decisions with regard to any requests that come in from the processing side or the harvesting side. So, we will continue to support the panel in their quest to make sure that they have the proper information, the up-to-date information that is required in order for them to carry out their decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the panel that sets prices for the industry in this Province have been delaying a decision on crab prices for some time now.

I ask the minister if he is satisfied with the work that they have been doing, and if there is some kind of a structural change that is required when it comes to setting prices for fish in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the very uncertain and unstable conditions in the market, I really do not think that the panel took an unreasonable period of time to make this particular decision. In fact, I have every confidence in the ability of that particular panel to set those prices and to see to it that collective bargaining in this particular industry is alive and well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week in the House of Assembly we asked the minister, were there any contingency plans in place should the industry face a shutdown? The minister stated that government was looking at options and he was not going to leave anyone high and dry.

I ask the minister today: Now that it appears this industry will be shut down as of this evening, can you advise the House what actions your government will take to ensure that the hundreds of fish plant workers out there in the Province will not be left high and dry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again about a shutdown and that sort of thing, that can be pretty dangerous talk; because, again, we are on the floor of the House of Assembly and the Leader of the Opposition is talking about a shutdown when in actual fact the panel has not been engaged, no decision has been made.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, that as a government we are responsive to the needs of industry, and in this particular case the fishing industry, but we are not one to just move without really looking at the situation. We are monitoring this very, very closely. As I pointed out the other day, we will do everything in our power to make sure that the season continues, that if there are any contingencies that need to put in place that we will deal with them as they arise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I want to clarify it for the minister.

It is our information that it is the processing sector that is shutting down the crab industry in the Province today, not the panel.

I ask the minister, if he has information that is any different than that which was provided to me, can he do so in the House at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I am just reiterating that the processing sector has not given any public notice that they are indeed doing whatever they are supposed to be doing and I would just say that I am not going to engage in any type of fear mongering at this particular time. We will take whatever comes our way but I would let it unfold rather than try to be predictive of what might happen and if it happens, what will this do and all that do. I think it is incumbent on both sides of the House to be a little bit more reserved in what we say on the floor of this House so that we do not make these uncertain times any more uncertain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that the minister is not in the loop and I would say he is not in the loop on this next issue as well.

Mr. Speaker earlier today the European Union voted to support a ban on the import of seal products by a vote of 550 to 49. This is in stark contrast with the minister's comments from yesterday that he hoped he had sown enough seeds of doubt in the minds of the European Union representatives to actually vote down the resolution or have it delayed. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, once again, that they have misread and misjudged this issue.

I ask the minister: If this issue was such a priority, why were you or representatives of your government or your department not in Europe yesterday attending these meetings and making a lobby effort on behalf of the fishing industry in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have to shake my head. I have to shake my head. Less than a minute ago I had the Leader of the Opposition on her feet talking about a crisis that was looming in it, right? And you are asking me not to be present in this Province at this time, when perhaps the crab season is gone? I say to you, be responsible!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lame excuse, I say to you, minister. Lame excuse for not doing your job!

Mr. Speaker, the minister promised an extensive advertising campaign and even left the impression that his meetings in Ottawa with the EU Ambassadors could help reverse the EU vote. That certainly did not happen.

I ask the minister today: What analysis has your department conducted to determine what the economic impact of this ban will be on sealers and the sealing industry in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the seal harvest, I think of the 6,000 sealers out there today, who are reflecting upon where they are going to go. I think we all in this House should reflect.

We passed a motion here not too long ago, and we had one speaker up from the other side. Obviously, that speaker got up and, again, indicated how important it was for us to support our sealers, the seal hunt, the harvest, and not to give any ground to the European parliamentarians who are over there judging us morally and telling us how we should manage our fisheries.

We, as the government – and I suspect even governments before us have stood their ground. I say, and I say to the House Leader –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his remarks.

MR. HEDDERSON: – you are mumbling there or something. Get on your feet and talk about it then. Get on your feet! You get on your feet, and I will defend, I will defend! Get on your feet!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is only a few weeks ago that this government was going to go it alone on the EU issue. They were going to take on the European Union themselves. They were not even going to involve the federal government because they did not believe that they could support their cause. What do we see today? Complete failure on the issue to even convince, convince people at that table to delay this decision.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has mentioned that this ban could be challenged through the World Trade Organization.

I ask the minister today: Will this issue be taken to the World Trade Organization, and if so, what strategy has been developed to launch such a challenge?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, let me pick up where I left off when I got on my feet the last time.

Again, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, this government has taken a stand when it comes to European parliamentarians and where they want to go, and that stand is very important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have been trying, as best we can, to work with our federal counterparts. We have tried. They have refused to share strategies with us. We have tried logic and reason. We tried to shuttle diplomacy, but to get up and say we have not been successful is to undermine the efforts not only of myself, not only of our government, not only of our Premier, but our sealers as well, and if you are going to play those political games and try to get me up on my feet, that is cheap. We want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know where we –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what the minister calls unsuccessful but a ban is complete failure and demise for this industry in this Province and he knows it and so do his colleagues.

I ask him today - he says that there was no co-operation from the federal government. I ask him today: What meetings occurred between your government or your Premier and the Prime Minister of the country to ensure that there was an understanding and to engage their support on this issue? We are only aware of meetings that took place with ambassadors from other countries that obviously did not prove to be very fruitful at the end of the day.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, anyone that is following the seal harvest fully expected a vote as the vote went today. That is not where our efforts were. For us to try to undo that image that is out there, it is an impossibility, let me tell you, and to try to convince these special interest groups to change course is a waste of energy, but where we did direct it was towards our federal government and also through the Parliament, the Cabinet ministers that represent the council over there and the commission.

I say to you, and I say too, again, we have now asked our Prime Minister, who I would say – he is in Prague tomorrow, if he is there today - is certainly an embarrassed Prime Minister in light of what has happened. We are asking them, we are asking the federal government to immediately, what we have been asking for a number a years, take the WTO action, put this on the table for our trade talks and make –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that the minister has called the Prime Minister and made that request and he is not just making it here on the floor of the House as a grandstanding piece to this entire issue.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier and the Minister of Finance used the time frame of four weeks to describe the length of a nurses' strike should it happen in the coming weeks.

I ask the Premier: Is this the official time frame that government is working with in contingency plans or is it just an ad hoc figure that you put forward yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the time frame that the government is working on is zero. We hope there is no strike. We hope that the nurses do not vote to strike, and that is our preference. If they decide to strike - what we were doing yesterday was basically laying out the math for them - for every week that they are out they lose 2 per cent. If they are out for a month they basically lose 8 per cent, and that was the analogy which I drew. The 8 per cent which was offered in the template was a very generous offer which went to all our public service employees to enable them to catch up; it would be technically lost if the nurses are out for a month. That is the math on it, quite simply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and the Minister of Finance stated in media scrums earlier that nurses would be legislated back to work and a contract imposed.

My question today is: If government was to impose such a contract, will the agreed-upon negotiated clauses that have already been settled by both government and the nurses be maintained in that contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we will allow the strike, if it happens, to take its course. If it is for two days or two weeks or two months, it will go on as long as it goes on. Our primary concern during a strike will be patient safety. That is what will govern us, and that is how we will decide. So if, in fact, the nurses are out for an extended period of time and it even goes for more than a month, and the safety of patients happens to be jeopardized, then we would be forced, under the circumstances, to legislate the nurses back.

As to what the content of that would be, we have not even contemplated. It would certainly be a last resort for us, but that resort could be based on the fact that we have no other choice to protect the safety of patients; however, it certainly is my understanding from the Minister of Health that there is a very elaborate plan that has been put in place in order to ensure the safety of patients. The nurses, of course, essential services have been provided for through the nurses. We will also be looking at the possibility of actually flying patients out of the Province if there are any emergency situations that arise that cannot be handled with the volume that happens to here at the particular point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we want to know for the record, because government has already indicated that legislating nurses back to work is a high possibility in the middle of a strike, and I guess we want to have some insurance that if there is a settlement that would be imposed that it would be a settlement that reflects the currently negotiated and agreed-upon clauses that exist in the contract today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the process of legislating anyone back is a process that is brought before this hon. Legislature; it is a democratic process. Debate will ensue, a proposal will be put forward, and then we will engage in debate. As a result of that debate we will see where that ends up and we will see exactly what the terms of that legislative proposal will be.

Like I said, that is a last resort. We have not even gone there. The minister and I have not even discussed it. The Minister of Health and I have not discussed it. Our preference is that there be no strike, but our priority is the safety of patients and that is what will govern us in this particular circumstance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently, Shirley Ryan's story was featured in The Telegram. She was an injured worker four-and-a-half years ago, and she has had a number of difficulties in dealing with the workers' compensation commission. In fact, after having a gruelling leg amputation, she was forced to crawl back up her steps to gain entry into her house simply because the commission had failed to provide her with the proper form of assistance.

I ask the minister today: What is being done in order to assist injured individuals in this Province who are dependent upon workers' compensation and require special services and programs to accommodate their injuries?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, for privacy reasons, I am sure members opposite know that I am not going to make any reference to any specific case or any particular injured worker; however, what I can ensure all members of this House, and all injured workers in this Province, is that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission will work tirelessly with every single injured worker in this Province to ensure that they do get all of the benefits that they are due and that they are entitled to.

In addition to that, I would like to point out that we now have opened a new client service office. That client service office is put in place specifically to deal with such issues, and we are very concerned and very well aware of the fact that injured workers in this Province deserve all of their entitlements. That office will see to it that those entitlements are put in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many injured workers in the Province have had to wait in order to appeal decisions that have been made by the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. Typically, I think the injured worker must wait until they receive a written document stating the reasons for the disapproval of their claim. The minister should know that while the commission is processing these claims and making those decisions these workers are suffering.

I ask her today: What is being done in order to speed up the processing of claims and to assist claimants during the waiting period?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I refer to the client service office that has recently been opened in March 2008. Through that, we are ensuring very timely adjudication of all cases that come before the commission. In fact, we are committed to responding to any phone calls that come our way within twenty-four hours. We respond to any other correspondence within ten days, ten business days. In addition to that, we have been conducting both internal and external reviews of our processes.

While we recognize that there are times when we need to pay attention to certain issues, we are also very cognizant of the fact that we have a very dedicated staff, a very professional staff, who do pay attention to all of those issues and who are acting in the best interests of injured workers in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, Minister, you should also realize that there are a lot of injured workers out there who feel that they are not getting those return phone calls from the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. There are many of them who feel that the case managers that are assigned to their cases do not understand the extremity of their injury and the circumstances that they live with. Mr. Speaker, it seems for many of them that cases are about delay and denial within this system.

I ask the minister: Why are these vulnerable members of society being left with nothing but frustration from the very agency that has been set up to provide them with service at a time when they need it the most?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, a recent study that was conducted, an independent study, in fact, conducted by WHSCC is showing some very different statistics than what the members opposite are reporting here. In fact, we are showing statistics that indicate to us that out clientele are very pleased with the level of service that is being offered to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: There are circumstances, Mr. Speaker, where investigations may take a little longer. There are processes that have to be followed, there are procedures that have to be followed, but overall survey results are telling us that there are huge improvements in the services offered and that our clientele are very satisfied with those services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister needs to go talk to some more of her clientele because the way it is right now, injured workers who need to have their homes assessed and renovations done take nearly two years before the contractor will actually show up to do the work, simply because of the paperwork, because of the process that is in place within the commission.

I ask the minister today: What is going to be done to speed up this process to ensure that injured workers, like in the case of Shirley Ryan, are not being discharged after critical surgical procedures and not being able to access their home or have any mobility within their home?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, home renovations, any modifications made to homes, whatever we are talking about in terms of repairs, have to be submitted to a particular process where there is an assessment done, first of all, by the medical team, in some cases by an occupational therapist, and my information is not showing anything in the area of two years for this. There is a particular process. Medical providers are involved in this particular process. Consultations are had between the client and the medical providers.

However, there are times, Mr. Speaker, when there are extenuating circumstances. For example, whether or not the person owns the home or is renting the home, whether we can get permission from the owner of the home to do those particular modifications. It is not as simple as simply walking up to the house and saying: yes, this is what we are going to do here today. There is a process, Mr. Speaker. It is followed. It is not a two-year process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I just have the one question for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, yesterday again we heard complaints involving the RNC and their treatment of a mentally delayed teenager, and I am well aware that the RNC did in fact have a press conference just before the House opened today to explain what happened in that particular case and of course the most misunderstood and avoidable situations, usually, often involve those suffering from mental, emotional or neurological disabilities.

I ask the minister: In view of what has happened in the last two weeks involving these teenagers, do you feel that the current offerings with respect to training for the RNC is indeed adequate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To answer the hon. member's question, the answer is yes, I do. There has been more money put into training for police officers. All of our police officers take - all of our new recruits take the Changing Minds program that is offered by the Canadian Medical Association. They are about to receive training in autism. Also, our correctional officers have received the Changing Minds programming as well.

I am aware of the incident or aware of the story that appeared in the media today about what happened yesterday but I think it is early to come to a conclusion. I understand the police are investigating and the Chief of Police will make a statement and we will wait – it will be more appropriate to make a statement after we get more of the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the environmental assessment for District 17-18 was released, the Department of Natural Resources was told to halt activities in the old growth thickets area until a public consultation took place with recommendations from the Minister of Environment. We know that a logging road was built through this forest but no public consultations occurred.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Are officials in your department turning a blind eye to the directives from the Department of Environment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that that work has been put on hold, but I will endeavour to find out and report back to the hon. member the details.

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

MR. BUTLER: I thank the minister for that.

Mr. Speaker, when the environmental assessment for District 17-18 – I am sorry, that is the same one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you do not take my time away.

Mr. Speaker, in wake of the shutdown of the Grand Falls-Windsor mill, government recently called for expressions of interest for the development of Central Newfoundland timber resources, yet section 13.(4) requires government to complete a comprehensive consultation process with all forestry stakeholders before even beginning to consider offering new licences for this fibre.

I ask the minister: Will this consultation process take place before any changes take place?

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

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, the Request for Proposals that the hon. member refers to, we have a deadline date of May 22 for submission of those proposals. We will wait to see what comes in. Obviously, anything that we are required by our own regulations to do, we will follow. We will ensure to do that. Understanding, Mr. Speaker, that we are in extraordinary times.

Obviously, the closure of the mill in Central Newfoundland and Labrador is an extraordinary act, and it requires that we be able to respond nimbly and quickly to the situation as it unfolds. Obviously, anything that we have to do, vis-à-vis our regulations, we will endeavour to do so, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard of the terrible case of the woman who received incorrect medical treatment in Clarenville. Hers is, unfortunately, one in a series of continuing adverse events, such as inadequate maintenance of sensitive equipment and personal information being released inappropriately.

Mr. Speaker, in December 2008, the government accepted the report from the Task Force on Adverse Events. One of the recommendations of the task force is that regional health authorities amended their disclosure policies to conform to the Canadian Patient Safety Institute guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services, if whether or not all the regional health authorities have amended their disclosure policies to conform to the national guidelines?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I understand that they have, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to speak to the incident that the member identifies before the House, and clearly, that is not an issue of an organization having in place protocols or procedures. What we are dealing with, as I understand it from Eastern Health, is this was an incident involving the performance of one individual who had not followed the appropriate protocols, had not followed the laid out procedures, and as a result of that there was an administration of medication error. So this speaks to the individual performance of an individual and not a systemic issue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the minister had to do with whether or not the authorities had the disclosure policies in place. I think the minister said that he thinks they have.

So now I ask him: Does he know if the disclosure policies were followed in the case of the Clarenville situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, from my discussions with officials with Eastern Health, as soon as the incident was determined or found out what had happened there was an immediate contact with the patient, which is one of the first steps in that whole disclosure issue that the member opposite is questioning about. So I understand the patient disclosure and the direction around patient disclosure and the protocols around patient disclosure were followed in this particular case.

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

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

According to the Task Force on Adverse Events on the national guidelines, patients who are harmed by an adverse event should be supported emotionally and physically. There are a number of supports that are mentioned. I will pick one in particular, timely access to further health care and treatment.

I ask the minister: Why was it that Ms Mojica-Fisher had to wait four days before medical treatment was offered to her?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite is posing a question around the nature of the intervention that may have been provided by health practitioners in this particular case. I am not prepared to stand in the House and discuss an individual patient's case. I am not prepared to discuss the kind of medical intervention or clinical intervention or other supports that might have been provided because through that process I would be disclosing the interaction and contact that this person has had with the health system and who that person may have seen. Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to do that in a public way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers have expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed without amendment the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments and agencies: Departments of Business; Environment and Conservation; Fisheries and Aquaculture; Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; Newfoundland and Labrador Research Development Council; the Rural Secretariat; Natural Resources; Women's Policy; and Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North, Chair of the Resource Committee, reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have approved certain Estimates and recommend that the report that be concurred.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice Has Been Given.

Petitions.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to bring forward again a proposal on behalf of the residents of Southwestern Newfoundland with respect to the lack of dialysis, or a satellite dialysis facility in Port aux Basques.

Now, there has been a little development brought to my attention since I last mentioned this yesterday in the petition. I was speaking to some people on the West Coast in my district and actually they advised me that a Dr. Thomas, who is the Chief of Staff in Port aux Basques, has been working with and is concluding a proposal for the minister and the department. He has been in consultation with Dr. Steve Murphy, who is the nephrologist at Corner Brook. He is the doctor, of course, the specialist who treats most of the people from Southwestern Newfoundland and certainly the people from my district who have to travel to Corner Brook.

The proposal that they are working on would see a satellite office set up in Port aux Basques. It addresses the issue of the equipment that would be needed. It addresses the issue of the personnel that would be needed, and the training that those persons would have to have. So I say to the minister, there is a proposal in the works now. It has been mentioned before.

We have not seen anything come back from the Department of Health or Western Health to deal with this issue in a positive way as to how it could be done, so we are going to bring the ball to your court, now, because obviously the Department of Health does not want to deal with this. You can pound them over the head all you want. You can make whatever assent you want in terms of agreeing to pay for the equipment. The staff out there can agree to be trained, but yet the Department of Health refuse to deal with an issue, so it is unfortunate.

Anyway, the minister will have no excuse after this. The Chief of Staff there, along with the head person in Corner Brook who deals with this, is putting this proposal together, submitting it to the department, and hopefully we will get some kind of a positive response in a timely fashion.

I understand it is going to be somewhat like the satellite that is in Stephenville but not to the same extent, of course. It will not be as large and service as many people as currently get the treatment in Stephenville. Also, this proposal would not impact anybody who is currently using and wishes to continue using the home dialysis system. Because the minister, of course, would have us all believe that everybody in the Province who needs it can get home dialysis, but that is just not the case.

Rather than pass the buck, or shirk their responsibilities, we have put it to the minister that it will be landing on his doorstep very quickly, very soon, and we would like to see him deal with that in a timely fashion.

As I said before, we have not only the people who need the treatments; it is their families that incur the emotional, the physical, stress and strains, and the financial costs in getting from where they live in Southwestern Newfoundland, travelling through – can you imagine in the wintertime now, three days a week, trying to get through the Wreckhouse? They have to do it. It is not a case of I do not want to go, or I will put it off until tomorrow. This is a case of life and death. These people have to go, regardless of the weather. In fact, it is so costly that if they go today and the weather forecast calls for a bad day then they have to stay because they cannot take a chance on coming back home.

This means huge dollars to these people, serious, serious stress levels for these people. Hopefully the minister now - he has not done his homework, the department has not done their homework, but hopefully now that the homework is being done for them it is not going to cost them much in terms of the training because it takes about six weeks to train a nurse to do it. We will buy the equipment, so hopefully something will get done on this in a positive future basis and we not have to look forward to some budgets or all kinds of reams of excuses as to why this cannot get done.

This a case where the solution will be hand delivered to the minister and all he has to do is say: Yeah. We will look after the rest of it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today with another petition on behalf of the residents of Triton, Brighton, Pilley's Island and that particular area with regard to the Long Island Causeway, Mr. Speaker.

Those residents, when they signed those petitions, all they are asking for is that government would consider a causeway. They have researched and found out in the estimates that they have done that this is more feasible than the ferry service that they presently have, or any ferry service that may be considered in the future.

By doing this, it would eliminate many of the concerns that the people have there, Mr. Speaker, with regard in particular to the winter months, I guess, when the ice conditions deteriorate and they find it difficult getting people to the hospitals or transporting their students to school and so on. Mr. Speaker, it has also been a problem for the individuals operating the plant, getting the product to market.

Mr. Speaker, we know that those people were told back some time ago, in 2003, that a causeway would be built from Long Island to Pilley's Island. We know that it was placed on hold, but those people are calling upon government to reconsider that decision and to see if they would look into the possibility of the causeway again.

They have had a ferry service for quite a number of years, and have been serviced fairly well; but, like they are saying now, if something has to be done, why not go the proper route and a causeway be considered?

I know we get petitions on behalf of the residents there, and they are also calling upon their member as well. I am sure he has put his issues forward to government, even though there are times that he met with, I guess, roadblocks, when he called officials within the department.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of those people to present this petition, that the government will undertake measures to construct a fixed link from Long Island to Pilley's Island.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to bring forward a petition again, on behalf of the residents of Ramea, Grey River and François, with respect to the lack of appropriate numbers of health care and nursing services which service those communities. Today, of course, it is similar to the petition I have presented on three previous occasions. This is my fourth one being presented.

I have had an inquiry, actually; the people of François want to know how come their member is not up speaking on this as well. All of the names on this petition today originate from the community of François and that, of course, is in the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

I have no problem, and I am more than pleased to present the petition on their behalf, but they have made an inquiry wondering why the Member for Burgeo & La Poile is making the petition on their behalf. They figure that their MHA should be up making the submission for them. In any case, that is up to the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune to make that decision. I am more than pleased to do it on behalf of all the residents who are impacted by this.

Basically, Ramea of course, is the larger community of those three. Grey River and then François are two smaller communities. Regardless of the size of the community, it is the need that exists because we do not have the proper number of nursing people there.

Again, in terms of trying to help the minister out in presenting solutions to the problem – because we do not seem to be getting any answers or suggestions coming back the other way as to how to resolve it. You get all kinds of excuses as to, we cannot do this, we cannot do something else, but very rarely do we see a solution.

Well, I say to the minister, one of the solutions in getting the second nurse practitioner to be stationed in Ramea would be to change your recruitment retention bonus system that you have, so that it is not restricted to new graduates, and it is not restricted to people from outside this Province. Why wouldn't you, in the case of isolated rural communities in this Province, allow the recruitment retention bonus system to apply to anyone?

It might be some nurse, for example, in this Province, who has retired. She has worked out her work career somewhere, but she wants to work on a part-time basis. Someone might be prepared to go there for six months. Then, at least if you get somebody for six months and you have someone else who is lined up for another six months, you do what you have to do; but, no, this department is not prepared to look at solutions. They are prepared to look at reasons why you cannot do something.

That is the problem we have here. You can sit down and analyze to death what the problem is, and you are still going to have the problem tomorrow, you are still going to have it next year, if you do not look at solutions. So I say to the minister again, and the people in his department, if that is an unreasonable, if that is an untenable, if that is an undoable, suggestion that has been put forward, can somebody tells us that it cannot be done and the reasons why it cannot be done? Because that seems to be - when you tried all over avenues and you keep banging your head against the wall, you just do not give up. If you are going to solve the problem you must look for other solutions.

Again, we have handed the minister, on a platter, a possible solution that might be doable and yet we are hearing no response from the minister. We are hearing nothing from the department as to can that be done. If it cannot be done, I would appreciate if the minister would stand up some time and say this is why we cannot do it, or instruct some official to tell us why we cannot do it. Why cannot rural Newfoundland - we have different standards for different communities all the time in this Province. If you cannot solve a problem, you just do not close your eyes to it. You must address the issue.

Anyway, silence is not golden in this case I say to the minister. Silence is not golden. Silence means you are prepared to give up on it. Anyway, this member will not be silent. This member will continue to bring these petitions forward on behalf of the people of those three communities, including François.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, at this time I take my leave but I will be back again with petition number five on this issue as soon as the opportunity allows.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when we met here in the House yesterday we were debating, in second reading, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, Bill 6.

I am not quite sure if we adjourned the debate appropriately yesterday afternoon, but certainly we want to continue the debate today, so I am going to call second reading of An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, Bill 6.

Mr. Speaker, it is our intention, as we call this, that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had been speaking when we adjourned the House and it is our intention to return so that she has remaining time left in her speaking time to return to this bill in second reading.

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

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

I see I have just under fourteen minutes left, so I am very happy to be able to continue speaking to this bill.

When I finished yesterday I was talking about the issue of workers who lose benefits because of a company closing either through bankruptcy or for what other reason, but especially through bankruptcy, because, of course, of what we are experiencing with workers in Grand Falls-Windsor.

What I talked about was how important it is that both in our Province and in our country on a national level, that we put in place legislation to protect workers' rights in the case of bankrupt companies. We are finding, with the workers in Grand Falls-Windsor, of course, that they are not sure what might happen to their pensions. The unfunded pensions have already stopped for some pensioned workers and widows, and severances have not been paid, so we know that we have a serious situation. I was starting to get into this issue of talking about legislation to protect workers in the case of bankrupt companies.

As we know, there is going to be a meeting of creditors on May 14 with regard to AbitibiBowater, and I am sure that the workers, through their unions, et cetera, are going to be part of the group of creditors that are going to be heard; however, one of the big issues is there is nothing to say that the workers have to be considered first in the list of creditors. However, when we consider what the contribution of workers in Grand Falls-Windsor and the general area, not just from the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, because workers came from all over the region, what the contribution of the workers in AbitibiBowater has been, both in this generation and generations before them, it seems like a stupid question to have to ask: Will they be considered first?

Unfortunately, knowing the history of other bankrupt companies, they probably will not be considered first. We have no control over what is going to happen on May 14 as decisions are made with regard to the creditors; however, we do have control over the future and can look at putting in place legislation that would protect workers in such a situation.

One of the things that could be put in place, and it is something that is being considered by our counterparts on the federal level, is the creation of a pensions guarantee fund. We could have a fund here in our Province, as well, where Canadian workers would actually receive – or, in our case, Newfoundland and Labrador workers would actually receive - the retirement benefits they have earned even if their employer goes out of business.

This kind of legislation would make sure that no company would be able to pull the trick that AbitibiBowater pulled. Now, I do not mean that they did not have to shut down, they did not have to claim bankruptcy, but to think the way in which that company announced that severances, for example, were not going to be paid - made that announcement the day before the severances were supposed to be paid, and the day before they went bankrupt - was not honest and was not a way to treat the workers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think that looking at a pensions guarantee fund to make sure that workers who do not have the same protection that we have as public servants – we, as people in the public sphere who are paid by government and whose pension is going into a public pension, we get protected. We do not have to worry about it. Yet, workers who are out there in the sector, the private sector, working in the industries that are the backbone of our economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador, these workers get no protection, so I am certainly going to be considering the kind of things that could be put in place with regard to protection for workers' rights and will be continuing in this session to bring more ideas to this House about how workers' rights can be protected.

Mr. Speaker, as I look at this act, which is trying to correct a conflict that existed between the Pensions Funding Act and the newer Transparency and Accountability Act, I think that I cannot speak to this act without at the same time speaking to another group of pensioners, not just the workers who are dealing with a very particular awful situation in Central Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to speak also to our public pensioners in this Province.

We have, over and over in this House, since I have been here, had the issue of the situation of our public pensioners raised in this House. I am sure that all three parties represented in this House, the government and the two opposition parties, have had these groups in their offices, being lobbied by them, because of their situation as public pensioners.

Now, in spite of saying that we are lucky as people who have a public pension because we are protected, and we certainly are lucky as MHAs because we have a very generous pension, certainly those MHAs who have been elected in 2007 are rather on pins and needles because they have not had any firm decisions made yet about their pensions, and I want to recognize that. I do hope for their sake that we will soon be setting up the committee of the House that must be set up to deal with members' entitlements. However, having said that, there are a group of public pensioners, pensioners who worked in various services that are offered by government, the services that are needed to keep our society going, pensioners who have been suffering because their pensions have not been kept up with the cost of living, pensioners who have members who are living in poverty, pensioners who have members who are going to food banks, pensioners who have members who cannot put heat on in their house in the winter, who go to malls in Newfoundland and Labrador, sit in heated malls so that they can have warmth during the day, pensioners who have closed off parts of their houses in the winter so that they do not have to heat all the house, so that they heat probably two or three rooms, maximum. This is really an unacceptable situation in our Province, that we have public pensioners going through this situation.

We did have a system here in the Province, going back eighteen years ago, when the pensioners of the public services were indexed, that they could look forward each year to having an improvement in their pension, an improvement that kept up with the cost of living. But eighteen years ago a government in this House stopped that and those pensioners no longer could look at having their pensions increased to match the cost of living in this Province.

Right now, the pensioners' dollar is worth about sixty-two cents, and right now, though seniors is a broader category than pensioners, many of the seniors are pensioners, 10.6 per cent of the users of food banks are seniors and I would be willing to bet that a good three-quarters of them might be pensioners. This is really an unacceptable situation, Mr. Speaker.

The retirees presented a pre-budget brief in 2008-2009 and a number of issues were raised by those retirees, none of which have been addressed by this government. The main one of course and the one that is dealing specifically with what we are dealing with here today is that pensions must be indexed to the annual rate of inflation. They have been presenting this over and over. It is not something that has to be part of collective agreements, as has been thrown back at the pensioners by this government, saying: Well, this is what you people agreed to before you retired; too bad. I am sorry but what was done to them eighteen years ago, when the practice of indexing was stopped, that can be taken up again and I really challenge this government to look at that and to make it happen again.

Another thing that the pensioners have asked is for the basic income tax exemption for pensions that is currently set at $1000 to be increased to $2500. That would be something else that would help them. That could be a step that would help them deal with the low incomes that they have. We can deal with the provincial part of their income tax, so we have the power to meet their needs from the provincial government perspective.

There are other things that they are saying could be done to help them as they deal with pensions that are inadequate, that all medical expenses not covered by Medicare or insurance be made 100 per cent claimable. Because senior citizens have so many medical expenses a lot of them are not covered by Medicare or private insurance, or they are only supplemented partially by Medicare or private insurance programs that they are part of. If they could claim all those medical expenses, how much better that would be for them. That would help them as well.

There is another way in which pensioners and all seniors, not just pensioners, can be helped; by doing a reduction in the cost of various government services for them. One of the things that government has done, for example, is with various registrations. If you register online, for example, for your driver's license, you pay less for registering online. Well, why could we not give some kind of a break to our senior citizens, and if you are over 65 you also get a break on how much it costs to do a registration? There are various types of registrations that senior citizens still take part in. They are full members of society; they still drive, and they still register cars. There are all kinds of things obviously that they still do, so why not give them a break when it comes to the cost of government services?

Another thing would be to remove the tax on home heating fuels and electricity for senior citizens, which includes pensioners. There are many things that this government could think of that still are not part of the strategy for helping older people in our Province. These pensioners and all seniors are the backbone of our Province. They are the ones who worked for years to bring us to where we are in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, my closing thoughts - and I only have a minute or so left and I will clue up so that I do not go over time. Recognizing that pensioners are a vibrant part of our community, we count on them - how often do we talk about the older members of our society and their role as volunteers, for example? They do not get any money for that, yet they continue to work for our community. I really challenge this government at a time when, you know, it has an act looking at pensions to think about how we can make our pensions, our public pension, much fairer for those who earned less money, for those who were not earning high salaries when they retired. When we retire we are going to get a pension based on the salary we now have, which is way beyond what a lot of these pensioners worked for. All of us here, I think, have an obligation to think about the fairness that needs to be put into our pension system, in the public pension system, and the fairness with which we need to treat the current pensioners who do not have any way of increasing their income, even if the government chose one thing to do.

Indexing would be the major thing that would make a difference in the lives of these pensioners, so I really ask our government members to think about that, to push for that in their caucus, at the Cabinet table, because you are the ones who have the power. All I can do is raise the issue here. You are the ones who can make it happen.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to speak to Bill 6, which is An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act.

I guess this bill is looking at a couple of things, the reporting mechanisms and so on, accountability and transparency, under the particular act and it deals with a couple of different clauses that would be amended.

Mr. Speaker, any time you talk about pensions in the Province it is an issue that has been certainly registered on the radar with the government opposite and governments of the past for a number of years, and that is issues related to the public sector pensioning plan in the Province. In more recent days we have a lot of issues to deal with pensions for those people who work with private companies. When you look at what is happening with the recession, the downturn in the economy, the complete shutdown and elimination of the pulp and paper industry in Grand Falls–Windsor, then a lot of people's pensions come under attack in terms of not knowing if they will be there for there for the long haul. So, there is a certain amount of uncertainty that exists around it.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, today in Grand Falls–Windsor there are hundreds of people who are impacted in one way, shape or form, by the closure of Abitibi Bowater. Many of them are affected, because of their pension plans, because of bridging programs that would have taken them to receiving a full pension plan, or because of severance benefits that they will not be receiving.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about that as it pertains to this particular bill because we are aware of a number of situations, and I guess one of the most critical situations that exists in Grand Falls-Windsor right now, as a result of the closure of AbitibiBowater, is the deal with the 119 workers who were supposed to have received a bridging program to their pension benefits that are learning in the last few days, and the last few weeks, that that program may not exist for them and that it is not there right now.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are very concerned, and you would be concerned as well if you spent the last twenty-five to thirty-five years of your life working for an employer, paying into a pension fund, paying into other benefits and then at the end of the day, when you required that allowance, when you should get that money back, you are being told that it is not there. It no longer exists. So that stability and that ground level that you had hoped for is no longer there. It is having a tremendous impact upon the lives of many of these people.

I have had an opportunity to meet with a lot of them, to talk to many of them over the phone, and I can tell you that they planned their future and their financial security around receiving these benefits. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they planned to pay off their homes through severance payments, they planned to maintain their homes and their standard of living on a smaller income through their pension plans and those things right now do not exist for them. As a result of it, they are being forced to make some difficult decisions.

In fact, I think we all seen one case that was in the news, or in the Grand Falls Advertiser, whereby this couple had to decide between paying rent and getting medication because their income level had dropped so low. They were used to being able to make it on that income from a month to month basis. All of a sudden, they were forced to have to live on a certain amount of money which they found literally impossible to do. So, it is having a tremendous amount of impact on these people.

Government has committed to pay out the severance packages to mill workers, but only if they can secure the deal on expropriation and negotiate it into part of the financial settlement. Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. If they are prepared to expropriate and to work a settlement with AbitibiBowater, if they are already on record as saying that we will pay out the severances, then why not do it now? Why not do it now? Instead of waiting for a year or two years down the road until this settlement has been ironed out, because by that time it will have been too late for a lot of people. There is no bank going to go out and loan people money based on the fact that government might secure a deal, and I might get my severance that I am owed in two years from now, or twelve months from now.

So, these people are having financial difficulties today, and they need the assistance today. That is why we have continued to put pressure on government to do those settlements with workers now as opposed to later. They can still claim back their money, deduct it under their settlement under expropriation if that is what they want to do, or they have the other option; the other option being to pay for that investment out of the assets that they have secured. We should not kid ourselves, it is a significant asset.

What Nalcor Energy has taken on, in terms of the power operations and power supply as a result of the closure of AbitibiBowater, will derive wealth to the Province and to the corporation. So do not think that there isn't money in this for government, because there is money in this for government. There is a lot of money in this for government. So there is absolutely no reason why they cannot honour the agreements that were made with these workers.

Now, when we talk about the 119 people whose bridging programs to their pension plan have been impacted, I think it is absolutely shameful. First of all, shameful on the part of the company that they would not see this as any kind of a priority for people who have given their lives to this company, who have worked hard, who have made it what it is and what it was for nearly for a hundred years, and their families before them.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot do a whole lot about that. There are processes whereby they can take it through the courts, and hopefully they will be successful and win their case but those things are not predictable, or at least I would not make a prediction around them, because they are very high risk and it has the tendency and the probability of going either way; either in the best interests of the retired workers that are impacted or in their very worst interests and their worst nightmares.

Mr. Speaker, again, they are looking to government again. Oftentimes, people will say: Why would they come to government to have government step in and write them a cheque for this money that a company owed them and is refusing to pay? Normally, most people would look at that and they would say: It is not government's responsibility. I, for one, would probably look at it and say it is not government's responsibility, with one exception in this case; with one exception. Government assumed the responsibility.

When government came to this Legislature with an act to expropriate assets they, themselves, made the decision to take on the responsibility of managing this issue in Central Newfoundland. It was their decision, and it was their decision to make. In doing that, in passing that legislation, they not only took on the responsibility but now they are being seen as being accountable to those very people. I do not care which way you cut it, that is the reality of it, because the only people today that are making money because of AbitibiBowater's closure in Central Newfoundland is the government of this Province. They are the only people that are putting money in the bank as a result of that particular pulp and paper mill closing down.

Workers have lost their jobs, towns have lost their taxes, businesses have lost their contracts, workers have lost their severance, pensioners have lost their benefits, but there is one entity that is still earning money as a result of the closure of that operation, and it is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let me tell you how they are earning money. They are earning it because of the security of the assets that they have taken on.

Then they will stand up and shrug their shoulders, it is not our responsibility. You cannot expect government to pay for this. We sympathize with the workers. Well, Mr. Speaker, while everyone else has hit rock bottom and does not have a cent to see for a life's work, it is the government that is racking up the cash in the bank accounts. That is why they are looking to them. It is no rocket science here. That is the reason they are looking.

In another few months they will be earning money off the forest resource, with any luck at all. With any luck at all, there will be some good proposals come forward for the development of the wood operation in that area. It will be proposals that will see revenues generated and more money coming to the provincial coffers.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is while the government is building their account and stacking up the cash from the AbitibiBowater assets, it is the same time when workers who are displaced are making decisions about whether they will have to let their house go, let their car go, and so on, because that is the financial position that they find themselves in.

Mr. Speaker, today when we are discussing the pensions act in the Province there are a group of pensioners in this Province that are dependent upon the government, the government who is funnelling money from the demised Abitibi operations into their coffers. They are looking to that government today to secure their bridging programs, to secure their pension funds and to secure their severance benefits, and so should they. The obligation is on behalf of the government to do just that.

We have been unable to get from them even the ballpark numbers on what it would cost if they were to step up to the plate and to pay out those benefits. I do not want to think that they are so lax that they do not have their math done on it and they have not done the analysis and the research. I think it is more of a case where they do not want to release the information because they know if they released the information there is going to be comparisons made, comparisons made in how much profit they will earn this year on the power that is going into the grid that they no longer now have to pay for, that is savings for them, because before they were buying that power off Abitibi and they were feeding it into the main grid in the Province. Well, that is money today they do not have to pay out. That is money that they are banking right now.

Then there is the other excess power that was being used by Abitibi itself. Now I do not know if they have funnelled that into the grid yet or if they are storing the energy, but either way it will derive money for the government. You only have to sit down and do the math. You know how many megawatts of power, you know what the set price is through the PUB and you can do the calculations and find out how many millions a year the government will put in their savings, cash, from the demised Abitibi operation.

They do not want to get all of this information out there because they do not want people to realize and understand that we are making more money than you are owed. They do not want to get that information out there. They do not want the public to know. If the information is skewed, well then it is up to them to correct it. It is up to government to correct it. You can do the math and find out how many megawatts of power is being produced at those hydro projects, how much of it is being managed through Nalcor, and like I said, I do not know how much is in reserve and how much is going into the grid. Obviously what is in reserve, they are not making money off it today but they will make money off it. They must have some interest to use the power. After all, they wanted to bring 800 megawatts from the Lower Churchill down to the Island. So they must have someone around to use another fifty megawatts or sixty, whatever they have in reserve.

So, Mr. Speaker, you do the math. You find out how much money they are going to make. You combine that with the money that they are going to make off the forest resources and the royalty there. You do the calculations and what needs to be paid out to all these workers, and you lay it all out to the public. You show the public.

MR. SKINNER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I have to bring to the attention of the public because it is being brought forward from the member opposite that somehow this government is holding back information that it may have relative to the value of pensions, the values of severance and all that kind of stuff.

Just for clarity Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important that we be clear when we speak about such sensitive matters. We are not the employers of the people who were employed by AbitibiBowater. We do not have the employment records. We do not have all the years of service. We do not have all of the contractual arrangements. We are endeavouring to get that. We are attempting to put that together, but for the member to leave the impression that this side of the House, this government is somehow not bringing forth information that it has is disingenuous at best and I believe playing with the emotions of the people out there in Central Newfoundland and Labrador. They should not be doing it, and she should concentrate on what it is we are debating, which is Bill 6, not AbitibiBowater.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's comment is not a valid point of order but the member is reminded, the hon. minister is reminded he has the opportunity to speak in response in the debate.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that he can speak in response to anything I say when my time is up and not make frivolous points of order in the House.

Mr. Speaker, what is absolutely shameful here is that the government opposite, after all this time, do not have any idea how much money is owed to the workers in Grand Falls–Windsor. I would be ashamed to stand on my feet, minister, and admit such information. Absolutely appalling and shameful! If government was serious about this issue, if they were serious about responding to the crisis and the needs of the workers in this community they would know today how much money is owed to these 119 workers who do not get a benefit. They would know how much money is owed in severance pay to the workers who are in that union in Grand Falls–Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing here today. I cannot believe what I am hearing here today, because I have asked these questions in the House of Assembly. In fact, in asking the questions I never did get an answer, but I never thought for one minute that the reason I did not get an answer was because they did not have an answer, and I am just finding this out today. I thought it was more a case of where they did not want the numbers out there in the public, but it is not. It is a case where they have not done diligence, where they have not collected information, where they have not done appropriate analysis, and today they sit on the other side of the House while hundreds of workers in this Province are out of a job and they cannot tell you how much money they are owed.

Absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker! Absolutely ridiculous, but not unexpected I say. Not unexpected coming from the members opposite, because they have a tendency to go out there on issues with both barrels blazing like they are going to take on the world until all of a sudden they do nothing. They do absolutely nothing! They fall down on their face, and we have seen it over and over and over again on issues by this government, about how we are going to take on the world. We are going to take on this one and we are going to take on that one.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in all their actions of taking people on, there are a lot of people out there today who are not getting any benefit from all of that. Government was smart enough to expropriate the assets when it needed to be done, but at the same time they failed to meet their own responsibilities to the workers that have been impacted in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, I think today, when the books of AbitibiBowater are wide open to the international market, when the books of AbitibiBowater have been presented in the courtrooms all around North America, when this company is open to every shareholder and their books are open public knowledge at this stage, that it is ridiculous that the government opposite does not have a handle on what the financial impact is to the people in this Province who are dependent upon it.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the act to amend the pensions fund today. That is the act that we are talking about, and that is the reason we have gotten onto this issue, because these are pensioners in the Province. They are people who are impacted. They are people who are depending upon the government, a government who has failed them and now failing to conduct a proper analysis and get the proper information. You would think that after all of these months, after all of these months, that at least one minister on the other side of the House could stand up and tell you how much severance is owed to the workers who were displaced at AbitibiBowater. Not on, they do not know, but I bet they can stand up and tell you, if they wanted to, how much money they are pocketing out of the assets. I bet they can stand up and tell you how much money they are stashing in their bank accounts as a result of the demise of the Abitibi operation, because they are the only people who are still earning money as a result of this project.

They might say oh, we are not earning the money, but it all being earned through Nalcor, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: It is all being earned through Nalcor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to point out that there is a fair amount of latitude given at second reading. The bill is to amend the Pensions Funding Act. I get the impression that the hon. member is straying somewhat from the theme here, so relevance…. I just caution the member; that is all. We are debating the Pensions Act here.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought when we debated financial bills in the Legislature that it did provide for broad leeway for discussion, and my discussion today is related to the pension benefits of workers in the Grand Falls-Windsor area who were displaced by AbitibiBowater. In order to make my argument, Mr. Speaker, I need to indicate the revenues that accrue to government as a result of this project as well.

Mr. Speaker, these are one group of pensioners that are affected, and they are in great numbers. They are desperate and they need the support of government, and they are not getting it. They are not getting any support, Mr. Speaker, no financial support whatsoever. Some of them will have to wait for years and years for the bridge to a pension fund, and many of them will never, ever get there, will never, ever see that pension because of the terms and conditions in which they were employed and because of the fact that the employer has reneged on the benefits in the bridging program.

Mr. Speaker, they did send a proposal to government. It was a proposal that went to the Minister of Industry. I am sure it went to the local MHA, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, and I am sure it probably was copied to other MHAs for that area: the MHA for the Windsor–Springdale area; the MHA for the Lewisporte area; the MHA for the Bishop's Falls–Botwood area. I am sure they would have all gotten a copy of this proposal from the 119 pensioners in their districts, because they all live in their particular districts, but these workers have gotten no response from government. They have gotten no response from government.

What they were proposing is an investment program where they would invest their money from their pensions and receive an amount back over a period of a number of years, and they saw it as a way to stimulate economic stability in that particular area; because, with that money gone out of the local economy, it does have an impact. Mr. Speaker, so far there has not been a response even by the government opposite to their proposal, no response whatsoever.

These people, they did not do this easily. They took this very seriously. They took their time and they sat down and they put together a proposal that they felt could work for them, could work for government, and could work for the area in terms of a pensioning benefit. So far, they have not gotten any response from it whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, while we are dealing with the Pensions Funding Act, I also want to deal with another group of pensioners in the Province and they are the public service pensioners. I think that we all are aware of who they are, the thousands of them out there that are impacted. I have seen a number of people on the government side actually show up at rallies that they had, Mr. Speaker, because I was there at those rallies and I saw them when they were in the back of the rooms, so I know there are people inside of government who understand the issue around public sector pensioners, and I also know that they like to skew the facts when it comes to this group of people.

I have often heard it said by ministers on the other side: Oh, a lot of these public sector pensioners are already getting a good pension. Yes, a lot of them are, but there are a lot of them who are not. There are a lot of them whose pension is below the poverty line that they should have to be living on in this Province today. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Mount Pearl is trying to speak over there, and he has a lot of them in his district. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I went to a rally at one point it was actually in his district, or in his colleague's district; I am not sure, Mr. Speaker. There are two of them over there; there is Mount Pearl South and Mount Pearl something else - two Mount Pearls.

Mr. Speaker, I will not debate trivial matters in the House. If the members were on their feet more I would know what district they represent, but we will not debate the trivial matter. We will debate the real issue here, and the real issue is this: there are a lot of those public sector pensioners who do not get enough money to live on, and they are being told by government that, because you did not negotiate indexing in your pension, you do not get it. Okay, there is one argument.

There are many ways, Mr. Speaker, in which you can enhance the benefits to public service pensioners in this Province and it does not necessarily have to do with indexing. There are other innovative ways to do it. Indexing is just one of them. It was the catchphrase that got government deterred from giving them additional benefits, but it should not be a deterrent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they should be able to look for solutions.

In fact, I think the unions themselves need to do more. The unions need to do more, as well, because when the unions go to the table to do collective bargaining on behalf of the public servants in the Province they should be putting this issue on the table to governments as a priority: a priority to ensure that public service pensioners are increased to a certain rate in this Province.

I am not talking about giving raises to those who already get a good, decent pension to live on. I am talking about giving raises to the many hundreds and thousands who do not. Mr. Speaker, there is a way to do it, and when unions go to negotiate they should be making this issue a priority as well, and raising it with government and trying to get it addressed, but that is not necessarily happening either and that is a disappointment because there is more that they could be doing.

In the absence of the strong support of unions, and in the absence of a response from government, these union workers, pensioners, have had to take matters into their own hands and they have lobbied aggressively. They have provided a lot of information that is factual around the earnings and the wages and the pensions that their members receive. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, they have provided the hardship cases as well. I have heard many of them as testimony when I went to their rallies. I can guarantee you, they do not hold small rallies. I do not know if I have ever gone to one where there have been less than 800 or 1,000 people in the room. They have huge turnouts for their rallies, which tells me it is indicative of the seriousness of the issue, and of the support that exists around the issue, but also of the impact that it has upon these particular individuals.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite will sit back today and they will shout from the other side of the House, but they need to be shouting on issues that are important and not just on foolish propaganda. These pensioners today who live in our Province, living on a very low income with very little support, they do not have it easy, Mr. Speaker. They do not have it easy. In fact, I think they really thought that when government was bulging at the seams in terms of surplus budgets, huge amounts of royalties coming in on the oil and gas, when they saw governments out touting about having parties and celebrations because of have status, that they actually thought for one minute there was a glimmer of hope for them, that maybe we are going to get some top-up on our pensions. Mr. Speaker, that did not happen. Once again the government opposite, although their members slid into the rooms at the rallies, Mr. Speaker, failed to deliver for those pensioners who were very vulnerable in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: these pensioners had a glimmer of hope for one reason, and that is because when they were engaged in the public service, when they did work for the people of the Province, they worked at a time when revenues were low, when there were no surplus budgets or there were no cash accounts of the government that were bulging at the seams, when there was no money to throw around at every single problem to find a solution like this government has had. They realized that when they gave their time and their service to the people of the Province, they did so at a time when there were tight fiscal situations. They did so at a time, Mr. Speaker, when the finances did not allow for them to be remunerated in a way that they wanted to be. The glimmer of hope came for them when they sat every day and saw the government opposite tap their desks because of the bulging bank account of the Province, when they saw the government opposite respond to every situation and every crisis in this Province with a blank cheque. That was when the glimmer of hope came for them.

There was no problem out there that the government opposite could not fix with a bit of money, with a few dollars, and that was the impression that they left in society when they got up every day, Mr. Speaker, and talked about how much money they had, the surpluses, what they were going to do with it all, how they would throw $2 million into this account and $2 billion into that account. That was the way, Mr. Speaker, that these people sat through this entire period. The first time in their lives when they knew there was an opportunity for them to be able to get an increase in their pension fund, they were let down by the government opposite.

Mr. Speaker, they did not give up. In fact, they held another rally. Do you know why they held another rally? They held another rally because the government was out saying: We are have status, we are going to have a party. In fact, the party was being planned. I believe they even had a committee struck called the party committee for the have status. They were going to have the big celebration. The pensioners held another rally because they said: We are going to have the have status, the party is coming and sure as the party is coming we will get an increase. We will not have to turn off the heat in our house next year. We will not have to make a decision between buying groceries and buying medication. We will not have to take the tough decisions and sit for hours in public buildings that are heated so we do not get cold. This government is going to have a have party, so there is an opportunity for me now to get a little bit of money out of the pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Exploits has been flapping in the backbenches for the last ten minutes. He never stands in this House of Assembly to talk or to make a speech, which he should because of the situation going on in his district. He can sit in the backbench like a puppet and flap all day long because it is not going to change one thing that I have say in this House of Assembly, other than the fact he proves his annoyance with every word he says.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: He has the opportunity to stand in this House, and you go back at the end of the session and you count and see how many times he stood and debated the piece of legislation, because I think in the last session he did not stand to debate one piece of legislation. You can go and check the numbers. There were actually ten of them who sat in their seats and got paid to come here for a full term who never once stood on their feet on a bill in this House of Assembly, but they will sit in their seats, they will flap their gums, and they will say absolutely nothing whatsoever of any importance, and their constituents think they are working hard on their behalf. What a farce, I say to the members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members for their cooperation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of all times to be intervening, by the Member of Exploits, on an issue, when you are talking about pensioners in his own district who are not going to get paid, workers who are not going to get their severance pay, and public service pensioners who are living in poverty in this Province. That is the time he decides to sit and flap his gums and say nothing, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely ridiculous! Absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker! Should be ashamed. Should be absolutely ashamed!

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the pensioners were let down in this Province on more occasions than one. I know that the government hates to hear this, but the reality is it was the resources of this Province that allowed them to have bulging bank accounts in their time of office. It had nothing to do with a deal they ever did. It had nothing to do with a plan they ever focused on. It had nothing to do with an industry they ever created, Mr. Speaker. It had all to do with deals on resources by their predecessors, and they were just the bankers, Mr. Speaker. They picked up the cheque, they put it into the account, and anyone who came with a problem they dished out a cheque to fix it. That was the way they operated for the last four to five years, Mr. Speaker, as a government.

Why wouldn't public sector pensioners in this Province, who are living in poverty, who are going without heat in their homes, who have to make decisions between their food and their light bills and their medications, why wouldn't they have an expectation that, at a time when they have given their life to the public service and the people of the Province, that at the one time in our history when there is a government who can well afford it, who brags every single day about the amount of money that they are building up in their bank accounts, why wouldn't they expect that there would be some benefit, some reprieve for them?

Mr. Speaker, that did not happen, and today, when the minister introduced amendments to the Pensions Funding Act, we did not see anything in this that would give them a raise either. We did not see anything in this bill that would give them any kind of benefit or any kind of a break.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a bill here today and it is a bill that, no doubt, provides for a framework for accountability and transparency. There is no doubt there are some clauses in this which need to be amended. What is unfortunate is that there are still a lot of pensioners out there in this Province today, thousands of those who have retired from the public sector and hundreds more who have been displaced from their jobs with AbitibiBowater, who have not had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to get what they feel they are owed on their pension funds.

Mr. Speaker, it is an opportune time for government to start paying a little bit more attention to those people, to start looking at where there are possible solutions to be able to aid them and to help them and to provide for them in a way that they feel they should be provided for.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an opportunity to have a few remarks on that bill today and I will conclude my comments.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act.

We are allowed a little bit of latitude, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, given that this is a finance bill. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to comment on the bill itself and what the amendments to the Pensions Funding Act are going to be, but before I get into that I would appreciate the opportunity, and I am going to take the opportunity and take my time to respond a little bit to some of the comments made by the Opposition Leader.

There are two areas, Mr. Speaker, that I want to speak to. The first area that I want to speak to is the whole area of the public pensioners. Now all of a sudden the public pensioners have become somebody, some group that the member opposite wants to somehow help. Well where were they when they stopped the indexing of their pensions years ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: It was the government of the day, which was a Liberal government, that stopped the indexation of the public service pensions, the general service workers, some eighteen years ago. It was the government of the day that tore up the contracts. It was the government of the day that treated those public pensioners, who were then working in the public service, as though they were not worth the time of day, because they tore up their contracts and they stopped all of the indexation that was happening. So do not come whining in here in this House of Assembly trying to make the case for these people when you have already shown by your actions what you thought of them.

In terms of what this government is doing, because I am more interested in talking about what we are doing as opposed to what the Opposition did not do. I think it is more constructive if we talk about what we are doing. We, as a government, have done a lot, not just for the public pensioners. We have done it for all of the seniors in this Province. We have done a lot of stuff for the seniors in this Province.

We can talk about the drug formulary, Mr. Speaker. All of the drugs that the seniors today are looking for, we review that. We have expanded the number of drugs on the drug formulary list and the seniors who call me thank me for that as a government. They say that I am glad your government is listening to us. I am glad you are expanding the number of drugs that you put under the formulary so that people today, who have a variety of illnesses as they age and find that their health is deteriorating, have something that they can use to help them through that difficult time.

Besides increasing the number of drugs in the drug formulary, Mr. Speaker, what we have also done is we have a number of drug plans to help with the financial cost of these drugs for people. There are a variety of drug plans that people can apply for and it is based upon your income, so that those who are in the most need get the most assistance. Those that have a lesser need get less assistance, and we believe that is a very fair and a very equitable way of treating people.

There has been a lot done, and that is the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker. There has been a lot done by this government to assist, not just public pensioners. I agree that they need to have assistance and I agree we need to be looking at other ways that we can assist. We have, over successive budgets, shown ways that we can do that. We are doing a lot but we are not just doing it for one group. We are doing it for all of the seniors in the Province. We think, as a government, it is more applicable for us and more relevant for us, and fairer for us, and more equitable to the seniors of this Province if we do it for all. Any benefits that we as a government bring in get applied to all of the seniors, not just public pensioner seniors. Not that there is anything wrong with them but we think we need to extend the benefits to all.

The last point I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, on the public pensioners - which I have heard again from a number of my constituents who contact me - has to do with the changes we have made to the taxation levels. We have now raised up all of the minimum amounts, in terms of your income now is higher and higher. We are putting up the ceiling where people have to pay taxes.

When we took government – I am going from memory, Mr. Speaker, my numbers might be off a little bit, but people who were at $11,000, $12,000 or $13,000 a year of income paid taxes. Well, that does not happen today. Now it is $18,000, $19,000, $20,000, somewhere in that range. So those people, who have incomes of say $19,000 a year or less, do not pay taxes now because we have changed the thresholds that we had so that we would try and leave more money in the pockets of the people who needed it most.

There has been a lot done, Mr. Speaker, to help the seniors of this Province and I am proud to stand here and say as a member of this government, that we have done those things, we will continue to review where we stand with the seniors in this Province, and we will continue to make improvements in successive budgets. So I make no apologizes for the work that we have done on behalf of the seniors of this Province, and that includes the public service pensioners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: The second point, Mr. Speaker, I want to address while we are talking about the Pensions Funding Act, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, has to do with the – again, the Leader of the Opposition was up speaking about the Abitibi workers. I stood on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I respect the judgement you made, that you did not feel it was a point of order. You said that I had an opportunity to get up later. Well, here I am. I am up now to say my piece.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite tried to leave the impression that we are not sharing information with the people that we have, or with the people who are employed or former employees of AbitibiBowater, information that she says we have that we will not get out there, or that we do not actually have the information.

The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important for the people of the Central region to hear this point, is that we are gathering information. We are gathering it from a number of sources. We are gathering it from our own intelligence; we are gathering it from discussions with the union. The union has been passing information back and forth to us. We are gathering it from the company when the company gives us information that they want to give us. They have not given us everything we have asked for but they have been giving us some stuff, in fairness to them.

When the member opposite says: Well, tell us how much the severance is going to cost or tell us how much pensions are going to cost? My point is we are not the employer. We do not have that information. Those are private records. That is a private company that has private information on each of its employees and we do not have access to that. It is not that we do not want to give the information. We have an estimate, we have a guesstimate, and I do not want to put that out there because if I am going to stand in this House of Assembly and speak to the situation in Central Newfoundland and Labrador, I am going to speak from fact. I am not going to speak from conjecture. I am not going to speak from estimates or guesstimates. I am not going to pull a number out of the air. Unless I know what I am speaking about, I am not going to stand up here and give that number out. So we are endeavouring to get that.

For the people in Central Newfoundland and Labrador who are wondering what we are doing, I can say to you we are seeking the information from the union and they have been co-operating with us. We are seeking information from the company and they have been co-operating somewhat with us, not providing everything that we would like because they have some concerns over privacy and access to information but they are providing some information. We are using our own sources and our own resources that we have to try and get that information as well.

So it is not a matter of we have it, we will not release it. It is not a matter of we do not want people to know it. It is a matter of we are trying to compile it. We believe it is important that we deal with the facts of the situation, not with guesstimates or conjecture or other numbers that we pull out of a hat. So we are not going to do that, Mr. Speaker. It is not the way that I am going to operate as Chair of the task force. It is not the way that this government operates, and I am not going to give in to the member opposite in terms of trying to draw some number out for the sake of having a number. I do not think it would lend anything to the argument. I think it is only playing with the emotions of the people out there. Until we know exactly what we are talking about, we are not going to speak to that particular information.

Now, Mr. Speaker, again the member opposite, in my opinion, tries to drive a divide into this community here, this community of Newfoundland and Labrador and this community of the Central region. She tries to pit the government as somehow not working for the best interests of the workers. That, to me, is something that I really have difficulty understanding. We should be together on this. The government, the unions and the employees should all be together working against AbitibiBowater to try and find what it is we can do to ensure that the employees receive everything that they are entitled to receive from that corporate entity, and we are doing that. We the government, we the unions, and we the employees are all doing that. The group that is not doing it is the group opposite.

The Opposition Leader stands up and tries to drive a wedge into us, tries to separate us, tries to divide and conquer us. Why would she want to do that, Mr. Speaker? For pure political reasons. She is trying to gain some stature herself and for her party on the backs of the people in Central Newfoundland and Labrador and that is atrocious. She should not be doing that.

This situation is not a situation that we should be playing with people's emotions. We should not be using their desperate situation for our own political gain. To try and do that I find offensive and I am actually surprised that she would do it. I thought better of her, and I am surprised that she is doing it.

I want to correct an inaccuracy, as well, that she brought up. She referenced an investment program that she said I had received from a group of people out there, and that there had been no response to it. Well, let us deal again with the facts because I want to be accurate when I stand in this House and talk.

I received a submission from one person, not a group of people, one person. I have spoken to that person myself. My staff have spoken to that person on numerous occasions. Some of the people that she referenced, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, the Member for Exploits, the member for what used to be Baie Verte-Springdale - I can't remember the exact – Windsor-Springdale, those members, the members that she references, have all spoken to that gentleman. That gentleman is aware of where we are with this proposal. We have talked to him about it. He has actually indicated to me that he had extra information that he wanted me to consider. I have indicated to him that he should send that in to me so that I can consider it, and so that I can formally respond to him, and we have asked him to do that.

So, to stand in this House of Assembly and to say, number one, that we have a submission from a group of people is inaccurate. It is from one person. That is all that is on the piece of paper that I have, one signature, not a group of people. Secondly, although the person, in fairness, did say he has a whole bunch of other people who want to move forward with this, I have only one person who signed on to it at this point, so to stand here and say that we have it from a group is not accurate, and to say that we have not responded is totally inaccurate as well.

Now, if the hon. member opposite wants to say she does not like the response that we have given, or thinks it is the wrong response, I can accept that. She is entitled to an opinion, but do not say we have not responded when we have responded. We have done a lot of work on this, and I have been in communication with the individual and I have indicated to him, if you have other information, send it in; we would be happy to receive it.

There is a lot happening, Mr. Speaker, and to try and stand up and say that there is nothing happening, and that we are ignoring people who are taking the time to contact us, is totally untrue. I have dozens, if not hundreds, of e-mails and phone calls from people from Central Newfoundland and Labrador about the situation with AbitibiBowater, and every one of them I have called back myself, I have tried to write all of them back, I have responded to them by e-mail. Whatever way they have communicated with me I have tried to communicate back to them. So we are doing everything possible, Mr. Speaker, to keep people informed here, and we will continue to do that and we will continue to do more. We have lots of other things that we will be doing.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to talk about is the skewing of the facts. I find it interesting that the hon. member opposite would stand up and say that we are skewing the facts. We are not skewing the facts, Mr. Speaker. We are putting out information when we know it is factual. What we are not doing is trying to fool with the facts and put out information that is not factual. We are doing exactly the opposite of what we are being accused of doing. I will continue to operate that way, and I will continue to do it that way to the best of my ability. Mr. Speaker, I will not say any more in terms of those particular points.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, this is An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act. It is something that is a piece of business that we need to proceed with here in the House of Assembly. The Minister of Finance has brought it forward. He believes it is something that we should deal with here in the House, and we have an opportunity to debate it. When we get to Committee stage, I am sure I will have an opportunity to say more on it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time and I look forward to standing again on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand and talk about a bill such as this because, as my colleague mentioned earlier, this is a bill that talks about finances and, as members of this House would know, and those who follow the proceedings of the House of Assembly would recognize, when you are talking about a finance bill it gives you some opportunity to talk about some of the things that may happen in government, how the government might spend its money, so there is a bit of latitude in how you debate and talk about a money bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a couple of comments. I want to pick up on the theme that my colleague continued with for a little while and reference some of the points raised by members opposite. I want to repeat something I have said in this House several times. Once again today a lot of comments were made about Central Newfoundland, particularly the Grand Falls-Windsor area, and what this government is not doing, or things that we should be doing, and talking about the kinds of anxiety we are creating, or suggesting that there is anxiety that we are creating, among the people in Central Newfoundland.

One of the things, I think, Mr. Speaker, is there is a bit of a contradiction. It is one thing to stand in this House and to talk about the needs of the people of Central Newfoundland, the needs of the people of Grand Falls-Windsor, but you need to be consistent. Several times in this House and outside of this House we have heard members opposite - in fact, two particular members opposite - who have talked about an announcement that my department has made.

In this Budget this past year we announced the established of a new residential addictions treatment program for Grand Falls-Windsor, to be located in Central Newfoundland and in particular in Grand Falls-Windsor. We, as a government, have been criticized heavily for making that decision by members opposite because they do not believe that we can have success. They do not believe that we can successfully operate an addictions centre in Grand Falls-Windsor. They believe, and they have indicated, that we are not going to be able to recruit the kind of professionals that are necessary to make that program successful. They do not believe that the community of Grand Falls-Windsor and that region have the necessary support individuals to support the program that we are delivering through that addictions centre.

Mr. Speaker, if you are going to stand in this House and go outside this House in the public domain and make comments to that effect, then coming back into this House and then criticizing this government for things that we should or should not be doing in Central Newfoundland, is a bit of a contradiction.

In fact, it is much more than a contradiction; it is somewhat hypocritical. Because, if you truly believe in a region, you truly believe that they have tremendous potential, why wouldn't you want to embrace and get behind an announcement to establish a centre like an addictions centre in Grand Falls-Windsor? It is a big contradiction, Mr. Speaker, so I find it somewhat amusing as I sit in this House and listen to members opposite criticize our government for the things that we are doing in Central Newfoundland.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if you look at this government's track record in dealing with regions of the Province who experience a difficult time, we need look no further than the neighbouring communities of Harbour Breton and the region, the Connaigre Peninsula region. A few years back they were having a very challenging time, running through some difficult issues in the fishery, and many people thought at that time that we were going to see the demise of the Connaigre Peninsula. It did not happen. It is not going to happen.

The reason it did not happen, I say to my colleague, the member for that district, who speaks with some confidence - because she, herself, like this government, has confidence in that region of the Province, because we understand that is a resilient group of people who have a history steeped in the fishery, have tremendous potential in the aquaculture industry, and tremendous potential because of its geographic location, to tie into some other industries that will develop in that region, Mr. Speaker. With the people, the human resources we have in that area, the commitment, the commitment to ensure that region is sustained and working with this government, we will continue to ensure that the Connaigre Peninsula remains a very vibrant part of the Province and continues to have the level of success that they have, and with the strong leadership provided by their MHA they will continue to be successful, Mr. Speaker.

Look to the Stephenville region, the West Coast, the Port au Port Peninsula, Stephenville region, again an area and a community who found itself somewhat devastated with the closure of a mill. Again, for those naysayers who thought, she's gone, the bottom is gone out of her; the community will never survive - what do we have today? We have a community that is continuing to prosper.

I was listening to some statistics cited about four or five months ago around the new homes being constructed in that entire region, the new jobs being created. All as a result of our government working with the community, because it takes leadership, Mr. Speaker, by the local community, the residents of the local community, the leadership of the local community, supported by a strong commitment from a provincial government working with local area MHAs who have a vision, have an understanding, have confidence, confidence in the people who are there, confidence in the potential of that region. Working collectively together, we have made sure that the Stephenville area and the entire Bay St. George area continues to be a vibrant place in which to live, a quality of life for the people who live there and have a future. People want to go there. We are able to recruit people to go in and work with the College of the North Atlantic, for example, work with the institutions that are there, the educational institutions, the justice system that is there. All have been able to recruit the kinds of people that they need to provide those services.

The College of the North Atlantic has its provincial headquarters in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker. It is not here in St. John's; it is not here on the Northeast Avalon. They have shown clearly that the calibre of people that we need to run our college network, to run the programs and services that we have on the West Coast, are attracted to places like Stephenville. They will be attracted to places like Grand Falls–Windsor. All we need to have as a government, as a community, we need to have confidence. We need to demonstrate to the people that we support them and work with the local community to ensure that they are successful, and that will happen in Grand Falls–Windsor, Mr. Speaker, despite the naysayers, despite the comments from the members of the Opposition that an addiction centre cannot work out in Central Newfoundland.

One of the other things, Mr. Speaker, that was talked a lot about today was pensioners, people who worked with the public service and have since retired. One of the things – and I do not want to take anything away from the importance of the contribution that public service pensioners have made to the development of this Province, the contribution that they have made to government, the contribution that they have made to society at large and the tremendous potential, not just the contributions that they have made, but the tremendous potential that they have to continue to make a contribution to the communities in which they live, because many of them still today provide strong leadership in their community. They provide strong leadership in their organization and they continue to make a major contribution to the future of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, if you look at some of the things that we have done since 2003 in first forming government, focusing attention on seniors in this Province is a significant investment because we believe not only should we be acknowledging the contributions that our seniors have made, we need to recognize and fully understand the tremendous potential that seniors have that continue to make a contribution to our communities.

One of the things I have said many times, Mr. Speaker, is not too many people in Newfoundland and Labrador, unfortunately, understand aging. We tend to think, as a society, that as you grow older somehow or other your contribution is less valuable or that your potential for continued contribution is somewhat diminished. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker.

All you need to do if you go throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and I say to my colleague, the Minister Responsible for the Volunteer Sector, as he travels the Province I am certain he will tell you that many of the people that he will see, many of the people that are very much a part of our community organizations are individual seniors in communities. To this day, they continue to be contributors to the social fibre of a community. They continue to be providing strong leadership. Many of them are elected to town councils. Many of them are elected to recreation associations and a variety of other organizations; Lions organizations, for example, Kiwanis, just to name a few. I could go on talking about the role that seniors play in the Province and the role that they have in contributing to the development of and continued prosperity of the communities and regions in which they live. Our government recognizes that, Mr. Speaker.

Back in 2003 one of the things that we made a commitment to, we made a commitment back then when we formed government to give a real focus, provide some focused attention on seniors in this Province. That is why we now have, and had back then, established an office for aging and seniors. We have now dedicated a minister who has a primary responsibility for aging and seniors, and I am quite proud, in fact, to be that minister responsible for seniors in this Province. We take that responsibility as a government very seriously. We have a policy office for aging and seniors. We have a provincial advisory council on aging and seniors to provide advice to me as the minister, and in turn to government, on issues that are important to seniors, policy decisions and policy direction we should take and speaks to the kinds of things that they need as they support themselves, as they support the communities in which they live.

We also have a ministerial committee within our Cabinet. I think there are nine ministers within Cabinet who have an active role with my department, with me as the minister responsible, in providing some policy direction for government in developing policies and programs that are responding to the changing needs of an aging population.

Even though I may be the Minister Responsible for Aging and Seniors, there are many departments, whether it is the justice system, whether it is the finance system, whether it is our recreation and cultural department. All of those areas have - what they do in their departments, the policy decisions they may make, all will have an impact on an aging population. So it is important for us to be working collaboratively to ensure we are responding to those needs of an aging population.

This year alone, in this year's Budget, look at some of the things we have done. This year one of the things that this Budget has introduced, and it is something that we are extremely proud of as a department, I was pleased as a minister to hear my colleague, the Minister of Finance, introduce it in this House as he read the Budget because we are making, this year, a significant change in the financial assessment process for seniors who need home support. One of the things that we have heard continuously for many, many years, the home support services are a critical component of our system, a critical piece of support that is necessary to have seniors live in their homes independently with support.

One of the things we also heard is that the financial assessment tool placed a very onerous task, a very onerous responsibility on those seniors to make significant financial contributions to their home support. So much so, that at the end of the day when they made that contribution, there was very little else left to support themselves and maintain themselves, and we recognize that. We listen to them. We talk to them, we listen to them, and we responded.

This year now we will be introducing a new financial assessment tool that will make major changes and improve in a very significant way. We will reduce the amount of the client contribution that seniors will have to make to get their home support that they most desperately need when they find themselves at that time in life. That is just one piece, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the other things that we have done in providing supports for an aging population comes from and is driven by our Healthy Aging Strategy. I was quite pleased, in fact quite proud, to be a part of a process, led a process, where we travelled around this Province, spoke to some 1,000 people in about seventeen different communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We were in every portion of the Province. We did not get to every community but we got to every region, small communities, large communities, small halls, large halls, all alike. We talked to about 1,000 people and we asked them very clearly: What is it we should be doing? What is it we should be doing as a government? What should we be doing as a society? What is the role for communities in ensuring we are better equipped, we are better prepared to be an aging population? What is it we need to do? What is it we will take, as a society, to become truly an age friendly province so that when people look at and think about Newfoundland and Labrador they think about a community, yes it is aging, but a community that provides a friendly, supportive role and atmosphere for seniors? So we want to be the most age friendly province in the country. Our communities are all working together with us to ensure that their community, their region of the Province supports that kind of vision.

Some of the things, when we hear members opposite talk about what we are not doing for pensioners, what we are not doing for seniors, it is fine to listen to that debated here, and they have a role. They have a role to try to - sometimes they might suggest that they have a role to try to discredit government, but I think it is important. To be elected to this House of Assembly is a vote of confidence that the electorate have given you to sit here. Each and every one of us, regardless of the party we represent, have a responsibility to come here and represent our constituents, yes, but we also have a responsibility to participate in debate, participate in discussion in a reasonable way, not to fear monger, not to stretch facts, not to try to create illusions that something is different than what it is, play cheap political games in here, take shots at people, try to discredit individuals with a view of trying to bolster your own political fortunes and future. That is not what this House of Assembly is all about.

All too often I stand in the House and I listen to members opposite doing just that. I do not mind; I fully understand. We are all adults here. We all understand the role that we have. We all understand what politics can be about at times, and I will take my criticisms. Each and every person over here can take his criticism, if it is fair and just, and as governments we do what we think is appropriate, what we think is right, but oftentimes we will hear other people make alternate suggestions.

We introduce bills in this House like this one that we are debating here today. We will introduce bills into this House and we will hear members opposite stand and propose amendments, and that is the democratic process. They will propose amendments; they are reasonable amendments and changes, and we will vote on it in this House and collectively we will support that.

Lots of good ideas, lots of new ideas, come up through that dialogue, and that is important - it is part of the democratic process - but standing in this House to try to create an impression that something is not factually correct that might be stated by government, or to try to discredit what is sound policy decision, or try to discredit individuals as Cabinet ministers, as parliamentary secretaries, as MHAs representing their district, every single one of us come into this House wanting to do a good job for our constituents and wanting to do a good job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. To hear members opposite stand and identify individuals by district or by role or by title and try to discredit them in some fashion for cheap political gain on their own political front, I find that disgusting, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard several references by members opposite today who stood and made reference to several of my colleagues in this House of Assembly from the Central Region in a very disparaging way. Those of us who know those individuals on a personal level can attest to the commitment that they have made to their districts, the commitment they have made to their constituents, and the strong voice that they exercise at our caucus table when they talk about the issues that are happening in Central Newfoundland today.

My colleague, the Member for the District of Exploits, my colleagues, the Members for the Districts of Grand Falls-Windsor and the Baie Verte region, the Springdale region, the Buchans region, there are four members in that district who daily represent their constituents and bring a strong voice to the table in caucus as we talk about the issues that are important to Central Newfoundland.

For anybody who stands in this House today and would criticize any one of them for the lack of support or the lack of input into what should be happening in Central Newfoundland, I say that is unjust, Mr. Speaker, unfair.

When you do it in a fashion so as to discredit them as individuals for your own political gain, I find that disgusting, I find it reprehensible, and I suggest to the members opposite, if they want to stand in this House and debate and talk about what the issues of the day are, the important issues – and, yes, it is important what is happening in Central Newfoundland today, but let's work collaboratively on trying to find a solution. Let's work with the community. Let's not come in this House of Assembly and try to discredit members, or come in this House of Assembly and try to suggest that government is not doing something, or the government is not committed, when in fact nothing can be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker.

On that note I will conclude my comments on this bill, but I look forward to an opportunity to stand in this House in future and debate this bill and others, but I will always, as I stand in this House, challenge members opposite who stand in this House and play nothing but cheap political games, trying to discredit members of this House or members of this government, or the initiatives of this government, trying to suggest that we do not have the interests of the people at heart, trying to suggest that we are not making the kind of strategic investments to respond to the long-term success of not only Central Newfoundland and Grand Falls-Windsor but the entire population of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make those few short comments. I look forward to future debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he shall close debate.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize for the members of this House, and for anyone who is watching these proceedings, that essentially what has taken place in the last day – I think it was a day, however many hours of talking – stems from the repealing of an act. No, excuse me, it deals with the amending of a section of an act.

The amendment, Mr. Speaker, is essentially housekeeping in nature in that we simply want to expedite a process and to, in a more timely manner, get the materials before this court that are consistent with the reporting requirements of transparency and accountability. However, Mr. Speaker, then, because of this particular bill we are dealing with, the Pensions Funding Act, it gives certain latitude to speak on any issues relating to pensions. At least I assume that is what the Leader of the Opposition, how she interpreted it in terms of her comments earlier today.

I have listened intently to the comments of my colleagues, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and the Minister of Health and Community Services, and I certainly support their comments.

Mr. Speaker, back to the issue at hand, we are dealing here with the Pensions Funding Act. I am going to address a couple of questions, try to answer the questions that were raised by the Opposition House Leader yesterday. In fact, I had noted three questions that I will provide the information, and if there are any further questions when we get into Committee I will do my best to answer them.

Mr. Speaker, the first question that I had noted from the Opposition House Leader was the question of net unfunded liability for the last three years. Mr. Speaker, essentially what we have, members of the House will remember yesterday I spoke about the fund asset value and where the fund asset value was in June 2008 until April 27, 2009. The second question dealt with the question from the Opposition House Leader as to the recovery since our Estimates Committees meeting, and I think I have a note that that was March 31. I also have the answer to that question.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of unfunded liability is a question of - yesterday when I spoke we talked about how I think the teachers' pension fund had, in fact, been funded 26 per cent by the time we put the $2 million or the $1.953 billion into the Teachers' Pension Plan 2006. That brought it up from, I think it was, 26 per cent to 85 per cent at the time.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, with the downturns we have seen in the markets we certainly had effects on the funded ratios, and the numbers as of March 31, 2007, the net unfunded liability was $1.907 billion. On March 31, 2008, the net unfunded liability was $1.448 billion, and as of March 31, 2009, the net unfunded liability was $1.67 billion. The net unfunded liability, as I have indicated, as of March 31, 2009 is $1.671 billion. The assets of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Pool Pension Fund, as of May 4, 2009 have an estimated market value of $5.219 billion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you why that is an important number. Again, if I go back to my numbers, we show that on June 30, 2008 the fund asset value of the pension was $6.513 billion. To give you a snapshot, and members of this House, how our pension funds were affected, on September 30, 2008 the fund asset value had decreased to $5.741 billion. In other words, it had decreased $800 million in approximately three months. Then in December 31, 2008 there was a further decrease. The fund asset value was $5.115 billion, down $1.4 billion in a period of six months. So quite a startling decline.

The decline continued to March 31, 2009, where the fund asset value was then at $4.879 billion. Almost $1.8 billion, in less than a year, the fund asset value had decreased. Then, as I indicated yesterday, we saw what I consider to be a startling increase in the month of March, where we picked up $200 million, $5.075 billion. Then the Opposition House Leader, while asking about the recovery since Estimates – and, again, these are startling figures. If Estimates took place on March 31, when the fund was valued at $4.87 billion, it is now at $5.219 billion as of May 4.

Mr. Speaker, the value of the fund has gone up approximately $150 million in a week. So it is startling! The fund had gone up from $4.87 billion in March 31, 2009 to $5.075 billion as of April 27, 2009, and as of May 4 it was now at $5.219 billion. So, we have seen an increase in approximately – again, I have no reason to doubt that these numbers are correct. We have seen an increase, since March 31, of point five, zero, eight billion. Our pension funds have picked up a half a billion dollars over March 31, 2009. So in approximately five weeks, half a billion dollars.

Does that indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the economy is on the uprise? Well, what we are seeing are some positive signs out of the United States. We are hearing that the housing markets are improving. We are also hearing positive results in terms of the steps taken by the United States government and by other governments in terms of the stability of the bank system. So essentially it appears, at least that the markets - and I think the Opposition House Leader yesterday talked about how the markets were doing. It appears that everything is improving. However, Mr. Speaker, I have to caution that this improvement and what we see in the six months I have been in the Finance portfolio, you see swings, but this is very positive for our pension funds and hopefully it is something that will continue.

As I indicated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when we met with the pension advisors in Toronto, a firm called Russell Investments, their advice was to look at the long term – and this is a long-term pension plan. This is meant for people's pensions, to protect their pensions and to protect what is perhaps their greatest asset, because if you look at people in the public service who – a lot of people can retire, as I indicated yesterday, at fifty-five. Well a lot of people will be drawing a pension for twenty years or more in this day and age, considering how long people live. Essentially, even if you own your house, the value of your pension could rival that.

Now the other question, the third question I had noted was from the Opposition House Leader was the number of members. How many people are affected by our pensions? What I can tell you, the exact numbers that I have here today, as of December 31, 2008 - but I am told that the numbers to March 31, 2009 will not vary significantly. We have 36,105 active plan members. The majority of these are in the Public Service Pension Plan, where we have 29,439 members, and in the Teachers' Pension Plan where there are 5,953 members. Then, the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, 651; the MHA Pension Plan, forty-eight; Judges' Pension Plan, fourteen.

Then, in terms of pensioners, Mr. Speaker, we have 13,702 in the Public Service plan; 7,741 in the Teachers' Pension Plan; 673 in the Uniformed Services Pension Plan – that would be, again, as I indicated yesterday, correctional officers and police officers. Although, I think that there may be an overlap in between some of the plans. I am not sure if all of the correctional officers are in the Uniformed Services Pension Plan; then 124 in the MHA Pension Plan, one in the Judges Pension Plan.

We have 22,241 pensioners; so for a total, active plan members and pensioners, 58,346. So almost 60,000 in this Province are dependent and have an interest in these pensions. That is one of the reasons, or I would suggest a major reason why, under this act, the Finance minister holds this money in trust and the fund is held in trust. Again, imposing upon government the obligations that come with holding in trust, the establishment of a fiduciary relationship, which simply means that we have to act in good faith and take the proper steps in protecting people's savings, because that is what the pension is really, in many respects – to protect people's savings.

So, as I indicated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, then we have the Pension Investment Committee, made up with representatives of the various unions and other interested groups. Then we have advisors, a firm who advises on portfolio managers; then they help choose the portfolio managers. Then there is the input as to the types of asset allocations.

So, as a government, we take the steps we can to protect people's futures, because that is what we are dealing. But, from an investment perspective, what I was told when I met with the advisors, that when you look to the long term, apparently - and I know my colleague, the Minister of Justice was certainly familiar with all of this, and the Opposition House Leader may be also, but apparently, you will see all these peaks and valleys. If you go back over the last forty years, you will see these peaks and valleys where the markets are up and down, and one of the keys is to be patient.

It is hard, Mr. Speaker, to be patient, to tell the average person to be patient. When I watched, for example, my RRSP go down - there is no one responsible for that - it is hard to be patient and wait for it to come back; but when you have a fund like this, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the size of the fund, the fact that there are billions of dollars invested, if it is invested properly then it will, hopefully, all come back, and what we are seeing here, I think, is a good sign. It is something again, though, that I reiterate we have to be cautiously optimistic about. Does it reflect the economy or parallel the economy? Well, there appear to be signs that the pension funds obviously are coming up and we are hearing better things about the economy. Are we out of the worst of it all, Mr. Speaker? I certainly cannot guarantee that.

As I also indicated yesterday, and again I had some of the numbers although I cannot remember them all off the top of my head, but as our pension funds go up then our costs of servicing these plans go down, so the deficit is affected. So that $750 million deficit, the projected deficit, is affected by the fact now, with the funds going up, our amortization costs and our interest costs will be less, so that is also good news.

When you look at yesterday, I think at some point yesterday oil had crossed $54 a barrel. That is also good news in terms of the deficit. Before, Mr. Speaker, we gave some numbers in the December update, I think that each dollar – this was from December to March 31 – each dollar a barrel of oil went above $40, I think, made the Treasury $10 million. Again, these are very rough figures based on the price of the Canadian dollar and production remaining the same.

I do not have those same numbers, Mr. Speaker, for a dollar value. All I can tell you is that each $10 that barrel of oil goes up and averages on the year – and, just to put it in perspective for members of this House, if the barrel of oil were to average $70 a barrel - we budgeted on $50 a barrel - if it were to average at $70 then what would happen there is, I think, based on, again, the Canadian dollar, and production remaining the same, Hibernia payout, what could happen is that we could be in a surplus.

That is an advantage that we have over some of the other provinces who do not have those same rich resources to rely upon in these times of economic adversity. The same relates to the pension fund; because, under section 9 of the act there is what is referred to as a deficiency guarantee which means, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, for the people of this Province, for the 58,000 people of this Province who are affected by this pension, that government is ultimately responsible.

As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that is something that I think the people who work in the public sector and people who have a pension plan like this should be very thankful for in this time, because ultimately the pension is protected.

I think the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development pointed out, in talking about private corporations, that is a different situation in terms of how that works, but as a government what we are trying to do is to say to people who have worked with us: This is a good pension plan here. This is something that you can rely upon as you get older and as you head into retirement.

So, Mr. Speaker, the news is certainly a little brighter than it has been in the last six months. Whether or not the trend will continue, I have not had a chance, really, to check on things this afternoon to see where we are in terms of the price of oil in the markets. What we are seeing, I think, is a reflection that some stability is returning to the United States; because essentially in Newfoundland and Labrador, in a resource-based economy, even though we are seeing a significant decrease in our GDP this year, I think minus seven point seven, in a lot of economies - and I am not saying it is not a cause of concern for us - in a lot of economies that would be a significant concern; but, because there are other economic indicators that we look at, the situation is not as dire as it might be otherwise.

Again, Mr. Speaker, when you have a small resource-based economy, the price of commodities and the volatility of the commodities market certainly affect where we are and where we are going, but the good news is that we are, as a government, paying attention to our natural resources. We have equity stakes in some of the oil fields, and in the long run these are going to benefit us greatly.

As I discussed yesterday in the context of another bill, Mr. Speaker, the Lower Churchill hydroelectric development is there. It is one that we will do right when the time is right. We will not do it, Mr. Speaker, because we feel compelled to take steps to get votes. We will do it because we are looking to the future of this Province.

That is what you are doing, Mr. Speaker, when you are dealing with pension funds, and the obligation to protect pension funds. So what we have built in, Mr. Speaker, is a way of protecting as best we can, hiring experts. Because, Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues here, former lawyers, will know, if you are presenting a case in court, then as opposed to me thinking I know all about something, the best thing to do is to hire an expert and that expert will present to the court the evidence that is necessary. That is what we do as a government. That is what we feel we are obligated to do. That is what this act imposes upon us, that obligation. Now what we are trying to do is to get this information out there quicker.

During the pre-Budget consultations, Mr. Speaker, as I travelled around this Province, one of the issues that I heard a lot was the issue of red tape and getting through the bureaucracy. As a government, Mr. Speaker, we are acutely aware of that. As I indicated last week, as a government, look at the steps we are taking in terms of our expenses, MHA and ministerial expenses. They are all on the Internet, Mr. Speaker. People can go in and look at what we are spending our money, or their money, on, because it is not our money. It is the money of the taxpayers, Mr. Speaker.

When it comes to something like pensions, yes, we have to pay people significant sums of money to manage this, but hopefully we get our money's worth, and it appears, based on the advice we have sought, that we are.

What we have done with this amendment to the Pensions Funding Act, we will simply modify the annual reporting requirement and the financial statements for the fund will be tabled on or before June 30, which is within six years of the Pooled Pension Fund. That information will then be available for people to examine. Mr. Speaker, as a government we are committed this openness, transparency and accountability, and this amendment is certainly in the spirit of that commitment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I close debate now at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): It is moved and seconded that Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, be read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act." (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now, tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, as we move to resolve into Committee of the Whole, we will review both Bill 5 and Bill 6.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion to review Bill 5 and Bill 6 in the Committee of the Whole?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we will call Bill 5, An Act To Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act.

CHAIR: The Committee is now prepared to debate Bill 5, An Act To Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act." (Bill 5)

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we call Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act.

CHAIR: The Committee is now prepared to debate Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act." (Bill 6)

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we move that the Committee rise and report Bills 5 and 6.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 5 and 6.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee rise and report Bills 5 and 6 carried without amendment. Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report Bills 5 and 6 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Deputy Chair of Committees reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report Bills 5 and 6 without amendment.

When shall the report be received? Now?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bills be read a third time?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills 5 and 6 ordered read a third time on tomorrow. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 12, Second Reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, Bill 14

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker and my hon. colleagues, I am pleased to speak to Bill 14 this evening.

Today, I am pleased to present a proposed amendment to the City of St. John's Act that will provide those elected officials of the City Council of St. John's with the ability to collect a pension after two terms or eight years of service to the residents of the capital city.

The City's pension agreement, if endorsed by this House, will provide a pension to elected mayors and councillors based on 20 per cent of their salary after two terms, 40 per cent after three terms, and 60 per cent after four terms.

Mr. Speaker, the reason for the introduction of this amendment is not to create any new authority or create a new pension scheme for former mayors and councillors of the City of St. John's. This amendment is required in order to correct an anomaly that exists between the City of St. John's Act and the City's Pension By-law.

Section 4 of the bylaw stipulates that persons who serve on a city council for two four-year terms, or eight years, and have reached the age of 55, were eligible to receive pension benefits once they left office. This particular provision of the bylaw is conflicted with the statutory requirement of the act that required members of the council to serve for twelve years before they are eligible to receive a pension.

Mr. Speaker, while the provision of pensions to elected municipal officials is in its preliminary development stage within this Province, it is not unique in local government circles across the country. The cities of Ottawa, Halifax, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Vancouver, for example, all provide pension plans to their elected officials. In these jurisdictions, however, mayors and councillors would be eligible for pension benefits after just two years of service. This eligibility for pension benefits would be similar to other pension benefits legislated in this Province.

There are, however, a couple of distinguishing characteristics to the pension benefit of the City of St. John's. While other jurisdictions in Canada permit eligibility for pensions after two years of service, the amendment before this House is to reduce the period of time that must be served on city councils from twelve years, or three terms down to eight years or two terms. This is not a new pension scheme or authority. The City of St. John's has had a pension scheme for many years.

A distinguishing characteristic of the city's pension plan for former mayors and councillors, aside from the longer service time required in order to be eligible for a pension, is the fact that benefits in other cities across the country are provided mainly in the form of a registered pension plan, a defined benefit plan. These defined benefit plans are usually contributed by both the member and the employer with eligibility for pension entitlement generally established after two years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I also note, that while the City of St. John's does not provide a pension scheme to elected mayors and councillors, the fund is not funded and benefits paid to former mayors and councillors is budgeted for annually as a part of the overall operating costs of the city.

I should point out at this stage that while this amendment seeks to amend the legislation to allow pension benefits for former mayors and councillors, the City of St. John's also administers a defined pension plan for its employees with benefits based on years of service and a contributory arrangement by the city and its employees.

Mr. Speaker, while the City of St. John's is the only municipality within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that has a legislative capacity to provide pension benefits to elected officials. Other municipalities, and indeed, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador have recently requested consideration for the extension of the necessary legislative authority to permit other cities and towns to consider the possibility of offering pension benefits to their elected officials. This proposal is under review but no decision has yet been made on that request.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the bylaw with the revised eligibility time period for eligibility conflicts with the City of St. John's Act, the city has advised that they have not afforded pension benefits to anyone who does not have a minimum of twelve years of service. Unfortunately, there is a small group of councillors and survivors of former councillors who have earned a benefit under the bylaw but cannot access pension benefits until the bylaw and the act are made consistent. The amendment we debate here today will rectify this inconsistency and provide clearer guidance and the effective clarity to the bylaw for the city.

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the city, we agreed to make the City of St.John's Act consistent with the city's pension bylaw and reduce the eligibility period from twelve to eight years of service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would certainly like to have a few words with respect to Bill 14 - I do believe the number fourteen - the amendment to the City of St.John's Act.

Before I do, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment. It is off the topic I know, but I would like to congratulate someone today. That is a young gentleman who serves as a Page in this House, Mr. Willis Wiseman, who has been with us quite some months. I would like to congratulate him. I understand he has been accepted as a student at the University of New Brunswick Law School.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: All the best! I know over the years and months that I have had to deal with him from time to time, even though he tips a glass of water over me every now and then, that notwithstanding, that is only water, he has also from time to time sought advice, being a former practitioner myself, as to what was involved in getting accepted for law school, what university was about, law school was about, the practice was about, and so on. So I am very pleased to see that this young gentleman has been focused on his studies for quite some years and finally he has attained the key, shall we say, to where he wants to go, and that is the UNB. By the way, UNB, in the university rankings amongst universities today, is ranked as one of the best, if not the top university in Canada for law schools today. I would say: Hats off to him! It is my old alma mater, by the way. Congratulations to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Applause)

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The University of New Brunswick is my alma mater as well. I understand the Minister of Finance also went to UNB. The Minister of Justice, I understand, went to Dalhousie Law School, and the member, I believe, the Deputy Speaker, attended the University of Ottawa, but we will not hold that against them. They are still accepted as legitimate law degrees in Canada. Anyway, congratulations, Mr. Wiseman. All the best to you. I guess we will not be seeing much of you other than on your Christmas breaks. Take care.

Mr. Speaker, again I do intend to have some serious commentary about the bill that has been put forward here today and I preface my remarks by saying that, it is from an inquisitive point of view and seeking information again. It is not from the point of view of taking sides at this point as to whether we agree or disagree with this legislation. There are some issues, I would suggest, about this piece of legislation, and some very serious issues, which need to be addressed, but before I do it would be remiss of me if I did not comment on some of the comments by the Minister of Health when he spoke here this afternoon. He talked about what members in the Opposition do sometimes, as far as trying to incite people, as far as trying to be fear mongers and put people against one another.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that we are speaking to Bill 14, The City Of St. John's Act.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I do believe, Mr. Speaker, this deals with a pension issue and that is an issue as well that deals with finance, which deals with monies.

Mr. Speaker, to that issue, if I might address it, I brought the matter to attention today. On two occasions the Minister of Industry and Trade stood in this House, last Thursday and today, on points of order and they were ruled non points of order. Subsequently, the Chair sitting at the time on both occasions brought the relevancy rule into play, yet the Minister of Health, to whom I am responding right now, in a pensions bill, not twenty minutes ago, was allowed to stand in this House and make all the comments he wanted. Nobody here talked relevancy then. I get up to respond on a pension bill which comes under The City Of St. John's Act and now someone is citing the relevancy bill. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

All of a sudden, if we are going to have relevancy we should have relevancy consistently, but yet it has not been consistent. Where do we go as members, Mr. Speaker? Do I get a ruling on it?

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to address the comments that are made, although it was not necessarily my intent to make a point of order on this, on relevancy. I support the Opposition House Leader on looking for a ruling on relevancy and on the debate.

We certainly have the understanding that when there is a finance bill being debated in the House that the parameters are quite broad in our debate. I think we would need to have some direction from you, Mr. Speaker, to determine what actually constitutes a finance bill. Does that limit it when we talk about the finances of government and the funding or money that is attached to it, as in a money bill, which would directly impact the finances of the government, or, Mr. Speaker, is it broader that if there is any type of funding attached, whether it is a pension or any type of funding, that we can use the broader parameters and call it a finance or a money bill?

I certainly support the Opposition House Leader in saying that we would like some ruling to put more definition around what constitutes a money bill or a finance bill and broadens the parameters of debate in the House. I think, Mr. Speaker, without that ruling it certainly becomes unmanageable as far as, how far do we go. Because we are the City of St. John's Act and it affects pensions, does that in turn then be determined to be a money bill within the House of Assembly here today?

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly welcome a ruling on that as well.

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

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

To the point of order, I would concur with the Government House Leader. I think we need some direction.

This very afternoon and last Thursday we had three different commentaries being made with respect to relevancy. We had it last week by the Deputy Speaker who said that it was not relevant, and we were debating a pension piece, keep in line with relevancy. It was brought up again today when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. He suggested that you should keep it relevant. Now I get up again to respond to what the comments of the minister were on a pension bill and I am told again that, you may not be relevant. It starts to look, after a while, a bit unbalanced when three Opposition members at different times are up speaking and you get told to be relevant and yet the ministers can get up and make exactly the same type of comments - and that has happened. Hansard will prove that. I do not have to get here and repeat what was said.

The Minister of Health got up here today and he took twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker, on the issues that I was now going to now address and respond to. He can get up and talk about it and it is okay, nobody calls him to order, not a word said. Yet, I get up to respond to what he said and I am told it is not relevant.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Two different bills.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: They are two different bills, I say to the Minister of Justice, but both of them deal with pensions. Like the Government House Leader says: Where is the latitude going to be? Is the latitude in this House going to be on a money bill, as we have always called it? Is a money bill going to be exclusively a bill that is a budget? Is it going to be something on supplementary supply? Is it going to be any piece of legislation that talks about the expenditure of money or deals with money being spent? That is where I think we need guidance.

I support what the Government House Leader said. We do need to have some kind of direction and in the past, I can assure you, it has been pretty wide open. I have been here since 1999 and anything that basically dealt with money being spent, whether it was by the government of the day or if it was being spent by someone else, if it dealt with the expenditure of money, the history of this House will show that it has been pretty wide open.

We can go back through Hansard and there are thousands and thousands of examples where the widest of latitude has been given. I certainly need some guidance here because I am at a loss when three Opposition members in three days get three rulings against them and yet the government members do not have to comply with the same rules.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my understanding that this particular bill is not a finance or a money bill of the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador. For greater certainty, I will ask the Clerks of the House and the Table to give a more tight definition for tomorrow.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just for clarification again, Mr. Speaker.

You used the word: You would ask them for a more ‘tight' definition. I am just curious: Do you mean you are going to ask them what the practice has been or are you going to say, come back with a definition that is tighter? That is bothersome to me. If we are going to give direction to the Table Officers to find a tightened definition, that to me implies that we are ignoring what the precedent is of this House. I have some concerns with your usage of the word, asking them to come back with a ‘tight' definition. I would like some clarification on that issue, too.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, certainly we acknowledge that you have made a ruling this afternoon that the bill that we are now debating is not considered a money bill for the purposes of the House of Assembly. For further clarification and as Government House Leader and for the benefit for the members here of the House of Assembly, we would certainly seek clarification and direction from the House which would provide a definition as to what this House considers or what constitutes a money bill that broadens the parameters of a debate.

Mr. Speaker, whether that means we are asking for a tighter definition or however you would like to word it, I think that I would like to be clear as the Government House Leader that we are not necessarily looking for any change in the definition as much as we are looking for guidance or clarification around it, so as we continue with debates in the House of Assembly we can certainly be more adept at determining which ones would constitute a money bill and broadens those parameters of debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees, to the point of order.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of comments on the comments of the Opposition House Leader.

He is right; today, when I was in the Chair, I made an observation with regard to the Leader of the Opposition because, as I mentioned, where it was a second reading and we had a fair amount of latitude, I thought that she was meandering a little bit over the line, but when she did say that it was a money bill, and that she had the latitude to do that, I then let her go and speak as she did, which was, again, meandered quite a bit.

Then, of course, when the following speakers, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the Minister of Health and Community Services spoke, I had to give them the same latitude.

That is the rationale for the speaking this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has given a clear ruling on the bill that is now before the House, that it is not a money bill or a finance bill of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As was pointed out by the Government House Leader, it is not a definition, per se, that I am going to seek guidance from the Table on; it is a greater clarification of what constitutes a money bill and what does not constitute a money bill for Members of the House of Assembly, and I will ask that that be provided for tomorrow, but I have given a clear ruling on the bill that is now being debated, and that is now on the floor of the House of Assembly.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate and I await the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on this Bill 14 that we are dealing with here today, I think we should get into a little bit of detail in second reading and see exactly what it is we have here. Again, I preface my remarks by saying to the minister that I look forward and I am putting this out in second reading because that allows an opportunity for the minister, in consultation with whomever she would like, to go talk to and get an answer, so that is the intent of my comments that I make.

I say it as well because we are talking here about the City of St. John's Act, and we have a lot of members in this House who, I would suggest, represent people, including these people who are on the City of St. John's Council, in the City of St. John's. Not only the councillors and the mayors themselves, but anybody in the City of St. John's who might have an interest in this piece of legislation, and we have quite a few here.

I just went through. I am not sure. I asked the minister herself, actually, a little while ago, if she represents - because her district, of course, is Conception Bay East & Bell Island - if she represented any citizens of St. John's, and she explained to me no, she does not any more. She used to represent a section of Thorburn Road, but apparently that is over now with the Member for St. John's North.

There are certainly a lot of people here who may be impacted: the Member for St. John's West. Cape St. Francis I am not sure about, if that member does or does not; I believe they do have some representation of St. John's. The Member for Topsail, I am not certain if she has any residents who belong in the city. The Member for Kilbride, I would think, certainly represents some city residents. The Member for Mount Pearl South, I would think, or Mount Pearl North, one or the other, I am not sure of my geography here, but the Member for Mount Pearl South is indicating to me that it is the Member for Mount Pearl North who would be representative of some city residents of St. John's. St. John's North, of course, would certainly represent. St. John's South, Virginia Waters, St. John's Centre, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP, certainly represents city residents, as does the Member for St. John's East.

I point that out because I think this impacts a lot of residents, like yourself. By the way, when this issue came up, what I am going to elaborate on, some people said well, what are you going to talk about that for? Because you are going to cause a racket down at City Hall, and the people at City Hall might not be too pleased with you talking about this.

Well, folks, I do not live in the city myself - I am not a resident of the city - but we have an obligation as legislators here that if a piece of legislation comes before this House and we think there might be some problems with it we have an obligation, an expectation, to speak out about it. It has nothing to do with who might be upset with you or not upset with you because you raise it. The issues have to be raised.

Now, where it goes after, or if it causes any other issues with anybody is another case. I am sorry, and I am not intentionally starting out here to get anybody's nose out of joint, but the thing is, I would submit, a very serious problem. People like the Minister of Justice, for example, they have staff members who, I understand, give advice to Municipal Affairs from time to time if needed, legislatively and so on, how it is drafted, what it means, what the intent of it is, so I am sure he will be listening as well and maybe he will say at the end of this, look, not a problem. I heard what you said and it does not make any sense what you are saying.

Anyway, let me start by saying what we have. All this bill is doing is amending one section of the City of St. John's Act, and that is section 343. That is all it does. It is very straightforward. In fact, I will read it, what it says. It says, "Subsection 343(1) of the City of St. John's Act is repealed.…" - in other words, it is going to be history after we pass this - "… and the following substituted."

Here is the new section 343.(1). It has two parts to it, an (a) and (b). "The council…" – and they are talking about the City of St. John's, of course, council – "…is empowered to (a) establish a fund for the pensioning of officials and employees of the council and of mayors, deputy mayors or councillors who have served as mayors, deputy mayors or councillors for not less than 2 terms in the aggregate and cease to be mayors, deputy mayors or councillors; and (b) make grants from the general funds of the city for the purpose of paragraph (a)."

That is what we are going to have after this amendment goes through.

In order to be totally informed, of course, we have to know what we had. What is it today, as we speak, the law with respect to the pensions? Section 343 as of today reads as follows, "(1) The council is empowered to establish a fund for the pensioning of officials and employees of the council, including employees of the Bowring Park Committee, and of mayors and members of the council who have served as mayor or members of the council or both for not less than 12 years in total and stop being mayors or members of the council; and to make the grants from the general funds of the city for that purpose."

Subsection (2) of the current law says, "Pension schemes may be brought into operation by by-law and may be either…" –

MR. BUCKINGHAM: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a point of order.

I am not certain, in fact, if I can recognize the member. He is not sitting in his assigned seat.

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

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My continuing education continues. Subsection (2) is not part of the legislation considered here today, so I would question whether it is even of any relevance to the discussion.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

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

To the point of order, for the record, I am here in second reading. I just read into the record what we have in Bill 14. I said, for the record, we need to know what the law is as of today. I am reading from the Statutes of Newfoundland and Labrador, folks. We are here amending the City of St. John's Act, section 343. I said here is what the government is proposing as an amendment, I read it into the record. I am also now in the process of reading what 343 says in the law now. I am not creating anything new. I am reading from the Statutes of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the law today. How am I ever going to address the issue of what we have in Bill 14 and why the government wants it changed if I cannot point out to the House what we are changing?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is an obvious argument here, and maybe if the Member for St. John's East, with all due respect, had listened to what I had to say he would realize that there was no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, we are seeking clarification on what is a money bill and what constitutes a money bill and does not constitute a money bill tomorrow. However, having said that, sitting in the Chair I am not prepared to split hairs so finely that you are not able to recognize the bill that we are speaking on. It is difficult to define a ruling here, other than to say that I do not find that the Opposition House Leader was out of order in his comments in debate.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Anyway, I will go back to continuing what I was saying. I read into the record what we are amending here. I hope I do not lose anybody any more and I hope I am clearer in my explanations than I have been. I read what you have. I am in the process of reading what is the law today.

I have already read subsection 1. Subsection (2) says, "Pension schemes may be brought into operation by by-law and may be either on a contributory or on the non-contributory principle, and the council may enter into the arrangements with insurance companies and other companies in connection with pension schemes that it considers advisable."

Now, that is what we have, and we know where we are proposing to go. That subsection (2), I would concur with the Member for St. John's East, that once this amendment is passed, subsection (2), which I just read, will no longer exist. In fact, the whole of which I just read will not exist because it says you are going to repeal it. So we are going to kick out what is, one and two under the old 343 and we are bringing in a new 343, which has a subsection (1)(a) and (b). That is all we are doing here. It is not complicated.

Now, the emphasis I am making here today is on subsection 1, and it does tie into subsection (2) but I will come back to that after I have explained it. What we are saying here now is, and the reference here is to the two terms versus - in the law as it exists today it says twelve years, okay? The reason I say it, if the minister would listen to me through here. Under the law today you must have had no less than twelve years as a councillor or as a mayor in the City of St. John's in order to have gotten the pension, folks. I did not say that. I did not create that. That is the law. That is today, the law. Whenever that law was passed for the City of St. John's, that has been the law. What subsection (2) went on to do back then, as they said, if you want to deal with how you go about that you can pass bylaws saying how you do it. That is what subsection (2) said. You have to pass bylaws to implement the pension scheme that you are going to have. That is how you do it, is by bylaw.

The basic flaw we have here, however, is that it is – and the practice, because I have heard the mayor on the city. I heard the mayor, I believe it was on one of the Open Line shows or Out of the Fog, one of these local media sources since this was talked about, and the mayor made the comment, he said: it is just administrative. We have been doing it for years, eight years or less. That is what it says in the law today, eight years or less.

So I have no problem with what he is saying. I have no problem accepting that that was the practice. That anybody who worked under that law since it was a law, going back thirty years, they have always worked on the premise that if they had eight years you received your pension. No problem with that. That was the practice, and they passed bylaws, by the way, to say that.

The problem legally, the legal problem we have is that a bylaw cannot overrule or trump the law. That is the problem. The City of St. John's could have done what they wanted for the last thirty years. They operated under the practice of eight years was sufficient, not twelve. They have all of that in their minutes, all duly recorded. Everybody in the city knows that. It is not an issue with that, but the bottom line is, it was not legal.

Now that is why I am pointing this out to the Minister of Justice. He can go off and get his legal opinions that he wants to get but the bottom line is a bylaw passed by the City of St. John's for thirty years under 343.(2) does not overrule the twelve year requirement in subsection 1. It could not, did not happen, should not have happened, not possible under the laws of this land. A bylaw cannot trump the law. Now that is the problem I have. Now, that is the problem. The issue then becomes, how do we fix it?

I can understand fully, and I have no problem with the City of St. John's asking this government to pass this bill to fix it, but the problem is they have not fixed it. This bill will not fix it, and I will tell you why it will not fix it. Because if you are going to change the law under this bill to incorporate what you have done for thirty years, to make all of those thirty years of actions legal and legitimate now, to legitimize them - and I have no problem with any of that. You should do it, no problem, and I am going to vote for the bill once it is properly formed. I have no issue with that.

The problem is there is no retroactive clause in this, not a one. Any of the lawyers here, the Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that if you have operated - you did it in good faith. Nobody is questioning the good faith of the city councillors here and the people who are supposed to be getting these pensions. It is not about good faith. It is about making it proper. If we are going to fix it, as I have said a dozen times in this House that is what we are here for. If it is wrong, let's fix it but let's do it right. Let's not put something through that some lawyer or somebody in the city tomorrow or the next day or next week is going to come back and say: Oh, such and such should not have been getting his or her pension, they never did that right. You are going to say he is some smart-alecky. Never you mind, there will be somebody out there saying that tomorrow.

Now, I will give you an example. We had a bill in this House, this was before the former Government House Leader, he was the former Member for Baie Verte, he was the Government House Leader, lawyer himself. We were in this House one time and he and I got into a big wrangle about this same type of thing. In that particular instance, they had brought in a bill that dealt with taxation. Right in it, they had put in a clause saying: this bill shall be retroactive to such and such a time. It was a bill involving some taxation issues. Now, me and him had it out, the battle Royale because I was saying, number one, Legislatures hardly ever use retroactivity in a bill. It is considered a no- no, if you can avoid it, but he had it in there. He gave his reasons why he had it in there and why the government had it there. At the end of the day, where we came off was he agreed with me that it is pooh-pooh when it comes to making tax bills retroactive but I accepted his rationale as to why the government of the day had no choice.

In this case here, if we vote on this Bill 14, the minute we vote on it and it goes through all the different stages, somebody in the Speaker's office is going to take this down to the Lieutenant-Governor and the Lieutenant-Governor is going to sign off on this bill. Nowhere in this bill does it say that it goes back to take in all the practices that you did for the last thirty years. It does not legitimize what was done, because this bill is silent when it comes to saying when it is proclaimed. It does not say it. If a bill is not retroactive, and if a bill is silent as to when it is active, the law again says that it will be the law once proclaimed.

Therefore, with this amendment which we are all here in good faith to put through, we are going to find ourselves in a situation that if we do not do one of two things – if we do not put a retroactive clause in this, we have not accomplished what the city wants to accomplish. The bottom line is, that legally they did this for thirty years, albeit in good faith, folks, but they never had the authority by bylaws to say that eight years' service could get you a pension. The law of the day, which they were bound by, said they had to have twelve years.

That is the issue here. Somebody might say: Oh, that is a minor technicality. Well, I suggest to the members it is not a minor technicality, because the minister herself alluded to certain people in this city who were recipients of these pensions, whether it be mayors, whether it be councillors, or whether it be their surviving spouses who depend upon these funds.

The City of St. John's obviously recognized that they had an issue, and they have legal counsel. Mr. Penney is their legal counsel. Maybe he thinks that this bill solves it. Well, I beg to differ with him. This bill does not solve it. All this bill says is that the council is empowered to establish a fund, blah, blah, blah, two terms. Now, two terms, in my understanding of City Council is – four years in a term, two terms – eight years.

Just by passing this and saying eight is okay, does not reflect and does not take into consideration the pre-thirty years of activities under the old law. Cannot do it!

I say again, I hope nobody down at City Hall is upset at what I am saying, but the point is, it is not going to be corrected simply by passing this piece of legislation. For security purposes, if nothing else, the government needs to amend this piece of legislation. Even if they put in the clause, they do not have to say it is retroactive if they do not want to use that word. I suggest they can put in here: Notwithstanding that they did thirty years. They can use whatever wording they want, but the bottom line is do not leave it hanging there where somebody can come back and say, you fellows did this and now you are just finding a way to fudge yourselves. Instead of twelve years you found a roundabout way to put yourselves down to eight years. You do not need that because that is not what this is about.

These people operated under the bylaw in good faith as being eight years. They made their contributions to the pension plan based upon eight years, so that should be acknowledged and recognized. Nobody should duck this and figure, well, we cannot comment on this because the city council might be upset. That is not what this is about at all.

I understand one of the individuals called in to an open line show the other night, and tried to explain this on the open line show. Mayor O'Keefe came on in rebuttal and said: That is not what it is all about, we have been doing it for thirty years, and blah blah blah and so on. There is no problem with that. It is not a problem. Nobody is trying to take a piece of any of the councillors or the mayor, folks. That is not what it is about. The bottom line is, they are getting their pensions, those who are getting them, those who are there now and operate under the same rules. They should continue to operate under the same rules, but just put the legislation properly so that it fixes the problem.

Why should we leave this House and leave any uncertainty about it, if it is just simply a matter of putting in a clause? Find out when this bill was first passed if that is what it takes. If it was thirty years ago on February the tenth, just simply put in a clause saying, this amendment right now today shall be retroactive to February 10, 1962, whatever it was. That solves it. That fixes it.

We can get into all kinds of debates and arguments back and forth and say: I do not think you need to do that and I do not think you should, and someone is going to say you should and you should not. Remove the doubt.

The Member for Kilbride, for example, was a former member, as I understand it, of the St. John's City Council, twelve and a half years. He would have fit no matter what the rules. Either twelve years or eight years, he fit, and he operated no doubt in good faith that eight was the accepted rule.

If eight was the rule and that is what they practiced under, let us not leave people like himself and anybody else who is getting it, and certainly not any spouses of any deceased persons who are getting it, who are entitled to the pensions, leave them hanging. I am telling you, folks, if you are not clear sometimes there are people out there who just love to make some trouble. Let us not let this be an issue for anybody on council now. Let us not let this be an issue for anybody who has drawn the pension in the past. Why can't we simply, unanimously, consensually, say, it is a possible issue – not a possible issue. I am telling you, it is an issue. There is no doubt. Albeit they are good intentions, a by-law does not trump the law. The law was that they should not have drawn – you are going to get people suggesting: Ah, ha, mayor such and such only had eight years. He barely scraped in under the eight year rule and he has been out drawing a pension for the last ten or twelve years. They should not be doing that, because they were supposed to, under the law, have twelve. You do not need that stuff. I doubt if there is anybody doing that, or have done that, but the thing about it is, let's not put anybody in that situation. Nobody needs to be in that situation.

The best rule I find is: Tell it upfront. If you know that there is a possible issue lay out the issue, look at the options to fix it, and if you can fix it do it. Nobody can come back then and accuse you of ducking the issue. Nobody can say: Well, they did not consider that, that went through in a rush. If we need to fix it, fix it.

Some people said to me, some residents of the city actually - I am not a city resident myself but, of course, you get to know a lot of people who are city residents. I happened to be talking to an individual who would be entitled to a pension under the rules. I said: I think you have a problem. I told him, just as friends: I think you have a problem. He said: What does that mean? Does it mean I am not going to get my pension now? I never had twelve years. I said: No, no, I don't think that is what it means at all. I said: I do not think anybody is going to get on with that. But, I said, I think we should fix it for you so that you do not have an issue, all of you. If you are entitled to it you are entitled to it.

Especially when he heard the good mayor out saying: Oh no, this is only administrative. The first time the mayor made his comments, by the way, there was no talk of this twelve year versus eight year thing. There was no talk about fixing what had been done for thirty years. The first comments that I heard the mayor make personally were: Oh, yes, there is an act going through the House but it is just a fix up act. It is nothing really serious, a housecleaning piece. That is all it was. It was after some people started to delve into this and question it that the mayor and others called the open line. Then the mayor went on open line and responded. Some people would suggest it was an issue. Personally, I do not think it is an issue and it can be fixed very easily.

That is why I started out my comments, by the way, identifying the different members of this House who I thought might be impacted by this, and that is the city MHAs, because you may well get asked about this. Some councillors do not want to talk about it. I said: What do you mean do not want to talk about it? It is foolish, you should talk about it. It clears the air. You need to talk about it so you do not have an issue.

That is why I wanted the city members to listen. You might think I am full of guff here, and that this is a technicality, but, folks, I am telling you, it is the technicalities that will get you, and technicalities we cannot afford, as Members of the House of Assembly, if we are aware of them. It is fine to say, oh, it is only a technicality, but the bottom line is that you cannot get over that issue of a bylaw cannot trump the law. That is not fixable simply with this piece of legislation unless you add a retro clause to make it acceptable. Because all of this history that I just gave now - the minister alluded to some of the changes like twelve years to eight years. The minister alluded to that in her introductory comments, but the other issues about how we got to that practice of eight years versus twelve.

When I was doing the research on the thing, a couple of questions came to mind. How long has it been going on, for example? I do not know. I know when the law was passed - that is the law – but how long has somebody at City Hall been using the rule of eight years rather than twelve? Because the law says twelve. You can ask a bunch of questions, and I would not mind having some detail on this just for background, so people should know. How long has the city been in the position where they have used the eight year rule rather than the twelve year rule? That started somewhere. Somebody started that. What provoked the bill now? What has happened down there? Who spotted this at this given time that it was seen as an issue? Because we would not be here if somebody did not see it as an issue. Otherwise, we would have kept on going. If they thought they had the authority - just ask yourself that question. If everybody down at City Hall, including Mr. Penney, thought that what they were doing was perfectly legit and okay, why would we be here even having it changed?

We are here having it changed because somebody asked to change it. Why did they ask to change it? Because obviously they realized there is a difference between the practice, for example, eight years, and the law which said twelve years. Just a bit of common sense being applied to this question answers itself. We are here because somebody wanted to change this. Why did they want it changed? They wanted to rectify the difference between the city practice and what the statute says. That is all this is about.

So, you do not have to ask me to get up and raise this question. Somebody else must have raised this question. I do not know if it was Mr. Penney. I do not know if it was some member of city council or the mayor who might have gone off and said: Oh, my God, we have been operating on eight years, for thirty years, but it is not eight years. We looked at the act and the act says twelve, so we have to fix this.

Obviously, somebody noted it. It would be interesting to know who it was. I would like to know who had the foresight, the insight, to have looked at this and spotted it. That is educational, if nothing else. That is educational, that somebody spotted this.

Now, was it somebody in the Department of Municipal Affairs? I doubt if there is anybody in the Department of Municipal Affairs or in the Department of Justice who goes around and takes all the acts that are in our statutes and says: Let's pick out, now, and see if all of the clauses that are in all of those statutes here under the Table in the House of Assembly and up in the Law Library, let's go and see if everybody is in compliance with all of those laws.

I do not think that happened, so it would be interesting to know who spotted this. Kudos to them, whoever it was, hats off to them, because that is what the House is for. That is what the purpose of this place is. I have said a dozen times up here, in speaking to legislation, we are not here because we pass a law and think that it is carved in stone, in perpetuity, never to be changed. We are here because we need to pass the laws. The governments of the day pass the laws in good faith, based on the information that they have, with an expectation that those laws will get properly carried out. We know now what we have looking at us right here in the face. We have a situation where what became the practice was not what the law said. We know that, so it would be interesting to know who spotted this and so on.

I am sure, as I say, nobody at Municipal Affairs has been monitoring the situation to see if the law is there, and I doubt if anybody at the city was monitoring it, but it came up somehow, so maybe that is a piece of information the minister can find out for us as well.

You see, the City of St. John's is unique in this Province when it comes to pensions. The minister alluded in her introductory comments to the Federation of Municipalities and some other cities in the Province - I am not sure about towns, but certainly cities - who want to initiate discussions around pension plans for councillors and so on. That is fair ball, but we do not, as of now - other than the City of St. John's, to my knowledge, there is no other community in this Province that has a pension for councillors and mayors. Now, we have three cities. I believe we have a Labrador City, the name city, but we do not constitute it under the guidelines as a city. We have the City of St. John's, we have the City of Mount Pearl, and we have the City of Corner Brook.

Now, from my checking that I have done again, no other city and no other town in this Province gives a pension to councillors or the mayors. I would have known for sure if it was, because the mayor of the town that I was born and raised in, Port aux Basques, Mr. Ed Sheaves - he has passed on now, the late Mr. Ed Sheaves - some years ago he had something like thirty-seven years served as a councillor and a mayor, and I am sure there were no pension plans in place for him. You would only get these things if there is a law in place which permits them, and the only thing, to my knowledge, the only place in this Province that has allowed that to date has been the City of St. John's. That is why it is unique.

Our speeches here and our amendments here do not apply to everybody, but we have to remember that when we talk about the City of St. John's we are talking about a sizeable place, folks. We have a little over 500,000 people in the Province, and the vast majority of them live on the Avalon, the Northeast Avalon, and no other place in the Province compares, population-wise, to the City of St. John's, so it is of importance and that is why we need to have this discussion.

Now, whether or not other cities or other towns ought to have pension plans for councillors and mayors, that is a policy issue, I guess. That is an issue that these communities have to make their concerns known to the minister. They are governed by the Municipalities Act. The minister, in her wisdom, at the end of the day, no doubt, would go through a process and government will, at the end of that process, make a decision as to whether or not pensions should be given to other communities, but that is off in the future.

The minister has alluded to the fact that some people have asked. I am sure that is a very interesting piece of information as well, because I would think we have the upcoming municipal elections in this Province, I do believe, in September or October?

AN HON. MEMBER: In September.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: In September, so we are going to have municipal elections in this Province in September. I do not know if this pension issue is going to be on the table in any communities fast enough between now and then, but I do not think you are going to see anybody running for councils in this Province out saying oh, yes, we should have a pension plan. If they do, I can assure you, they are not going to be saying it before September because I would not think there is an appetite right now, certainly in smaller communities.

Smaller communities usually have people who are on their councils because they are interested citizens who are prepared to give back to their communities, who are prepared to give their time. Yes, there are some stipends for their time, which is fair ball, too. There ought to be some stipends for people giving up their time, because councils today are not what they were even twenty years ago. Twenty years ago you did not have councils who were developed to the point where there were economic development committees.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I might just take a moment to clear my throat?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is getting towards the end of the day. I understand the Leader of the NDP does want to have a few comments, so I will bring my comments to a close.

I say to the minister, I think this is an important issue, to get it done, to do it right. Yes, we need to do it but let's do it right for everybody's sake. I enjoy the give and take of these debates because that is the purpose. In fact, that is why I am a firm believer of, if it is a serious enough bill, a big enough bill that there ought to be some process that we can see it in advance to give us lots of time to maybe even have some of these comments made, and we do not find out we are in the House debating back and forth and back and forth on issues which make a lot of common sense to do.

Again, I alluded to the Minister of Justice earlier, I certainly appreciate his comments. I understand the Minister of Municipal Affairs does have legal counsel available to her to advise on this. I am sure the legislative draftsman is going to have an opinion on this as well. I look forward to whatever comments they might make, but in my view, my respectable view, is that we ought to fix the problem by having some kind of retroactivity piece here and let's not let what is not a problem become a problem because we did not do it right.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I will not have a lot to say, but I do want to make some comments on Bill 14. I have been, actually, quite interested in what the Opposition House Leader has had to say and I think that we do need to think about what he has been putting forward.

I would like to point out that the explanatory note that goes with the bill actually does not give us enough information to know why we are being asked to pass this bill. The explanatory note just says, "This Bill would amend the City of St. John's Act to reflect the period of service that the members of the St. John's City Council must serve in order to be eligible to receive pension benefits under the city's pension plan."

What it really should have told us is exactly what the Opposition House Leader has been saying. The explanatory note should have told us that there is a practice in place that has been placed, probably almost as long as the current bill has been, I do not know and I do not have that information, but there is practice in place that has been in place because of bylaws that, in actual fact, were not legal. That is why this piece is before us. It is to set things straight so that the practice at City Hall in St. John's would be legal.

That would have been really helpful to have had that information ahead of time; having said that, obviously none of us want to change the practice at St. John's City Hall. The practice has been going on and nobody wants that changed. The practice has been after two full terms, which is eight years, then naturally we are not saying to the people in City Hall, whether staff or councillors, that you should have that changed.

I am concerned by what the Opposition House Leader has put forward, that in actual fact - I am not a lawyer. He is a lawyer and we have the legal help to deal with this, but based on other pieces that I have been part of, we have had clauses with regard to retroactivity. It would seem to me that it is necessary to have a retroactive clause. So, not being a lawyer, I just add my voice to the Opposition House Leader's voice with regard to asking the minister to get legal opinion on whether or not the retroactive clause is necessary. I have certainly listened to the argument and it sounds very logical to me.

I think that is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing what the minister will be responding to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now she will close the debate on second reading of Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some comments, when I am closing this bill, that the reason this happened in 2004, the City of St. John's did a review on their pension plan and adopted a new council bylaw. So today what we are actually doing here in this amendment, we are debating to rectify the inconsistency that they have right now and to provide a clearer guidance and an effective clarity to the regulation for the city but there are - when we adopt this bill today, I think there is in the vicinity of about six people that will be impacted by this, will get benefits.

The other thing is that I am under the understanding that the City of St. John's has not paid out any pension benefits to anyone with less than twelve years service. So, with this right now, there is a small contingent of people, and I do believe the number is around six. Some of them are widows of former councillors that will be entitled to this benefit.

This has been something that has been requested by the St. John's City Council and we are in line with bringing it in here today to fix the inconsistency with their bylaw and their pension bylaw. So with the legislative authority, we will bring it here today and that will fix that inconsistency.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close debate on this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 14).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 has now been read a second time.

When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 14).

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and the Attorney General that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow being Wednesday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.