The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; and the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recently had the opportunity to attend celebrations commemorating the 200 birthday of Benjamin Barbour and the eightieth anniversary of the voyage of the Neptune II, a voyage made famous by Captain Joe Barbour in his book, 48 Days Adrift. The Barbour family of Newtown hold a very special place in the history of our Province and these celebrations, and their contributions and achievements, continue to be kept alive by the dedicated efforts of the Cape Freels Heritage Trust. The Trust operates the Barbour Site in Newtown and their commitment to maintain and develop our unique heritage infrastructure helps ensure that our culture remains alive and vibrant.

These particular festivities involved descendents of the Barbour family, descendants of crew members from the Neptune II, and numerous individuals from the local community. A tremendous performance was offered by the Singing Legionnaires under the musical direction of Mr. Bill Green and one of the first theatrical productions ever staged in Newtown, Lester's Letters was remounted for the event. The performance featured two original cast members, Greg Blummer and Beverly Fifield. Our region's only professional theatre company, Beyond The Overpass Theatre Company, was represented through the direction provided by Jamie Harding, my son actually, and the technical direction provided by Steven Perry. The play, written by Reverend Roberta Bungay, featured actual letters written by Lester Barbour to his family in Newtown during World War I and the story provides wonderful insight into the life of a soldier serving overseas during that very important period of our history.

At this time I would ask all members of this hon. House to join with me to thank and to show appreciation to Mr. Frank Blackwood, President of the Cape Freels Heritage Trust, and all board members and staff for their continued efforts to maintain and preserve the invaluable cultural heritage of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each year leading up to Remembrance Day, the Grade 9 students of Holy Redeemer Elementary in Spaniard's Bay, take part in an essay writing contest.

This program is sponsored by Branch #9 of the Royal Canadian Legion, Spaniard's Bay, and the Churchill Family. Each student competes for the Gary D. Churchill Memorial Plaque. It began back in 1980 in memory of Gary D. Churchill who passed away from natural causes while serving with the Canadian Armed Forces.

The winner of this competition is invited to be guest speaker at their annual dinner held following Remembrance Day. This year, being the thirtieth anniversary for this award, two winners were selected. Victoria Smith and Anna Kearley held the audience captive as they delivered exceptional speeches provoking all in attendance to contemplate the horrors of war.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to Victoria and Anna, as well as those who organized this outstanding event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate three youth, Jessica Cave, Cayley Linehan and Megan Reeves from Exploits Valley High for winning the recent 2009 Electoral School Scholarships. Their accomplishments show their commitment to their futures. I wish them all the best.

Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members of this House, please join with me in congratulating Jessica, Cayley and Megan in their hard work in receiving the Electoral District Scholarship Awards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a gymnastic teacher at St. Peter's Academy in Benoit's Cove, Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gord Casey recently won the Canada Physical Education Teaching Excellence Award. This award honours up to thirteen exceptional teachers, one in each Province and territory. It is the only national award that recognizes physical education teachers for their hard work and dedication in helping build strong, healthy and physically active children.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Casey does this on a daily basis at the school from kindergarten to Grade 9. He adds many activities to attract students and keep them interested, such as cross country running, skiing, kayaking, canoeing, snowshoeing, winter outings and GPS instruction. The list goes on and on. Recently, Mr. Casey was given a surprise assembly and personally recognized by his students and co-workers for the hard work he is putting into the school and the community.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all hon. members in this House today to recognize this gentleman for the great example he is giving to all the students attending St. Peter's Academy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an outstanding individual who exemplifies the meaning of volunteerism. This lady was a school teacher for thirty-one years. While a teacher, she organized concerts, plays. She was involved in every aspect of schooling and after school activities.

This lady has been a volunteer in the community of Flatrock since she could be involved. She was involved in many different community events, such as garden parties, fall fairs, New Year's Eve celebration, recreation committees, heritage committees, grotto committees. Any committee involving the Town of Flatrock, she is involved in it. Not only is she on committees, she also provides entertainment by singing and playing her accordion at senior's parties, Christmas socials, all church functions.

Mr. Speaker, herself, her sister Anita Dyer, and Bun Hawco run the Flatrock Community Center. They volunteer numerous hours a week, setting up and cleaning before and after events. They were once seen on the side of the building in the middle of a wind storm fixing a sign.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members in this House today to congratulate Ms Madonna Wilkinson who was selected as volunteer of the year for the Town of Flatrock. She is the heart and soul of this community. I am honoured to call her my friend, and I am even more honoured to stand in this House today to recognize her for the job she has done in our community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to provide an update for members on the new Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. On September 1, these new regulations came into force. For many employees and employers, the regulations reinforce the safety culture already in place in these workplaces. For others, they provide clear direction on how safer work practices can be adopted.

We have committed to a period of soft enforcement so that employees and employers could become better familiar with the regulations. As of January 1, 2010, this period will end and we expect all workplaces to have procedures and practices in place that are in accordance with the new regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that many workplaces will be ready for January 1, given the high volume of interest we have had from employees and employers. Personally, I have received a great number of calls, and I know that the Occupational Health and Safety Branch have also had a number of inquiries and requests for briefings on the expectations of the regulations.

I have said time and time again that this Province is a leader in occupational health and safety. We have produced a first-rate set of regulations and they are an example of how we are leading the country in this sector.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Government Services, I am responsible for over 150 pieces of legislation and related regulation standards and codes of practice. That is roughly 15 per cent of the total for the provincial government. One of our objectives was to review and update our regulatory regime. The Occupational Health and Safety Regulations certainly fit within this mandate.

We are also reviewing our Mines Safety of Workers Regulations, which has not changed significantly since 1957. Although there have been amendments made to the regulations over the years, we are in the process of developing a new version which we hope will be able to circulate to the interested stakeholders in the very near future. Given the importance of the mining industry in this Province, we need to ensure that we adopt current practices and protocols.

We know that updates to these types of legislation and regulations can be difficult for some employers. However, Mr. Speaker, when you add increased communication, co-ordination and awareness with clear expectations for the regulator, guidance for prevention of injury and greater accountability, we will all have safer and more protective workplaces. In the end, that should be our common goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement with regard to Occupational Health and Safety Regulations which were on the table before and now they are coming into force as of January 2010.

I have to say, the minister noted that in his department there are 150 pieces of various legislation, and I know they are all important, but I do not think there is anything any more important than what it is to regulate the safety of all workers regardless whether you are in the construction industry or whether you work in a supermarket or wherever. So it is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say from first-hand experience being involved in the construction industry prior to entering this place, the hon. House of Assembly, and since then being here dealing with constituents on a regular basis those who, unfortunately, become injured and find themselves in a position where they have to go before Workers' Compensation to appeal various cases. So it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we do make sure - and I know it is difficult for employers probably to comply with all the regulations, but there is nothing more important than making sure that our workplaces here in this Province are the safest they can be for all individuals. Hopefully, by doing this, the day will come when injured workers will not have to encounter the difficulties they have sometimes now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

While our Province has achieved much over twenty-five years to improve workplace, health and safety, including a 7 per cent decline in reported workplace injuries in 2008, we still have much work to do, as the minister acknowledges. We still had 7,400 workplace injuries and twenty-three deaths contributed to occupational hazards in 2008.

I urge government, the public and workplaces across the Province to work for accident-free workplaces. Zero tolerance is what we want, but a lot has to be done before we get to that. The shocking and tragic crash of Cougar Flight 491 earlier this year resulting in the loss of seventeen lives has shone the light on workplace health and safety reminding all of us how dangerous workplaces can be despite all our best efforts.

I am encouraged that government is looking at the mine safety regulations, as we have many people working in mines in this Province and we have the possibility of new ones opening such as the fluorspar mine on the Burin Peninsula. We can never again let happen the kind of destruction that happened in the community of St. Lawrence. I really urge the minister - I know he is not the environmental minister, but I speak to the environmental minister as well - with the possibility of that mine opening, we should do everything in our power to make sure that is as safe a place as possible for the potential workers.

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, earlier this fall government released information pertaining to the deficits of the regional health authorities which were reported to be in the millions of dollars at that time. Government had originally asked the health boards to find these service cut, and I think we remember all too well the cuts to lab and X-ray services that occurred in the Province at that time but has since been reversed.

I ask the minister today: Do you still expect these health boards and our health authorities throughout the Province to have balanced budgets this year or are you allowing them now to run a deficit in the current year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We are currently involved in the budget process. As it now stands, Eastern Health will definitely have a deficit this year. It is my understanding that the Western Region will appear to have a balanced budget. Labrador-Grenfell and Central are not totally clear, but they are certainly not in the situation that Eastern is in.

We will not, at this stage, Mr. Speaker, be seeking to reduce any services to save money. We are working with Eastern to deal with the deficit over a period of years.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, the deficits with Eastern, for example, comes about as a cumulative deficit arising over a number of years. We will, over the next couple of years, work on that. The best I can say at this point, Mr. Speaker, is that we are working closely with the authorities in the budget process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If these boards are not cutting services, I ask the minister: How are they finding the money to cover off the deficits? Is this money being granted through the provincial government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, last year in the budget process it became clear that the regional health authorities were running significant deficits in that they were going over their budget. However there were budget pressures, Mr. Speaker, that, for example, would be unusual.

I will tell the member opposite that I said to the regional health authorities on the H1N1: We do not expect you to find money to deal with H1N1; that is money that the Department of Health will come up with. We are going to work with the authorities and assist the authorities.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the health budget that is currently at $2.6 billion will rise automatically 8 per cent without any new spending. There is an increase in the budget without any new spending.

We are working closely with the authorities, Mr. Speaker. I have met with the authorities; we are having good discussions with them. I expect to be in a position where we will be able to provide them the money they need to provide the services that they are providing. It is one of great co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Both the Premier and the Minister of Finance have recently stated that current health care spending is unsustainable and changes must be made.

I ask the minister today: Can you clarify these statements and outline to the House and to the people of the Province what agenda government has to move forward with reforming some of these services, or making cuts in the system, based on those comments?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do with our health care system is to provide a quality of care that is accessible to the residents of this Province, that is of a quality equal or better than that in the rest of the country and that is one that we can look at in terms of the future.

So sustainable, Mr. Speaker, can simply be looked at in terms of money. The sustainability – I, for one, do not think that there is that problem with the sustaining the level of service. The long-term sustainability of the system based on the inherent growth –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I could finish?

The inherent growth in the system certainly requires more money. I met with a number of officials, hospital officials, in Toronto on Friday past, and the issue that we discussed was the sustainability of the health care system and how we could save money. If I had more time, Mr. Speaker, I could outline, for example, that by changing our purchasing program, and we can save millions of dollars and put into the quality of care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the Province spends more per capita than any other Province on health care, yet we continue to fluctuate between last place in the country and third last place in the country in terms of performance.

So I ask the minister: If our spending is unsustainable, like the Premier and the Minister of Finance has said, our performance remains very poor in relation to every other province in the country, will you finally commit to a review of the entire health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where the Leader of the Opposition gets those statistics. The report that was released in the last couple of days shows that essentially, although we are lower than we would like to be, we are there with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec. We are all within the provision of health care that can certainly be improved, but that is a quality health care.

I can assure the member opposite that I am reviewing all aspects of the health care system. What we did in Flower's Cove and Lewisporte is an example of how this government continues to respond to the needs of the people. When we made a decision, Mr. Speaker, that was not in the best interests of the people, we changed it. Now, that is what I would suggest to you a government must do.

The review process is ongoing, and we are committed, Mr. Speaker, to providing the best quality of care to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows the real changes and reversals in that service came because of a by-election and the outcry of people. It was your minister who stood in this House everyday and said that decision was final for a number of weeks. Mr. Speaker, being equally as bad off as other provinces in the country is unacceptable. I say to the minister, you know the report I am referencing, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and that report has Newfoundland and Labrador, in the last few months, either in last place or third last place of every province in the country in terms of our performance in health care.

I ask you today minister, based on their statistics, based on the recommendations they make, because they make four or five recommendations in that report, I ask you: Have you reviewed the report and are you prepared to implement any of the recommendations that they have suggested?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In terms of the way that we approach health care and how I am approaching it as the minister; I am taking a very proactive approach. I am conversing with the people of our Province.

For example, Mr. Speaker, while in Toronto on Friday I met with experts at the University of Health Network where we talked about things like telemedicine and tele-pathology in terms of offering and improving on quality of cancer care. We are looking at hiring a consultant to deal with the issue of wait times so that we can reduce the waiting times, which is a concern, Mr. Speaker, I hear, and I am sure all of the MHAs in this hon. House hear. I met with experts, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the composition and role of health boards who we are looking at doing further work with. I met with individuals, Mr. Speaker, who look at saving money within the system by purchasing, increasing your purchasing power.

So there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that our health care system, we are spending 40 per cent of our budget, but more than that, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his response.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are responding to the needs of the people of this Province and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker. It is not simply a matter of spending money; it is a matter of increasing efficiency in the system and improving quality of care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon I will present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador who are looking for improved air ambulance service, especially in response times. The minister recently met with a number of these concerned citizens and I know that he did have an opportunity to speak with them about those particular issues.

I ask the minister today: What will be the scope of the review that you have committed to, and when can we see this particular review completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, when I had the privilege of attending in Lab West and announcing the - providing a picture of the new health care centre up there and announcing the tendering process. I met with a family, Mr. Speaker, a very unfortunate circumstance, one that would just tear anyone's heart out. I also met with a family in Happy Valley-Goose Bay who had concerns about the way the air ambulance system had worked for them.

We have two air ambulances in this Province, Mr. Speaker. One of which is stationed in St. John's because that is where it is near the neo-natal unit, the second which is stationed in St. Anthony. Now, if the hon. member opposite is suggesting that we move the one from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay or to Lab West, I am certainly willing to consider that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am absolutely appalled at the fact that the minister would choose to play politics with such an important issue.

Mr. Speaker, in the last number of months there are people in Labrador whose lives have been under threat because of the access to that service. My question to you today, minister, was asking you what the scope of your review is and asking you if you are prepared to investigate the four particular cases of patients who were impacted by these delays to determine what the deficiencies were? Maybe you should be more keen on doing that than playing politics with people's lives who depend on this service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the statistics that I am aware of indicate there are approximately 153 transfers from St. Anthony, but I understand that can relate to other parts of the Province. In terms of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, I think there are 240; in Lab West there are 130 or 140, but significantly more transfers from the Labrador region of the Province.

I met with these two families. In fact, one of the families made it very clear to me that they were very pleased I had met with them considering that the Leader of the Opposition refused to meet with them when she was told of the same.

Mr. Speaker, again, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: Is she suggesting that the air ambulance be –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. KENNEDY: I say to the Leader of the Opposition: Is she suggesting that the air ambulance be moved from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay or Lab West? If she is, please state it and I will take it into consideration?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope the minister takes this issue much more seriously than he is demonstrating here today. If he was so moved by the stories of these people that he met with he would be more inclined to find a solution instead of giving smart answers here.

Mr. Speaker, one of the suggestions that was actually made was to establish a trauma team at St. Anthony to improve the response times out of that particular region to dealing with some of these cases.

I ask the minister today: Is he prepared to ensure that that happens in the very near future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, when I met with these families – I actually met with the Joint Councils of Lab City, Wabush. They requested that the air ambulance system be put in Lab West. I met with the town council in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; they requested that the air ambulance be moved to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Both of these families requested that it be moved to Labrador. A medical flight services team is a budgetary issue that we would have to look at but it would be wherever the air ambulance is. So, again, I am just asking the member opposite if she can help me out here. Is she suggesting that the air ambulance be moved from St. Anthony to Labrador? If so, Mr. Speaker, we can certainly look at whether or not the medical flight services team would go there with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the only solution the minister sees here is eroding services further and not improving them.

Minister, maybe you could stand today and tell me: Are you prepared to enhance the two services we have in the Province, the one in St. John's, the one in St. Anthony, by adding a third air ambulance to this Province and basing it in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that the cost of a new air ambulance being, I think it is the King Air 350, it is approximately $8 million. It is something that we would look at in the future. What I am indicating, Mr. Speaker, that the residents of Labrador, for whom the member opposite apparently is speaking today, have requested that the air ambulance be moved from St. Anthony to Labrador.

Now, what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that we are committed to the improvement of the quality of air ambulance in this Province. However, we have two King Airs at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, and one is situated in St. John's, one is situated in St. Anthony. We use helicopters, Mr. Speaker, we use Air Labrador, and there is a smaller plane that is used in Labrador also. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that when I met with the residents of Labrador, they expressed their concerns clearly that they wish to have an air ambulance in Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is only so much that we can do here. We are committed to all of the residents of this Province, but I heard the comments loud and clear of the people in Lab West and I heard the comments loud and clear of the people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are concerns as well in Port Saunders that the acute care unit of the Rufus Guinchard Health care facility could be shutdown in the near future due to a lack of nurses.

I ask the minister: How did this health care centre get to be so understaffed to the point that they have to invoke closure of their acute care services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I think it was October 9 I became the Minister of Health and Community Services. My first step was to fly to meet with the people of Flower's Cove and then to meet with the people of Lewisporte. I have demonstrated, and this government has demonstrated, Mr. Speaker, a commitment to rural health care.

In Port Saunders, Mr. Speaker, there are currently five registered nurse vacancies at the facility. Mr. Speaker, they are looking at the closure of some acute care beds from December 20, I think it is, until January 4. I can indicate to this hon. House that I directed, through my officials yesterday, that Western Health take all steps necessary to ensure that there is no closure of these acute care beds, and I said: Do whatever it is you have to do to keep those beds open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know in this Province that it was that same minister who sat at the Cabinet table and presided over the original cuts to rural health care in this Province. So you can cut it however you like, we know you were there.

Mr. Speaker, we also know this, that this facility has been going through some real difficulty in the past few months. I ask you, Minister: Prior to yesterday, what efforts were made by you and your government to ensure that these vacancies were filled and that rural health care was provided to people in this community, instead of having them travel hundreds of kilometres to access essential services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the role of the minister in the Department of Health and Community Services is to set policy and to provide guidelines for the regional health authorities to implement or operationalize that policy. So, Mr. Speaker, every decision that takes place on the regional health authority is not one that I am aware of. However, once I become aware that there is any possibility of cutting health care services, Mr. Speaker, I act.

I can say to the member opposite that the by-election did not influence what I was doing when I came into this portfolio. What I am looking at, Mr. Speaker, is the provision of a quality of care to the residents of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, during the H1N1, the regional health authorities all worked well together, and what I say to the member opposite, a situation has been identified, I will do my best to resolve it and I have directed the authority to take whatever steps are necessary, Mr. Speaker, to keep these beds open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister can keep saying it, he is trying to convince everyone, but we all know he was at the Cabinet table when you made all the cuts in rural health care in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Gutting services all over Newfoundland and Labrador until the heat came on. The heat came on and they had to get out of the kitchen, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I ask members –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to my left to hear the question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we know the Member for St. Barbe did not bring forward his issues to the minister on health, we will see if the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde brought forward hers.

Earlier today it was announced that X-ray services at Dr. A.A. Wilkinson Memorial Health Centre in Old Perlican may not be offered after regular clinic hours or weekends due to a shortage of technologists.

I ask the minister: Is this part of the $1.8 million cuts that was originally proposed for the Old Perlican hospital?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can assure the member opposite that there will be no cuts, as she puts it, in Old Perlican. This is a result of a vacancy, Mr. Speaker, where there was a recent retirement. The X-ray services will now result in no coverage during a period of time, every third weekend and every third night.

Mr. Speaker, however, the member opposite talks about us gutting rural health care; $2.6 billion, the second most money spent in this country, Mr. Speaker, double the budget of a decade ago - and who was in power then? Spending per capita, Mr. Speaker, second only to Alberta. One hundred and seventy-three million dollars over the last five years for new medical equipment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Seventy-six million dollars, Mr. Speaker, this year alone on health care infrastructure.

When it comes to filling vacancies we will offer whatever bonuses are necessary, whatever signing bonuses, bursaries, the same types of things we are doing with nurses, we will do it in Old Perlican, we will do it in Port Saunders, we will do it in Labrador and we will do it all over this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also should know that because of all the great Liberal initiatives in this Province, their budget has doubled in four years in its entirety throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. There is more money to spend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, let me just ask the minister this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Let me ask the minister this question. Under section E in the service delivery model changes that were proposed for the Old Perlican area this is what it said under section E.(1): A review of service delivery options for twenty-four hour on-site emergency services including implications for lab services and diagnostics at Old Perlican, $1.8 million in savings.

So, Minister, is this on the way to taking the service out of that area or when is it going to be fully restored?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the letters that the member opposite refers to were written in response to the budget requests last year when we were in the middle of the worst recession that this country had seen since the Great Depression.

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the members in this House of Assembly that there will be no cuts as outlined in those letters. What we have here, Mr. Speaker, and what is happening in Port Saunders, but more specifically what is happening in Old Perlican is that there is a vacancy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health has recruited a lab technologist. We will try to find the combined X-ray service, lab technologist that is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to, however, the amount of money that this government is spending on rural health care. The commitment we have made to the people of Lewisporte, the commitment we have made to the people of Flowers Cove, Mr. Speaker, and we continue to fulfil these commitments. What we will do, Mr. Speaker, we will improve the quality of health care in this Province so that all of our people receive efficient, quality and excessive –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair hates to interrupt during Question Period, but members cannot ask questions and then shout at the person who is giving the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask other members to be respectful of the person who is providing the answer because the Chair cannot hear the answers being provided as well.

I ask members for their co-operation and understanding that this is Question Period not a shouting match.

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Province offers three classes of diplomas to graduating high school students: honours, academic and general. While these diplomas generally recognize the various levels of student achievements, in practice they also indicate the academic opportunities available to the students and they reflect local social conditions.

In the 2007-2008 academic years, two out of five students were awarded general diplomas. My question to the minister would be: What plan does government have to target those students to raise the achievement level of more students to at least an academic level?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. I am sure the member opposite is fully aware that every single problem that happens in the communities of this Province cannot be attributed to the education system.

I can also say that we have implemented a number of plans, many initiatives through the Poverty Reduction Strategy, which I will not speak for because we have a hon. minister here who could speak to that. We have, by way of a number of initiatives to support a family, we have eliminated school fees, to put money back into hands of parents; we provide free textbooks. We also, Mr. Speaker, work with local communities and local school staffs on school development plans, which are intended to take the assessment results, take how students are doing, the academic achievement levels they have, I say to the member opposite, and assess how we can move forward and put a plan in place that will remediate any potential problems and help students improve. Our focus, Mr. Speaker, is always on doing everything we can for every single individual student in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just say that the reality is a reality. Of the Province's twenty economic zones, nine have seen increases in the proportion of students given general diplomas. All, but one of these, are rural zones. Eight zones, which are all in rural areas, have a general diploma rate of more than 50 per cent and the education gap is getting wider. So unless these students are provided targeted assistance, we will have another generation of young people where too many will be limited in their opportunities for the future.

My question, again, is: What actions are being contemplated to ensure that everyone has access to the same educational opportunities?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, I am really disappointed to hear the member opposite make the kind of insinuations and accusations that paint a very, very negative classist attitude toward people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, I say. That is not what this government stands for and it is not what we represent. I say to the member opposite, it is also equally distasteful that you would take a very small piece of information and put it out in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that students in this Province are not achieving, and achieving well. I say to the member opposite, if he would like information that can substantiate what I am saying here, I can provide the member opposite with all kinds of data on criterion reference tests, on public exam results, on student attendance rates, and student pass rates that will suggest that what the member opposite is saying is factually not correct.

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, diabetes is a terrible disease which affects almost 38,000 people in the Province. In the report Diabetes Care Gaps and Disparities in Canada, released this month, it was found that out of the four major tests that diabetics need to maintain good health only 21 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive them.

Mr. Speaker, with diabetes being so prevalent in the Province, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Does he know if his department is involved with the health authorities in dealing with these gaps in care, and what type of prevention measures are they developing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the H1N1 situation, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity – we saw statistics on the chronic disease in this Province, and diabetes is certainly a major problem in the Province. Our wellness strategy, Mr. Speaker, which was released a couple of years ago looks at the issue of wellness in total but also addressing diabetes. There has to be issues, Mr. Speaker, of not only medication, there are issues of lifestyle, including diet and exercise.

I can assure the Leader of the NDP that anything that relates to diabetes in this budgetary process is something I am looking at very closely, Mr. Speaker. Chronic disease management is something that we really have to come to grasp with as a department and as a society.

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, the report also revealed that while the prevalence of diabetes is on the rise in the whole country; Newfoundland and Labrador's rate was significantly higher than the Canadian rate. If the minister has done the homework that he said, and I am sure he has, he is aware of that.

Mr. Speaker, government has made some enhancements to the diabetic pump program to include coverage for all persons living with Type 1 Diabetes who are medically prescribed the insulin pump therapy. However, these enhancements need to include coverage for glucose monitoring strips for the pumps as well as better access to rapid acting insulin which currently requires special authorization under our medical care plan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will government increase access to fast acting insulin and cover the insulin pump strips under the Newfoundland and Labrador Drug Prescription Program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of the areas for which our government has received extreme thanks from the public has been the issue of the insulin pump. That has been very well-received, Mr. Speaker, and has been a great initiative.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the issues facing diabetics in our Province. Again, as I can indicate, I saw the statistics during the H1N1 and they were certainly of grave concern. Anything that we can do to enhance the lifestyle of the people of this Province, including those who suffer from diabetics, Mr. Speaker, is something that we will continue to look at. If there are any new medications that can come under the Drug Prescription Program, we are certainly willing to look at them.

I say to the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, that we are willing to take whatever steps are necessary. Any suggestions she has, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly more than willing to consider in the budget process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board will table some documents.

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: I was engaged in a serious conversation with the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table this binder of documents which was distributed to all members of the Cabinet and all members of the House. It is entitled, Child and Youth Advocate Document Inventory and Chronology, dated December 14, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

In compliance with the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meeting for November 18, 2009.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to present a petition on behalf of thousands of people in Labrador, who unfortunately had to take matters into their own hands in order to get the attention of government by circulating petitions asking that some attention be given to the issues of air ambulance medevac out of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me correspondence that I have been sending back and forth to government departments for well over a year. In fact, Mr. Speaker, correspondence dating back nearly two years involving particular cases in Labrador where the response times were delayed on air ambulance.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, this past summer, in August month in particular, I dealt with three particular cases of delays in air ambulance services out of Labrador air medevac. At that time, I was asking for a review into those cases that did not occur by the department because they did not take the issue seriously enough, just like the minister is not taking it serious today. Mr. Speaker, in all three of those cases there were extreme delays, and I realized afterwards that the delays were because the air ambulance aircraft in St. John's had been broken down for a number of weeks and we had only one air ambulance in the Province based out of St. Anthony that was trying to cover off all of Labrador and all of the Island portion of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, to me, that is negligence on behalf of the Department of Health to allow that to happen. Any time one of these aircraft is down, there should be another one to back it up and to replace it.

Mr. Speaker, right now, today, the majority of air medevacs or air ambulance services are being provided through – or the major number of them is coming out of St. Anthony or the Northern Peninsula area and out of Labrador. If you look at the entire Labrador-Grenfell region, they themselves have more air medevacs than anywhere else in the Province. I think it warrants, Mr. Speaker, not moving a service from one end of the Labrador-Grenfell area to the other end, because that is not the solution and the minister knows that is not the solution.

The real solution, Mr. Speaker, is ensuring that there is an adequate amount of service, whether that comes in a third air ambulance being based in Goose Bay, in this part of the Province, or whether it comes in providing for the service through another form of aircraft ambulance, whether that is through contracted services or some other form.

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood today, after telling me that he was so concerned with the cases in Labrador, and the people he met with, he stood and got on with a lot of political rhetoric, because no one is suggesting in any way that an air ambulance service needs to be moved out of St. John's or moved out of St. Anthony. What we are suggesting is that there needs to be an adequate service based in Labrador.

If today the gap in that service happened to be in Port aux Basques, or in Marystown, or in Gander, we would be standing here doing the same thing; because people need to be assured that they have good access to air medevac services when they need it, Mr. Speaker.

I am suggesting to the government that they put some real effort into providing that service; that they put some real effort into ensuring that next August we do not end up with three more cases in Labrador where there are extreme delays.

Mr. Speaker, as long as the government chooses to ignore the real issue here, it is not going to get fixed, and that is what is unfortunate. The unfortunate part is that this is people's lives; you are playing with people's lives. People need to have that kind of insurance.

Minister, what we are saying to you is not cut the services we have, or gut the services we have.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: We are saying to you: Strengthen those services, build on them, so that people in all areas of our Province have good, reasonable access to air medevac.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today with another petition on behalf of residents who have concerns with regard to what is known as gravel pit camping. Mr. Speaker, the residents who signed this petition are from Long Pond, Foxtrap, CBS, Green Island, Flower's Cove and Corner Brook, so it is a provincial issue, Mr. Speaker. All those people are asking for is that government's heavy-handed approach be re-evaluated, and they would like for someone to sit down with them and discuss this issue. It can be done, Mr. Speaker, because it already has been done. I mentioned it before, with regard to the Wolf Pond, Fox Marsh area, where an issue had been ongoing for some time; however, the campers and the cabin owners came together, they had meetings for about two, two-and-a-half years with officials, but finally that problem was resolved.

I am not standing here today saying some of the concerns that government had with regard to the environmental issues that were ongoing, but that can be addressed as well. What happened in the Fox Marsh area was addressed.

It was only this past weekend I spoke to a gentleman in Bay Roberts who said he is in a particular area – there for thirty-five years. His children grew up and enjoyed the summers there, and now his grandchildren are there. He said, there is not one thing environmentally friendly. The inspectors came by and more or less told him, look, you just have to get out.

There is more to it than just putting stickers and nailing signs on people's cabins and saying move out. It is best to sit down and consult with them. My suggestion to those people is that maybe they can put an association together in different areas of the Province, and ask government to sit down and consult with them the way the group that I referenced earlier did, because that issue came to a successful conclusion - and there are probably other areas in the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those people, I am just calling upon government that they will reconsider what they are doing to those people who enjoy the great outdoors in our Province, and have been doing it for many, many years. I am just calling upon government and the department to reconsider what they are doing, and sit down and discuss the issue with those people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 15, 2009.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 3, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 15, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. on today, Tuesday, December 15, 2009.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The second motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on today, Tuesday, December 15, 2009.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper, I will do third reading of bills.

I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 51, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 51, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 51 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 51)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 52, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City of St. John's Act, The City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 52 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City of St. John's Act, The City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 52 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City of St. John's Act, The City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 52)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 53, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 53, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, be now read a third time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. (Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 53 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 53)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 59, An Act To Amend The Occupational Therapists Act, 2005, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 59 be now read a third time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Occupational Therapists Act, 2005. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 59 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Therapists Act, 2005", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 59)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker we will move into second reading of bills from the Order Paper, and with that I call Order 7, second reading of Bill 49.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 49, An Act Respecting Public Accountants, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Public Accountants". (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I take great pride in standing in this House today to move, and seconded by the fine Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Bill 49, An Act Respecting Public Accountants be now read a second time.

This bill addresses an issue in regard to the public accountants and their association in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, it is the result of the White Paper of 1998, I believe, in regard to establishing self-regulated bodies and actually having some uniform criteria in order for them to actually do their work. Those kinds of things that was included in that White Paper was the ability to include governance structures; the reporting and establishment of conducts and complaints, and the appointment of laypersons to the boards, annual processes and disciplinary procedures as well. Certainly, this is not unlike – actually, somewhat of a mirror image to all the other professions that I have done in the past. I have done some this session and I did a few in the last session. I think I did some in the previous session last fall, too, as well.

As we move through this process - I also have to say, that as I went through as the Minister of Government Services, I have to commend the professions for working with us in regard to addressing their issues. There are a couple of concerns in regard to the Public Accountants Act which I will address in the January 21 meeting with the various people who sit on their executive currently. So I wanted to have that in the record, that that meeting will take place to address some of those issues that they have.

I am not a minister who tries to drive things down people's throats or profession's throats. I always try to work with the profession itself to see if we can work it to everyone's advantage or everyone's comfortably in regard to the act and what they are trying to do. I believe that the public accountants themselves certainly welcome the ability to self-govern, as all the other professions have in the past. As well, we have to address some of the issues that they may have in regard to this act itself because they are a little bit different. If people do not understand in regard to what a public accountant is, is that they have to be first either a CA, or they have to be a CGA, or they have to be a CMA, I believe are the right ones. Each one of them is a type of an accountant and each one of them has to be a part of their own association before they become a public accountant. That is where they are with it. So this is actually a layer above their own designation in the first place in regard to their own profession.

With that, Mr. Speaker, like I said before, under this act each of the three accounting associations will elect two members to the board and government will appoint three public members. It will then be a self-regulatory organization. Like all the other regulatory organizations public accountants represent, we will be sure that the public interest is protected. That what this White Paper is all about, in regard to protecting the public interest and bring in accountability and transparency in regard to how they conduct their affairs. The discipline process is enhanced with required public representation in regard to having a layperson having to serve on their board. In addition, there will be an annual reporting piece requirement to government as well.

Lastly, the new act also provides public accountants with the option of operating incorporated form or as a limited liability partnership. Consumer protection will not be negatively impacted in this regard. Other professions such as lawyers, physicians and dentists already have that ability to incorporate.

I also would like to say that the department conducted extensive consultations with the accounting professions in developing the act. We went through that process and even though it was extensive, I just want again to put on the record that in the last few days or so or whatever, I became aware of a couple of issues that I think I need to address before I actually proclaim the act. I have been talking with them; they have no problem with that in regard to going through with the act. I gave them my word as the minister that we will meet early in January to address those types of issues.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that I will get concurrence and support from my colleagues across the House because, again, this is not unlike any of the other professions that we have done under the White Paper direction of 1998. I think I see it as a good thing, not only for the profession but also the general public at large as well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and welcome the thoughts and comments of my colleagues across the House.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to be able to make a few comments with regard to Bill 49, An Act Respecting Public Accountants.

As the minister has already stated, in the last session of the House there were several other pieces of legislation similar to this, housekeeping, with regard to the Certified General Accountants, chiropractors, embalmers and funeral directors, engineers and geoscientists. So, as he said, this was brought forward through the White Paper with regard to regulations for those various occupations.

Mr. Speaker, the minister noted - and I am glad that he did say it here publicly today - he did inform me last week that there were a couple of issues that the association had some concern about, and he agreed to make sure that this piece of legislation was not proclaimed until their concerns were addressed. It is my understanding I think, maybe they can be addressed more so in favour of what they are putting forward, the association. He can correct me later. I thought he said it had something to do with the fees, probably a double fee when they joined, and another one had to do with reviews. That it would be done within the organization.

So, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation, as all the others, is very important. As he stated, there are quite a few public accountants here in this Province. I believe there is somewhere between 200 and 250 of them. The benefits of this act, the purpose of the regulation is to create consistency of standards and applications in licensing. This is very important, but more important I guess, it protects the public and enhances transparency. Something that this government stands by, we hear from time to time, is transparency. It allows PAs to become incorporated and to have limited liability partnerships. This is something that they put forward and is encompassed in this act. It will also make this occupation a self-governing body as opposed to a government entity, which it currently is.

Mr. Speaker, through this piece of legislation, it outlines the structure and the role of the board with regard to the chair and how they are put in place. There are three non-members who are appointed by the minister, plus six elected members from within the organization. It goes through the corporation options. Individual PAs can operate as a corporation rather than as individuals. This is a new option and it is currently a tax advantage for them, and Newfoundland is one of the latest provinces to do this. So it is good to see this in the legislation as well.

It also talks about a discipline process and where anything is brought forward, complaints, an authorization committee is put in place. This can continue on then to another disciplinary panel that is appointed consisting of seven non-members. So the interest of the public if anything should go wrong, they know that there is a process in place.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to some of those hearings, the public can be excluded from the hearings to protect the party to the complaint or to protect any witnesses brought forward. We also know that with regard to the respondent's plea, whether they plead guilty or do not plead guilty, there is a process in place for deregistration and suspensions as well as a failure of the PA to comply. There is a process in place where the board - section 37 empowers the board to even go to the Supreme Court to collect fees that have been imposed.

So, Mr. Speaker, currently PAs have no regulation, just policy and procedures. They are now compelled under section 40 to put together a set of regulations to govern their profession and this is very important. It is done by the board and has to be approved by the minister. This will ensure a more effective process from a legal standpoint.

Mr. Speaker, a person who is not licensed under this act cannot practice or take the name of a public accountant and they can be fined up to a maximum of $5,000.

So, Mr. Speaker, as the minister has stated Bill 49, An Act Respecting Public Accountants is a follow up and a carry through of other pieces of legislation that were put forward through the White Paper. Mr. Speaker, knowing that there are two issues that the association has - I will not call them minor issues, but they are two concerns that they have and the minister has committed and they have agreed to meet and discuss this before this bill is proclaimed.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are the only comments I have to make. As long as the assurance from the association is here that all their concerns are met, we have no problem in supporting Bill 49.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am glad to have a chance to speak to Bill 49 as well which is An Act Respecting Public Accountants.

I thank the minister for outlining the main points that are in the act. I thank him too for having taken the time, over the last couple of days, to talk with me concerning the act. We became aware as we read it and spoke with people from the bodies involved that there were some problems and some, I suppose, kinks that need to be worked out, if you want to put it that way. The minister has already indicated, as he did to me last week, that he is aware and they have been in consultation with the three groups. Of course, the three groups that I am talking about are the chartered general accountants, the general accountants and certified management accountants and that they are aware of the concerns that the groups have with regard to a couple of points in the legislation.

I am prepared to vote for the bill based on the commitment by the minister to meet with the groups. It would seem to me that if the minister is going to be open to what the groups have to say there is the potential for maybe some small amendments to the legislation. I know the minister says that the act and the regulations will be proclaimed together once the regulations are completed, and he has said that he will not proclaim the act until everything is ironed out. So, potentially, we could be back here in the spring doing an amendment, but that would be fairly minor, I would imagine, based on the discussions that I have had. It would seem, from that perspective, alright to go ahead, pass this legislation and if the discussions lead to a small amendment then that amendment could be made and the proclamation then happen in the spring of 2010.

I see the minister nodding his head over there. I think there is an agreement that is potentially what could happen.

There are a couple of points that I am aware of that the groups affected do have a concern about. I had them myself when I was reading them. One of the things that is being called for in the legislation is that review engagements that happen that businesses and groups have to do to be accountable, that these review engagements should always happen under the Public Accounts Act. There are some small businesses, not-for-profits, and people in groups in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, where there are few public accountants. They are concerned about having the review for engagement under this act because it would mean that everybody would have to use a public accountant. You may not have one in the area in which you are. It is more expensive then to go out to get a public accountant to do the review. So, there is a concern about having that under the act.

It is important to point out that Revenue Canada accepts review engagements without having to go through the hands of a public accountant. So, if that is the case, if Revenue Canada thinks that review engagements can be done without having to go through a public accountant, why would we put into our provincial legislation a demand? So I am sure this is one of the issues that are going to be discussed between the minister and the groups when he meets with them on January 21.

I think the other issue is that the groups themselves, the three groups that I have made reference to: the chartered general accountants, general accountants and certified management accountants, do have a concern with regard to disciplinary action because with the act as it is, disciplinary action would come under the Public Accountants Licensing Board and the groups believe that they should do their own disciplinary action. I think that makes great sense, because even though they are all accountants, in the sense they are part of a general profession, each one has a specific profession under that umbrella. It is one of the issues of an umbrella legislation, that it could be that you have to allow for a breaking out from that being under that umbrella. I know that the government is looking at a type of umbrella legislation for some disciplines in the medical profession, and it is one of the concerns I have that each discipline that is being looked at does have slight differences. It is the same way with the three groups under this act. They do have slight differences. So the desire to do their own discipline process and to be able to hold their hearings makes great sense to me. My understanding is that the licensing board itself does not necessarily want to do it either. I am sure that this will be part of the discussions that the minister will be having.

I am willing to vote for this piece of legislation, knowing that we are probably going to see it back with a few amendments back into the House in the spring, and that is fine - or who knows, maybe they will all come to total agreement and this piece of legislation will stand. As the minister said, and as my colleague from the Official Opposition said, this is part of a whole move of professionalism that is going on in the government. I think it is extremely important. A lot of the template that was there for the other professions that we have legislated is the same in this document. I am not going to take time to go through the various pieces. We have done it a number of times in the House and I do not think we need to do it again.

I thank the minister for his openness and having the discussion with me. I also thank his deputy minister who spoke with my staff to make sure we had a full understanding of what was going on. I also thank him for the indulgence of the House Leader for holding this bill for a number of days until we felt we were ready to vote for it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now he will close the debate on second reading of an Act Respecting Public Accountants. (Bill 49)

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am ever so happy to get up and close second reading in regard to Bill 49.

I certainly recognize the hon. members across the House and their comments. I have the same concerns, I guess, on review and engagement in regard to not-for-profit small businesses out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where there are public accountants that are not available. Anyway, I have to go into this meeting in January with an open mind to see that we can work out those issues because if the issue is there, well then that is an important issue for that particular group, for that particular profession.

I am not really sure in regard to the disciplinary comments made by the hon. the Leader of the NDP in that, as I understand it anyway, is that if a person is say a CA, well first and foremost if they have some type of an action against them, a disciplinary action against them, than they would then lose their licence under that CA association and then in turn they can no longer be a public accountant. So that may very well take care of it.

Anyway, we are not here to debate those issues today. That is certainly left to me to sit down with an open mind and work this through in regard to the profession itself. I wanted to have on the record here today for my own record, your record, and also for the profession's record as well, that I am willing to go forward and see can we work it out.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is certainly an important piece of legislation as well. It might not have commanded much time in the House of Assembly in regard to the clock but this enables another profession to self-regulate and self-govern themselves to become fully accountable and transparent to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I take my seat and if there are any other questions with regard to this act, I would be willing to take my place in the House of Assembly and answer any questions in Committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 49 has now been read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 49 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 Respecting Public Accountants. (Bill 49)

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

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

MS BURKE: Today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Public Accountants", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 49)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 8, second reading of Bill 50.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act". (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act be now read a second time.

Just to give you a quick history with regard to the Public Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board sets the maximum price for motor and heating fuels through the Petroleum Products Act which was enacted in 2001. The key piece there, which I want people to understand, is that they set the maximum price. They do not set the lowest price. It is up to the suppliers, it is up to the retailers in regard to what they want to set the price at. Now nine chances out of ten it is going to be set at the maximum price, but that is the only way we can actually have a piece of legislation because we would not be able to determine their margins et cetera, in regard to the Public Utilities Board to enable the retailers or the suppliers, wholesalers to stay in business. So we set a maximum price based on the market, based on the indicators, the New York Exchange, et cetera and then they set the price. I think the price is being set now biweekly. That is the way we regulate it. It has been very, very effective over the years and I have seen the numbers that supports that. This act is a very, very important act when it comes to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also more recently, through a consultation process and also my interaction with the Public Utilities Board as well, we saw the price freeze on the South Coast of Labrador being lifted for this year as well because it just did not make sense. The roads now are open. Things have changed since this act was enacted back in 2001. So they do not rely as heavily on fuel transported by tanker as they do now delivered mostly by truck over the roads.

The Public Utilities Board brought these amendments to my attention as a result of their review of the legislation itself. These amendments that I have in front of the House today reflect the current practices or give them the ability to address new products and blends. Really, to highlight them for you, what we are doing here is to add three amendments. One, in particular, changes the definition of motor fuel and heating fuel to ensure that new products, components and blends from a petroleum based product are included.

To explain that for you a little bit, is sometimes, especially heating fuels, are not really one product. They are made up of a blend of products. One of the particular ones that we address in this legislation, or can be addressed in the legislation and be regulated - under the current act, if we leave it as it is, because of the new blend they cannot actually regulate it. One of it is heating fuel. In Central Newfoundland, and I think on the East Coast, too, home heating fuel has a blend of aviation fuel. The reason they blend it with aviation fuel is because under cold weather conditions if you left it as just the one product, the viscosity or the flow rate of that particular fuel is certainly hampered by the cold weather. By adding a blend of aviation fuel, it gives it more viscosity and also allows it to run more freely and give a better supply rate, I guess, to the furnace itself. That is why they blend it, but under the current act we cannot actually benchmark. We cannot actually regulate that particular type of blend, and we cannot address it as well because it is not enabled under the act. That is what that amendment does and it certainly gives the opportunity to include those new components and new blends in regard to our pricing regime and our regulation regime.

The other piece, it allows the Public Utilities Board, which they do under some of the other utilities that they regulate. It allows the Public Utilities Board to recover their costs. When I say that, is that when a wholesaler or retailer makes an application, for whatever reason, to have a review done under the current act, well then they – the Public Utilities Board, right now the way it is set up, is that regardless of who makes the application they have to spread the cost of that over the entire industry. That is fine if the actual review has some benefit to the entire industry. Sometimes they might be asked to do a review that may not be actually beneficial to the full industry but only beneficial to the particular company that is asking for the review. In that case, under the old act, they could not actually center that cost to that particular wholesaler. They had to spread it out over the entire industry, which is really unfair because it was not of benefit to the entire industry at all. It was only to the benefit of that particular wholesaler or that particular supplier. This amendment will allow them to recover that cost one way or the other. They will make a determination - the PUB will make a determination if it is a benefit of the entire industry or just the wholesaler itself. It also provides the authority to the board to conduct a review on its own or on the direction of the minister, in this case me, being the minister responsible and the Minister of Government Services.

What I found when I became the Minister of Government Services, when I used to contact the PUB in regard to the regulatory reform that we had in place and the act itself in place, was that I found that really they were relying on the suppliers, and relying on any of the industry out there in Newfoundland and Labrador to provide any information that was requested on their own merit and also on their own time. That is not so in regard to the other utilities that they regulate. The act that governs other utilities such as the utilities act, they are very, very specific in regard to the PUB being able to request certain information. There are timeframes set around in regard to the response time and that is very, very important to the PUB in regard to being able to attain and achieve their mandate that this legislation sets them out.

If we do not do this then we just rely, really, on the whim of the wholesalers, on the whim of the actual suppliers in regard to providing important information where the Public Utilities Board can make informed decisions, right decisions. Without that, they would not be able to do that.

Really, those are the only three amendments there. There might be a piece too in regard to the piece of legislation itself that I will bring to your attention. In regard to section 1.(1)(c), heating fuel, the definition given means furnace oil, stove oil or propane of a type used primarily for generating of heat and includes a liquid product distilled from petroleum used as a component of it.

If you go down to section 1.(3), you will see that the following petroleum products are exempt from the provisions of this act: motor fuel used for aviation purposes; and motor fuel used for marine purposes except where the motor fuel is purchased from a retailer who sells that type of motor fuel for other purposes. Most of the fuel, motor fuel and aviation fuel are specifically sold by retailers in specific areas such as marinas or at airports or whatever. We do not regulate that type of fuel. It is not beneficial for us to regulate that type of fuel. I believe, correct me if I am wrong, but I think most of any of the other jurisdictions do not regulate that type of fuel as well.

So they are excluded from the act. I just wanted to highlight that for you - I am just flipping through here, Mr. Speaker, just to make sure that I covered off everything including the cost recovery and that kind of stuff.

I think this might be considered by some to be housekeeping-type amendments, but I think it is actually more important than housekeeping-type amendments. It enables the PUB to fulfil their mandate, which is to set the maximum price and set it fairly, set it based on proper information that they need to have. If it is not within the act, and they are not enabled within the act to gather that information well then they will not be able to set the correct and fair price.

When I mean fair price, in regard to maximum price, is a fair price not only to the wholesaler and the retailer but to the consumer as well, because you have to have the balance of them all. We would all like to be able to set the price of fuel taking, for instance, gasoline down to 20 cents a litre. That would be great when we all fill up, but there would be nobody in business, there would be nobody supplying gasoline in Newfoundland and Labrador because they would all be out of business.

We all understand how business works, that it has to have a margin and the retailers are certainly not making the margins of the big oil companies and that kind of stuff, but that is the way it is. The retailers, they are provided and can only achieve a certain margin. They have certain overheads and that kind of stuff, so we have to have the balance between it all. The same applies to heating fuel as well. We know that we are all concerned in regard to the price of heating our homes in Newfoundland and Labrador because we do live out in the North Atlantic, pretty close to Greenland, just south of that, so we have certain challenges. That is why we bring in such important programs as the home heating rebates and that kind of stuff to try to offset some of the costs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important piece of work and important amendments to the Petroleum Products Act.

I will take my seat in the House now, and I welcome the thoughts and some comments from my hon. colleagues across the House. I hope that they will actually see the benefit and actually the importance of this act and give me full support in regard to these amendments as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure again to be able to stand and make a few comments with regard to Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act.

Mr. Speaker, this act, as the minister stated, has been put forward with regard to cleaning up some of the things that are not in the old act, and also adding some clarification on other issues. I think the Petroleum Products Act was introduced back in 2001 when the government of the day responded to consumer concerns with respect to prices charged for automotive fuels. It was proclaimed back in May of that year. We know the act was amended in 2004 to remove reference to commissioner and transfers duties and responsibilities and functions to the board and thus from there on the Petroleum Products Pricing Commissioner, which is located in Grand Falls-Windsor, became the petroleum pricing officer for the PUB.

Mr. Speaker, some issues with regard to Bill 50, from the understanding that we have received that these amendments are viewed as very straight forward, harmless and just an administrative housekeeping process as the minister stated. They were requested by the PUB to help clarify matters that they have already been dealing with. We know, Mr. Speaker, this came about after the PUB completed a review of their own act and practice in the regulation of petroleum products. For example, Mr. Speaker, the PUB already does blend pricing based on blended products, but this just gives them the clear legislative authority to do so.

We know that the minister gave various examples, and one is fairly close to the area that I represent is with respect to the marine fuel exemption. Just to clarify, you would never as a boat owner, either as a fisherman or as a recreation boat owner, go to a gas station and obtain the unregulated price. You have to pay the regulated price at the station and this was always the case, but this amendment now clearly spells this out and this is what is being done with a lot of the legislation that the minister is bringing forward.

Section 4 of the act provides clear authority for the board to conduct reviews upon a request either by the retailer, the wholesaler or by the minister him or herself, and will review the suitability of the pricing mechanisms for benchmark prices and from there can provide the minister with its recommendations. These amendments thus fully empower the PUB to basically do what they have intended to but they were uncertain legislative authority outlined in the previous act.

Mr. Speaker, there are two or three issues I would like to bring forward to the minister, and I am sure he will clarify them if I incorrect. I will put them more or less probably in question form. We know with regard to pricing changes, and with pricing changes some include what we call the refining costs where it is more or less a benchmark or a formula, and I think it is being used by the PUB, where an allowable markup is also including a cost for refining and marketing. I am wondering, are we being charged twice for the refined component when it comes to that particular area?

The other one is: Is the retailer getting charged for marketing a product? If so, why is the company charging for the marketing component if it is being collected by the retailer agent at the pump, and the retailer being charged twice when it comes to that? I do not think that is the case, but the minister can clarify that.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering, does all the product supplied to all stations or home heating retailers in the Province come from the North Atlantic refinery now, here on the main portion of the Island? I see the minister shaking his ‘no', so that clarifies that part for me, Mr. Speaker.

The other comment I was going to make is with regard to the pricing mechanism that we use here in the Province versus in Nova Scotia. Someone said the formula that they use, that our prices here could probably be a few cents cheaper if they were followed. My understanding is that we do an average of what the market has done, based on a two-week period, and we take the average of the fourteen days. I think I am correct in saying that in Nova Scotia they go from Tuesday to Tuesday. It is still a two-week period, but what they do, it is the pricing that is charged in the difference on those two days. I was just wondering if that had been considered here. Maybe it is not a formula that brings in any cheaper prices for the consumers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, apart from that, those are the only few comments I had to make with regard to Bill 50. I think, as the minister stated, it is straightforward. The PUB, when they reviewed their act, needed clarification on some issues so that they can carry out the legislation properly. It also allows for, whether it is the wholesaler, retailer, or the minister, to be able to get involved when it comes to a review.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will take my place and give some other hon. members an opportunity to speak to Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. The Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will close debate in second reading of Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in rising in this House this afternoon and closing debate in regard to Bill 50 in second reading.

I listened intently to the hon. member across the House. I took note of his questions, and I will try to get him some answers to those. I think I know the answers, but I just want to confirm them. I have to go, actually, to the PUB to get confirmation on them – which, you know, they are not within this House - so I may not get them for Committee stage, but I will make this commitment: certainly, we see each other pretty well on a daily basis so I will fill him in with regard to those questions as well. So they are well noted and quite interesting, actually, as well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, yes, I might say that it might be considered really a housekeeping piece of legislation in regard to the amendments, but it cannot be forgotten - and I have to reiterate and highlight - that it enables the PUB to carry out their mandate. Under the old act they could not carry out their mandate in regard to the definition of heating fuels, et cetera, and this enables them. They could not do their reviews. They could not gather information under the old act, which is important in regard to setting the right price, a fair price, so this is actually more important than it seems. It is very important not only to the Public Utilities Board but also to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and I look forward to Committee stage in regard to Bill 50.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 50 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 Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 50)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 9, second reading of Bill 54.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act". (Bill 54)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, as the Government House Leader, it is certainly a role that I take to sit on the Management Commission which oversees the functions and the duties of the House of Assembly. People who watch the House of Assembly will also be interested to know, or probably do watch the meetings of the Management Commission of the House of Assembly which are televised as well.

The Management Commission replaced what was previously known as the Internal Economy Commission, which ran the affairs of the House of Assembly. When we brought in the Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, as recommended by Chief Justice Green when he reviewed the affairs of the House of Assembly, at that time the IEC, the Internal Economy Commission, was replaced by the Management Commission, and the positions on the Management Commission were outlined, and they would include the Government House Leader; so, by virtue of holding this position, I sit on the Management Commission. As well, we also have, from the governing side of the House, two other individuals. In this case it is the MHA for Topsail and it is also the MHA for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. Then, also on the Management Commission, we have the Opposition House Leader as well as two other members. With that we have the Leader of the Opposition, who sits on this commission as well, and the Leader for the Third Party which would be the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Bill 54 is An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. The amendments we are dealing with today come from the recommendations that came from the Members' Compensation Review Committee. The Members' Compensation Review Committee was struck to be able to review the salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions paid to Members of the House of Assembly.

You may ask: Well, why did we bring in this act and then strike a committee to review the act? Mr. Speaker, the Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act requires us during each session - which would be each mandate, each four-year period - that we strike this committee to review those four areas.

Mr. Speaker, we struck that committee on May 28, 2009, by a resolution in the House of Assembly. Once the committee started their work, they had until October 30, 2009, to report their findings and recommendations back to the Speaker, who in turn referred it to the Management Commission for a review and, I guess, acceptance or change or whatever as to how we move forward. Mr. Speaker, we did accept the recommendations and that is what I will be addressing here today.

The independent committee that was struck to look at the areas of salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions included Mr. Joe O'Neill, who has been a person who has done work in the area of public service for more than thirty-five years. He is currently retired, and has been for the last probably two years. On that committee also were: Cathy Bennett, who is a businesswoman in the St. John's area, and also Brian Barry, who is an individual from Grand Falls-Windsor who certainly works in the area of finances. Those people together were able to provide their analysis back to us along with their recommendations.

The committee just did not get together and decide on recommendations; nor did they just specifically listen to MHAs. It was an open process. There were public consultations, and it is my understanding that the consultations were held on July 29 in Clarenville; on August 5 in Grand Falls-Windsor; in Corner Brook on August 6; in St. John's on August 18; in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on August 31; and in St. John's again on September 17. They also, at that time, received ten public presentations and nine written submissions. So the people of Newfoundland and Labrador certainly had the opportunity to provide input into this process.

Despite the fact that they reviewed the four areas, as I have outlined, the two areas that need to be addressed in this amendment would include salaries and allowances, and I will speak to that. Although there are some allowances, that do not necessarily mean a legislative amendment, also the area of severance, which is not being dealt with by means of a legislative amendment. So we are dealing today with the recommendations that need to be brought before the Legislature. As we have already seen during this week in the House of Assembly, a motion regarding the pensions was brought forward by the hon. Minister of Finance, and certainly we have dealt with that in the House as well.

The Compensation Review Committee was struck by a resolution of the House in May, 2009. They started their work with the intent of, and which they did, to report in October, 2009. What is interesting is that on July 1, 2009, the MHAs received a pay increase of 8 per cent, and that pay increase was a result of the initial act that we passed in 2007 done by Chief Justice Green. Wherein Chief Justice Green said that the salary increases for an MHA would be the same as what is given to the public service; however, delayed by one year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seemed to be a fact that we struck the review commission because we knew we were getting an increase and we wanted that to be dealt with first and then they could come back with their recommendations. I want to assure people that that certainly was not the case. That we struck the review committee at that time because we are required in legislation to do it and we certainly respect that law and want to make sure that we follow the procedure as set out. It was coincidental that two happened the same time.

In the meantime, the review commissioners recommended that the 8 per cent that was given to the MHAs on July 1, 2009, as a result of the original act, should revert so that at this time the 8 per cent increase of July 1, 2009 would no longer apply. So as we move through this legislation we have accepted that recommendation of the review commission, and the 8 per cent increase certainly will not proceed once this bill receives Royal Assent. Basically, what we have said is at the end of this month, December 31, the 8 per cent will no longer be applied and the salaries for MHAs will revert to the level that was in on June 30, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the fact that there is 8 per cent on the MHAs salary. I want to address that as well. An MHA's basic salary at this time is $95,357; 8 per cent was applied to that. So, the 8 per cent will now come off and that will be the salary. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there are many salaried officer holders within the House of Assembly. That means the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition, in addition to their MHA salary, receives the amount of $54,072. The Deputy Speaker of the House and the Opposition House Leader receive an additional $27,033 onto their salary. The Deputy Chair of Committees, the Deputy Opposition Leader, the Leader of the Third Party, the Whip for each party and the caucus chair each receive an additional $13,517. So, the 8 per cent that comes off the basic MHA salary will also come off the additional salaries that are paid to the Members of the House of Assembly who hold any of these positions.

Mr. Speaker, it is also worthy to note that ministers receive an additional salary on top of what they receive as the basic MHA salary, which would be the same as what is paid to the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition. However, the pay that is made to ministers is not tied to this Legislature nor is it tied to the recommendations that the compensation review committee had come forward with.

Mr. Speaker, in case people question whether or not we have taken that into consideration, and we want to be open and transparent, and we certainly did not want it to be seen that now there is another parallel system and somebody has to question that. We felt that the decisions of the review commissioners were meant to apply to all Members of the House of Assembly, and we also felt it would be appropriate that at this time we would also indicate that the salaries that ministers receive will also no longer include the 8 per cent and that they will be put back to the level that they were prior to the 8 per cent going on. Which means it is consistent that we have always had the same salaries between a minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Speaker. Although the commissioners of the review committee did not necessarily recommend on ministers, we will still keep that balance there so that the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition and the ministers receive the same pay once we pass this amendment. I just want to make that point for clarity, so everyone understands what is happening at that level.

The review commissioners also recommended that the next review be struck; so, the next commission to review salaries, allowances, severance and pensions of MHAs be struck, within six months of the next general election. We have also accepted that recommendation and we are including that in our legislation today as well, Mr. Speaker. So that is certainly important to note. In order for these recommendations, for the next review as indicated and for the salaries to remove the 8 per cent, we had to bring this into the Legislature. Certainly, Bill 54 addresses these.

We have the basic salary plus the additional salaries for the MHAs and the ministers to reflect what was in the Management Commission review commission report. These salaries will stay in effect until they are reviewed again after the next general election and that review committee will be struck within the first six months. Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that at that time there will be changes. Of course, it will depend on what recommendations come forward. I know in the Management Commission meetings, and it was televised, there were some concerns about the fact that this review commission did not put in place a formula that would indicate how salaries would be handled or there would be increases or decreases into the future.

Mr. Speaker, when you take time to think about it, at no point in time would it be prudent to say this is the formula from now on. If we were dealing with the public service, there is a time frame for the contract; it is a two, a three, a four-year period. I think when we look at it, anytime we look at the salaries that we can only look at it in the time frame of that mandate. Otherwise, we could be off on a road where they recommend 2 per cent a year and then we are way ahead of what the public service would get or there could be financial issues within the Province that need to be addressed or whatever.

I think that after reflection to see that they did not come forward with a formula, I think that is probably the best suggestion that they could have made because otherwise we could be tied into a formula that really does not reflect the financial situation of the Province. It is probably something in the long run that was a very good decision on behalf of the review commissioners.

Mr. Speaker, there is a further recommendation of the Members' Compensation Review Committee, and it says, "The necessary steps should be undertaken to confirm the automobile allowance that was in place for the Office of the Speaker of the House of Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party before 2007."

That policy reflects the same policy that is available for ministers regarding an automobile allowance. That is an $8,000 taxable allowance, so it is about $5,800 a year and if somebody receives the automobile allowance, they are not entitled to claim mileage. So that means they can claim fuel, but not mileage. The ministers have an option of whether or not they take the automobile allowance or they decide to claim mileage.

Mr. Speaker, whether you are an MHA, or a minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, or the Third Party, or the Speaker, once you accept a car allowance, there is no line drawn between your duties of office and your district or your MHA duties. It is a blanket policy that you accept that automobile allowance. Whether you are out doing district business or the business of your office or ministerial business, you claim the fuel, not mileage. So you do not set up a two-tier system for yourself.

Mr. Speaker, section 4 of the bill addresses this recommendation in that it confirms an allowance or expense amount for the automobile use of the individual or the positions that I had mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I previously stated that these recommendations were accepted by the Management Commission, as they were given to us by the commissioners who reviewed the four areas as they were directed. It is also important to note that we received the report on time, and that it is important that we deal with it at this time in the Legislature, because we have accepted the recommendations, and if we do not, it certainly could be perceived that we are dragging it out, because we did not necessarily like the 8 per cent coming off our salary. So it is important that we bring it forward at this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is all part of a series of changes that have taken place with respect to MHA accountability and transparency in recent years. This is a very important process to boost public trust and confidence in our political system.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is an action any more important that this government ever took than to put the Auditor General back into the House of Assembly. That was a very necessary move. Mr. Speaker, I hope there is no future Administration that repeats the actions of a former Administration when the Auditor General was no longer allowed to audit the affairs of the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, when that happened, unfortunately, all politicians are left to deal with what happened. It is certainly something that has shaken public confidence and we have to be very prudent that we try and do our best to restore public confidence in this institution in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have to rebuild the confidence. We have accepted the recommendations put forth by Chief Justice Green. It was recommended that we have this review. We did the review, we struck the committee, we have accepted their report, we are following through with the recommendations and that we need to do it in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect that I would like to bring to everyone's attention. It is not just the fact that the AG came out of the House of Assembly and that caused, certainly, concerns for everyone in the Province, but also the fact that Chief Justice Green has indicated that as we do legislation that affects the compensation to Members of the House of Assembly, that we take our time and we do it day by day in the House of Assembly.

For people who probably do not necessarily understand what I am talking about, we enter a Notice of Motion here to say that we are going to amend this legislation and then we do the first reading of the bill. Then, on another day we do second reading of the bill, which we are doing today, and refer it to the Committee of the Whole; we will do that today as well. Then on another day we do third reading. So technically, there should be four days that this bill is announced into the House of Assembly. There have been times in the past when salaries or compensation to members of the Assembly have not necessarily gone day by day into these stages. With leave, you can go from one stage to another in any given day, so we could go from first reading, second reading, committee and third reading today, by leave. Chief Justice Green said that is not appropriate, that we need to make sure that it is given ample time, the public know it is being debated and we certainly do what is expected by the public to be open and transparent in this process.

Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I certainly would like to again speak to the amendments that are coming forth. They address the salaries paid to MHAs and the salaries that are paid to that basic MHA salary for additional duties that somebody may be assigned in the House of Assembly. Although this legislation does not address it, for those who follow the process and understand it, ministers who also receive the additional salary on top of the MHA salary, that will also be affected the same way as the Speaker or the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, certainly the striking of the next review commission within six months of the next general election and dealing with the automobile allowance is all contained in the recommendations from the review commissioners, we have accepted them and the amendments to this legislation certainly reflect that.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I hope this puts us one step closer to restoring public confidence. It certainly was shaken. It was very necessary when this government decided to bring back the Auditor General into the House of Assembly, and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are going to live with the fallout of what happened while the Auditor General was not allowed in the House of Assembly for many years to come.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 54.

I am sure there are some people out in the public who are going to think it is rather unusual that someone would stand up and speak to a bill that, in essence, is going to take 8 per cent of your salary away. That is exactly what we are doing here today based upon the Members' Compensation Review Committee recommendations. We dealt yesterday with one piece.

That committee by the way was struck by way of a motion of this House back in May - I believe it was May 28 of this year. It is a process that Chief Justice Green said we, on a go-forward basis, should live with because these issues of pensions and these issues of severance pay and salary that we make as MHAs most often, in the past, they were dealt with, as I call it, under the cover of darkness. There would be a motion or a resolution brought into the House, whereas normally you had notice of, a first reading, a second reading, a committee stage and a third reading, which takes place over a number of days.

Quite often, in the past, when you had these money type issues being dealt with in salaries and pensions, there would be a resolution or a motion in the House and it was all dealt with in one day, and the Chief Justice said that is not good enough. That does not provide any accountability, it does not provide transparency and openness and if you are going to do this, particularly because we, in essence, are a body of people deciding what our salary should have been, that you should do it openly and fairly.

He recommended that there would be a committee that would be struck once every session to deal with all of these issues, and they went off this time and they dealt with them. The four principle recommendations they dealt with were: pensions - particularly pensions for new MHAs who might be elected in the future. What should their pension scheme be? Should it be what always existed or should it be something else? We dealt with that yesterday here in this House in Bill 53. So now the template has been established for MHA pensions on a go-forward basis, as was recommended by that committee.

Another one they dealt with was salaries, which again requires that it come back to the House of Assembly for legislative changes. In other words, the management committee which normally deals with the operational type issues and management issues of MHAs and officers of the House, that process was not good enough. Even though that is all publicized too now, by the way, all meetings of the management committee are dealt with publicly - televised. In this case, when it came to salaries and pensions they actually must come back to the House of Assembly and go through a process over a number of days so that the public are aware of what is happening and can have some input into it.

The committee was struck on May 28. I believe they actually started their work in July. Again, they must have had it done within four months. That was not our requirement. We did not rush them and say you only have four months to do this. I think it was 120 days actually was the wording. That was all decided again by Chief Justice Green as to how long that committee would have to decide these issues: pensions, salaries, allowances and so on.

They did, in fact, report back - I think it was in October - two of the things: the pensions and salaries, requires legislative amendments. The Management Commission met with the Members' Compensation Review Committee, it was a televised meeting. Everybody in the public watched it; they sat here in this House and had their table here. There was an interaction between the Management Commission and the Members' Compensation Review Committee. Any questions that anyone had, there was a chat back and forth as to what do you mean by this? What do you mean by that? Where did you come up with that? How do you justify that? Why didn't you do this? Very open, and the public saw it.

Their process, by the way, was public. Their process was always advertised. They went all around the Province and met with people. They did not get a lot of turnout. They did not get much turnout at all first. Some people claimed that was because of the time of year you did it; you did it in the summer. Some people even suggested that: Oh, that is why you did it in the summer, because you knew everybody was on vacation. Who is going to come out to a public hearing dealing with stuff? So you figure if you take it out of the limelight, do it at a time of year when there is nobody around, that you might get it done.

It was not the members who were deciding these things; it was these independent people. I do not think anybody, by the way, questions the integrity of the persons who were on this Members' Compensation Review Committee. It was headed up by Mr. Joe O'Neill who was the chair, a very well-respected public servant who has thirty-plus years in the public sector of this Province, known for his fairness and his equitable decision-making and his administrative capabilities, a very professional gentleman.

Ms Cathy Bennett, who runs several McDonald's companies here in the City, a very capable business person. There is no question here about the due diligence process, shall we say, and the absolute independence and viability of these people and their desire to do it properly, to do it openly and to do it properly.

Albeit, I am going to make some comments here that some people might think as ‘slamming the committee'. That is not so, but I do have some concerns, I raised them at the public meeting we had at the Management Commission and I will raise them here again today because, notwithstanding that they did a job, I had some concerns about certain issues and how they dealt with them. I think if we are going to have a process, as Chief Justice Green said we ought to have, if we are going to do it let's not leave any stones unturned. I do not think you should be rushed in doing it, but I think if you are going to undertake to do the job there are certain things that need to be done. If you did not have enough time to do it, you should have asked for more time to do it. I am going to refer to some of these issues as we address this today.

This is the report that was filed by the committee, by Mr. O'Neill and his committee. There are a number of pages. I believe it actually is 132 pages. Of these 132 pages, six pages deal with the issue of salaries. Only six pages deal with this issue that we are here today - Bill 54, MHAs' salaries - to deal with.

It starts on page 16 of the report. One of the comments that he makes is actually on page 18, second paragraph from the bottom when the committee says, "…the vast majority of what we heard during the course of our consultations related to MHA salaries." So, of all the issues they could be heard on and wanted to be heard on, the vast majority of the commentary during the consolations was about the salary piece. Yet, there are only six pages out of 130 that actually ended up dealing with the salary piece.

There is another comment that was made here and it talks about – this is on page 19, paragraph 5, it is actually numbered, the very last sentence, and I quote, "When we consider that the current image of an elected politician quite likely comes from a long history of experience which has created a dim view of politics and politicians rather than a consideration of the ever increasing challenges, complexities, and demands of elected officials, there is no doubt the time has come for this discussion. It is only through an open examination of the modern job of an elected official that this issue can be addressed."

There does not seem, from at least the pages that I see in the report, to have been much of an open discussion. The vast majority they say talked about it, but it did not find its way into the committee talk, into the committee recommendations.

Page 6 actually deals with the four recommendations. They basically said, "The 8% salary increase which commenced on salaries referred to in subsections 11(1) and 12(1) of the Act…"- and when they say act, of course, they are talking about the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act - "…be relinquished and the salary for an MHA will be the salary in place on June 30, 2009."

Number two, as a part of that, he says, "The salary referred to in number 1 above be frozen at that level pending the recommendations of the next Members' Compensation Review Committee appointed in accordance with the Act.

3. The changes referred to above are to become effective on the date of the coming into force of the amendments of the Act giving effect to these recommendations.

4. In consideration of the fact that this Committee makes no recommendation on a formula for periodic increases in MHA salaries, the Committee recommends that the next Members' Compensation Review Committee be appointed within 6 months following the date of the election of members to the next General Assembly."

Now that is the recommendations which have found its way into Bill 54 that we are dealing with today on the salary piece. Now, the six pages that I am referring to here, they do a review, a jurisdictional review, we call it, across the country and other jurisdictions, England, Australia, to see what MHAs or similar type counterparts in those jurisdictions would be paid. That takes up a couple of pages of what is in here.

He references, in fact, the public furor that took place this past summer when the 8 per cent came out. I can understand why the public - number one I think the public thought that we somehow controlled the Members' Compensation Review Committee, which we did not. They were totally independent. Number two, I think the public said: Look at the gall of this crowd. They are in there now, the House is out of session, they have this crowd going off and doing a review in the middle of the summer when there is nobody around and they are going to give themselves, effective July 1, an 8 per cent raise and here we are in the world, in the middle of an economic tsunami, and the gall of that crowd to give themselves an 8 per cent raise. Of course the open-lines lit up, letters to the editor flourished all about what are they trying to do again, raping the public Treasury for themselves and their own benefit.

Just so the public have an understanding of how the 8 per cent came about, historically in this Province MHAs raises take place based upon what senior management in government get. It is usually tied into a deputy minister's salary. That has been the rule for years. This was not anything new. This was not created by this government or this Administration. That has been the tradition that has existed for many, many years. All that happened on July 1 is that template, that formula that has existed for years was being followed. I do believe, I stand to be corrected, but I do believe that Chief Justice Green did not have an issue with that, not at all. In fact, the only tweaking that Chief Justice Green said with respect to that formula or that method of dealing with increases was, he said: Do not do it on the year that the public sector takes it, do it a year after.

Anyone knows, for example, that the public sector got the 8 per cent raise on July 1, 2008; the MHAs did not get it until 2009. That is because Chief Justice Green said that is how it should come about. Of course, you look at the timing of this. We have a resolution setting up the committee on May 28, we had the committee getting underway by July 6, and all of a sudden on July 1 there is this 8 per cent raise. So everybody said: oh my God, they are at it again. They are filling their own pockets in there again. That is the context in which all of this stuff started about salaries.

There is no doubt in my mind, right or wrong, but there is no doubt that the Members' Compensation Review Committee reacted to that public outcry. No question at all. In six pages of this report they talk about what happens in every jurisdiction. They talk about the recent freezes that took place in Nova Scotia, Alberta, Ontario, and New Brunswick. By the way, those freezes that they talk about happening in those other provinces in Canada, that did not happen in this provinces and these jurisdictions because those provinces thought that the raises were inappropriate or improperly created. It all had to do in the context of this tsunami again. How can we, as public officials in Nova Scotia or Ontario or Alberta be taking raises for ourselves when the economy has just fallen apart? It does not look right, it is not proper.

That is why these jurisdictions decided that the freezes would be implemented, but yet the committee seized on that: oh, they are doing it in Nova Scotia; they are doing it in Alberta. Somewhere there must be a sense that no politician forever should get a raise or they should be frozen. So they adopted that and put it in on page 20. This is what is happening in those jurisdictions. Then they turn around and they say here is our recommendation based upon what they are doing elsewhere; based upon the freezes, take away the 8 per cent.

Never do I see in this report, and we are going to vote for this by the way, because there is no way in the world that it would ever be accepted by anybody in the public that to change that recommendation would fly. No way. Based on the context of what has happened with politics in this Province in the last four or five years, no way would the public have any appetite for that and there is no appetite by anyone in here to suggest that we want to change it. No matter what kind of logic or rational arguments you might use, that is just not going to fly. That is why I suggest this bill is going to pass unanimously for that very reason, because there is no appetite anywhere, but it leaves a couple of things unsaid.

What I find then missing from the report is the justification for it. I am going to vote for it simply because I know the people of Burgeo & La Poile would probably say we are going to disown you if you vote against it. Imagine taking an 8 per cent raise for yourself after it is recommended that you lose it by a committee. It does not take away from the – and I asked the commission this at the management meeting: What is the rationale for it? I would just like to understand sometimes why things happen. I do not see anywhere in here, and that is what I think is a little deficiency in the report. It is one thing to make a recommendation, but what is your rationale for it? I did not ask that here just today by the way, folks. I asked that in a public forum to the members of the committee, Members' Compensation Review Committee when they appeared on television a couple of months ago. I did not get an answer. I did not get an answer, folks. I do not mind you telling me you are going to take 8 per cent, but where is the analysis of it? Where is the rationale, other than you said that the public were upset with it? Maybe that makes it right, maybe that is the only rationale, but I did not get an answer back.

The other big piece that is missing on the salary piece is that the committee failed to give any formula as to what to do on a go-forward basis. They were specifically asked to give a formula. That was part of their task and they did not do that. I think that is a shortcoming in this. What they did say, and as I just read earlier was: we are not giving a formula right here. Strike another Members' Compensation Review Committee within six months of the next election and let them do it. That is what they said. That is not what they were asked to do. I think that is a little weakness here.

I hope in the future, for the benefit of future politicians who will become elected officials and MHAs in this House, you need the certainty. You need the certainty of knowing what it is. Whether you work for Marine Atlantic or you work for Sears or you work for anyone, you need to have in your employment the certainty of what your terms and conditions of employment are. Right now, anybody who might get involved in this job field in the future, you do not know, and the committee never told us. They said leave it, get elected, come into the House of Assembly and we will tell you after what you are getting. That is basically what they said here. So I think that is a shortfall here as well. I think they ought to have agreed to it.

I mentioned, as well, the comment about the time had come for an open discussion and so on. Again, the report is very short on that kind of discussion. Very brief, and I think that is a shortfall as well. They should have taken the time to make that commentary as to where we ought to be going. So, yes, we are left with something here that everybody here is going to vote for. I am sure the public are going to say: proper thing, you did not deserve the 8 per cent in the first place, take it away.

The other piece I notice here, when you talk about detail. This bill that we are dealing with today, not only does it take back the 8 per cent increase that happened on July 1 for MHAs, it also takes back the 8 per cent that anybody who is an officer of this House would have received as well. For example, the Opposition House Leader gets extra pay because I do not only my MHA duty, I also, as Opposition House Leader - it says right in this act that he shall be paid an extra sum of money each year for doing that duty; as does the Deputy Opposition House Leader; as does the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; as do members who serve on those committees and so on. Do you know what? The only reference in this committee's report to any of that, any of that, is with the words: 12(1). Nowhere in this report does it ever address these positions of the House. Nowhere in this report does it tell you what dollar figure is attached to these reports. It is just put in there in recommendation 1. It talks about subsection 11(1) of the act, and 12(1). Anybody outside in the public, I would suggest, who is going to read this, would never, unless you then took the time to go and find the act, the House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, look up section 12(1), would you even know what it was all about.

So in terms of clarity for the public again, I think there is a little deficiency there in not having explained this to the public. If the time has come for the open discussion, if the time has come for openness and transparency, we should go the whole distance and spell it out there. I am sure there are lots of people in this Province who did not know that certain people in this House get more than their MHA salary for doing certain jobs. The government Whip, the Opposition Whip, the caucus chairs, they all get paid certain money for doing this extra job but that is not talked about in this report. I was looking forward to the discussion around that, explaining to the public what this was all about and why these positions get paid extra. It just says it in the act, that if you are such and such a job you get this pay. I thought the committee would have taken time to explain some of this stuff because a lot of the problems we have, I would submit, are because people do not understand and are not told and provided with the information. They are not all lawyers. They are not all going to sit out there in the public and have access to the Web and go on-line and figure out the statutes and this act says that and something says something else, but they have a right to know.

The only other mention he made of it was later on in the report when he talks about some other issues that came up. They made a brief passing comment that this should be posted on the Web. There were, I believe – and I hope that the next Members' Compensation Review Committee, maybe it is a case of time. Maybe the case of 120 days is very limiting. Maybe we as a House ought to consider, in the interest of certainty for anybody else who is ever going to get involved in this, in the interest of making sure the public are fully aware of what is happening and when; the whole issue of the number of days and the time for the committee to do its work; the whole issue of should you hold such a committee hearing during the summer months? That ought to be addressed as well. We are getting into piecemeal things. We were here yesterday with Bill 53, piecemeal. We are here today with Bill 54, piecemeal on salaries. We are going to deal with the other issue of severance pay when we get to the management committee because that did not need a legislative change. We are going to deal with that somewhere else.

What started out to be a great thing, for example Chief Justice Green saying you should have this committee to review all this stuff. Now that it has come back it is being dealt with in piecemeal, and I do not know if that is a public justice to do it that way. Maybe there ought to be some proper way to put it out there rather than just - the report is one thing, and for them to appear before the management committee in aid of explaining the report. I still feel there is a void in the public as to understanding what happened with it now.

If you happened to be watching yesterday, you saw Bill 53 and you got some understanding of what happened with the pensions and where it came from. If you listened today you happen to know about salaries, but you have to hope that you are going to be watching when we deal with the severance piece in order to figure out that. So, the way that it is dealt with once the report was submitted, I believe leaves some questions as well in terms of process and being truly open and accountable to the public as well.

For example, on the issue of severance, talking about some shortcomings; they made a recommendation on severance pay and tied it in with persons should not get severance pay unless you could justify a serious medical illness. Now that is before the Management Commission. They themselves - now the committee have agreed that maybe we did not put enough thought around that. Maybe there are privacy issues. Maybe there are legal issues with putting such a condition on it.

Again, you get into the question of: What should we as MHAs do with it and as members of the management committee? The Government House Leader sits on it, the Speaker chairs the committee. I am on there as Opposition House Leader. All parties are represented and yet we have a very acknowledgement from everybody that there are issues still with that severance piece, and that is gone off to the management committee. There has to be more to and fro between the commission members and whatever. Ultimately, I believe somebody is going to say: now just a minute, are you tinkering with that one? Is somebody going to come back six months out from the management committee, or four months out, deal with the severance issue and say: Excuse me; that did not come before the House of Assembly to be talked about. How come you are now talking about severance and you changed what the committee wanted? You did not change it when you talked about salaries. You did not change it when you talked about pensions in fifty-three and fifty-four, but all of a sudden we are going to be on a management board television saying there have been some changes.

So, the process again, albeit Judge Green was certainly well intentioned, he took a very good stab at deciding how it should be done. I think there are still some issues in the process in terms of the openness piece, the timelines as to the committee performing its duties; where they can do it and when, for example, during the summer months, and how, once it is done, it is properly, openly transparent to the public again. So, I still think we have some of those things to deal with. I would assume they are going to be dealt with on a management committee level.

Again, just to clue up here, I would encourage everybody in this Province who has an issue or a discussion about this, do not talk about it just in your kitchens; do not talk about it just when you are relaxing with your friends. This is your money, folks. This is your money. It comes out of the public Treasury to pay for MHAs to come in here and do a job. If you have a concern about the job that they are doing, yes, you get to vote every four years or so to decide if you want him or her to be your MHA. It does not stop there. It does not stop there. By all means, there should be openness and accountability but take it upon yourselves, if you have a question, ask your MHA. We do not have to wait for a Members' Compensation Review Committee. We do not have to wait for a Judge Green to tell us what is wrong. Any concerns you have at all as to why somebody makes the money they do, who decided it and so on, you should ask. That is your right. As much as you have a right to vote and should vote, you have an obligation as well to understand the system. You do not have to just take the MHAs answer for that. If you are not satisfied with what the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde or the Member for Burgeo & La Poile were to tell you, there are all kinds of ways to find out whether you agree or disagree with us, or if it is truthful what we told you.

So I encourage people, let's hopefully not find ourselves again in a situation, when the next Members' Compensation Review Committee comes about, that there is a big public furor in reaction to something that the MHAs had nothing to do with it, and the committee had nothing to do with it. It was a process that has been in effect for years and years. We are trying to get a way now, we have a new process. We have accepted the recommendations of the committee. There are still some shortcomings there and I think we, on a go-forward basis, need to deal with the shortcomings when the next Members' Compensation Review Committee is struck.

Thank you.

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

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

I am very pleased to stand and speak today to Bill 54, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. I think it is a very important thing that we are doing here today, and the public may not be aware of how important it is in terms of the newness of what we are doing.

When Chief Justice Green was asked to head up a commission, be the commissioner, to look at the House of Assembly, it came at a time where we had all been shaken by things that had happened within the House of Assembly. When he came forward with his report in 2007, a little over a year later after he was appointed, he not only made a report and talked about what he found and made a few recommendations, he and his team, the staff who worked with him, actually put together the legislation that was going to be the rule for us into the future. By us, I mean those who are elected members in the House of Assembly.

The act which we have, which is called the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act is an extremely interesting act because it was not written by Members of the House of Assembly, it was not written by bureaucrats within a department, it was not written by the Executive Council, it was actually written by Chief Justice Green along with the researchers who worked with him. While I know they consulted with the Speaker of the House, the Clerk of the House, et cetera, and counsel, to make sure they were doing it well, it is an act that was not written by parliamentarians.

I think this is something that is brand new in our country. As parliamentarians, we receive the act and in short order, probably too short order, actually, accepted it and passed it here in this House in the spring of 2007. Why I say that maybe it was in too short order because there were things in the act that did have to be changed. There were little things that did not fit; there were some kinks that had to be ironed out. Some of these were found prior to our passing it, but not very many. Since then, we did have to make a few changes, a few amendments that did not in any way change the spirit of the act. They were totally faithful to the act, but they were to correct inconsistencies that were in the act.

What we are doing today is a bit different because one of the things in the act, in section 16 of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, we are told that the House of Assembly shall at least once during each General Assembly, by resolution, appoint a Members' Compensation Review Committee of not more than three persons, none of whom shall be a Member of the House of Assembly. Their job then would be to conduct an inquiry and prepare a report respecting the salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions to be paid to members. According to this act, from here on in, beginning in 2007, this House of Assembly shall always have, in each Assembly - right now we are in the forty-sixth Assembly. At sometime within that Assembly a Members' Compensation Review Committee shall be struck and that will be representative of the community; nobody from the House of Assembly on that committee. Their job is to do a review of salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions. That will continue. We have put our hands into the hands of the public, and rightly so.

I think what is really important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand is that this act is a major breakthrough in the life of Legislatures, not only in Canada, but elsewhere. Because of what happened here in this House and because of the Commission, the Green Report and the legislation that has come from it, we have opened up the windows and the doors of the House of Assembly in a way that has not happened in any other Legislature. I am sure people who are watching will remember that just a short time ago earlier in the fall there was a major - major hullabaloo, and rightly so, about what was happening over in the UK at Westminster and the issues around spending and how spending happened.

One of the things that is very clear, if people had the time to do it and they were to go and look at all the Legislatures across Canada, including Ottawa, nobody else has put their hands or put themselves in the hands of the electorate when it comes to things to do with what is happening inside the House of Assembly. The way we normally do it is through elections and that is it.

Now, because of the act that we have governing us since 2007, number one, we say the public will be the ones who will determine our salaries and everything that has to do with money that comes to Members of the House of Assembly from here on in. They do it in a representative way through a committee. That committee is set up by the House of Assembly, but it has to be an outside committee. Because it is all public, we are going to be sure that we are accountable to people to have a committee that is an objective committee and that is listening to the public and is going to try to bring the voice of the public into the decision-making with regard to the salaries, allowances, severance payments and pensions of Members of the House of Assembly.

The other thing that this act did and that we abide by is that the committee that oversees all of those issues in the House of Assembly - which used to be called the Internal Economy Committee but which is now called the Management Commission of the House of Assembly. This body now hold its meetings in public. This does not happen anywhere else in Canada. It happens nowhere else in Canada. Most of them do call their committees internal economy committees or commissions or a different name of that type. They all hold their meetings in secret - I should say privately. They are not public; they are not broadcast the way we are. We are actually leading the way in our country and in the parliamentary system with regard to openness of how we, as Members of the House of Assembly, or other Legislatures use the money of the people for our recompense. We no longer have a say in how we are going to be compensated. That everything now is through the committee, and I think it is extremely important for people to understand that.

So when, for the first time this year, we received a report from the Members' Compensation Review Committee it was an extremely important time. It was groundbreaking because we now had recommendations from a committee that was not a committee of parliamentarians telling us what they thought the public wanted us to do. So, when we stand here today, our responsibility is not just to listen to these recommendations as recommendations of this committee, but they are recommendations reflecting what the committee thinks the public wanted of them.

Now, in some cases, they had some recommendations and they actually said that we really did not hear anybody talk about this; however, this is what we are recommending. When it came to the salaries of the MHAs, they received a message loud and clear from the people of this Province. They reflected that decision in the recommendation that they have made. So, here today, it is incumbent upon us to vote for this bill because it is the voice of the people of the Province speaking through the recommendations of the committee.

I am sure that people do not stop to think about what we are doing in here today in that context, the context I have just outlined. People have their work, they have their families, they have very, very busy lives and what happens here in the House is sort of peripheral to their lives until something major happens like what happened in 2006.

I think it is important for people to understand that we are willingly accepting these recommendations. We are willingly taking the decrease in pay that we are taking because it is the will and what the people want is right. We do what the people want, that we are willingly, those of us who get an additional salary - I get an additional salary as the Leader of the Third Party - we will be going back to where we were on June 30 as well.

We also are looking at, in this act, the issue of automobile use for the Speaker of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party. I think it is important to point out to people that the practice always was that these three positions would be treated the same as ministers, and the option to have an automobile allowance rather than using kilometrage rates is there for ministers and it was there for the Speaker of the House, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party.

A little twist in wording in the accountability and integrity act caused problems with interpretation and so the committee, the Members' Compensation Review Committee, their recommendation was make the changes that need to be made in order for the Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party to continue having the option of an automobile allowance. Really, what is happening today is putting language in the act to reflect the practice that always was in place. It is not something new. It was a practice that was in place and it was the same practice as the practice of ministers, but the act had language in it that was stopping that from happening. The recommendation of the committee was that we should do whatever needs to be done is what they actually said. That was the recommendation: Do what needs to be done in order for the practice to continue. Doing what needs to be done is putting in the new section in the act that we will be voting on this week and that is section 15.

The other thing that is in here that I think is very important - and I actually spoke to it when we were dealing with another piece of the recommendations by the committee – is the fact that the first committee that was set up, which was the one that was set up this year, that committee recognized the need for the Members' Compensation Review Committee to be set up early in an Assembly, not later as they were. They were set up halfway through.

They recognized the importance of the committee and they also gave tasks to that committee. They have recommended that the next committee be appointed not more than six months after the election of the members to the General Assembly. Within six months after October 11, 2011, within six months of that date, a Members' Compensation Review Committee has to be set up to do their work. I guess every Members' Compensation Review Committee from there on in will set those kinds of parameters. They might make the same recommendation. They may find doing it within six months was too soon. They may recommend something different, but right now the recommendation is it would happen within six months of the next election. That, I think, is quite logical. They have also been given a very specific task by this committee. The committee that was in place was supposed to come up with a formula for dealing with salaries and whether or not there should be increases in salaries and how that might happen. They have passed that responsibility on to the next committee, which is probably one of the reasons why they suggested that it be set up as quickly as possible; there are issues that need to be dealt with right away.

Mr. Speaker, having given that explanation and putting what we are doing in the context of how new this is and actually how revolutionary it is, I hope that people will appreciate that what we are doing here is not being done anywhere else in the country. I actually am quite proud that we are doing it and I am very happy to be part of this Assembly at a time when we are managing the House, and even managing ourselves in the open, accountable way that we are doing it. I think it really is a privilege that we are able to do that.

So, with that, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will take my seat.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): If the hon. Government House Leader speaks now, she will close debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly like to thank the hon. members who spoke on Bill 54 this afternoon. It is certainly apparent that it is a very important bill that we deal with, because it certainly is a way to help us restore confidence and transparency in the system that certainly has been so criticized in recent years, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to conclude my remarks by again reiterating, as we had said, is that each stage of the bill is being done on a separate day. So the first reading, second reading, and third reading, but we will go into committee on this bill – Committee of the Whole - today. So by going into Committee of the Whole, we are certainly keeping within the spirit of having the three separate days for the reading. I just want to make sure people understand that.

So with, Mr. Speaker, I conclude debate in second reading of Bill 54.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 54)

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

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

MS BURKE: Today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 54)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order sheet, Order 10, second reading of Bill 57.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill 57)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce an amendment to the Teachers' Pensions Act, which governs the provisions of the Teachers' Pension Plan.

During the last round of collective bargaining, Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association requested and were granted an extension to a Memorandum of Understanding in their collective agreement that provides for the purchase of past periods of service related to a legal work stoppage or a strike.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, this amendment will allow teachers to receive pension credits for the periods of time they were on strike in April 1983 and April 1993. During each of those strikes, Mr. Speaker, teachers lost one-tenth of a year of service. The cost to credit such service, Mr. Speaker, is based on two times the contributions the teachers would have paid at the time, plus interest at the date of payment.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed section will read, "Subsection 12.1(2) of the Teachers' Pensions Act is repealed and the following substituted: (2) Where a teacher has had a period of absence due to a lawful strike or lockout that occurred before September 1, 2008, and wishes to purchase pensionable service for that period of absence, that teacher must, not later than June 30, 2009, elect to have that period of absence credited as pensionable service. (2) Subsection 12.1(3) of the Act is…" proposed to be "…amended by deleting the date "September 1, 2002" and substituting the date "September 1, 2008". 2. This Act shall be considered to have come into force on March 9, 2009." In other words, Mr. Speaker, the act will have a retroactive application, which, as will become clear, is necessary for this bill to have full force and effect.

Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the 2001-2004 collective agreement with the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, government amended the Teachers' Pension Act to give teachers a one-time opportunity to purchase past strike time as pensionable service. As a result of the most recent round of bargaining, Mr. Speaker, government agreed to provide another opportunity for teachers to purchase past strike time under the same terms and conditions agreed to in 2002.

The periods of strike time available to purchase are from April 12-May 2, 1983, and April 16-June 13, 1993, where teachers were on strike for a period equal to one-tenth of a teaching year for each strike. In order to comply with the terms of the collective agreement, it is necessary to amend the Teachers' Pensions Act to provide teachers with a one-time option to purchase past strike time by paying, in a lump sum, the total contributions that they and the school boards would have paid had teachers not been on strike, plus interest at the rate used to finance service purchases, which is prime plus 2 per cent.

Interest will be determined from the date the relevant strike ended to the date of payment. Teachers will be given three months, Mr. Speaker, until June 30, 2009 to exercise this option. After three months, the option to purchase this service will lapse. It is estimated the cost, including interest, for a teacher to purchase this time is approximately $550 for the 1983-1984 period, and $1,900 for the 1993-1994 period. So, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that the Teachers' Pension Plan be amended to reflect these changes, agreed to as part of the NLTA collective agreement.

It is anticipated, Mr. Speaker, that also there are teachers who would have wanted to purchase strike time to retire as of June 30, 2009, or essentially the end of the school year. We knew that this amendment would not be brought in until the fall, so it was proposed that teachers be permitted to purchase the service on an ex gratia basis until the bill is passed. It does not appear to me to be a contentious bill. It is simply dealing with an issue that is outlined in the collective agreement.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that as collective agreements go, and I was the President of Treasury Board at the time, it was a pleasure to deal with the Teachers' Association during the strike process. The President of the NLTA at the time, Mr. Sean Noah and his group, were very professional, conducted the bargaining in a very polite, yet firm manner, very professional. That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that we agreed on everything. Because I remember right up until the December 31 date that we had out there, and then moving into January, there were issues that were still not resolved.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, as in any collective bargaining, there was give and take, and there were positions that had to be put forward. I will say that Mr. Noah and his bargaining team certainly fought hard for their teachers, and I think reached an agreement that all of the teachers seemed to receive really well. It was a 21.5 per cent increase over a period of four years, and I did not hear, personally, any complaints from teachers. Not only myself, but all of us have a lot of teachers in our districts, and I have a number of teachers in my family, brothers and sisters and sisters-in-law. What we are doing here today, we are just allowing teachers the opportunity to purchase that strike time. I am assuming, Mr. Speaker, that you would probably remember those days, as would some other hon. members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we now will look at this – and one point I want to bring forward, I want to touch upon is that, and I am sure my friend, the Opposition House Leader will be able to comment on this, but we are - for this legislation, we are commencing in March, 2009. So with a retroactive or retrospective application, and I get those terms confused in law and in legislative terminology what each one means. Essentially, for us to do this, we have to be very clear. It is my understanding, in order to make a piece of legislation apply retroactively, the Legislature has to be very clear in saying that this is the intent of the legislation, this is what we want. What I have tried to explain, is the reason for doing this is to allow teachers the opportunity who would retire on June 30, knowing that we were not going to have this brought before the House until now.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that 152 teachers have purchased their strike time. So that is obviously, if people are looking at retirement, it is something that they certainly consider worthwhile, and I think it is good that we can bring this forward and give them that opportunity. Teachers who elect to purchase the time, well, they will pay a lump sum. Just for the mechanics for the people out there, they will pay a lump sum, as I outlined. I think it was $500 for the 1983-1984 and approximately $1,900 for the 1993-1994, that they, and the school board, would have paid into if the teachers had not been on strike. There is the interest also, Mr. Speaker.

So the estimated cost for a teacher to purchase the total time, equalling one-tenth of a teaching year, is $2,550. Mr. Speaker, there is no direct cost. While there is no direct cost to the government, there will be an impact on the Teachers' Pension Plan liability, due to the advancement of retirement dates because of the extra service.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion here, what we are looking at, all we have done is we are proposing to repeal a section, bring in a new section which outlines in legislation that which was agreed to in the collective agreement, and it is my pleasure to present this to the House.

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 appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on this particular Bill 57. It is another one in a series of pensions' bills we have been dealing with in this session. We have had changes to the MHAs pensions, we have had changes to the Memorial University Pensions Act, we have had public sector pensions, and now we are dealing with teachers' pensions amendments. A bit confusing at first, and I am sure my good friend, the legislative draftsman who works for the Department of Justice and whom I went to law school with, would say again that this member does not understand mathematics very well.

The logic I guess of reading this right now, and I understand fully what the minister is saying about it is retroactive, and which it goes back to March 9, 2009, but in the body, then, of that section 1.(2), it talks about you must do so not later than June 30, 2009. So I am assuming that, albeit it is going to be retroactive now, that everybody who could possibly take advantage of this section has indeed done it, because if you have not you are out of luck, based upon the wording of this section.

My question to the minister would be - and we have no disagreement, for example, that this is a good piece. Some might suggest, for example: Why are you going back now after a strike has taken place and giving somebody back something that they knew when they went out on strike, they knew the law of that time, they knew they were going to lose their pensionable time when they were on strike? Why are you doing it now? Especially - I do not know if this applies to all the rest of the pension units under government. If that is the case for the public service, for example, and so on, I am assuming that they had been treated fairly and equally, and the same opportunity applies and that they have not lost their pensionable time when they were on strike at any time in the past. So I am sure the minister can fill me in on that piece.

Also, how many - and has everyone who can take advantage of this amendment done so? My reading of the wording of it is, we are making it retroactive, which we understand will take it back to March 9, 2009, but it says you must have exercised your right to buy this back within three months, not later than June 30, 2009 – which has come and gone.

So as I say, I am sure the legislative draftsman would say I have missed something here in the logic – and I can see it if 100 per cent of the teachers who wanted to buy it back have bought it back, no problem. All we are doing here now is putting a piece of legislation in effect to justify what has already been done; no problem.

If there is anybody out there – I am wondering if there are any numbers, if the minister can tell us, has everybody who could avail of this taken advantage of it, because if they have not, I think we have an issue. If there is an issue, even if it is one single person who might not have been aware of it, for whatever reason. Again, I would not dare to guess what the reason might be. Maybe they just missed it. Maybe they did not read the NLTA newsletter that told them about this or whatever. If that is the case, if one person is negatively impacted because they have not seen it for whatever reason, but they could do it, I think we ought to deal with it now while we are doing it.

I never heard that. If there has been 100 per cent take up on this amendment, no problem, but if there has been anybody overlooked here, if we are going to be generous, which the government is being generous here to say you had the right to buy this back, let's not skip anybody in the process, simply by leaving that phrase in there: June 30, 2009. We can make this legislation retroactive all we want, but June 30, 2009 has come and gone. If anybody has not taken advantage of it now, I suggest that they are not going to be able to do it. Maybe there is something faulty in my logic, and I would appreciate an explanation of that as well, but I am asking the question just to clarify it so that we do not inadvertently miss anyone here in the course of doing this.

So those are the comments I would have, and I raised them in second reading so that I am sure the minister will get an opportunity in committee to provide the answers. So basically, the question is: Has everyone who could avail of this taken care of it? The second question: Is this unique to teachers only or has this courtesy been extended to all public sector personnel who ever went on strike in the Province, have they been given, or will they be given an opportunity, if that is the case, to also avail of the same thing and buy back their pensionable time?. I think if we are going to be fair, ultimately fair, we have to be fair to everybody who is involved in the pension schemes in the Province, to do the same thing.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I have no further questions at this time, and I will await the minister's comments when we get to the committee stage.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now, he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly will attempt to find the answers raised by the Opposition House Leader, and I close debate at this time.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 11, second reading of Bill 58.

MR. SPEAKER: We did not have second reading of Bill 57 yet.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill will now be 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 Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 57)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act". (Bill 58)

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 58, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, addresses eligibility for membership in the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Order, Mr. Speaker, is this Province's highest honour. It recognizes individuals who have demonstrated excellence and achievement in any field and who have benefited the Province and its residents in an outstanding manner.

Under the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Act as it stands now, Mr. Speaker, any Canadian citizen who is a current or former long-term resident of the Province is eligible for membership. In addition, Mr. Speaker, an individual who is not a Canadian citizen but who has demonstrated excellence in his or her field, or in his or her endeavours, have benefited the Province and its residents in an outstanding manner may be nominated as an honourary member.

Subsection 8(3) of the act, Mr. Speaker, also outlines who is not eligible to be nominated for or to receive the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador while they are in office. Currently, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House of Assembly or the Legislative Assembly of a province or members of the Senate or the House of Commons and judges are not eligible for membership in the Order.

We are bringing before this hon. House today, Mr. Speaker, an amendment to the act to have included under subsection 8(3) members of municipal councils or local service districts, as well as members of an Assembly or local government established under a lands claim agreement.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, individuals who are Members of the House of Assembly, the House of Commons or the Senate, as well as judges, are not eligible to be nominated to the Order, but it makes no reference to other elected officials such as individuals who may be members of a town council, for example. The amendment to the act which we are seeking today will ensure a consistent approach with regard to eligibility of membership for all elected officials.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, subsection 8(3) will be amended to add to the list of individuals who are not eligible for nomination or membership in the Order as follows, "(b) members of the St. John's Municipal Council, the Corner Brook City Council, the Mount Pearl City Council, or of a town council, regional council or local service district committee continued or established under the Municipalities Act, 1999, or of a council of a similarly constituted local government in another Province; (c) members of an assembly or local government established under a land claims agreement made under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada), and members of a band council established in accordance with the Indian Act (Canada)."

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is essentially an extension of the current legislation regarding eligibility for membership to include all elected officials regardless of the level of government for which they are serving, be it the local service district, a town council, provincial or federal governments or band councils.

Mr. Speaker, an act to establish the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador was put forward in May, 2001. The first investiture of members took place in 2004 and it is truly inspiring to review the list of individuals who have been inducted into the Order. To date, there have been forty-seven individuals in total and I would encourage all of the hon. members of this House and the general public to visit the Web site and read through the biographies of the inductees. These individuals come from all walks of life. They represent various fields and interests. Each has made a unique contribution to our Province and to our people.

Mr. Speaker, there is one attribute which they all hold in common, and that is their passion for Newfoundland and Labrador. This passion is demonstrated through their tireless commitment to further their field of interest of this Province and the people who live here. Their lives and achievements, Mr. Speaker, remind us of the many extraordinary people who make up this great Province and their talent and determination.

The newest inductees to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador were just recently announced by the Lieutenant-Governor and the Premier. Their investiture took place at Government House this past Friday, December 11. These nine individuals, Mr. Speaker, like those who have come before them, are a testament to the outstanding abilities of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in their professional and personal lives.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that people are aware that any person or group can nominate an individual for recognition by the Order. All the nominations received are considered and selected by the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Advisory Council with the composition of that Council set out in the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the amendment to section 8(3) of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador Act will create clarity around the eligibility of elected officials for this honour and further strengthen the selection process for years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to further comments on this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

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

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

Just a few remarks in regard to this particular bill. Of course, as the minister quite rightly said, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador was created back in 2001. I think it was the Grimes Administration at the time that created it. One of the provisions of it says that the Chancellor of the Order is actually the Lieutenant-Governor, and he is automatically a member of it. They put in certain requirements or conditions as to who could or who could not be eligible for membership. What we are seeing here today is a case where, again, it probably did not get every little piece of it right in the first place, so now we are tweaking it again to decide, or hopefully decide, that it is advancing the interest.

I noticed that the general premise of the clause that we are amending here, clause 8 of the old act talks about while in office. I think that is the operative words here. We are not talking about anyone who might have been a municipal politician, or an MHA, or a Premier, or whatever of these governments that are now being included, municipal governments, local service districts, City of St. John's, City of Corner Brook and so on, or a similar type of organization or municipal body from outside the Province.

For example, if you are a sitting member of the City of Halifax you will not be eligible for membership or to receive the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is a good idea, by the way. Once you are involved in the public process at sitting, you should not be eligible. That is not to say that you might not do something while you were in that position, which subsequently might make you a candidate for nomination because of something you did. Because section 4 of the act says, "The object of the Order is to recognize individuals who have demonstrated excellence and achievement in any field of endeavour benefiting in an outstanding manner the province and its residents."

So, you may well have someone who is involved in municipal politics, for example, who makes great contributions during their municipal involvement to advance the interests of their town, their community, their city, and hence the Province. We have no objection at all to ultimately being considered, but exclude them while they are actually fulfilling their civic duty in that position.

Just a little personal note, it happened to me this past weekend. The minister alluded to those individuals who had received the Order this past Friday. I happened to be at Chapters bookstore here in the City of St. John's on Kenmount Road and General Rick Hillier was there autographing books of his recently released book. There was a line up. There must have been hundreds in the line up, and I noticed all of a sudden he stopped. He held up the line, with 200 or 300 people in the line up. He stopped because a certain lady had entered the store. He marched her right up to the podium where he was. He stopped his signing and he said: Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry for having this lady jump the queue and jump to the head of the line, but I want to do this. It was of course Ms Gladys Osmond, who had received the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador just the preceding day on Friday. For those, of course, who are not aware, Ms Osmond - I believe it is Baie Verte she lives, in that area.

MR. BUTLER: Springdale.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Springdale. The General said: She has done more for the personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces, single-handedly, than anyone else that he could think of. She is the lady of course who writes all of these letters to the Armed Forces personnel who happen to be away for Christmas or doing terms of duty in other places in the world. It was so nice to see, that regardless of what he was doing – notwithstanding the fact he is no longer the General and he is no longer the Chief of Defence Staff, he was considerate enough, of all the hundreds that were there, he recognized her, brought her right up to the podium and acknowledged with thanks, gave her a big kiss and a big hug and thanked her for all that she is doing on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces members. It was very touching to see that. I can assure you, nobody in the line up had any problem whatsoever with her jumping the queue. I saw that living example of someone who was in fact brought into the organization and it was great.

Congratulations to all of those recipients who last Friday received their reward. It is indeed a great honour when somebody, your citizens, take enough belief and credit in you to recommend you. For all of those, whether you were a recipient or not, the fact that you were even recommended by your peers for consideration for the award says a lot about what you have contributed to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I agree, we agree, the Opposition will agree and vote for this bill. It is a great Order and hopefully for many years to come we will see, I am sure, a lot more honourable recipients, including people who are currently sitting politicians. We might be making a law here saying that they cannot be nominated and inducted into the Order while you are sitting, but it is not a case of excluding anyone eternally. This is a case of saying while you are filling your public duty, you will not be admitted but anyone is eligible after you cease your term of office.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Deputy Premier speaks now, she will close debate.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think in terms of my introduction of the bill and the subsequent remarks by the Opposition House Leader we have summed up the essence of this legislation. To distill it once more, Mr. Speaker, simply means that while you are holding elected office in this Province or in any other province in the country you will not be eligible to be nominated or to receive the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. This amendment was suggested to government from the Newfoundland and Labrador Order of Newfoundland Advisory Council, and we certainly concurred with their recommendation.

We do commend people to carry on with their good works and, of course, people who are involved in public life and particularly in some of the elected positions here in the Province, particularly on councils and so on are certainly committed to doing good things on behalf of the residents of this Province. Services for which they are usually unpaid, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes wrongly chastised as well. Somewhere at the end of the day there is an opportunity for people to reflect on people's contribution over the span of a lifetime and acknowledge the good that people do in the community and how much we appreciate it.

So with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I conclude debate on Bill 58.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: 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 Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 58)

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

When shall this 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 Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 58)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 49, 50, 54 and 58.

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 bills.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 49, An Act Respecting Public Accountants.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Public Accountants". (Bill 49)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 43 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 43 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 43 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Public Accountants.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act". (Bill 50)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: I would like to clarify some questions that the hon. member asked across the House in this Committee stage. If I have the indulgence of the House to use both my Blackberry and a few written notes that I made in regard to the questions asked where I can get them right and actually, hopefully clarified.

I think the first question that the hon. member asked was: Does the markup include refinery costs? The benchmark prices – the Platts benchmark, which is the finished product benchmarked after refining. There is no refinery cost in the wholesale or retail markup in that regard.

I think the second question you asked in regard to, I believe, was about marketing of the product itself. The marketing would not be included or taken into account as well because most of the marketing or all of the marketing that is done is done under the banner in which they sell their product. Esso would do all the marketing. It would not be the responsibility of the retailer to do any marketing. So that is not considered in the part of setting the price as well.

Also, I think you asked a question in regard to the North Atlantic Refinery. I was right; most of the product that North Atlantic Refinery actually refines goes outside the Province. Even though we see a fair number of their trucks around on our Trans-Canada Highway and elsewhere, most of their product actually goes out of the Province after refinery.

I think you asked in regard to another jurisdiction, Nova Scotia, in regard to how we average our actual pricing regime. Currently we use an average, a daily average of a two-week period. Nova Scotia uses a seven-day average, but they do not use the simple difference of a Tuesday data as well. They can also do what is called forwarding averaging which gives them just a little bit of an adjustment leverage but we do not use that in regard to our averaging at all. Also, it might be noted too, which puts a different kind of view to it; they use a different benchmark than we do as well. They use a New York H-Barge benchmark; we use actually a New York H-Cargo price. So that gives a difference there too, as well. It depends on – because there are many, many benchmarks that a person or a PUB could use. So it is all according to what benchmark they use to actually set the regulated price. Hopefully, that clarifies some of your questions.

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: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 54, An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act". (Bill 54)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 58, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act". (Bill 58)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 49, 50, 54 and 58.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 49, 50, 54 and 58 without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Deputy Speaker and Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 49, 50, 54 and 58 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 49, 50, 54, and 58 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is 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 of the clock tomorrow, being Wednesday.

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