The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of order in relation to comments made by the Leader of the Third Party on Thursday, November 22, 2012.

I read from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, a question, comment put to me by the Leader of the Third Party and Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, "Mr. Speaker, a report from the Harvard Kennedy School suggests a worldwide glut of oil production could drop the price of oil to below $60 a barrel for some time. This downward movement in the price of oil erodes the government's rationale for their Muskrat Falls Project."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there is an obligation on members of this House when referring to reports or making comments in this hon. House to be accurate in the information put forward, especially as this information is relied upon by the public. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, there is a reference to a price of oil, a report, and specifically then relating it to Muskrat Falls.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I obtained a copy of the report, it is called "Oil: The Next Revolution", it is by – out of the Harvard Kennedy School – a Leonardo Maugeri, June, 2012. Mr. Speaker, I have gone through that report, and nowhere in that report is the quote attributed to the author, by the Leader of the Third Party referenced. Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Third Party states that a report suggests a worldwide glut of oil production could drop the price of oil to $60 a barrel for some time.

Mr. Speaker, if you will just read the executive summary, you will see that the references there are to the fact that the author uses the assumption of $70 a barrel of Brent, in order to make his predictions. Also, Mr. Speaker, the author in this case is dealing with shale oil production in the United States and how that could impact the global oil business, in terms of the United States becoming potentially self-sufficient. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the comments mirror the report released by the Department of Natural Resources on PIRA's forecast methodology by Dr. Mark Schwartz, which was released at the same time we release electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, the only other reference that I can find in this report is that the shale oil would have to drop to $50 to $65 a barrel before it would be uneconomical, Mr. Speaker. What we have is a situation where the Leader of the Third Party references the price of oil, references the Muskrat Falls and there is no reference in a seventy-five page report to the comment that she makes.

Mr. Speaker, in fact when you look –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: When you look at the predictions of oil, and I have looked at now – I have PIRA, Sproule Associates, GLJ Petroleum Consultants, their latest forecast all indicate from 2012 to 2030 a barrel of oil will not go below $100 a barrel.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is the Leader of the Third Party providing inaccurate information to the public and I would suggest that that is not consistent with the role of a member of this House, and if she has not read the report that is even worse. If she is relying on the information provided by someone else, that is even worse.

Mr. Speaker, what we do on this side of the House, we rely on experts. We do not rely on what people tell us, who are non experts, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that in this particular case the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi apologize and withdraw her comments and not do it again.

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

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

I guess I am a bit surprised at this being called a point of order. There are all kinds of pieces of information that are out there around the issue that we are talking about, when one is putting a preamble together for a question then it is very possible that shorthand can be interpreted in many ways by different people.

There was no intent –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: There was no intent in any way, Mr. Speaker, to mislead the public or mislead this House. The intent of the preamble, the intent of the question I think was very clear and I absolutely do not see any point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will undertake to review Hansard and review the comments referenced and report back to the House at a later point.

Before we start proceedings today, I want to share a comment around consent with the House. This comes about as a result of a practice that had evolved over some time in the manner which the House has dealt with unanimous consent. I want to formally read for you a ruling that the Chair is making with respect to how we deal with consent in the House, and I would ask the House to be guided by this as we move forward.

In our House it has been the practice, when a member requests leave to "clue up" a speech, for the Speaker to ask if the member has leave. If no one objects, the member is given such leave. In this particular case, the question is very vague and the procedure very informal. The amount of time allocated to the member is not specified. We have allowed an individual member, on the basis of the consent being given by the House, individual members periodically will, on their own, withdraw such leave, and as a result the Chair has withdrawn leave.

This practice is an anomaly, as in other cases once leave is given it cannot be withdrawn, as once the decision is made the House is seized of the matter and the change can be effected only by another unanimous decision of the House.

For example, the Speaker has ruled that once leave has been given to waive the rules for a certain purpose it cannot be withdrawn in the middle of the proceeding for which leave has been given. Leave given to revert to Ministerial Statements, for example, was not allowed to be withdrawn before the Official Opposition had responded, as the statement and response are a unit. You will find that in Hansard, March 11, 1991, page 153.

Similarly, when leave has been given to forego Private Members' Day in favour of government business, leave could not be withdrawn during that day. The Speaker ruled that the Order Paper had been prepared as per the agreement and the proceedings thus far had been in accordance with that agreement. It was an order not to withdraw leave. You will find that in Hansard, July 24, 1996, on pages 1168-37.

In other jurisdictions, once leave is given it cannot be withdrawn with the exception of another decision of the House: unanimous consent is again required or, if such a decision was taken on a motion, by another motion.

In cases of leave to exceed speaking time, in future, unless a specified amount of time is requested, the member asking for leave will ask for leave for a very specific period of time. In the absence of that happening, and the consent is given, from here on in presiding officers will specify that the amount of time allocated for leave to clue up will be two minutes.

If members are asking for leave to clue up, in the absence of specifying an amount of time that they have, the Chair will automatically assume it is two minutes. Leave cannot be withdrawn in that period of time, but, at the end of the two-minute period the leave will expire.

This should deal with the whole issue of unanimous consent. I would ask members to recognize: when the House provides unanimous consent to do something, it should not do it lightly. Recognize that once you have given it, the House is seized with it and you will not be able to withdraw it. I would ask members to be guided by this as we move forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from: the Member for the District of Humber West; the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor – Green Bay South; the Member for the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair; the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; and the Member for the District of St. John's South.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this House to congratulate the Forget Me Not Committee for their tireless efforts in bringing about remarkable enhancements to Remembrance Square in Corner Brook.

The work of local sculptor Morgan MacDonald is nothing short of remarkable and is on full display in the square. Through the work of the Committee, there are now three sculptures that adorn the cenotaph; they include a caribou unveiled in July 2012, as well as sculptures of a First World War veteran modelled after a Lewis gunner and a modern-day soldier styled after those who have served and continue to serve in Afghanistan, both of which were unveiled on November 10 of this year. The Lewis gunner, as it is positioned closest to St. John the Evangelist Cathedral, really gives a feel for the past, while the modern-day soldier provides a feel for the present by flanking the new city hall.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Forget Me Not Committee, as well as sculptor Morgan MacDonald, for their incredible work, and wish them well as they embark to finally complete the project with a couple of more additions in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate seven-year-old Christopher Higgins of Grand Falls-Windsor on his keen and creative art and writing skills. Christopher is not writing and colouring his drawings just for fun; he loves to help people and he has put all his abilities together to write books.

He decided to put his talent to work as a fundraiser for the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre. He loves action heroes and draws and writes books and sells them to family and friends. He has sold fifteen books and has about thirty left to sell. He has raised $89.20. This money he makes goes to the hospital because he heard on the news that they needed extra money.

I ask my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in thanking Christopher for sharing his talent and money, and wish him every success in future book writing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate Mr. Terry Casey on receiving the Distinguished School Administrator of the Year Award for 2011-2012.

This award is known as the Victor May Award and is presented every year by the Western School District. Formal nominations are submitted and his nomination was submitted by the school council in the Labrador Straits region.

Mr. Casey is currently the principal of Labrador Straits Academy. He had taken on that position when the new regional school was built in the area just over two years ago. He has spent over twenty-seven years in the education field and he has been instrumental in the lives of so many young people in that area throughout his career.

Mr. Casey believes in working in partnership with community, with teachers, and with parents. No doubt that has been a large part of his success as an administrator.

I ask members in the House to join me in congratulating him on being presented with the Distinguished Administrator of the Year Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 17, I had the pleasure of attending the Meadows Volunteer Fire Department fortieth anniversary celebrations. It was a great evening honouring the contribution and dedication of this group of firefighters who have given their time and services to the town.

This evening also marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Firettes who have given unwavering support to the fire department. On Sunday night they demonstrated this again by donating $7,000, bringing their total to almost $70,000.

Mr. Speaker, the evening also recognized Mr. Derek Hann, the longest-serving member of the department, for his forty years of service. In recognition of his service, Mr. Hann received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, as well as being award the Firefighter of the Year Award.

In addition to Mr. Hann, five other residents were presented with the Diamond Jubilee Medals for their long-time contribution to the town. Recipients of the medals were: Jim and Phyllis Brake, Roger White, Mayor Ken Marche, and Fire Chief Colin Tucker.

Mr. Speaker, it was very fitting that on the department's fortieth anniversary they took the liberty of their new 1050 pumper fire truck, which I had the honour of presenting on behalf of the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations to the Meadows volunteer firefighters, Firettes, and the Diamond Jubilee Medal recipients on their contribution and dedicated service to the town.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate O'Donel High School student, Hannah Jardine, on her recent success in the sport of basketball.

Any day now, Hannah will sign her contract with the University of Delaware, where the University of Delaware Blue Hens is ranked seventh overall in United States women's college basketball. Playing NCAA Division One basketball on a full scholarship is a tremendous achievement that requires celebration by both Ms Jardine and her friends and family.

Already having experience playing internationally, most recently Hannah helped Team Canada win a bronze medal at the FIBA Under-17 World Championship held in Amsterdam this past August. She has been turning the heads of basketball scouts for quite some time. Along with her promising basketball career, Hannah will also pursue an engineering degree while attending university.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Hannah Jardine on this significant achievement, as well as wishing her all the best with her academic and basketball career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, today I acknowledge the work of a consistent in my district, Karen Moores, who this month is leading efforts to raise awareness of pancreatic cancer in this Province. In honour of her late mother, Karen is raising funds for Pancreatic Cancer Canada through Purple Hope, an on-line auction.

Purple is the colour promoted by the national office of Pancreatic Cancer Canada during November, Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. Please wear the ribbons on your desk to support the many Newfoundland and Labrador families who know first-hand the devastating impact of this cancer.

Pancreatic Cancer is among the most lethal cancers: approximately 74 per cent of people diagnosed will die within a year; 4,400 Canadian families will face the horrors of this cancer this year.

Through Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month and activities like the Pancreatic Cancer Purple Hope Auction, we can work to change the face of this cancer here at home and around the world.

I applaud the work of Karen Moores in honour of her late mother and wish her and the Pancreatic Cancer Canada Team the best as they work to raise funds towards early detection and research for this cancer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to announce the start of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's third annual Purple Ribbon Campaign to increase awareness and education on violence against women.

The campaign, which is funded through the Violence Prevention Initiative, will run until December 10, coinciding with the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence.

Women in Newfoundland and Labrador experience physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, spiritual, and cultural violence, as well as verbal and financial abuse and neglect. According to RNC and RCMP data, from 2006 to 2010 over 14,000 violent incidents were committed against women over the age of eighteen in our Province. Unfortunately, we know that the actual number is likely quite higher, as only 10 per cent of women will report victimization to police.

Our government's response to violence in the Province is our Violence Prevention Initiative, a six-year, multi-departmental, government-community partnership to find long-term solutions to violence against those most at risk. Over the past year, we have been completing a comprehensive consultation and evaluation process on the first phase of the violence prevention initiative. We are also currently finalizing the Phase II Action Plan, which will help us continue to address violence against core populations most likely to experience violence and abuse.

Violence against women is an issue that we must all come together to address. The Purple Ribbon Campaign is a great example of how the provincial government and the community works together to prevent violence in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, both and men and women can help spread the message that violence of any kind is unacceptable. Over the next sixteen days, I ask all residents to show their support for ending violence against women by wearing a Purple Ribbon pin and placing a Purple Ribbon magnet on their vehicle.

Purple Ribbon Campaign materials are available in communities across the Province, through municipalities and Regional Coordinating Committees Against Violence. To find out where you can obtain Purple Ribbon materials or to get more information on preventing violence against women, please visit www.respectwomen.ca.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The Purple Ribbon Campaign was launched a couple of years ago to help create awareness and prevent violence against women. I am always encouraged whenever I see people sporting the magnet on their cars because it is creating more and more awareness of what is actually happening in our society. In the news today we hear a story from Natuashish where police are searching for a woman who was physically assaulted on Friday in that community and is now in hospital.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the MHA for Torngat Mountains has lobbied government to reconsider the mandate that Aboriginals be given special treatment in sentencing. I commend him for his honesty and advocacy regarding violence in Aboriginal communities. Certainly, we know violence against women happens in all cultures, but if you look at the statistics they show that Aboriginal women are approximately three-and-a-half times more likely to experience some form of spousal violence than non-Aboriginal women.

The 2008 Statistics Canada survey revealed that only 4 per cent of women are unable to identify their abuser. Unfortunately, and sadly, 85 per cent of cases of violence against women, their perpetrator is their spouse or their partner. Women are most at risk in their own homes, and that is a very chilling thought. Separation is a particularly dangerous time for women, as we know, with 80 per cent of murders are by ex-spouses and they occur within a year of separation.

Many of us know of women who live in fear with a partner or a spouse and we need to ensure there is protection and there are options and services for women who have the courage to walk away from their abuser. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is critical and it is crucial that we demonstrate our intolerance for violence against women by supporting the provincial government's Purple Ribbon Campaign and continuing to advocate for justice for all women inflicted by violence in our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and thank you to all those who have worked so hard on this campaign.

The lack of safe and affordable housing is a major barrier to women being able to get out of abusive relationships. Women are staying longer in transition houses and second-stage housing because they cannot find affordable housing in the community to start a new life with their children. Rents and housing prices have doubled across the Province and any form of housing is scarce.

Women and children escaping violence are also entering a world where single moms live in poverty, where Income Support, even with child supplements is not enough for women to raise their children on. I hope that Phase II of the Violence Prevention Initiative will address the barriers of housing and income for women escaping violence.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We learned this morning through a CBC investigation that another proposal for the former Abitibi mill in Grand Falls-Windsor is dead. The Minister of Natural Resources stated in May that there were serious discussions ongoing with York Energy.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

York Energy was seeking $12 million from the government and an allotment of fibre to proceed with what they said would be a wood pellet facility, thermal plant and sawmill. The first proposal, Mr. Speaker, was received on November 26, 2010. For almost two years, Mr. Speaker, we were in conversation with this group. There were numerous areas of uncertainty and an inability to obtain financial information.

In July 2012 – sorry, I am not allowed to point over that – we were told there would be no sawmill. Mr. Speaker, at that point, that was the last straw. We indicated to York Energy that we were no longer interested in proceeding with them. There will be an expression of interest sent out in 2013.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The situation is like government's previous attempt to negotiate a deal with a German paper company. That company turned out to be bankrupt. Here we go again, back and forth with York Energy for over two years, as the minister said. What do we actually know about York Energy? Apparently nothing, because nobody has really heard of them.

I ask the Premier: What due diligence is given to potential investors in our resource-based industries? Will you please table all the documents related to the negotiations with York Energy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There were three government departments involved in this file; there was Finance, IBRD, and my department, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite has actually hit upon the main issue: that we could not find the information to verify what York was saying.

We kept going back and saying: provide us with the financial information, provide us with the financial information. They said they had backings, Mr. Speaker, of different investors. I was on one phone call where there were investors from Toronto on the call.

Mr. Speaker, we did what we could, because we feel that we have to do what we can to ensure the growth in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We have done what we can in Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker. We wanted this mill to work. We are not going out on a limb and wasting government money, and $12 million is simply too much to ask in this case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that this government has not only failed the people of Central Newfoundland by failing to land a credible proposal for the mill, but they have also allowed the property to fall into disrepair. The mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor even stated that the property is deteriorating on a weekly basis.

I ask the Premier: When are you going to clean up the hundreds of millions of dollars of mess that you accidentally expropriated?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have gone forward with expressions of interest, letting everyone know what is available in the Central part of our Province. We have developed reasonable terms to talk to people, to encourage development. It just has not happened.

We are not going to put $12 million on the table unless we have a good, solid business plan and a prospect for success, Mr. Speaker. Until the possibilities are completely and totally eliminated for the use of the infrastructure in Grand Falls, we will continue to maintain it. When the opportunities no longer exist and we are sure of that, Mr. Speaker, then we will deal with the issues in Grand Falls with regard to infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: The question was more about the environmental damage that is being done out there. We all know there have been serious changes made, even around security.

Mr. Speaker, another question. Back on April 26, I asked the Premier to release the terms of reference to the Ziff study on natural gas. At the time the Premier agreed, but never followed through. Last week, a former energy advisor, Mr. Cabot Martin, issued a scathing review of Ziff's report on natural gas.

So I ask the Premier: After committing to the release of the terms of reference on April 26, why are you still holding it back? Why are you still hiding that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When Dr. Stephen Bruneau gave his presentation at the Harris Centre, he made some serious proposals, something we felt had to be looked at. We retained Ziff. They watched the Harris presentation of Dr. Bruneau, but then we decided to go a step further.

Unlike Mr. Martin, we will name our experts. What I have here in my hands, Mr. Speaker, is a report from Wood Mackenzie, a highly-recognized international energy advisor, which says: in Ziff's report on the natural gas pipeline, the analysis and conclusion were reasonable, but if anything, Ziff's estimates of cost were lower than what Wood Mackenzie's would have been. They went on to say that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador may find it difficult to enter a contract.

We will be releasing this report this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When he is tabling that report, why don't we put the terms of reference of Ziff on the table as well?

Mr. Speaker, environmental and Aboriginal groups are in court in Ottawa today fighting the limited scope of the environmental assessment on the Muskrat Falls Project. While these proceedings are ongoing, the Premier is barrelling through with this project.

I ask the Premier: How can you justify ploughing ahead with this project while water management agreements are untested, Emera is not confirmed as a partner, and Aboriginal environment claims are unsettled? How can you do this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, the terms of reference of all reports will be released over the next couple of days: not just Ziff, but MHI, PIRA, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the claims that are being heard in Ottawa today, as we have seen in this Province in recent times, anyone can take someone to court. We have seen it with Mr. C, Mr. Speaker.

What we have here in Ottawa is an Aboriginal group who feels they have a claim. It is their right, Mr. Speaker, to have their application heard. It does not mean it is valid and it does not mean that we will allow anyone who files a claim to shut down a project. In these particular circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the court and it will be determined by the court if there is any validity to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In early November, the Premier stated that she would try and gauge the level of interest of the new Quebec government in working with our Province in developing Gull Island. The Premier had the opportunity to meet with Premier Marois last week in Halifax, but we have yet to hear how those discussions went.

So, I ask the Premier: How did the discussions go, and is Quebec a willing partner in the development of the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting Premier Marois this weekend. It was certainly an interesting conversation, to have a dialog amongst Premiers with a sovereignist at the table. It was a new experience, certainly for me, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, Premier Marois and I did not discuss the development of the Lower Churchill at COF this weekend; it was not the purpose of COF. We had a full agenda, and I am happy to talk more to that if the Leader of the Opposition has other questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Recently, government hired Eric Dunne to conduct a review of the 2J crab policy in Labrador. This policy has allowed for stable employment growth and investment in the Labrador fishery. To change it would mean a significant impact on the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company and communities in Southern Labrador – my district.

I ask the minister: Will you maintain the policy, given that the shrimp company is a perfect example of how future fisheries should be working in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the hon. member for the question. The crab stocks in 2J in Labrador and the reduction in capacity with the closure of plants obviously is a serious issue for the industry in Labrador. We are very cognizant of that, Mr. Speaker, and obviously that will all be factored into some of the decisions we need to make around the whole issue of restrictions for processing crab in Labrador.

What we did do was hire Eric Dunne – a respected individual in the fishing industry – to do a review for us, to do some consultations on the ground, and look at the implications of the current restriction and what impact it would have, particularly around capacity and around the price paid to harvesters. So, when we do get that review, Mr. Speaker, we will certainly render a decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier. Government's own report has concluded that should all the potential mining opportunities come to fruition in Labrador, the power requirements would be 1,400 megawatts by 2020, which is just seven years away.

I ask the Premier: Should this scenario happen, who gets the priority for power: the Island, Nova Scotia, or Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the member opposite has had an opportunity to review the Labrador mining paper which was released by our department, you will see that there are various phases that a company has to go to before they get to mine. Mr. Speaker, what essentially this is, from our perspective, is first-come, first-served. He, who signs on the dotted line, gets the power.

What we have seen at this point is that there is no one who has come forward with firm offers. People are watching the commodities market very closely, Mr. Speaker. As the Chinese economy goes, so goes the iron ore market. Although we know there are great investments in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, potentially $10 billion to $15 billion of development, we at this stage have not the firm contract offers to be able to say where the power is going to go.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have always seen fluctuations in the price of iron ore and in the markets when it comes to the mining industry, and I am very hopefully and optimistic that we are going to see a lot of these mines come to fruition over the time period that Wade Locke has defined by 2020.

I ask the government: You have maintained that power will be available for the mining companies, but how will these companies access the power from Muskrat Falls? Where will they plug in to a line?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The $16.2 billion that is the cost of the Newfoundland and Labrador share of this project includes the building of a line from Muskrat Falls to Churchill Falls, which is approximately 250 to 300 kilometres. We would then, Mr. Speaker, have to build another line to the Labrador West area, which would be shared by the mining companies based on the industrial rates policy which would have a generation component, Mr. Speaker, and also a transmission component.

Now, once we get to other parts of Labrador such as the Menihek region, we will have to have discussions with the companies who are there. I will be meeting again in the very near future with Tata Steel to have a discussion with them as to what do they propose in terms of the development of their mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer because we all know that the existing transmission lines have reached their full capacity.

I guess my question to the minister and to the government is: Through Nalcor, will you become directly involved in the building of new transmission capacity for the Labrador mining industry and industrial customers in Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Lab West area is easier to use because we have Alderon over there, we have Julienne Lake, we have IOC, and we have Wabush Mines. There is a cluster of mines there. If you were to build a line, Mr. Speaker, the way that it is generally done, there is a one rate which applies to per megawatt hour, but that is a generation component and a transmission component.

We would build a line, or Nalcor would build a line, Mr. Speaker. Users would pay, as they pay now, based on their use of the line. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, over a period of time the line would pay for itself.

At this point in time, the only line that appears to be feasible would be the building of the line from Churchill Falls to Labrador West. Again, Mr. Speaker, so much is dependent on the iron ore markets and on the commodity markets in China and the price of iron ore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. We now know that the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in Quebec will stay open for at least another year, until the fall of 2013. The Quebec centre was supposed to close at the same time as the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's.

I ask the Premier today: Have you had any further discussions with Stephen Harper? How did it come to be that Quebec remains open while Newfoundland and Labrador is closed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is only this morning that I have confirmed that the federal direction will not be delayed. As a matter of fact, they are not going to be backing away from that direction. They are taking the phased-in approach; St. John's was the first phase. The second phase is to move the western part of Quebec into Trenton – or the first part of the phase is going to be into JRCC in Halifax, I am sorry. The third part of that phase is going to be into Trenton, taking the West of Quebec. They are not moving away from it. As a matter of fact, it is moving rapidly.

Our position has always been, and it will remain that way, is that the sub-centre in St. John's should never have been shut down. We will continue to advocate for more resources when it comes to search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this government and Ocean Choice International have entered into a secret agreement to give away 75 per cent of unprocessed yellowtail to China rather than maximizing processing jobs here in this Province. The new minister has stated repeatedly that a final decision will be made soon.

I ask the minister: Has he yet decided to stand up for our people, or will he join the long list of those who give everything away?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is last week, the member continues to confuse the fishery issues. He just said we are into an agreement and then he said we are waiting for the final decision. Which is it? It is just like aquaculture, do we want to shut it down or do we want to do more?

Mr. Speaker, our position certainly with OCI is an issue that we are considering, and considering in terms of their request for an exemption and work with the people of Fortune. Ultimately, these decisions are ones we make in the best interests, the economic benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Just like we do with aquaculture, Mr. Speaker, when we see there is a benefit, we will make the right decisions for these communities and we will do the right thing for Fortune as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a number of small processors in this Province are interested in processing a portion of OCI's yellowtail quota. Further, the FFAW has called for a developmental quota to be allocated from OCI's yellowtail and redfish quotas.

I ask the minister: Has government received any proposals outside of OCI, and, if so, what decisions have been made on those requests?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, something I have come to grips with very early in dealing with the OCI Fortune issue is there is significant emotion attached to this issue, as well as a strong business economic case as well.

Since becoming the minister, and obviously hearing from OCI and the FFAW, and the people of Fortune, I have also taken my time to listen to the concerns and requests that have been submitted, calls, e-mails, all kinds of things that have come forward, Mr. Speaker. It is a due diligence process, I guess, that I will follow and certainly inform the member and the other people of the Province that I will consider all of those in rendering a final decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in January, 2012, our Fisheries Minister met with his federal counterpart to discuss OCI's landing obligations associated with the company's licence. This licence is set to expire in less than five years and thereafter, OCI can land this quota anywhere.

I ask the minister: What is the status of this request to Ottawa to keep the company landing our fish in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the federal government allocates the quotas, whether it is companies like OCI or whether it is individual quotas to harvesters. In this particular case, OCI had bought FPI's licences and have been allocated a quota for nine years, of which four years are left. We have made representation to the federal government around this issue but, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, there is no decision made beyond the four years. At this point, we would assume that quotas will be reallocated as they are to all harvesters and companies in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, all three rounds of this year's Job Creation Partnerships programs, or JCPs have been missed by months. The second round was never publicly announced and the third round is still unknown. There has been a complete lack of communication on this program.

I ask the Minister of Advanced Education: After three months of delays, when will you announce the third and final round of JCPs for this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a substantial portion of the budget from the Department of Advanced Education and Skills that goes into our job creation project every year. Mr. Speaker, we do have a changing labour market in the Province and we want to make sure that we use the money appropriately to ensure that people who are most in need, those collecting EI, have access to the jobs. We do a proportional basis of how that money is allocated, Mr. Speaker. To date we have spent $9.7 million in the Province on JCPs and I am happy to report that as of today, 1,100 people in Newfoundland and Labrador have been able to benefit from the JCP program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier said her government is charged to be stewards of the Province's fiscal situation. She also said the Province's money must be managed appropriately with every project that they do, including a hospital requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to build.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why isn't it appropriate to put the Muskrat Falls project – which requires billions of dollars – back in the hands of the regulatory body mandated to review such a project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this project has had more scrutiny and more review than any project in the history of our Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we brought this project to the Public Utilities Board and spent over $2 million and nine months, and at the end of that process did not receive a recommendation from the PUB even though we were able to get one from its expert and get one from its consumer advocate. We are not prepared to delay the project for a year, Mr. Speaker, and add in excess of $300 million to the project for ratepayers to increase rates, to go through the same process again and probably end up with the same result.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a news conference on Friday in Halifax, the Premier, discussing the dispute with Quebec over the Old Harry formation, said she wanted to follow the established process, and the only fixed position she had on negotiations was she wanted to see fairness and transparency determine the outcome.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why won't she practice what she preaches and offer those same standards to the people of her own Province when it comes to the Muskrat Falls project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of these days I would be absolutely delighted to hear from the Opposition Parties – both the Liberals and the NDP – what their issues are around Old Harry, because I do not believe either one of them understands the project.

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago there was an attempt to develop a boundary between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador; a boundary was arrived at, but it was not ratified amongst the provinces. The position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is: we are not prepared to ratify the boundary on Old Harry based on fifty-year-old information. We are saying to the federal government and to our neighbours: we need to update the information.

The Old Harry boundary may be in the same place at the end of the day; our only caveat is that it be done fairly and transparently, like all things we do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Premier stated that the PUB in the executive summary of the report on the Muskrat Falls Project agreed with Nalcor and MHI that based on Decision Gate 2 numbers, we did need the power and indeed it was the least-cost alternative. I have read that document and I believe it says the opposite.

I wonder if the Premier read the same report as I did, Mr. Speaker. I ask her: Will she show this House where in the PUB report's executive summary it says that they believe we need the power, and that they believe Muskrat Falls is the least-cost alternative? They say the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to provide same, because unlike the Leader of the Third Party, I read reports before I quote them in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The Premier is going to get some shock when she reads that executive summary herself.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources, like his colleagues, likes to dodge and weave around questions from this side of the House on Muskrat Falls rather than actually answer them.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will he give the people of the Province a firm, guaranteed price per kilowatt hour that will appear on their monthly bill when Muskrat Falls comes on-line? Yes or no.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have released a paper that deals with electricity rates. We look at three profiles: the 90,000 people who do not use electric heat, the 140,000 people who use electric heat, and we put the 230,000 people together and we come up with an average profile, Mr. Speaker. We take into account the different alternatives that could exist.

What turns out, Mr. Speaker, is at the end of the day, and this is very interesting, with Muskrat Falls – or excuse me, let me put it this way: without Muskrat Falls, the increase in power rates will double after 2017.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, earlier this fall, a parent of a child with Down syndrome had to resort to contacting the media to gain access to appropriate special education services for her child. Five years ago, the ISSP/Pathways Commission recommended that the Department of Education create a transparent appeals process for parents who experience frustration in accessing special education services.

Why is this minister more focused on turning a blind eye to problems faced by students with special needs, instead of taking responsibility for this government's failure to adopt this key recommendation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that some parents seem to find themselves in that situation, but one thing about it, there is a process in place. It is called the ISSP process, sanctioned by the various groups that participate within education. Within that system, Mr. Speaker, you have teachers, students, parents, all coming together to develop a plan for all students.

Our efforts on behalf of special education students in this Province, Mr. Speaker, are top-notch. The challenges that come with special education students, Mr. Speaker, are always a concern and a priority for this government, and will continue to be a priority for this government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the ISSP/Pathways Commission was clear about the need to offer emotionally upset families an effective avenue to resolve their concerns. Instead of providing an appeals process, government is forcing parents to bring their problems to the media instead of a mediator.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government refusing to accept the fact that they are failing vulnerable children with special education needs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we are not failing the students with special needs. In fact, the investments of this government have been second to none. The investments in putting an additional 250 student assistants into the system, our funding of programs, Mr. Speaker, it is ongoing. Mr. Speaker, the ISSP process works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, community supported agriculture, such as community gardens, have been sprouting up in urban and rural communities across the Province and country, helping local people get access to fresh produce. Fishers in this Province are restricted from selling their catch directly to local consumers; yet, fishers in other jurisdictions of Canada and the US can.

Will the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture look into amending legislation that prohibits fishers from selling direct?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That issue has been raised a number of times to us and we are giving it serious consideration. Again, looking at, as we do with all aspects of the fishery, what the economic benefit is to the whole fishing industry and how this will impact both the harvesting and processing side as well. Mr. Speaker, we have it under review, and we will certainly report to the House when we are concluded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, reports indicate a resurgence of cod in our waters; yet, commercial cod quotas remain stagnant, fish buyers few, and prices hovered around fifty cents a pound. The local market demands access to fresh cod, and without amending legislation the department can issue a new buying licence to co-op or development organizations to start a buyers club and pursue small-scale, community-supported fisheries.

I ask the minister: Will he permit the new issue of fish-buying licences or will he continue to support a repressive structure for selling local cod?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, two points that I would have expected the Fisheries critic from the other side to be aware of. One is the issue of the resource, the cod, what is available, and what is available to be processed is an absolute federal issue. They are the ones who assign quotas, particularly in the cod fishery, but I am happy and pleased to say in this House as well, that we have seen significant increase in cod and we are certainly encouraged by that.

On the other issue of licences, Mr. Speaker, we have a licensing process in place in this Province independent of government. I certainly encourage the member to invite all those who are interested, to follow that process.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, fishers on Fogo Island and Change Islands have successfully implemented sustainable fishing practices that bring high-quality cod by using cod pots to sell their catch to niche markets. The difference is really dollars versus cents.

What is the Minister of Fisheries doing to further promote cod pot initiatives in other regions of the Province which puts more money back in the pockets of fishers and high-quality of cod sold to the local market?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: I certainly appreciate the member opposite raising a very important issue, very important for the people in my district, Mr. Speaker.

The Fogo Island, Change Islands, and Twillingate area is certainly a prominent area in this Province in the fishery, Mr. Speaker. It is very much engaged and proactive in what is happening in the fishing industry. We have had some good success with cod potting, Mr. Speaker, but again, that comes from support from this government, our support for science and research. We will continue –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the 2011 Annual Report for the Public Accounts Licensing Board, the 2011 Annual Activity Report of the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board, and the 2011-2012 Annual Report of the Chartered Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with section 19.(5)(a) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meetings held on January 25, April 25, and July 4, 2012.

Notices of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to put a motion forward:

WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of the Public Utilities has the mandate through the Electrical Power Control Act Board to ensure that the Province shall have the most efficient production, transmission, and distribution of power at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable services; and

WHEREAS the proposed development of Muskrat Falls will leave profound effects on the rates paid by electricity users of the Province for decades to come;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to compel Nalcor to submit the proposed Muskrat Falls development to the Board of Commissioners of the Public Utilities for a complete and unrestricted review.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I table the following private member's motion, a resolution regarding access to information.

WHEREAS free and open access to government information is essential to the function of the democratic process; and

WHEREAS publicly held and publicly funded information should be released to the public unless there is a clear and sufficient reason to keep the matter confidential; and

WHEREAS this government has amended the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, ATIPPA, through Bill 29, which has created new and expensive categories of secret information;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges the government to repeal Bill 29.

It is seconded by the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As per Standing Order 63, I give notice that on Wednesday, we will call the motion put forward by the Member for Humber Valley.

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

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth.

WHEREAS Job Creation Partnerships are used to assist unemployed workers in gaining work experience and developing skills, and to assist unemployed workers in areas of high unemployment; and

WHEREAS there were at least twelve applications for JCP projects made by sponsors from the northern area of St. Barbe district, an area of high unemployment; and

WHEREAS all but one of these applications were denied funding and the one that was approved received only partial funding; and

WHEREAS the District of Trinity – Bay de Verde is an area of such low unemployment that recently an employer, unable to find enough employees, was forced to hire twenty temporary foreign workers; and

WHEREAS thirteen JCP projects were awarded in the District of Trinity – Bay de Verde for a total of $677,000 in grants, even though there appears to be no available unemployed workers to avail of these public funds;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to review and revise the manner that it awards JCP projects in this Province to a more equitable manner, based primarily on the need of the applicant area, type or work experience proposed, and the long-term economic benefit to the region.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sore point for many areas of the Province. The government recently rolled out the first round of JCP proposals. In the JCP proposals, the minister very carefully awarded the highest number and the highest amount to Trinity – Bay de Verde district, then awarded the second-highest amount to her critic, my colleague for Burgeo – La Poile. After that name, she awarded the absolute bulk of funds next available to a series of ministers in succession.

It appears, Mr. Speaker, like absolute political pork barrelling. It causes a loss of confidence in government. We can see on an ongoing basis that the JCP projects are still ‘unawarded'. Businesses that expected to receive JCP awards, non-profit organizations that expected to receive JCP awards, Mr. Speaker, for the tourist season, not the winter tourist season but the tourist season just started approximately at the beginning of this summer are still waiting.

This program was administered in such an inept fashion that third rounds were called for before second rounds had been approved or rejected. Applicants did not know if they were going to receive second round funding and were being told now to apply for third round funding. Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are absolutely amazed, distraught, concerned at such an improper way of awarding these JCP funds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Eastern School District is considering a multi-year plan to close Catalina Elementary in June 2013; and

WHEREAS it has been proven by the spring CRT 2012 results, that Catalina Elementary exceeds the district and provincial numbers; and

WHEREAS the educators at Catalina Elementary are qualified and provide a strong academic program with a full curriculum; and

WHEREAS Catalina Elementary has developed grounds, including a playground, soccer field, and basketball-hockey court, as stipulated in the Active and Healthy Living Guidelines of the Bonavista School District provided through community support; and

WHEREAS Catalina Elementary, being a newer school, is structurally sound, with a music room, science lab, and cafeteria; and

WHEREAS the parents, business operators, social groups, and concerned citizens of the municipality of Trinity Bay North, in the Eastern School District, request to rescind this proposal.

Since Catalina Elementary has met and exceeded all aspects set forth for a viable school, we the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with sufficient funding to keep Catalina Elementary School open.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again present this petition on behalf of the school council at Catalina Elementary. I note that the Eastern School District will begin a second phase of public consultations on the proposed closure of Catalina Elementary tonight in Bonavista at Discovery Collegiate. That meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.

Parents will once again have an opportunity to raise their concerns with the trustees. Of course, we recognize the autonomy of school district trustees to make these sorts of decisions, but we also recognize that school districts work within finite budgets that are provided by the Department of Education. Mr. Speaker, we could say that as go our rural and small schools, so goes our rural and small communities.

I was recently provided with some interesting research done by the school council at Catalina Elementary. I would like to note a point from a research article titled, "Should We Keep Rural Schools Open?" It says, "Smaller schools have more positive educational outcomes...Changes in the educational system, such as consolidation, must ultimately include learning outcomes as part of the cost savings equation. If consolidation leads to saving money but impacts negatively upon student performance, then what really has been saved."

I would say, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the government has billions for Muskrat Falls, yet this particular school in Catalina is proposed to close at this time. I hope the members opposite will think about that and hear the concerns of these petitioners.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allocated time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Regional Economic Development Boards diversify, grow, and strengthen economies throughout the Province by providing training opportunities, marketing advice, proposal writing, leveraging funds, collaboration, and other means; and

WHEREAS the federal government's decision to cut funding to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) is resulting in the elimination of funding to the RED Boards and their termination in May 2013; and

WHEREAS 75 per cent of the operational funding for the RED Boards, roughly $3.6 million, is provided by ACOA with the additional 25 per cent from the provincial government; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development has $200 million in their suite of programming, some of which as poor uptake; and

WHEREAS just 1.5 per cent of the Business Attraction Fund of the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development was used last year, $366,800 of a $25 million budget;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to commit bridge funding in its 2013 Budget, which may come from the Business Attraction Fund, to help preserve the RED Boards in Newfoundland and Labrador, provide support to municipalities, communities, organizations, and businesses.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition has over 500 signatures on it from communities in Bonavista, Port Rexton, Catalina, Englee, Sandy Cove, Roddickton, North West River, Portugal Cove – St. Phillips, Norman's Cove, Rocky Harbour, Carbonear, Clarenville, Port Blandford, Parson's Pond, Steady Brook, Forteau, L'Anse-au-Loup, Colliers, Deer Lake, Birchy Bay, and a number of other communities.

Mr. Speaker, we see that with a loss of Regional Economic Development Boards on the ground, the partnerships, the institutional knowledge they have, there will certainly be a void left for co-ordination to develop initiatives and to move forward. There is not a long period of transition to pass this along.

Seeing that the Province had cut funding even earlier than what ACOA has, it certainly sees that we are having a real loss of collaboration. We cannot work in a vacuum here. We have to look at what is government going to do? What types of initiatives will it have so that we can truly move forward on regional economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador?

There was a start for performance-based management. What was the point of going into performance-based management if it was going to be cut and if poor-performing boards were not going to be phased out and to keep high-performing boards? I do not see the point in looking at saving the $1.25 million versus keeping maybe five of the top performers, or looking at elaborating on the Rural Secretariat and maybe saving office space and using their resources as well to really promote policy and economic development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated to the member has expired.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly for Newfoundland and Labrador in session assembled:

WHEREAS rental rates in the city have increased considerably within the past number of years; and

WHEREAS the rental component of benefits provided to those receiving Income Support has not increased at the same rate; and

WHEREAS the availability of affordable housing is becoming more and more challenging, making it more difficult for those who receive Income Support to rent suitable housing;

THEREFORE, we the residents of St. John's wish to petition the House of Assembly in Legislative Session to review the living allowance portion of Income Support that is used to pay rent.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition that I have signed today, one of the individuals who signed the petition and provided me with their signature has informed me that their apartment is rented at $450 a month. That apartment could be rented for $600 or $700 a month. The only reason that they are renting it for $450 is because there is a friend in the apartment. That friend has applied for a rental increase through Income Support and has not received that. The householders have been forced to increase the rent by $50, and wish to increase it more, but are unable to or the tenant would have to move out; they wish to increase the rent even more because one of the household earners is off on injury.

So now you have two families that are affected because the rental supplement provided by Income Support is not high enough. So, it is having an effect, a real effect, on real people, real families in the City of St. John's.

The Budget consultations are coming up, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking government and the ministers involved, especially the minister responsible for Income Support, to review the amount of rent that is provided to those on Income Support, with a view of increasing it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS transgendered people face high risk of discrimination, violence, underemployment, and lack of access to housing and other services; and

WHEREAS a recent EGALE Canada survey found that 90 per cent of transgendered youth hear transphobic comments regularly from other students, and one quarter hear such comments from teachers; and

WHEREAS the Public Health Agency of Canada reports that nearly half of trans youth seriously considered suicide and one-fifth attempted it in the previous year; and

WHEREAS all individuals should have equal opportunity to live their lives and meet their needs without being hindered or prevented by discriminatory practices based on gender identity or gender expression;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to amend the Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression in the list of prohibitive grounds of discrimination.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, again, as stated a number of times in this House, transgendered youth are among the most vulnerable in our society, as are transgendered adults. They face incredible violence and discrimination. This is no longer acceptable. In 2012, it is no longer acceptable in our society.

We know that they are our brothers, our sisters, our mothers, our fathers, our uncles, our cousins, our neighbours, our co-workers. We know that Ontario, Manitoba, and Northwest Territories have already amended their human rights legislation. Nova Scotia has tabled it in their House last week, as has the federal government, hearing it in their Justice Committee.

Two years ago, our own Human Rights Commission specifically recommended to this government when they were amending the Human Rights Code to a Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression in our Human Rights Code.

Worldwide, human rights legislation experts are all of the same mind: that this is important, that this is necessary. They are recommending that it is explicitly stated in human rights legislation: gender identity and gender expression.

It is the right thing to do. Our Human Rights Act is not just about responding to violations and discriminations in the past, but it takes a proactive role as well in education, signalling to our most vulnerable people in society that they are explicitly protected.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 42, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual Reports, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 42 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual Reports. (Bill 42)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual Reports", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 42).

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Order 3, I move seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole is considering Bill 46.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act". (Bill 46).

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 46)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the Committee rise and report Bill 46.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report Bill 46 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have carried Bill 46 without amendment?

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

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

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services that Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 46 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 46)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 46)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Order 6 of the Order Paper. I call second reading of Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill 43)

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand here today in my capacity as the Finance Minister of the Province to introduce the amendment to the Public Service Pensions Act of 1991. There are a number of amendments. This act is one of five government-sponsored Defined Benefit Pension Plans, and provides pensions for full-time employees of government departments, of the health care institutions, of the school boards, Crown corporations and agencies, and also the colleges. As of December 31, 2011, there were 32,000 active employees and 15,600 retirees under that particular plan.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to this plan at this time, there are some amendments that deal with policy issues. We are going to make three policy changes with this legislation. There are also amendments that require this particular plan to be in compliance with the legislation – Canadian legislation and Newfoundland and Labrador legislation – that regulates pension plans in this country. One is the Income Tax Act of Canada. There will be a number of amendments to ensure that this particular pension plan complies with the Income Tax Act of Canada, and there are other amendments that ensures that this particular pension plan is in compliance with the provincial benefits act of 1997.

I think people would be interested to know that it is the Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador that regulates pensions in our Province, and they do so through the Pension Benefits Act. My colleague, the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, can speak to that.

The other act, of course, the Income Tax Act of Canada is an act of the Government of Canada, the federal government. Under our pension plans, RRSPs, Defined Contribution Pension Plans, Defined Benefit Pension Plans, the money that goes into the plan, of course, is deducted. The Income Tax Act, 2000, has rules and regulations as to the maximum amount that can be deducted.

Mr. Speaker, we have, as I said, five government pension plans, five Defined Benefit Pension Plans; there are also Defined Contribution Pension Plans for employees as well. They are administered out of the Department of Finance. That is why I am introducing this particular bill, or moving second reading of this bill rather than the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said, there are three amendments that are essentially policy changes that will lead to benefits and enhancements for people who are in the plan.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing is that we are going to increase the indexing benefits for the survivors of deceased pensioners. As members know, the Newfoundland pension plans provide indexing for our pensioners, our retirees, which is from the date of the age of sixty-five. It is 60 per cent of the increase in the CPI, capped at 1.2 per cent annually. That was brought in, I think, in 2002 by the previous government.

A lot of our pensioners do not realize that. I discovered that in meeting with different pension groups. Some will adamantly say to me their pension plans are not indexed. They have been indexed since 2002, with a modest amount of indexation. What happens is that the pensioner, to get the indexing, the indexing starts at age sixty-five. As you know, if the pensioner dies leaving a spouse as principle beneficiary, the spouse will then receive a survivor's benefit that is equal to 60 per cent of the deceased's pension.

We have an anomaly. We could have the pensioner receiving an index pension from age sixty-five, and then when that person dies and the spouse obtains the survivor's benefit, if the spouse is under sixty-five then the pension had to be un-indexed until the survivor became sixty-five. We, in this amendment, are changing the law so that once the pension is indexed and passes to the survivor that the indexed pension passes. It will remain indexed even though the survivor may be under the age of sixty-five. I think most people will agree that is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, the other policy change has to do with what is called an actuarially reduced pension for a plan member who is aged fifty-five and has a vested pension plan; in other words, that person has worked for government for in excess of five years and the pension is therefore vested.

That person normally would not qualify for a pension before the age of sixty. The amendment that we are putting forward here today will be to allow that member to access a reduced pension from as early as age fifty-five instead of having to wait for sixty. The actuarial reduction is necessary to ensure that the early payment of pension is cost neutral to the plan and thus relates little impact on the plan's liability. While the pension is reduced, it does give the plan member additional retirement flexibility.

I think what we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, is that you could have somebody who works for the government for a while as a member of the pension plan and then terminates the plan. That person may – let's say they go out west; they stop working for the government and they may go out west, and they have a pension plan, but they are not sixty so they could not access the plan. If they elect to leave the plan there, in other words, they could access the plan and get a pension when they are sixty.

What we are doing here is that since under our pension plan you can either get a pension at sixty or you can get an earlier pension at fifty-five, which is reduced, we are now allowing that person to take advantage of that provision as well. I think that is a very good thing.

Mr. Speaker, the third policy change that we are making is to remove from the plan one employer who does not meet the criteria of public sector employer. The Public Service Pension Plan, Mr Speaker, is designed to provide pensions for government entities only. One of the participating employers is the Public Service Credit Union, which is now a profit-making entity subject to Income Tax, and is therefore ineligible to participate in the Public Service Pension Plan.

The credit union joined the plan in 1976 as a credit society that was established originally to accept deposits from provincial government employees only. Now it is a full-service financial institution. It is serving not just government employees but the entire general public and consequently should not continue to participate in the PSPP.

To transition this change, we now propose in this legislation to permit the participating employees of that credit union, as of January 1, 2013, to remain in the plan; existing employees can continue to remain in the plan, but any new hires after that date will participate in other arrangements that may be provided by that particular credit union. The employees who are there now, Mr. Speaker, will be grandfathered, but new employees will participate under arrangements that the Co-operative Credit Society will provide for its members.

Mr. Speaker, there are the three policy changes we are making. I now move on to talk about – I am sorry; there is one additional amendment that has to do with providing more flexibility to terminating plan members. My notes here say this is a policy amendment, but I think this may be an income tax amendment.

Where a terminating employee terminates from the pension plan because that person is moving on, and the person has five years of service with the government and therefore the pension is invested, that person has a number of options. One option, as I said earlier, is they can leave the money in the pension plan here and elect to receive the pension many years later when they reach the age originally of sixty and now with a reduced pension at age fifty-five. That is one option. The other option is to transfer the money to what is referred to as generally a locked-in RRSP, known as a LIRA or a LIF.

Another option, of course, is if that person goes to work for another employer with a pension plan. Maybe their pension plan will accept our pension plan and our pension plan can be rolled in. Another option is to purchase a deferred life annuity. That is available as well.

The terminating employee has to make the decision within 180 days whether to accept the lump sum or to accept a deferred pension, payable from the earliest eligibility to date. At the expiration of 180 days, if they do not make an election, they are deemed to be a deferred pensioner. They are deemed to have elected to take the deferred pension if they do not make the election within 180 days.

You know what happens, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people mean to make the election, but they forget to do it, or they are not sure what they should do given the options, as I listed previously, the options that are available to them. They may not be certain and they may intend to get advice from somebody, they may not get the advice, and 180 days go by.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is we are going to amend the plan. We recognize that, so we are going to amend the plan to allow the employee to make the determination to take the lump sum at any time, whether it is 180 days or not. The amount would be calculated as of the new date.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated previously the pension plan has to comply with the Income Tax Act in order for contributions to be deductible for tax purposes. We have a number of amendments to comply with that act.

One of the things that our employees can do, Mr. Speaker, in the public service is that they can take unpaid leave. With the permission of the employer, they can take unpaid leave and go to work somewhere else. They may want to go out West and try something new and see if they like it, but they reserve the right to go back to their position with their government.

They are permitted, if they do decide to return, to buy up under the pension plan the periods of time when they were on leave. The Income Tax Act requires that there has to be a maximum to that. The maximum is now five years plus an additional three years for parenting. We are amending the legislation to comply with the Income Tax Act there.

The amendment is also specifying that transfers to the Public Service Pension Plan from a member's former plan can only occur if the plan is willing to transfer 100 per cent of the member's entitlement. If the plan transfers out less than 100 per cent, say, 80 per cent, the Public Service Pension Plan under the income tax rules cannot accept the transfer. We are bringing our law into compliance with the Income Tax Act. Also, the amendments will require a returning employee who wishes to reinstate prior service where the contributions were paid into an RRSP, to be able to use the RRSP funds to reinstate the prior service.

The last one dealing with the Income Tax Act is an amendment specifying that a refund of contributions payable upon the death of a member can only be paid to the member's estate. That is where a member's pension is not vested. As I said earlier, in order to be able to access the pension plan, a member has to accumulate at least five years of service and it says that the pension then vests. Members who die within the five years are only entitled to a return of the contributions that they have made to the pension plan, together with interest on that investment.

Upon the death, the contributions made by the member are returned, along with interest, and that money has to be paid to the member's estate. The legislation reads that it will go to the member's personal representative; I believe there is a misunderstanding of what that means. I think the lawyers in the House will know that the personal representative of an estate is usually the executor or administrator. If the money is paid to the estate, again it is the executor or administrator that would receive the monies on behalf of the estate. The intent was to make clear that the money had to go to the estate.

Mr. Speaker, there are some other amendments to the legislation to comply with the Pension Benefits Act. One of those is an assignment of the pensions. The Pension Benefits Act has specific language that prevents a pension that is in pay from being assigned, from being attached, to being charged, and it is a practice that such actions are governed by the Pension Benefits Act provisions.

Sections 27 and 28 of the Public Service Pension Act have similar language, but for greater clarity the act will now be amended to reflect the same language that is in the Pension Benefits Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other income tax amendments that I neglected to mention. One has to do with payments of interest on an over contribution. When a plan member or an employer contributes more than is required under the act, usually in error, and is reimbursed, the plan is not permitted to pay interest on those over contributions. Section 5 and 6 of our legislation are now going to be amended to comply with the Income Tax Act to remove the payment of interest on over contributions.

Section 7 provides for the payment of a refunded contribution – I already did that one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are also a number of housekeeping amendments. Unless hon. members opposite want me to go through those in detail, I will pass, but if there are any questions, any specific ones, I will certainly deal with those during the Committee stage of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, the whole idea of pensions is now becoming part of public discourse in our Province. Public pensions are very, very important. What I am talking about here is occupational pensions. There is a crisis in this country right now, and I do not know if the proper wording is to call it a pension crisis but I think it is a retirement savings crisis. What we are finding is that there are certain sections of the population, people in the middle range in terms of incomes, who are not or have not, and are not now putting enough monies aside to provide for their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that our lives are divided up into three phases and that in the first phase we are trained. We are educated to prepare us for a life of work, or life of employment, or a life of being a professional. The second phase is working and living. Probably the most interesting part of our lives is where we go to work and we receive a pay. We receive an income which enables us to purchase or rent a home, to purchase or lease a car, to pay for our children's education, to pay for the benefits that we want to provide to our children; going out and playing hockey, figure skating lessons, or what have you.

That is a tough time, because it always feels there is not enough income coming in to meet all of the commitments that a family has. It is during that time you have income from your employment, or income from your profession, or income – some people go into business and create businesses – from a business. That gives them the income to meet their commitment.

The final stage is retirement. We know that the middle stage, when the income is coming in, is going to come to an end at some point. When it does, when that second stage comes to an end, our income comes to an end. We therefore are in retirement and we no longer have an income from employment. Maybe we stop working because we are ill and we cannot work anymore, maybe we are too tired, maybe we are fed up, maybe our employer says to us it is time to move on. It is time for some fresh blood.

What does the person do when they are in that third stage of life, when the income has stopped? How is that person going to support themselves? Where is the retirement income coming to support that person and a spouse during the stage when there is no income coming in from employment, or business, or the profession?

The answer to that question – I know some of us feel that maybe at that age of retirement, maybe we have to give up on the dream that the Leafs or the Canadiens are going to call us and sign us to a multi-million dollar contract. Maybe we know that if we go out on the golf course, maybe we are not good enough to beat Tiger Woods. Maybe we know, and we do know, that the odds of winning the lottery are very, very remote. We know that Hollywood is not going to call and offer $10 million. Maybe the Speaker will get that call, but I think for most of us we are not going to receive that call.

How do we provide money for that retirement? The way to do that, and the only way to do that, is to do it while you are working. You have to take a certain section of your income and you have to save it and you have to invest it. The Government of Canada helps by making that deduction tax-deductable, or at least tax-deferred, in order to help you put money in the pot.

No matter how tough it is, it is money that cannot go on the mortgage. It cannot go on the car loan, it cannot go to send the kids to a hockey camp, and it cannot go to take a trip to Florida. It has to go into a fund to provide for the retirement. You have to, each year, put it in. That contribution will grow and hopefully you will get a pool of monies that you will accumulate during your working life. Then you can use that pool of monies each year while you are retired with the hope that you outlast your money.

It is important that people retire. If you do not work for someone who has an occupational pension plan you are going to have to put the money in yourself. The federal government helps with what is called an RRSP, where they will give you that tax deduction to help you make the contribution.

Mr. Speaker, when you do retire, governments help. The Government of Canada provides an Old Age Security. Now, there is a difference between an occupational pension and Old Age Security. Old Age Security is given to everyone who has lived in the country for a certain number of years. I refer to that as a social transfer. It is different from an occupational pension. An occupational pension is paid for by you and your employer. Number one is the RRSP.

Some people have the added advantage of working for an employer that offers a pension plan. There are basically two major pension plans, although there is a third one that has recently been introduced in New Brunswick.

The first one is a defined benefit plan. The defined benefit plan works very similar to the RRSP, except what is happening here is that in addition to you making your contribution to the plan every month, your employer is going to match it. It is called the defined benefit – sorry, it is called the Defined Contribution Plan because your employer's obligation is limited to that contribution. If you put 6 per cent in, your employer may agree to match it. Once the employer has put in the 6 per cent, once he has made his contribution, that is the end of the employer's responsibility.

The employee under a Defined Contribution Plan runs the risk, number one, that they will run out of money before death; number two, he also faces the investment risk. He faces the risk that the money may not grow quick enough; it may not grow enough.

If you invest the money in a Guaranteed Investment Certificate, if you are a nervous investor like I am, you put the money in a guaranteed fund. You hope interest rates will be high enough to enable your pension, your pot of money, to grow.

Interest rates have been very low lately. When I was doing it years ago, interest rates were 8 per cent, 9 per cent, 10 per cent; now they are very, very low. When they are low, you cannot go to your neighbour and say, hey, I was hoping for 5 per cent and I only got 2 per cent, how about topping me up? That does not happen in an RRSP, and that does not happen in a Defined Contribution Pension Plan. If you only get 2 per cent instead of the 5 per cent you were hoping, you cannot go to the government and say, hey, I did not do as well as I had hoped; how about you topping me up? You cannot go to your neighbour and say, hey, I did not do well enough, how about you topping me up? You get what you get. You earn what you earn.

There is another pension plan called a Defined Benefit Contribution Plan. It is referred to as a gold-plated pension plan. I do not consider it gold plated; I think it is a great pension plan. It is a pension plan that our employees have. It is a pension plan where the benefit is what is defined, not the contribution.

A formula is set up where the employer agrees that the employees will receive a pension plan of a certain amount. Then what has to happen is that the money has to be invested into the plan in order to get the money to fund that payment promise. That is where the problem is today, because there are big changes happening in our society.

Years ago, when the Defined Benefit Pension Plans came out, people retired, say at age sixty-five, and when they retired they lived a certain period of time. While they were alive they would receive their pension. Mr. Speaker, nowadays people are retiring much earlier, and what is a good thing – because of health care in this country, because of improvements in health care – people, thank God, are living a longer period of time. It means that they are relying on the pension for a long period of time, which means more money is going to have to go into that pension plan.

Years ago, the markets did very well; years ago, as I said earlier, interest rates were high, but now the markets have not been doing well for the last ten years and interest rates have been very low. You have two problems. The liability of the pension plan is higher because people are leaving earlier and, thank God, they are dying later; because of that they are on pension for a longer period of time and therefore more money is needed than has been going in. That is increasing the liability.

On the other hand, the money to fund that liability has not been coming in. The contribution is made by the employer, the contribution is made by the employee, and that money is invested to earn a return; because the returns have been low, the money is not there to meet the pension promise. So the employer, who has to pay this pension, some of them cannot do it and they are going bankrupt because they cannot do it.

Some of them are saying that they cannot compete with their competition that does not offer Defined Benefit Pension Plans. I know in Corner Brook, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and the Kruger organization, their competition is Abitibi, and their competition is a company called White Birch, both of whom went into bankruptcy protection and got pension obligations reduced. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper has not done that; they have the full pension obligation. They have to come up with the money to fund the pension obligation and that is money that they cannot put in capital expenditures. That is money they cannot use to aggressively market their business.

What you are seeing in the United States and what you are seeing out in the private sector, because these employers cannot come up with the money to pay the unfunded pension liability, they cannot come up with money to pay the pension deficit and they are either shutting down or that they are moving or trying to move to what are called Defined Contribution Pension Plans.

Now that is the problem, the liability is higher and the amount of money coming in is lower, so circumstances have changed. In our government, we are fortunate because our government can tax the people of the Province to make the special payments. The money that is going into our pension plans from the employers and from the employees have all been made. The contributions have been made. We still have this large unfunded liability. We have this large pension deficit.

The government of this Province, which means the taxpayers of the Province, because governments do not have any money – the only money governments get is what they get from the taxpayers. The taxpayers of this Province have paid $4.4 billion of additional, extra, special payments into the pension plan since 1997. It was not all our government. The previous Liberal governments in 1997 started making special payment. Our government, the $2 billion that Premier Williams negotiated with Prime Minister Martin, that went into the Teachers' Pension Plan. We also borrowed another $962 million and put that into the Public Service Pension Plan.

Since 1997, $4.4 billion of extra, special payments have gone into the pension plans. In spite of all those additional payments, the pension plans are still unfunded to the tune of about $3 billion. Our unfunded pension liability is now, I am told, about 50 per cent of our net debt. We have been paying down our direct debt.

Money that governments have borrowed in the past and that have come due, we have been able to pay that out of cash flow; whereas in the past, when a bond issue came due, what previous governments used to do was simply go out and borrow the money from somebody else and pay off the loan that was coming due so that the debt stayed the same. Because of the wealth that this Province has been experiencing coming from the oil industry, and from the mineral industry, we have been in a position that out of cash flow we can pay those loans as they come due without having to borrow more money.

The government has not had to borrow for operational purposes since 2004. That is terrific. During that time our net debt has come down by $4 billion; yet, our unfunded pension liability keeps going up, for the reasons I mentioned previously. So, we have to do something about it. It cannot go on. Even this year, I mentioned $4.4 billion, this year we are putting an additional $258 million in additional, special funding into the plan. So that will bring it to $4.7 billion, and in spite of all that, the unfunded liability continues to grow.

We have been paying down – the debt that is coming due, our direct debt, monies that governments have borrowed some time ago we have been paying that down at a rate of about $400 million a year. As it comes due, we have been fortunate enough we can pay it out of cash without re-borrowing. With the unfunded pension liability, our pension expense is going up $500 million, $600 million, and in the future it is going to go up a heck of a lot more. We have to do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the government that has to look at this. It is important that the unions that have access to a lot of people who are knowledgeable about pensions, they have to come to the table and have a discussion as well. Our pension plans are unsustainable. That means they are going to run out of money. When the $2 billion went into the funds, I think the plans were up to about 85 per cent. They are a heck of a lot lower now, and I will run through some of the numbers here.

As I said, there is supposed to be enough money going in every year from the employer and the employee that those contributions will earn a return to pay the pension, but there is not enough going in. As a result, we are having a large liability. The assumption is, as I said earlier, we are supposed to have enough money in the pension plans, assuming they are earning 7.25 per cent a year, to meet our pension obligations in the future. Our earnings have been less than 7.25 per cent.

Our wage increases have been much higher than expected. Wages are higher; pension is higher. As I said, our employees are retiring earlier than expected and our retirees are on pension longer than expected. It could also go the other way. We can have something called surpluses, but we have never had one with our pension plan and we do not expect one for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, our total plans, we have 38,792 employees and we have 24,710 retirees, pensioners. When these plans were brought in and when the pension promises were enhanced, when governments in the past would add to the pension plan, people were young. The employees were young. The problem of those, the cost to pay for those additional enhancements, well, you do not have to worry about it. It is going to happen some time in the future. Well, the future is here. Now we have the baby boomers who are retiring. As I said, 23 per cent of the employees are eligible for retirement over the next five years.

The pension ratio for the Public Service Pension Plan that we are debating here today is not 85 per cent anymore. It is 56 per cent. If things continue, it is going down much lower. The Teachers' Pension Plan is 58 per cent. The Uniformed Services Pension Plan – and we are going to debate their bill – is 41 per cent. If you total all the pension plans together, you have liabilities of $10.6 billion. That is the liability of our pension fund. That is the money that we need in the plan, assuming it is earning 7.25 per cent, that is the money we are going to need to pay all of our pension benefits. There is $6 billion in assets invested in different assets. Our funded ratio is 57 per cent.

Our pension liabilities have been growing every year in spite of the special payments. In 2005, it was under $8,000. In 2011, it is $10 billion. In 2011, it is $10 billion in total liability, $6 billion in assets, so you have an unfunded pension liability of $4 billion.

Without the recent payments, the $2 billion that Premier Williams negotiated with Prime Minister Martin and the $962 million that we borrowed and put in, if we did not do that the plans would only be 40 per cent funded.

Our net debt, as of March 31, 2012 was $7.8 billion. That was direct debt of $5.4 billion, unfunded pension liability of $4.9 billion, less amortized gains and losses of $1.8 billion. So the net unfunded liability of $3,100,000,000.

We have other post retirement benefits of $2 billion – that is for the health benefits and the drug plan – and we have our financial assets less our liabilities is $2.7 billion. So a net debt of $7.8 billion.

What are the challenges? The pension plans will continue to be challenged. Future evaluation assumptions –and you know that every three years an actuary comes in and does an evaluation of the plan. Then, the actuary says this is how much you have to put in to meet your promise. Of course, they are predicting the future and we all know predicting the future is not an easy thing, no matter what some people say on the Open Line shows.

I have said in this House before there is an old biblical saying: Man plans and God laughs. When it comes to predicting the future, that is absolutely correct.

For the pension plan, the actuary figures out how much you have to pay based on what you want in the pension plan. For the retirement there is a certain amount. If you want survivorship, it is a certain amount. If you want health benefits, it is more. If you want indexation, that is the most expensive of all. If you want full indexation, it is an awful lot of money. You could have a lesser amount of indexation, it is less money. Each of those things are costed by the actuary and that is what makes it up. So, the money has to be put in, in order to get it out. The problem is that it is not enough.

Future evaluation assumptions will change to reflect the fact that mortality will continue to improve – and that is wonderful; people will continue to live longer. I think life expectancy is improving about one year a decade. Our interest rates our low. That means your liability is high – when you use the discount factor, the liability is going to be high. Low interests are also going to hurt us on the income side. If interest rates are low and you put money into guaranteed investments or bonds, the amount of return you are going to get is even going to be lower.

So, this will increase liabilities by $500 million to $600 million. Pension expense is expected to increase from $650 million to $820 million for 2013-2014, and it will continue to increase in the out years. We have to take steps. We have to make steps to fight the challenges that are causing our pension plans to be unsustainable. We have to work on this together. The academic community should be involved, the business community, the labour unions should be involved, all Members of this House of Assembly, because this is a ticking time bomb.

What is happening, what government is doing, is that government is taxing the people of the Province to top up these funds which are not earning enough. So, people who do not have defined benefit pension plans, people that do not have pension plans at all, or those that do who are not doing very well in their plan, they are also taxed to top up the defined benefit plans that government is paying to its employees.

We are also going to have an inter-generational problem, because our employees as we get older and retired, who is paying the taxes? You have a younger generation paying the taxes to pay for all of this, and there are less of them than there are going to be retirees. We are going to have to modify our investment strategy. We have to de-risk our portfolio with a less aggressive asset mix to put further pressure on the….

If nothing is done – currently our unfunded pension liability, which represents 60 per cent of the Province's net debt, assuming the investments do earn 7.25 per cent a year, and all other actuarial assumptions are in fact realized, the Public Service Pension Plan will only be funded by 41 per cent in 2029, with a projected unfunded liability of over $8 billion – one pension plan. The Teachers' Pension Plan will be 21 per cent funded in 2029, with a projected unfunded liability of $4.5 billion.

The Auditor General has expressed concern for over twenty years. He has commented specifically on the financial position of the pension plan in cautioning that government needs to monitor the situation closely. In his 2012 report, the Auditor General said that the unfunded pension liability is a significant portion of the Province's debt and that if no corrective action is taken, the Uniformed Services Pension Plan will be exhausted in 2021 – exhausted – the Teachers' Pension Plan will be 21 per cent funded in 2029, and the Public Service Pension Plan will be 41 per cent funded in 2029.

Until 2009, payments to the fund, the contributions paid in by the employees, exceeded the benefits paid out to the retirees, but since 2010 the opposite has occurred. We now have more money being paid out to pensioners than is being paid in by the employer and the employees.

The credit rating agencies have expressed concern. The Dominion Bond Rating Service agency has noted that unfunded pension liabilities continue to place a burden on the Province's finances and represent a significant part of our debt burden. I quote them where they say: Despite paying down market debt, the debt burden has remained constant as unfunded pension liabilities continue to go.

Mr. Speaker, this is a ticking time bomb. The taxpayers of this Province are looking at the amount of money that government is taking and putting into the pension plan and they are saying: Why isn't that money going into things like hospitals, health care, or better programs? We have to deal with this issue. It is not just for the government. It is for all of us.

It is for pension plans facing the private sector as well. You know what they have been doing. They are either going broke or they are switching to Defined Contribution Pension Plans, which is not an area where I would like to go. That is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of all my colleagues.

In England, the Conservative government hired a former labour minister of employment and pensions. His name is Lord Hutton and he said the same thing. He said they have the same problem as we are experiencing. Well, I guess it is everywhere. It is a demographic problem. He called going to Defined Contribution Pensions a race to the bottom and he said we should not go there. Now, this is a labour politician, and I am not saying he is right, but I will tell you what he recommended. He recommended that the age of receiving a pension be increased to sixty-five. He recommended that people start contributing more, that both employees and government contribute more to the pension plan. He talked about a different pension plan for new hires.

New Brunswick had a commission on pensions. Two of the members of the New Brunswick commission we invited down. Officials in the Department of Finance – the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Director of Pensions, and myself – met with them. What they did is they came up with a new pension model called a Shared Risk Pension Plan.

What they have done is they have changed their law, their Pension Benefits Act, to allow a Defined Contribution Pension, to allow a Defined Benefit Pension, but also to allow a new type of pension called a Shared Risk Pension. As I understand it, under that type of pension arrangement, everybody will get what they have earned to date; on a go-forward basis it will depend on market return, but there would be guaranteed returns as well. I think that is something we have to examine.

I know that some of the labour unions in New Brunswick have bought into this, and I asked why, knowing how important Defined Benefit Pension Plans are to their members. What I was told by the pension commission is that there was recognition – they have the same problem there as we have here; they are having it in England, and they are having it everywhere in the world – that these pension plans are going to go broke, that they are not sustainable. They are truly not sustainable. It is better to have maybe a smaller but improved pension that is going to last in the future than simply being blind to the problem that is happening, and being blind to what we are going to see in the future as the liability increases and the returns continue to be lower.

I know in the auto industry in the USA, they have a two-tiered system with older employees having the benefits from before but new employees under a new system with fewer benefits. I know the problems with that.

Another option is what is called a Hybrid Pension Plan. Our pension plan runs at an accrual rate of 2 per cent times your best five years, times the number of years you worked. That is the formula. Maybe you have a hybrid plan where 1 per cent is defined contribution and 1 per cent is defined benefit. That is an option as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem we have to deal with and this is a problem we all have to work together to come up with a solution for.

Mr. Speaker, we have not put any pension proposals forward in this current round of collective bargaining. I understand the Leader of the Opposition may have been on Open Line – I did not hear him, but I understand he said that there were proposals to strip the pension plan. That is not correct. There are no proposals dealing with pension plans.

What we have said is that we did reserve the right to bring forward proposals, which we may or we may not do. At the present time, there are no proposals presented and there are no proposals ready to be presented. We have been reviewing the pension situation. We see the problem and we have to come up with a solution – all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is enough today. I have spoken long enough. I think these amendments that are happening here today, maybe some members opposite thought that there were proposals in what we were presenting today that was going to cause concern. Obviously, the amendments here today are going to help a number of people. I am certainly interested in hearing, if not today but over the future what members opposite will have to say with this problem, which is facing governments not only in North America but across the world.

With that, I will urge passage of the legislation and I will answer any questions that are during Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I guess after looking at the amendments to Bill 43, of course just the three amendments that were suggested here, one about increasing the indexing benefits of survivors, which allow for indexing. As the minister mentioned, a lot of the actual members of the plan did not realize that this actually existed, which was put there in 2002 by the Liberal Administration at the time. I know the indexing is not really tied to the cost of living, there is a cap on that, yet that indexing as the minister said is there. Once the pension is indexed and passes to the survivor, it remains indexed, even if the spouse is under sixty-five as the minister had mentioned.

The other change that we are looking at in this amendment is to allow a member to access the reduced benefit at age sixty-five and to remove the Public Service Credit Union from the plan because the credit union is now a full service credit union. Essentially, what has happened there, the credit union that was actually originally part of the public pension plan has now evolved to the point where it is now seen, I guess, as an institution that could actually administer and provide a pension program for the benefits of the employees.

There are a couple of other things, I guess, or a fair amount of stuff that was mentioned during the minister's comments, but in the amendments that are outlined there has not been much at all that we would have a problem with. Most of it, indeed, ties into some realigning the plan so that it realigns with the current position with CRA and so forth. The amendments that were suggested here, for us, as the Official Opposition, we believe that they are timely and that it is something that would need to be done.

There are many things, but during the conversation or the minister's comments he made reference to, in great detail, about the difference between a defined contribution plan and a defined benefit plan, currently where we are today.

I think the other thing of note is the fact over the years – and many members opposite even in their past employment have been part of those plans. So what is important is that when you get into a negotiation process, there are certain things that you negotiate. You might trade off, for instance, salaries because you get a better pension plan. I am sure that has happened over many years. One of the things that has been negotiated is the fact that we now have, as the minister called, a gold plated plan, that being the defined benefit plan.

I want to speak a little bit about that because this is where most of the discussion – and since the three amendments that are outlined, these are really not areas that we have a whole lot of concern over. The fact is, as the minister spoke at great length to, was the current situation where we are. I guess, it is hard to believe that we are not getting some idea where the next round of the negotiations are going or what will actually come on to the table now.

One of the things I do know – the minister mentioned about a discussion that I had on Friday about the NLTA, in particular, about the bargaining brief. Certainly, from the members I know, from what we have been told, there has been some discussion as they feel about some stripping which would include contract stripping, which would include some changes to the current pension plan.

As a matter of fact, what they did talk about was the elimination of the protection of pension benefits that were provided in schedule D. There were others about reserving the right to submit a further proposal with respect to pensions, reserving the right to things about group insurance. These are all things that over many, many years have been negotiated.

I do understand the current situation that we are in and the liabilities that it creates. I do know that in this particular case, if we have an unfunded liability –

MR. MARSHALL: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

MR. MARSHALL: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but there is only one pension plan that is negotiated, and that is the teachers' plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I was saying is that over the years there have been many benefits that have been negotiated either through a pension plan, or through a group insurance, or the salaries. All of this at the negotiating table, Mr. Speaker, leads to the fact that we get agreements that were accepted. It is very difficult for someone at certain stages in their life to actually see a change in the pension plan, because they have made a commitment to a current employer, or they have made decisions in their own personal life based on at age sixty-five or age fifty-five, whatever age it would be, that this amount of money would be available.

The other thing, of course, that goes without saying is that when we have individuals – in particular, seniors or retirees – who have a consistent income or income that they can count on, it helps our economy. This indeed drives our own economy. They make purchases, they make decisions, and they use their pensions to help the provincial economy.

I acknowledge the fact that we do have a problem with our unfunded liability. I believe that some of the comments that were made about a return of 7.25 per cent in this investment environment are a bit of a stretch, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that you are going to get many plans, as we all know – unless you are into a regulated utility or something – that could get somewhere between 7 per cent and 9 per cent.

For instance, this is an example that we see in our Province right now, where we have a utility from outside the Province that will – based on the current concept that we are talking about, we could see a mirror in this particular case that I am speaking to and could get a regulated return of somewhere between 7 per cent and 9 per cent. When I look at this, I cannot help but say that in some other jurisdictions, this would be the perfect place to put some pension money and those sorts of things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BALL: I would look at certain infrastructure. It is a great idea, and I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, why it has not even been considered in some of the other infrastructure projects that we see within our Province. When you get regulated returns of between 7 per cent and 9 per cent, what a perfect opportunity; we see it in lots of other jurisdictions. For instance, in Ontario you see it and in Quebec you see it, where we see Public Service Pension funds have been used to generate the economy and actually have been used to expand infrastructure programs within the Province.

Right now, we sit at the negotiating table and what we are trying to do is ratchet back. You can actually get a sense of where the negotiation is actually going. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that with a net debt of $7.8 billion – but if we are expecting a guaranteed rate of return to sustain the current pension plan to be somewhere around 7.25 per cent, this is unrealistic in today's environment, and there is no question there will have to be changes made to that. We cannot continue expecting to get a rate of return with an excess of 7 per cent with the investment fund that we see there. I understand that the portfolio is somewhere around 70 per cent equity-based. Mr. Speaker, when you look at companies or corporations in equities around the world, it is very unusual to get that kind of return in today's environment.

So, Mr. Speaker, the amendments that were mentioned – and I know we got sidetracked a little bit about the actual amendment to the bill that we are talking about here. There was certainly a lot of discussion about the pension plan itself and some of the comments that were made by the AG in years past that there is no question that our Public Service Pension Fund is indeed financially a problem for us right now. There is more money going out than we have coming in, and this problem as it exists will not be solved with the expectation that we will have to get in excess of a 7.25 investment. These opportunities will no longer exist.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I do know for sure is that the three amendments that have been suggested here by the minister are not something that we will have a problem with. These amendments that we see will get our pension plan for the benefit of our pensioners in line with what is current right now and the expectations around CRA and other agencies. Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that you actually take the conversation further and deal with the unfunded pension liabilities through these amendments; it is not the debate for today, but it is a debate that will actually happen at another table.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the three amendments. As I mentioned, it is not something that we as the Official Opposition have much problem with, but I do want to reinforce the fact that today we have many pensioners out there who right now are living at a very low income. They do not have money, as the minister might have said, to go to Florida or play golf or whatever. Many of our pensioners that we have today are living on very low incomes and really are struggling on a day-to-day basis just to get the basic needs they need to live.

Mr. Speaker, we see it every day. All you have to do – in our districts, we see many, many, in particular widows, who are living on very, very low pensions. Indeed, retirees from our own provincial programs right now who struggle on a day-to-day basis and find themselves – I have seen this in my own experience, where we have pensioners looking for ways back into the workforce so they can supplement their annual income. This is not what they expected as they spent many, many years working for us and providing valuable service to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments that were suggested, as I said, we can support. We do believe it is time that we get our pension plan in line with CRA and those sorts of things, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, the debate on the public pension plan I believe will happen in a different forum and I look forward to having that debate, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do count it as a great privilege at any time in this House to stand and speak on the issues of the day, all thank you to the great people of the District of Baie Verte – Springdale for making that possible, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few remarks relating to the amendments to the Public Service Pensions Act of 1991, Bill 43, which address the amendments to the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Pension Plan, for your information, was established on April 1, 1967 by the Public Service Pensions Act. The Public Service Pension Plan, or the PSPP, is one of five Defined Benefit Pension Plans administered or sponsored by government, as pointed out by the Minister of Finance earlier.

I will mention them again, the other four, just for the sake of curiosity, or for those people who are watching by TV. Besides the PSPP, Mr. Speaker, we have the TPP, the Teachers' Pension Plan, which includes all full-time teachers. We have the MHAPP, which includes the Members of the House of Assembly. We have the PCJPP, which includes the Provincial Court judges.

Finally, we have the USPP, which is the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, which includes the RNC, correctional officers and firefighters, Mr. Speaker. Of course, today we are zeroing in on the PSPP, which includes all full-time and seasonal employees of government and member institutions which provide pensions for government departments, the health care boards and health care institutions, Crown corporations, Crown agencies, school boards, colleges and what have you, Mr. Speaker.

As of December 31, 2011, there were over 32,000 active employees and approximately 15,600 retirees under the plan. Mr. Speaker, the primary purpose of any plan is to help all members who contribute to that plan, when they retire to have a pretty good, decent retirement, and to be able to enjoy their retirement years without too much or undue financial stress.

Mr. Speaker, the status of the PSPP, the Public Service Pension Plan, is not very encouraging, as the Minister of Finance just pointed out. In fact, between all five Defined Benefit Pension Plans we have a $10.6 billion liability and assets of $6 billion, which leaves the Province in a very tenuous position with a $4.5 billion unfunded liability, or shortfall of $4.5 billion.

In relation to the PSPP, the Public Service Pension Plan, Mr. Speaker, we have a $2.7 billion unfunded liability. In other words, it is 56 per cent funded. Government is indeed concerned and has no preconceived set course at this point in time, just listening to the various experts. Without the more recent payments of over $3 billion, Mr. Speaker, plans would be approximately 40 per cent funded as opposed to 57 per cent funded.

This government has taken huge steps, big steps in the past to keep the plan viable and sustainable; yet, not without challenges. Today, Mr. Speaker, as alluded to earlier, the Minister of Finance pointed out that there are more people retiring, people are living longer, small returns on investments and, of course, we have low interest rates today.

Mr. Speaker, again, the Auditor General, for over twenty years, consistently pointed out and commented on the status of our pension plans and gave advice to our government in saying, look at the pensions and make sure we monitor the situation very closely so that they could be sustainable. In addition, Mr. Speaker, not only the Auditor General pointed it out but the credit rating agencies noted that unfunded pension liabilities continue to place a very, very extra burden on the Province's finances.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those people who are listening, it has been pointed out earlier of course and I will reiterate it again: What is a defined pension benefit plan? A defined benefit is a pension plan in which an employer promises a specified monthly benefit on retirement that is predetermined by a formula based on the employee's earnings, history, tenure of service and age, rather than depending on investment returns. A typical government, for example, defined benefit plan would offer between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the employee's average salary over the last several years of service once you have reached the mark between thirty and thirty-five years of service.

One advantage of the defined benefit pension plan, Mr. Speaker, a plan of this type, is that your retirement income is guaranteed. It is independent of market performance. It is guaranteed by government; the government takes all the risk. One down side of the defined benefit plan, however, is that it is very expensive; the employer assumes all the risk.

Mr. Speaker, each of these five defined benefit pension plans is established by an act. For example, in our case today what we are discussing is the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, which governs or establishes the Public Service Pension Plan. The reason why it is amended at this time is to bring the plan text or the language in line with the Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

The Pension Benefits Act is designed to protect the interest of pension plan members of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, it regulates all pension plans in the Province. It sets minimum standards, Mr. Speaker, for pension plans in areas such as eligibility, vesting, or portability, or some other disclosure.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of these changes, what we are talking about today, or amendments, are basically housekeeping in nature and will have no impact, or minimal impact, or none at all on benefits that any member receives. With these minor changes the PSPP, the Public Service Pension Plan, is made more consistent with the Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I will read the Explanatory Notes that were given to me here. This bill would amend the act, number one, to allow a terminating employee who is eligible for a deferred pension to elect to receive the commuted value of the pension as determined at the date of election –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. POLLARD: Two, this bill would amend the act to allow a terminating vested employee who has reached age fifty-five to elect to take an actuarially reduced pension; and number three, provide that the Public Service Credit Union remain a participating employer under the plan, only in respect of those employees in the plan before January 1, 2013.

So with these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this hon. House to support these amendments.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased to be able to stand this afternoon and speak to this bill, Bill 43, dealing with the public service pensions.

As has been indicated by the minister, this issue is an extremely important issue, the issue of pensions and the public pensions in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am really glad that these bills are going to give us an opportunity to explore a bit what it means to have public pensions.

Before doing that, I would like to thank the minister's staff in the Pensions Division of the Department of Finance for the briefing that we received on the two bills. It was important to have those briefings, because basically the bills are housekeeping bills, as the minister has indicated, and even where they were dealing with policy, this is bringing them in line with practice that is already going on. So, to that degree, even the policy changes that are in the bill are related to housekeeping. There really was nothing new in the bills in terms of what it will do for practice in the government right now.

It is making life better, easier. The practices that have come in are being fairer to the workers, actually. I will not go through all the points that the minister made with regard to the things that are doing that, because there is no need; we already agree. We know that helping people access their pension funds earlier is a good thing to do, having the pension going into the estate so that when the person dies, it becomes part of all the normal legal procedures with regard to the management of an estate, et cetera. All those things make life easier for the worker.

I do want to use the opportunity as has been done before me to talk a bit about the public pensions and also about private pensions and the need for pensions in our society, the absolute human rights need for pensions in our society. In actual fact – whether the money is coming from the employees who contribute to their pensions or the employers who are contributing to pensions either in the public or private sector – what we have happening with pensions is that the fruits of work are being put into a plan to help people in the future. That is extremely important, that the plans involve the employers, because of course the employers are the ones who, in the private sector, benefit from the money that is made in that workplace. It is just right and proper that employers and employees do take part in pension plans. There is no doubt about that.

I think it is really important for us to look at the role of pensions in our society and what pensions contribute to our society. It is not just money that is up on a shelf and squirreled away and does not benefit our society. In Canada right now, we have a huge pool of investment capital that is extremely important to the Canadian economy.

In case the minister is wondering, I would like to say that the figures that I am going to be using for the next few minutes come from the National Union of Public and Government Employees, NUPG, just so the minister will know where I am getting these figures from.

Right now in Canada, the Canadian Pension funds have over $1 trillion of assets. It is the second largest source of capital after the chartered banks in this country. So pensions are not a liability; pensions are an asset to our economy, in general. I am not speaking on any one particular pension, but the notion of pensions and the presence of pensions in our society is absolutely essential: once again, $1 trillion of assets and the second-largest source of capital after the chartered banks. Seventy per cent of all pension fund assets are invested in the Canadian economy. Only 30 per cent is invested outside of Canada, and 70 per cent in the Canadian economy.

Pension plans are not just good for the individual. They are not just good for the retired worker. They are a backbone of our economy. They are the backbone of our financial strength. When people retire, yes, they benefit from their pensions. There is no doubt about it. That is the main reason for our pensions, but they are also, at $1 trillion worth of assets, absolutely essential to our economy in Canada.

With regard to the individual, the workplace pensions help workers maintain their standard of living when they retire. Right now in Canada, workplace pensions account for about 20 per cent of the overall purchasing power of all retirees in Canada. Now, that is the workplace pensions. That does not include other pensions. The workplace pensions account for about 20 per cent of the overall purchasing power.

Income from workplace pensions amounts to some $40 billion a year, another figure which tells us how important pensions are, both pensions in terms of their investment strength and pensions in terms of their income strength for ordinary people in this country, and how important they are to the economy. Pensions both on the level of the economic system and on the level of individuals are an economic stimulus.

Right now, the discussion the minister has been talking about, saying that we are in a difficult time, that there is an awful lot of discussion going on around pensions, and et cetera – I know all of that. We have to ask some further questions, deeper questions, about what is going on. The minister talked about one of the issues is that people – I do not know if he said do not recognize; that is my word I am going to use, so I do not want him standing up and saying that he did not say do not recognize – but he did point out that people are not putting enough money aside for retirement. I think he did make that statement. Unfortunately -

MR. MARSHALL: Some people.

MS MICHAEL: Some people, not all people, some people.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Some people are not putting enough money aside for retirement. Well, I am sure that is true, but an awful lot of people, Mr. Speaker, do not have the money to put aside.

Right now, I am willing to bet, and I do not have the figures and I am not going to make a definitive statement, but I think we might be shocked if we looked at the people whom we consider to be ordinary, middle-class people who live from paycheque to paycheque as they do try to pay for mortgages, as they do try to pay for the loans on their cars, as they do try to give their children the things that are offered in our society today. All of which, or most of which activities cost a lot of money, as they do try to give children the extras that, when I was a child was not considered an extra, but the extras they have to do now in order for their children, sometimes, just to do artwork in school.

The average middle-class family right now, Mr. Speaker, living from paycheque to paycheque does not have the money to put into retirement funds, like the RRSPs, for example. The percentage of people in the workplace who are putting money into RRSPs – I do not have the figure, I remember seeing this figure at different times – is a fairly small percentage of people, a very small percentage of people. It is not because they do not want to put it in. It is because they do not have the money to put in.

One of the facts of our society that is a sign to us of that is the information that is floating around out there, that general knowledge we have of how much in debt the people in this country are. How many people have credit card debts? How many people have various forms of debt? Sometimes it is debts with individual companies, like retail outlets, for example. Sometimes it is their actual credit card, sometimes it is the loans they have with the bank. There are all kinds of different ways in which people are in debt, and not just in debt for the big things.

The mortgage, most of us do not even think about our mortgage as a debt. We accept that, the mortgage is the mortgage, but they are in debt for ordinary living. They are in debt for things that people thirty or forty years ago were not in debt for. If people are in debt to that degree, how are they, at the same time, also going to be putting money away? If they are in debt to that degree, are they in debt because they are making personal choices that have them in debt, or is it because of the system we have in our society today where we have created a society of expectations, and they are trying to meet those expectations, especially if they have children?

I talk to people who have children and I look at the cost, the amount of money it takes to give children just an ordinary, middle-class experience. It is an awful lot of money. We cannot say: Oh, if people just put more money away, then they would have the money when they retire – because they do not have the money to put away.

One of the things I think we have to look at is not – we do have to look at the liability, there is no doubt about that. I will just back up a bit. We do have to look at the unfunded liability. We also in this Province have to look at – over the years, how have we managed our pension funds? What are the potentials down the road for dealing with our pension funds?

When I think about some other places – for example, I think about Ontario and I think about something like – I think we all are aware of the Ontario teachers' pension fund, it is well-known. It is well-known around the country. I see one of my colleagues on the opposite side nodding his head. He has an education background, he knows about the Ontario teachers' pension fund. A fund which is extremely successful, a fund which has been involved in some major acquisitions that have added to their assets, even to the owning of a sports team, a hockey team. This is the kind of aggressive investment that is needed to make our public pension funds work. This is something that we have not been doing here in this Province.

I was a bit shocked the other day when I was being briefed on the bills because I did ask the person from the pension department: Who makes up the pension policy committee? I was curious because I wanted to know if discussions had been had with anybody in the public service sector from the employees' perspective just around the discussion around the bills. These bills did not require in-depth discussion but I was curious about who makes up the pension policy committee.

Basically, it is the Deputy Minister of Human Resources Secretariat, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Human Resources Secretariat, the Deputy Minister of the Pension Administration, representatives from Executive Council, the Director of Policy Division, and the Manager of Pension Benefits. These are the ones that we have noted. There may be some others; I may be missing some.

It seems to me that what we need to be looking at here in this Province is a much more open discussion between the government, which the Pension Policy Committee is – and all of those who are affected by the policies that are being put in place.

When I did ask if any discussion had taken place with those who are affected by the policy changes, the answer was no, but in reality most issues are not related to collective bargaining so there was no need in dealing with bargaining units. I think that is really interesting, because it seems to me that anything that affects the life of the worker – whether it is in the present or in their future when they are retired – is something that the representatives of workers should be involved in. There should be discussion involving the bargaining units and should be discussion involving those who are involved with representing the concerns of workers.

It does beg the question of how narrow has our vision been in this Province with regard to how we have put the Public Service Pensions in place. Shouldn't we be looking at other models, not just the type that the minister has been speaking about, but things like: what has been done with the Ontario Teachers' Pension fund? Are there other models which will help us increase our pensions, which will help us – and I know we have economic times that are tough, but you know, economic times have not stopped some others from benefiting; they have kept their pensions in place and kept them in place well.

I did some work some years ago that I get a little pension for; it is a very small one, but the thing is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: Yes, yes. I do not even mind saying who manages it, Mr. Speaker: it is managed by the Anglican Church of Canada. The thing I wanted to make is I get reports regularly on everything that they are doing to keep that pension plan in place, regular reports from them, and I am quite fascinated by the reports that I get.

They keep those who are benefitting from the pension plans involved in the discussions, in what is going on in every step that they are taking to make sure that the pension plan is safe.

It seems to me that we should be doing a lot more of speaking with, government needs to be speaking with those who are affected by the pension plans, not off in a corner by itself as government having policy discussions.

That was why in the past week or so it was rather disturbing to find out that all of a sudden we are hearing government – and I should not say all of a sudden; I have heard it before in the last week – coming out with little warnings with regard to the pension plan at a time when government is sitting at the table with the bargaining units.

It is rather disturbing, Mr. Speaker, to know that from the perspective of some of the unions – especially NAPE, because NAPE came out on November 1 and said that they were told out of the blue that government is considering changes to the public sector pension plans. I am sure the minister has seen the same –

MR. MARSHALL: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a point of order.

MR. MARSHALL: I do not mean to take any time away from the Leader of the NDP, but there are no proposals with respect to the pension plans in collective bargaining. As a matter of fact, the only pension plan that is bargained collectively is the teachers. What we did as a matter of courtesy, we said we are reserving the right to either bring forward or not bring forward amendments to the pension plan. That was it, and it was done just to be courteous.

There are no proposals being made and there is nothing that is going to affect anyone or take away any benefits that people have earned to date. We have to be very clear on that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party to continue.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

I think that the president of the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees, looking at the video that I have watched – and I am sure the minister has seen the same video – is very clear in her statement: do not touch our pension plans. I think her message would be number one, talking about the plan that we have in place in Newfoundland and Labrador; not only keep the benefits for those who are in it now, but the message to me is that they do not want anything done to the Defined Benefits Plan. I think that is really clear in the public message that she has sent out.

I certainly hope that the minister is going to listen to what is being said by that public service sector. When they sit at the table, what should be happening at the table is not threats; it should be sitting and talking together to come to a conclusion together about what needs to be done.

I put out one idea: we need to get more creative about what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.

I see my time is almost up. There are several more points I want to make with regard to the pension plan, but I will have other opportunities both in Committee of the Whole on this bill and we have another bill coming up after this one, if not today, later on this week. I will be able to make other points I have wanted to make with regard to our public service plan.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased and privileged to stand in this hon. House of Assembly today and to participate in this great debate as we bring forth amendments to improve Bill 43. Mr. Speaker, Bill 43 is An Act to Amend the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. This bill will amend the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 so that it can provide for consistency.

Several amendments are being made to the Public Service Pensions Act to implement various policy changes and also to enact a number of housekeeping changes. These changes, Mr. Speaker, will also make the act more consistent with provisions in the Pension Benefits Act, 1997 and the Income Tax Act, Canada.

As the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board previously noted, as of December 31, 2011 there were 32,000 active employees in the Province and another 15,600 retired employees under the Public Service Pension Plan, or the PSPP as it is commonly referred to. These amendments, Mr. Speaker, are to reflect changes in policy. This will then give more flexibility to members who are concluding the plan.

Mr. Speaker, when a vested employee upon termination of employment who is ineligible for an unreduced pension can option opt to transfer the lump sum value of their pension or commuted value to a locked RRSP, they have to do this within 180 days of receiving this estimate. Failing to do so, Mr. Speaker, or missing the 180-day timeline, their only option would be to take a deferred pension. Now this proposed amendment would allow for a recalculation of the commuted value at a subsequent date using the relevant calculation factors at the time.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board previously said as well, the Public Service Credit Union Limited, or the PSCUL, has been a participating employer since 1976. Its membership, Mr. Speaker, was limited to the provincial civil service but has since expanded to include the general public. It is a private sector employer and should not be a participating employer under the PSPP. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the act is being changed to discontinue the PSCUL participation in the Public Service Pension Plan.

PSCUL employees now participating in the PSPP before January 1, 2013 will be grandfathered in and all new employees will then participate under an arrangement sponsored by the Public Service Credit Union Limited.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments are to comply with the Pension Benefits Act, 1997. The pension benefits plan states that terminated vested employees, regardless of years of service, should be given the option to receive a pension from as early as fifty-five years of age. The pension would be adjusted to ensure that early access is in compliance with the plan.

As it will not cost any more to the plan, amendment changes to this bill would do that. We want to make sure that we have great clarity within this bill. We want the PSPP act to have the same language so that we are not preventing a pension in pay from being assigned, charged, attached, anticipated, et cetera. This has been the practice that such actions are governed by the PBA provision.

Mr. Speaker, we want to be certain that we are ensuring consistency with the Income Tax Act, Canada. We are amending to remove the payment of interest of over contributions as well.

Section 7 provides for the repayment of a refund of contributions can be paid to someone other in a member's estate, upon a member's death, that is not permissible under the Income Tax Act, Canada. It must be paid to the member's estate, Mr. Speaker.

There are several provisions, Mr. Speaker, in the act that can allow for employees to buy back years of service as long as two elements of the ITA are required. The service to be bought back has to qualify as eligible service, according to the Income Tax Act. Mr. Speaker, a returning employee who has transferred their termination benefit to an RRSP may re-buy into that service using the RRSP funds to do so. The amendments to Bill 43 will permit this to happen.

The amendments, Mr. Speaker, will also look at limits on credited periods of leave without pay. The limits on transfers between pension plans, as the amendment will provide that the transfer can only happen if the employee is allowed to transfer 100 per cent of their entitlement.

Other housekeeping amendments, Mr. Speaker, are in section 7.1 to clarify that only vested terminating employees who are ineligible for an immediate unreduced pension may elect to take their commuted value. In section 24, to specify that pension payments shall be equal and periodic. This, Mr. Speaker, is a requirement of the Income Tax Act and consistent with today's practice.

Mr. Speaker, it is also interesting to note that the Newfoundland and Labrador Pension Investment Committee is made up of government representatives, employee pensioner representatives, and non-government representatives. For the record, government representatives who sit on that committee are: Laurie Skinner, who is Chairperson, she is also the Deputy Minister of Finance; Ann Marie Miller, Vice-Chair, and Assistant Deputy Minister of Financial Planning and Benefits Administration of the Department of Finance; Ron Williams, Comptroller General; Karen Legge, Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Services, Department of Education; Maureen McCarthy, Director, Pension Administration; Paul Myrden, Director of Debt Management; and Natasha Trainor, Manager of Pension Investments.

From the employee pension representatives: Bert Blundon, from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees; Debbie Forward of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union; Edward Hancock of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association; Sharon King, Association of Allied Health Professionals; Cindy Christopher, from the Public Sector Managers' Association; Doug Laing, from the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Pensioners' Association; Dawn Learning, from the Canadian Union of Public Employees; and the representative on the committee representing non-government representatives is Roger Crosbie, from the private sector representatives. So there you have it, Mr. Speaker, the committee looking after our pensions here in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speak of the challenges, it certainly concerns me as well. When he talked about the pension plan will continue to be challenged, it is to be of concern. When we talk about the future evaluation assumptions, which he talked about that will change to reflect mortality, it continues to improve; our low interest rates will increase liabilities by $500 million to $600 million; and pension expenses is expected to increase from $650 million to $820 million in 2013-2014 and will continue to increase (inaudible) years served, Mr. Speaker, is of concern as well.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at our pensions, if nothing is done, do you know what will happen, I say to the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi? If nothing is done to our pensions, the pension plan will go broke.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I am delighted to take part in this debate, I put forward my comments on why I am concerned and why I am happy to be supporting the amendments to Bill 43 to make it more consistent with other acts within the country. I look forward to the passing of these amendments so that Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 will be a great act to follow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 43 and expand the debate more on pensions then Bill 43 will be able to add other comments to it.

Mr. Speaker, once again we hear things like the pension plan is going to go broke. It is almost like the sky is falling again, that everything all of a sudden is so urgent. Everything right now, because there are negotiations coming up, that everything is in critical mode. Everything is going in a crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the people opposite and the people in general, for nine years we were a have Province, for nine years. The question always is: Why didn't we discuss this over the nine years and sit down with the people and help it over the nine years when we had this flush with cash and we had all of these funds coming in?

Mr. Speaker, if it is such a crisis now, how come it was not a crisis for the last nine years when we were touting all the expenditures that we had and all the funds that we had, out spending money hand over fist like drunken sailors? Now, all of a sudden, there is a crisis. We have to manage this in a way, Mr. Speaker, so that everybody who has a vested interest is brought into negotiations and discussions on it.

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Everybody has to be brought in, I say to the Minister of Finance, who wants to stand up and have a few words on this here, and who needs to be a part of this; and it is very important that we have this approach. This heavy-handed approach by any government - and this is not being critical - by any government, does not bode well for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We all know the problems with the pension plan. We all know it. I am not sure if it is the crisis the government is portraying now, but we all know the fiscal responsibility of any government in the Province. This government is no different. We have to look at the pension plan in a realistic way. We have to do it in such a way, Mr. Speaker, that we do not just walk in, browbeat people, and say it is a priority now, and all of a sudden it is turned around and it is a crisis. It just cannot happen.

I say to the Minister of Finance: I do not know what was presented to the NLTA. I do not know. I was not in negotiations. I can tell you that a memo sent out to over all the teachers, over 6,000 teachers in the Province, does say eliminating the protection of pensions. That was the proposal that was sent back, and that was sent out by the NLTA.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I am not saying it was for NAPE. I am just saying by the teachers.

I am not sure if it is correct, I say to the minister. I was not part of it. I can tell you that the NLTA sent it out to all the teachers saying there was a proposal brought back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I will say to the minister: I am not sure. The information we are getting is the same information that the 6,000 or 7,000 teachers in this Province are getting also, that the bargaining unit came back with that. As the minister, if it is not correct, you should ensure, go public, and say no, there was no proposal put back to the NLTA, so they can send out a retraction to this memo to the employees and say it is off the table. That is where the information is coming from, I say to the minister. That is where it came from.

One of the things we have to do as a Legislature and as a government is, if this was such a major issue – and I go back to the Auditor General's report; I know they mentioned the amount of funds that needed to be put in there, Mr. Speaker. If it was a crisis, and if it is such a crisis now, we look back and the Auditor General in another part of his report is talking about the number of employees. The civil service has gone up over 37 per cent in the last eight or nine years. As we hire people –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: No, there are certain people out in Corner Brook that you know are just getting hired on for thirteen or fourteen weeks. You know who they are. I know who they are. They are being hired on a temporary basis. Every year they get called back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are they?

MR. JOYCE: You know who they are. I could name them, and you know I could name them.

The Auditor General himself, Mr. Speaker, when they went in and did a review in one or two departments – fifty-two of the sixty-seven, I think now, I am just going on recollection; fifty-two of the sixty-seven were temporary employees. This is something for government to look at; if we have this crisis with our pension plan, the more people we hire on – I am not saying that we should go out now and have mass layoffs, but we have to look at sustainability. If we hired by 37 per cent, you are assuming then that your pension liabilities go up by 37 per cent over eight, nine years, so over the years that should have been managed, Mr. Speaker.

This is the problem that now, all of a sudden, it is a crisis. Over the last six, seven, eight years, Mr. Speaker, we were flush with cash, spending money hand over fist – a 37 per cent increase in the civil service. Now we have to supply the pension fund with this 37 per cent also, so we have to have that balance. The more people we hire in government, the more that we have to put in the pension plan. This is something that government must get a grip on also.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the sustainability of when you go out and spend more than is coming in, even when you are flush with cash, you have to keep that in mind. Yes, we are a have Province, but yet a lot of the funds – and we could all bring up situations where you say, well, we would not have spent money here, we would not have spent a lot of money there. If we are going to tackle this pension plan, Mr. Speaker, we have to do it in a constructive way; we have to attack it from all sides.

There is absolutely no doubt that there is an issue. I remember back; Clyde Wells, I think, was the first one who put some money into the teachers' plan – I think it was back in probably 1991 or 1992 – put some funds in the unfunded liability, the pension liability. I think it was 1990 or 1991. I know other governments have put more money in.

Instead of just putting money in, we have to sit down as a Legislature, and more as a government. We have to sit down and take all the issues into account, and discuss it openly and rationally; but, before we do it, we have to sit down with all stakeholders. We need to sit down with all stakeholders and see if we can come up with some better plan, see if we can come up with some better idea, and see if there is some other way that we can all work together, Mr. Speaker, to try to ensure that we can save the pensions of people and that we can ensure the viability of the pension fund.

I know I heard some other speakers mention earlier: People depend on their pension – people actually depend on it. Then when you are educating your kids and when you are paying some of their university you are saying well, we know at the end of the rainbow that we are going to have some money there that we can live off because we can help our kids. I am sure most people understand that. Whoever can help their kids go through university are doing that and whoever can help in other ways are definitely doing it. That is understandable because we know, at the end of the rainbow, when we are ready to retire we are going to have a pension plan there that we can live off of.

We must find some way to ensure that because we know a lot of cases where people do not have that luxury. People do not have the luxury of having a pension plan. Some people just cannot afford to make any contributions to a pension plan; some other people, through disability, or could not find work at a high enough level to make the contributions; and some people may be off on workers' compensation over the years. So, there are a number of factors where people do not have the luxury of having a pension plan.

The ones who do have a contribution of the pension plan, we have to realize that the majority of people who do have it live in Newfoundland and Labrador and will spend their money here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, it benefits all of us as a society, if we can find some way to ensure that the pension fund is sustainable. It is used for the broadest number of people, but we need to have a wide-ranging debate on this whole pension plan before we go much further, because it is an issue that has been ongoing for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I will just speak a small bit to a few of the amendments that are going to be made and I am going to ask questions. I know a couple of other members opposite mentioned one of the changes is in compliance with the Income Tax Act, which we all must do. Then, the other thing: we mentioned there are 180 days, if you leave government, that you could transfer into a LIRA or LIF.

Now, I am not sure, Mr. Minister, if that is planning on changing, where a person can take out that LIF or take out that fund once you leave. I will explain – and I know I wrote the minister several times on this. This is not a criticism, this is something that a few people asked me to make public. If you are working for the government and you take your pension and you put it in this LIRA or your LIF, you cannot collect that until you are about sixty years old, I think it is.

MR. MARSHALL: Fifty-five.

MR. JOYCE: Fifty-five?

MR. MARSHALL: Now.

MR. JOYCE: Now it is fifty-five – moving down to fifty-five.

If a person, just say, has $50,000 in that LIF – and I was going on sixty, I say to the minister – when they turn sixty that person can get approximately $3,000 a year or less, a lot less, usually about $2,000. There is not a person alive under this program now who will ever collect the amount of money of their own contributions of that fund who will live long enough to get the contributions back.

We have to make changes to that. I know I spoke to the minister on that. There are some changes that we need to make around that –

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible) minister.

MR. JOYCE: It was the Minister of Service NL. I think I spoke to the Minister of Finance on it probably last year sometime or the spring.

For example, if you work at the hospital in Corner Brook and if you have $50,000 in your pension fund, you can transfer it out of that pension fund, it goes into the LIRA or the LIF and you cannot collect it until you are sixty. When you collect it, I think it might be $200 a month or $180 a month. The contribution that you made yourself, which is all you are allowed to transfer out, you will never be able to collect your own contribution. You just cannot collect it, time enough – because you are so limited on the amount that you are allowed to take, you can never collect it.

I ask the minister to seriously consider this. A lot of people when they lose their position or they leave that position, and for some other reason they may need that $35,000, $40,000 or $50,000 and they cannot get access to it – it is their money. I even think that back years ago it was the Liberal government that brought this in. I really think it was a Liberal government that brought this in and there were changes made to it.

This is just pleading for a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador –

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible) do not want it.

MR. JOYCE: I never heard what the minister said. Who does not want it?

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): Direct your comments to the Chair, please.

MR. JOYCE: Oh, sorry.

Can you ask the Minister of Finance who does not want it?

MR. SPEAKER: In Committee, you will have the opportunity, hon. member.

MR. JOYCE: Yes, in Committee, okay. Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister said that the unions do not want it.

What happens, though, a lot of these funds that are transferred, say, from the hospital in Corner Brook to a LIRA fund, are their own contributions. They are not with the government any longer; they are terminated. That is the only time that can be transferred. They are terminated. They either quit, or for some other reason they move the position, or they found other employment. They are terminated.

This is not a union thing. This is absolutely not a union thing. When you transfer out of the hospital – and I know the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, is well aware of this – your funds are transferred, and it is your funds that you paid in. You are no longer a member of that union. You are a private citizen who has these funds locked in; when you get to age sixty, you start collecting a minimal amount.

There are a lot of people out there who would like to get at that money because they need it. They are struggling. They will never be able to go back to that institution or that government employment to start their pension again. It is something that I ask the government. I know there are changes here to that, but I would ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to look at that. There are a lot of people out there who are hurting who really do need this fund that is locked in.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it any plainer: it is their funds that are being transferred out. It is their money that is being locked in. It is their money; when they get a certain age, they will get $200 or $300 a month. The two or three cases that I looked at, the person cannot live long enough to access their funds, Mr. Speaker. I would urge the government to look at that, because it is a very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is getting near. I will just once again urge the government: the pension plan for all public sector employees is very important to us all. We collectively, Mr. Speaker, must find some way to work together to ensure that when we come up with a plan, when we come up with some idea of how this is going to work, everybody is in agreement and this plan will stay viable. It will ensure that the funds are put in and ensure that people who are going to retire at an age will have a certain level of expectancy, they can have a certain comfort level; their lifestyle can stay up to a certain level that they will not reach below.

I know some people who have not got that privilege; the people that do, I think it is incumbent on all of us in this Legislature, incumbent on all the unions, Mr. Speaker, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to come together and see if you can come up with something which is mutually agreeable, something that we can sustain.

This problem is not just from the last number of years; it has been ongoing. Although you had eight, nine years flush with cash, we will forget that, Mr. Speaker. I just think that we all need to work together, Mr. Speaker, and try to come up with something positive for all these people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I just wanted to get up and say a couple of quick points. I know we are coming to the end; it will take me just a couple of minutes.

There are a couple of things that occur to me when we are talking about this debate. Of course, number one, we are talking about the future affordability for a lot of people. It occurred to me while I was sitting down listening to the Finance Minister and listening to the various members speaking that there were an awful lot of things that we could have done as a people, as a Province, and indeed, as a country, to address the need for an increase in pensions a long time ago.

One of those things was brought up a few months ago; I think it was by the Canadian Labour Congress, when they talked about the need to address the Canada Pension Plan. We probably would not be talking about a lot of problems with the government pension plan if we were able to address some of the needs of the Canada Pension Plan.

We know that the Canada Pension Plan has fallen into a little bit of disrepair over the years and certainly needs to be revisited, rather than what the Harper government has done. Perhaps we would have been able to see a little bit more done with people's pensions in this Province if the Dunderdale government had to go and address the Harper government and address the concerns of a lot of workers in this Province when it came to the Canada Pension Plan.

The best way to address the problems of poverty is to address pensions. We are not talking about letting go the rights of people to have a good pension. I do not think we should even be talking about that. Certainly, I hope we are not in the long run, if we are talking about a reform of pension plans. The government could have easily reached out in a committee setting –

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the debate before the House has nothing to do with people getting pension plans. The member is fear mongering and gone off on a tangent way beyond the text of this bill before the House. What we are talking about here has nothing to do with what the member is talking about. As a point of order, I think he should restrain his comments and focus on the text of the bill before us.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

There is no point of order, but I ask the member to be a little more to the bill, please.

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

I can understand government being a little bit concerned about where I am going with this, because I think pensions are important for everybody. That is my point. We are talking about affordability here at the same time. We are talking about government doing that and, at the same time, people not slipping into poverty.

We need pension reform. We recognize that. That is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker. The government is talking about some form of pension reform years after we should have started it. The Finance Minister got up in this House a little while ago, and I listened to every single word he said. At the same time, he is up, and he said: This is a problem that we have to deal with, the Liberals have to deal with, and the New Democratic Party has to deal with. We are talking about a setting where we could have had committee hearings a long time ago. We could have been talking about this issue years ago, but we were not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I think it is relevant, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very relevant. If the Finance Minister wants to go ahead and talk about it, we are open to discussion on it. Surely we are. Let us start tomorrow with a committee, let us talk about this, and let us talk about which way government wants to go with it.

I figured I would just bring up those quick couple of points, Mr. Speaker. I think they are very pertinent. The discussion is not only ongoing in Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to talking pensions; it is on the go right across the country. We should make a concrete start in this country right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Let us start right now. Let us talk to it in a committee setting. Let us bring it forward and let us come out with some good concrete proposals, listening to the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is their money. Let us hear what they have to say.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did listen to the comments by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. I have to say, as usual when the minister stands, I am impressed with how he delivers his message and how he speaks. I will say that to the member.

The message that was put out was not only talking about the piece of legislation. He did veer off into talking about pensions, the need to properly fund pensions, how pensions were going to be funded by government in the future, and the fact that we need to look at the situation with the pensions plan's unfunded liability in this Province, and suggestions that have been made by other individuals.

The message that was put out by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, is very clear. The translation is that we will be talking with the unions –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: – or the Province will be negotiating with the unions about pensions in the very near future. Get ready, unions, because the Province is going to be talking to you about pensions. That will be part of the negotiations. Let us be clear. That was the message the minister put out today.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that this piece of legislation is needed. I will be voting in favour of this piece of legislation. I agree with the legislation.

Allowing a terminating member who is eligible for a deferred pension to elect to receive a commuted value for the pension as determined at the date of election is an important part of this legislation. It is something that I have received phone calls on. I would say each and every member of this House has perhaps received phone calls on that particular piece of legislation. An individual who has –

MS SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: The bill, I say to the Minister of Health.

We have all received calls on this particular clause, people who are looking for money, who need money, and are asking to be able to get their hands on that money. Under the Province's current legislation, they have not been able to do that. I would say that that is a good part of this particular bill.

The minister also talked about, in this country there is a retirement saving situation; as people retire, especially as the baby boomers retire, in this country we will see an issue with what people have as retirement savings, their liquid ability to spend.

There is old age security and there is Canada Pension Plan, but I am not sure if we can totally rely on those things, Mr. Speaker; therefore, as the minister properly pointed out, people will have to invest in other forms of retirement savings. If we are going to continue to keep this Province's pension plans – and there are a number of them funded by the provincial government, funded by the public servants who work for government; if we are going to continue to see those as healthy pension plans, we do need to address the unfunded liabilities. That is something that I agree with as well. How we do that will be a matter for debate. What we are going to ask the public servants to do or the unions to do will be a matter for debate, undoubtedly, but we need to ensure that we keep those plans healthy for the public servants who have paid into them.

Government, over the years, has taken money out of those plans to be used for road improvements or other infrastructure improvements. While I admit, and I agree, and I understand, and I commend the government opposite for putting $2 million into the teachers' fund, and the former government for putting money into the unfunded liabilities of pensions, it was not enough. We did not put back the full amount that we had taken out, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: We did not put back into those funds the full amount that was taken out by successive governments over the years to be used for infrastructure projects, roads, and other projects.

We do have an obligation as government to ensure that we see those unfunded liabilities invested in. That is our obligation. Government successively has taken money out; we have an obligation to put the money back. It is not all the onus of the public servants who are going to be relying on these pensions; it is also the onus of the provincial government that over the years under different political stripes has borrowed from those unfunded liabilities.

Mr. Speaker, many seniors know – as we have all heard, and I am sure each and every member of the House has heard from public service pensioners as well – that the pension that they are receiving, when they retired they figured they would be able to survive on this pension. That combined with their Canada Pension, maybe some RRSPs, that they would be able to live comfortably. As the cost of living increases – not the dollar amount, the dollar amount stays the same but the value that the public service pensioner receives is not as strong.

That is something we are going to see more and more of as we see more and more people retire, and a greater demand on the public service pensioner, the unfunded liability pensions. We are going to see more and more pressure on those pensions to continue to provide to the public servants who have retired well into the future.

One of the issues that is not addressed under this particular piece of legislation – and I did raise it in the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker – is the fact that it is not only the public servants who pay into these pensions. We have other people who work within Confederation Building, staff members for the government side, staff members for this side of the House who are not members of the Public Service Pension Plan. While some of those staff members will work for years and years, perhaps decades, they are not entitled to the same pension benefits that public service pensioners are.

That is something, Mr. Speaker, that I think we need to address in fairness to those individuals. I have raised it before. I have raised it with the staff of the Minister of Finance. I will continue to raise it because I think it is an injustice to those individuals who put as many years in as other public servants and not have the entitlement of being a member of the Public Service Pension Plan.

Again, I will be supporting this particular piece of legislation, as I agree with the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and Attorney General speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How much time am I allowed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen minutes and fifty seconds.

MR. MARSHALL: Nineteen minutes and fifty seconds. So here we go.

I would like to just quickly address some of the comments hon. members have made. The hon. Member for St. John's South is unfortunately repeating a myth that certain people have passed on to him about the fact that the roads and bridges money was taken by government years ago and never replaced. It has been replaced.

We have an agreement here signed by the Public Service Pension Plan – this is NAPE. It says clause 2 refers to the $982 million that was put into the Public Service Pension Plan by the government. Clause 4 says that it is agreed that the payment outlined in clause 2 above is full settlement of government's share of the unfunded liability in that plan, as established as of December 31, 2000.

I have another one here with the Teachers' Pension Plan where it says, "Government will pay to the Teachers' Pension Plan fund $500 million in full settlement of the pre-1980 debt to the Teachers' Pension Plan".

So, in fact, the roads and bridges money has been paid and it has been acknowledged by at least two groups that it has been paid. I just wanted to correct that.

The Leader of the NDP talked about the investment policy committee and she talked about the investment of the pension plan monies. It is important to note, as the hon. Member for Port au Port pointed out, that there is a Pension Investment Committee that does invest the pension monies where it goes.

That pension committee consists of seven members from the public sector unions: Bert Blundon, who is from NAPE, the treasurer of NAPE, is a member of that committee; as is Debbie Forward, the President of the Nurses' Union; Edward Hancock of the Teachers' Association; Sharon King from the Association of Allied Health Professionals; Cindy Christopher who represents the Public Sector Managers' Association; Doug Laing of the Newfoundland & Labrador Public Sector Pensioners' Association; and the Canadian union, CUPE, is represented by Dawn Learning.

The unions, they decide. They are part of the decision-making process as to where the monies are to be invested. The monies are, of course, invested in a diversified portfolio of investments. There are three different firms who manage the Canadian equity section. There are five that manage the money that is invested in global equities. There are three companies that manage the money based on fixed income, and there is $221 million of the pension plan invested in real estate. I understand they are looking to further diversify the plan by maybe increasing the investment in real estate and investing in private equity and infrastructure.

I was very interested to hear the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition who talked about: It would be wise for the pension fund to invest some of its money into the Muskrat Falls, into a utility project because of the return of 7.25 per cent. It is extremely interesting, but I do not think our bonds are going to pay that much. I think our bonds are going to pay between 3.5 per cent and 4 per cent, so the return will not be as large.

The Leader of the NDP also talked about people. We are talking about the retirement savings problem and that some people in the country were not putting enough aside. Some people, the Canada Pension Plan is sufficient to provide them with 60 per cent or 70 per cent of their pre-retirement earnings, but there are a lot of people who are not putting enough aside. When they retire, they are just not going to have the income, even with their Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Pension. They are just not going to have enough to meet 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 70 per cent of their pre-retirement earnings.

What happens to people who have Defined Benefit Pension Plans? Here is a key point, such as our employees, is that if there is not enough money put in to meet the pension promise, the taxpayers have to put in that money. Your neighbours have to top up the plan.

The Leader of the NDP talked about people who did not have an RRSP, or had a DC Pension Plan which was not doing very well, but they have to pay taxes to top up the pension plan –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: - to government employees who have a Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Mr. Speaker, they are not going to be very happy with that.

Mr. Speaker, there was also a discussion, somebody mentioned – I think the Member for St. John's East talked about a warning to the unions. That every time I do something as Minister of Finance in terms of doing a pre-budget consultation or doing a major update, I am always giving a warning to the unions. Mr. Speaker, I am not giving a warning to the unions. I am simply giving out the information that the Minister of Finance is required to give out from time to time. It is information for the people of the Province. It is not a warning to the unions.

What I am saying here, Mr. Speaker, is that I have people talking about money going into pension plans and do not touch our pension plans. Mr. Speaker, the pension plans are going broke. They are not sustainable. Something has to be done. We cannot just cover our eyes and say there is no problem. Someone has to deal with it. If they want a hands-off approach, hands off it will be, but the pension plan is going to go a lot lower. So we have to do something to protect the sustainability of those pension plans.

The warning is not to unions. The warning is to people who are paying for it, and that is the taxpayers. There are people out there who do not have defined pension plans, who do not have any pension plan at all. Some of them do not even make their RRSP, they just cannot afford it. As the Leader of the NDP said, they cannot afford to make the payments. Government has to step in and help, and that is something that we love to do.

Mr. Speaker, our government has been very careful over the years to make sure that we help seniors. There is a seniors' benefit, it is a cheque. It comes with the GST cheque in October. Three times we have enhanced that, three times. It is now just under $1,000; 45,000 payments, $36 million. Back in 2003 there was only $7.5 million. Some may say we are spending like drunken sailors, but, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you on this side of the House we do not mind helping the seniors in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we have enhanced the Home Heating Rebate, $15 million, and I am pleased to say there is going to be another one this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: It is $15.5 million for 63,000 of our citizens. In addition to that, thanks to a woman on Humber Road, a Mrs. Dicks who gave us the idea, all apologies to the Leader of the NDP, but there was a Mrs. Dicks on Humber Road who said take the HST off heat and light, and we did, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

I remind the member of the subject of the bill before the House.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to pensions, we have to consider the options. We all have to work together to assure these are sustainable. At this time we are only reviewing options. There have been no proposals placed on the table, no proposals at all. Nothing specific has been decided. No specific proposals have been put forward but it is a fiscal responsibility of all of us – employers, unions, taxpayers, and especially us in this House – to look at options to ensure that the plans we have for our valued employees are sustainable.

The pension plans we offer our employees are good ones. They provide a decent standard of living for people that retire, but we have to protect them, and we have to look at what other jurisdictions have done that are trying to protect theirs. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do things like bring in an adult dental program that we brought in this year –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: – and bring in a Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: – put (inaudible) million into the plan for seniors –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, as I wrap up –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I appreciate the minister's excitement; however, we have a bill before the House that we are debating on pensions; this is not a finance bill, so there is little latitude to stray off the pension issue. I ask the minister if he would focus his comments on the pensions, please.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talked about the government's pension plan investing in Muskrat Falls. We have pension plans to protect our seniors. The problem is, not enough of our seniors have those plans, so government has to step in to provide income in lieu of the pensions: HST off insurance, adult dental programs, but best of all, Mr. Speaker, best of all, an investment that is going to provide stable, low electricity rates to the people of this Province for the next hundred years. That is Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: With that, Mr. Speaker, I move passage of second reading of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: For orders of the day, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this bill now?

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: All in favour of the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 43)

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

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

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 43)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole is considering Bill 43.

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 through 19 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 19 inclusive – the hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to ask the minister a question on number seven, when the funds are transferred to the LIRA fund. Was there any consideration by government to give people access to that fund? It is their money they paid into the pension plan; they are after leaving their place of employment. There is no return of employment to be under the government pension plan. Has the government considered that as an option to look at, giving the people – they would be able to take out their own money that is being transferred or locked into an RRSP?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of discussion on that particular issue. I hear particularly from people from my home city of Corner Brook, where Corner Brook firefighters and their union, the City of Corner Brook employees, have been concerned about the fact that they have money in these locked-in plans and the rules only allow so much to come out each year.

Their argument is that they would like to have more to come out when they first retire, when they are younger retirees, as opposed to having money later on when they are older. The government did some consultations; the major union groups, NAPE and CUPE, were against it, figuring it is pension money and it should be kept in a pension plan. We looked at others who follow the argument that the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands has raised, that it is their money and they should be allowed to do with it as they will. That is the other view. They are the two extremes. One extreme: You can do whatever you want. The other extreme: It is pension money; you should not take it out, you should keep it for your pension.

I know places like Ontario and the Government of Canada have split it down the middle, have gone fifty-fifty. That 50 per cent has to stay in until you reach the necessary age and the other 50 per cent you can take out at any time.

There are exceptions in our legislation – and I see the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador is not here but the former minister is here and he can remind me. There are two exceptions. One is that if there is medical evidence that your life could be shortened, then you are allowed to take the whole thing out. The other one – and I see he cannot remember it either, and he is a helluva lot younger than me.

AN HON. MEMBER: A small amount.

MR. MARSHALL: If it is a small amount, if it is below a certain amount, you can take it all out.

Other provinces have different rules but our rules are that there was no change in the legislation, but I am sure the new minister is certainly prepared to take it under review.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just explain to the minister because it is probably not clear what I am asking. The Corner Brook firefighters, for example, if one of the people there worked forty years, the city paid in so much and then also they paid in so much, they can collect their pension – that is one of them.

The people I am speaking about – and I will use an example that I spoke to the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador just last week. This person has been working at, say, the hospital in Corner Brook for about eight or ten years. This person is terminated from the hospital now. The funds that are transferred from the hospital, down to locked-in funds, is her money, what she paid in. She will never be able to work the thirty-five, forty years to get the full pension. She has no intention of going back to that employment.

Minister, what you are referring to, I can understand is that if someone who works the thirty-five, forty years and has a pension can take out so much, and that was the agreement. There are a number of people out there who have left their employment, who has these funds locked in and it is what they paid into the contribution. They do not take out what the employer paid in. They just take out their own amount that they paid in, in the pension plan. When it gets locked in, the amount that they are allowed to take out of this fund is so minimal that it is impossible to live old enough to collect the majority of it.

I just ask the minister if you can consider that and we can have some meetings on that to try to have this looked at some way. Because there are some people who can use this fund that is transferred out, which is their own money, which they have to have locked in under the pension plan now and under the rules. There is a small group of people and it is their money. It has nothing to do with the pension, because they are not part of a pension plan – like the firefighters, for example, or the people at the City of Corner Brook. So, I will just ask the minister: Can that be considered under this act?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In order to answer that question, I think there are a number of questions we would have for the hon. member, such as was it a defined contribution plan, or was it a defined benefit plan. If it was defined benefit plan, then the employer is paying so much of it, it is tied in. So, I think rather than tie up everyone here, I think a better thing would be for maybe the hon. member, and me, and the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to get together with the Director of Pensions and give him a proper answer.

CHAIR: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I thank the minister for that opportunity that we can try and get this clarified and help out a lot of people who are in this situation.

Thank you, Minister.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 19 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 19 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 43)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the Committee rise and report Bill 43.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 43.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have reported Bill 43 carried 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 Bill 43 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Member for the Bay of Islands, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.

Is it the wish of the House to endorse the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra minded?

Motion carried.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.