The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today at the earliest possible occasion to raise a point of privilege before this House. This is an important matter and, as such, I have already contacted you regarding the point.

O'Brien and Bosc note that rights and privileges of members of the House include freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation, and molestation. Regarding the subject of obstruction, interference, and intimidation, O'Brien and Bosc say the following about examples of obstruction, interference, and intimidation:

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member's reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information." Misleading a minister or a member has also been considered a form of obstruction, and is thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, during last Tuesday's session of this hon. House, I asked the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador a number of questions regarding Bill 47, the Appointments to Boards, Councils and Tribunals Amendment Act. I asked the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador who he consulted on Bill 47 and how he carried out those consultations. The minister's response to my question was something to the effect of: If you had been paying attention during discussions of the bill, you would know I discussed this.

I contend that despite his claim, the minister indeed did not discuss who he consulted on Bill 47 and how he carried out those consultations. In light of that, I advised the minister at the time that I would review Hansard to ensure that he did indeed provide this information; however, Mr. Speaker, at this point no copies of Hansard are available for that evening.

In fairness to the hon. House, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the transcript of Hansard, I am formally requesting that you review the video recording of the House proceedings that evening in order to authenticate the minister's statement to this hon. House last week. Mr. Speaker, if you find that the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador misled this House with his statement, I ask that you rule the minister is out of order and that he immediately apologize, not only to the members of this hon. House, but to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for making such a misleading statement in the House. No member of this House has a right to mislead another; to do so is a violation of privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe clarification first before I respond, so I am accurate. Am I correct that the member said this happened Tuesday past? If I am not permitted to ask a question, then I will simply give you a response. I thought I heard him say Tuesday past. My understanding would be the earliest point to raise a point of privilege would have been Wednesday or Thursday of this past week.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the connection of the member not providing what the hon. member considers to be a full answer to the question, as one to be this minister misleading the House. This minister made himself fully aware in that particular debate, both during second reading and in the Committee stage, and there was ample opportunity for members who were present in the House at that point in time – and Hansard does not reflect that, unfortunately – but the minister expressed himself very clearly, I think, that evening, and some frustration. Because some questions were being repeated by some members in this House who did not attend the earlier part of the session, I say.

I would say very clearly on behalf of the minister, Mr. Speaker, that there was certainly never, ever any intention to mislead this House. I think it is a bit unfortunate that someone would suggest that a Minister of the Crown would actually stand and deliberately mislead the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North, further to the point of privilege?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed the earliest possible occasion for me to raise this point. I advised the minister Tuesday night that I would seek to verify his comments in Hansard; however, no copy of Hansard is available. I assumed this would be available on Wednesday, and it was not. When it was not made available on Tuesday evening, I formally requested it from the Clerk's Office. I was subsequently advised to review the video recording, in the absence of Hansard. I did do this; however, some of the relevant comments from the minister on the recording appear to be inaudible, at least inaudible to me. Because Hansard has not been made available through my efforts and otherwise, this is indeed the earliest possible occasion for me to raise this point.

Thank you.

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

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

I understand the train of events that has been suggested there. In my experiences, it seems to be a first that Hansard is not available sometime certainly the very next day before the House sits. Usually the Hansard is available late in the afternoon, in the evening, or the next day.

Having said that, though, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the point of privilege ought to have been raised in the context that asking the Speaker to review Hansard, to suggest that we are six days later on a point of privilege – I think Bosc and O'Brien is very clear on that point, that you raise it at the earliest possible time that you become available of a potential point of privilege.

We are talking about a potential point of privilege; there has been no ruling on this. I think the Standing Orders would be very clear that you raise the point before the House and the Speaker at the earliest time and opportunity you have available to you, which would certainly have been a lot fewer days than six would have passed before you could have done that.

MR. SPEAKER: Before commenting on the substance of the point of privilege being raised, I would want to comment on the reference to the earliest possible time. The Speaker advised the House that yes, Hansard is an accurate recording of the House proceedings, but the evening sessions are not always available immediately after the session is over. Sometimes they tend to not be available until after the session has adjourned.

The fact that Hansard is not available – and the member has suggested that the audio version of the tape may in fact not be as clear as the Hansard may be, as the official transcript, the Speaker is prepared to entertain the point of privilege today as being the earliest possible time. The House will take a recess while the Speaker reviews the substance of the point of privilege and report back to the House.

This House stands adjourned for review of the point of privilege being raised. The bells will reconvene members when we have had a chance to review the points raised and the records.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

With respect to the point of privilege raised by the Member for the District of St. John's North, the Speaker had indicated before we took a brief recess that the printed Hansard is not available until some time after the evening sittings. Staff and officials are working diligently to try to conclude that process before the end of the business day today.

The Speaker attempted to review all of the video clips of that evening. You recall that was on Tuesday evening; it was dealt with in second reading and quite an extended period of Committee.

I recognize that it is an onerous path to try to conclude that before the day's session was over, but I have had a chance to review about half of it, I suspect. I realize that it is going to take some time. I wanted to make sure that I have had an opportunity to, if not read Hansard for the entire evening, at least to have listened to all of the video for the entire evening.

The subject matter raised is a serious one; however, the Speaker feels that it is appropriate to continue with today's proceeding in the interests of dealing with the people's business today, with the view of providing a ruling to the House tomorrow.

I would ask that we would now continue with today's proceedings and the Speaker will agree to provide a ruling with respect to the point of privilege before the start of tomorrow's session.

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the District of Baie Verte – Springdale; the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the Member for the District of Lake Melville; the Member for the District of Bellevue; the Member for the District of Humber Valley; and the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to recognize the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Springdale Women's Institute.

Formed in 1937, it was first known as the Jubilee Guild with first-year membership soaring to 121. In 1968 the Jubilee Guild became part of the Federated Women's Institute of Canada and consequently became known as the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institute.

Educating women on the skills of the day such as spinning, weaving, and sewing was the original aim of the organization.

When the hospital was built in Springdale, home nursing also became a focus, along with co-sponsoring health forums.

Located in the town hall, with a current membership of forty-three, the Women's Institute continues to serve the community and contribute to youth sponsorships, collecting for Heart and Stroke Foundation, donating to the local food bank, and creating beautiful woven items.

President Sadie Foster says they are a vibrant group that meets every Tuesday and Friday, adding influence to the craft community.

I invite all colleagues to join me in congratulating the Springdale Women's Institute upon their seventy-fifth anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is International Human Rights Day, and worldwide, people are focusing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the UN General Assembly December 10, 1945.

Today, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, "Over the past century, we have made undeniable progress along the path of inclusion.

"Yet far too many groups and individuals face far too many obstacles. Women have the right to vote almost everywhere, but remain hugely under-represented in parliaments…Indigenous people frequently face discrimination…Religious and ethnic minorities – as well as people with disabilities or those with a different sexual orientation or political opinion – are often hampered from taking part in key institutions and processes. Institutions and public discourse need to represent societies in all their diversity."

Today, I honour those who work for the rights of all people, many located in St. John's Centre: the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission; the Status of Women councils across the Province; all native rights organizations; all the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights groups; the religious social action groups; the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities and all disability rights groups; seniors and mental health advocates.

Together these groups of dedicated activists work to ensure all people of Newfoundland and Labrador can live as full participants in society, in safety and with mutual respect. I invite all members here today to thank them for their work and say bravo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the communities of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River, and Sheshatshiu, as well as the staff of the Department of Natural Resources, specifically the staff of Fire and Emergency Services, and everyone who volunteered their time to come together this summer during the forest fire that threatened the communities of Sheshatshiu and North West River this past June.

A forest fire broke out twenty kilometres north of North West River near what is called Sabasquach River, or what we refer to as Sabby River. It raged for several days and consumed almost 20,000 hectares or forest. It caused the communities of Sheshatshiu and North West River to be evacuated. The residents of Happy Valley-Goose Bay did their absolute best to see that the evacuees felt at home during this emergency, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime volunteers from the surrounding communities as well as the local fire departments proceeded to cut a fire break two kilometres long to protect Sheshatshiu and North West River. I was proud to see the communities of Lake Melville come together during this emergency situation and that no property was indeed lost.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in recognizing these communities and their volunteers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a remarkable group, the Dildo Playground Committee.

They are a group of approximately twenty members, mostly whom are young mothers. They began raising funds about a year ago to construct a playground in the heart of the community. They were met with much support from the community of Dildo and its surrounding neighbours. The committee has held numerous events throughout the year, such as Breakfast with Santa, the Easter Bunny, haunted houses, dances both adult and youth, ticket drives, and children fun days, just to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, this committee is very dedicated and were the recipients of the Community Capital Grant from the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The committee has risen just over $40,000 to date and have spent about $15,000 in preparing the groundwork. Through their voluntary time, commitment, and dedication, Dildo has seen a great improvement to their recreation facilities that will provide many activities for the youth of this community.

I ask that all members of this great House join me in an encouraging gesture to the Playground Committee of Dildo in their fundraising efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to commend the members of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners: Wayne Morris, Robert Doyle, Phil O'Keefe, Mary Byrne, Todd Squires, Doug Stanley, Beverly Vey, and Bill Simmons.

The judging panel for the Commitment to Care & Service Awards, presented annually by Pharmacy Practice and Drugstore Canada magazines, selected the board members of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners as this year's recipient of the prestigious Lifetime Service Award. The awards gala took place on November 26 in Toronto.

Above all, these individuals are tireless advocates for better health care for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When they are not running their own pharmacies and providing innovative services to patients, these individuals log thousands of volunteer hours annually.

The winners of this year's award demonstrate the leadership that is very much a group effort, particularly the unique challenges faced by pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask all hon. members in this House today to join me in congratulating these individuals on being presented the Lifetime Service Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge and commend women's groups in the District of St. Barbe on the invaluable role they play in the social well-being of their communities.

The Women's Institute in Port au Choix implements home economic, health, and social activities at the local level; including, but not limited to, craft production, a walk-away-the-pounds program, and special events for seniors and children. They support our country with their Packages for Soldiers in Afghanistan program, and they support the Women's Institute International with their Pennies-for-Friendship and Walk-Around-the-World programs.

The Rocky Harbour Regional Women's Committee is actively promoting awareness on women's and girl's issues, hosting Women's Wellness and Women in the Workplace workshops. Annually, they host a Commemoration Service on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, celebrate Women's History Month, host rallies for Take Back the Night, and celebrate International Women's Day. They recently established a scholarship for a Level III female student that promotes women's and girl's rights and issues.

Both these women's groups play a significant role in highlighting women's equality in society.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing these volunteers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Ministers' statements.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the hon. House to recognize International Human Rights Day. Every year since the United Nations' adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948, International Human Rights Day has been celebrated throughout our Province and across the world.

Mr. Speaker, the declaration outlines common principles – whether they be political, civil, cultural, social, or economic rights – that individuals, groups, and countries around the world can use as guiding examples to uphold.

This year, the theme of International Human Rights Day is My Voice Counts. The focus is on the rights of all people to be heard on issues that are important to them, and the theme recognizes that it is critical that everyone be included in decision making.

This theme, Mr. Speaker, is especially relevant to all sitting here today in this House. By choosing those people who will represent them, the citizens of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador play an important role in making the decisions that shape their communities. This government continues to encourage all citizens of the Province to take part in elections at all levels. It also continues to support citizens' rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. In our Province, the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission has the responsibility of ensuring that the law of human rights in the Province is upheld. The Commission is committed to promoting an understanding of and acceptance of human rights as outlined in the new Human Rights Act which was proclaimed by our government in 2010.

Furthermore, our government has demonstrated our commitment to open, accountable, and transparent government through the establishment of an Office of Public Engagement that will ensure effective, targeted, and interactive public consultations. Indeed, for this government, Mr. Speaker, every voice counts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing International Human Rights Day and to reflect on the importance of promoting equality, understanding, and mutual respect for all.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We too as the Official Opposition would also like to join in recognizing International Human Rights Day.

Here in this Province and in this country, sometimes we take human rights for granted just because we do live in a blessed place. You have countries like Egypt and Syria that have internal conflicts over the rights that we take for granted.

We cannot forget the good men and women in uniform who have fought and died for us to have these rights, rights like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, free press, and open elections. Human rights are not about the rights that government gives us. Rights that are given to us by others are not really rights at all. We do not have an open, accountable, and transparent government because government gives those things; we have them because it is our right to have them.

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 the advance copy of his statement. We must never take for granted the rights of any people in our society. Rights are not given but hard won. Our Human Rights Act is a living document that guides us on how we are to live together in mutual respect and peace in all our diversity.

Transgendered people are the most misunderstood and vulnerable in our society. It is time for this government to do the right thing – as has the United Nations, the Northwest Territories, Ontario, and Manitoba; Quebec and Nova Scotia are in the process, as is the federal government – and amend our Human Rights Act to include gender identity and expression as prohibitive grounds for discrimination. If this government is truly committed to reflecting the importance of promoting equality, understanding, and mutual respect for all, they must do so; to not is shameful. Every voice does count.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador remains focused on the needs of Labradorians and we are committed to ensuring there is a winter trail system to serve coastal Labrador communities not connected to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Our Labrador Transportation Grooming Subsidy provides a total of $350,000 annually to participating community groups to help winter snowmobile access between isolated communities and the nearest service centre during the winter season.

Our Labrador Affairs Office administers this program and partners to provide service to Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik, Rigolet, Black Tickle, Norman Bay, Williams Harbour, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, North West River, and Mud Lake.

The subsidy funding helps pay for groomer equipment, repairs to equipment, trail marking, and upgrades. Participating communities are responsible for marking and grooming their portion of the trail and the amount of funding provided to each group is calculated according to trail length. Trail marking and grooming takes place when ice thickens and snow conditions permit, which is usually the case between mid-January and late April.

Mr. Speaker, the travelling distance between most of these remote communities is considerable and the terrain can be challenging. Our Labrador Affairs Office employs a seasonal trail inspector to ensure that grooming activity is carried out in a safe manner and Global Positioning System – GPS – tracking devices have been installed in grooming machines so that they can be tracked in real time via the Internet. This same technology is used in the Cain's Quest Snowmobile Race and helps to support the safety of trail grooming operators.

I am proud of the positive working relationships we have developed with participating community organizations and we will continue to work together to enhance access for Labradorians in coastal communities.

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 his statement. I do not think any of us need to reiterate the significant importance of having snowmobile trails groomed and properly maintained through Labrador's isolated regions. We only have to look at the many cases of where people are often lost on these trails and sometimes even a loss of life to realize how important it is to have these safe trails to guide you home.

Mr. Speaker, there are still regions – I know Nain and Natuashish are not mentioned in this press release, but all communities in Labrador that are isolated that depend upon these trails need to ensure safe routes.

My colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, is caught in a snowstorm as we speak in Northern Labrador. He travels his district extensively by snowmobile in winter and could speak firsthand to the importance of this. I, myself, travel in and out of several communities in my district by snowmobile in winter and I know, Mr. Speaker, how easy it is to get lost if you do not have a good, safe trail to travel on.

Mr. Speaker, I know the grooming program has changed over the years. We have seen significant cuts by the Conservative government opposite in monies for trail grooming in Labrador. While it is still being provided to the isolated communities, it is, no doubt, an industry that could be built upon in Labrador as in other areas of the Province.

We fund it as a necessity but government may also want to consider funding it as a great tourism attraction and a way to create economic benefits and business opportunities for people in the Province as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today.

The transportation subsidy is very important to coastal communities of Labrador. An investment into these communities also ensures that for some the snowmobile trail network is maintained and an important means of access is also protected.

We also encourage government to invest in security measures along these routes by a strong investment, for example, into cellphone strategy, as well as to improve the accessibility to air ambulance. We may have secure snowmobile routes but to have the added security of cellphone service, for example, would also promote the use in growth of the service, especially regarding the winter tourism potential. We encourage the government to keep investing in these trail networks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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.

On Friday of last week the Supreme Court of Canada decision placed the responsibility with government for the more than $100 million to clean up the old Abitibi mill which was expropriated, as you know, by accident four years ago.

I ask the Premier: How can you explain that when you were as Natural Resources Minister, made this mistake costing the taxpayers of this Province more than $100 million?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. speaker.

The expropriation was done for one particular reason and that was to reclaim for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the power assets, the water rights, the land and the timber which had been given away to foreign interests to other companies who are now going to abandon the Province and abandon their commitment to operate a pulp and paper mill. Expropriation was the right thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, we know there was no intention at all of taking that mill. That is the root of the problem here. Even though we might have taken back the water rights and the timber rights, that was the right thing to do, but the right thing was not to take the over $100 million bill that comes with it from that mill.

Mr. Speaker, government found out about the $100 million mistake a full year before telling the public. Once again, secrecy prevails with this government. Government issued an environmental cleanup order to Abitibi. Well, we know who owned the mill. It was government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why did you keep the details of the $100 million mistake secret for a full year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me refer people back to the debate that took place in this Province led by the Leader of the Opposition after the election of last year when they insisted that the House be opened, and be opened quickly.

When we took a decision to expropriate Abitibi, it was something we had to do quickly, Mr. Speaker, because we knew the intention of the company was to sell the assets. We brought on board the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party. Mr. Speaker, we shared all of the information that we had.

Mr. Speaker, we decided that we would move quickly. We only had the weekend to prepare, but we all agreed that whatever risks were ensued – and we went on the best advice we had at the time, including advice from Justice – that it was the right thing to do and that our legislation should protect us. All three leaders agreed. The former Premier and two leaders who sit on the other side agreed that it was the right action.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the best advice was not taken because you did not intend on taking the mill, and you know that. It was a mistake, Mr. Speaker. The cost of going repeatedly to the courts to offset this mistake in an effort to clean up the Abitibi site has been a burden now on the backs of ratepayers and taxpayers in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed this with cost, meaning the government will also have to pick up the tab for the legal fees.

I ask the Premier: How much money will the taxpayers of this Province be on the hook for after these three failed court cases?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all three leaders agreed to act expeditiously in a very short window of time, not doing the normal due diligence that would be required. We had to do it to protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Inadvertently, Mr. Speaker, the mill was expropriated even though it was not intended to happen that way. Longitude and latitude got mixed up in the translation of the legal documents and we ended up owning the mill in Grand Falls.

Mr. Speaker, we did not expropriate Buchans, we did not expropriate Botwood, we did not expropriate Stephenville, and we are still landed with the cost of remediation. We will take action as a government to ensure that these kinds of things never happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also know that bankruptcy really did not occur until about three to four months later. We also know that even though there were three leaders there, two certainly did not agree with taking that mill.

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers are not only paying for the $100 million mistake by the Premier, they have already paid $72.8 million for the energy assets, and the federal government has paid in excess of $130 million to settle NAFTA. This government will have to settle with another group, of course that being Fortis, who had their property expropriated by the government during this botched expropriation of Abitibi.

I ask the Premier: What is the status of the Fortis negotiations, and how much more money will the taxpayers have to pay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, let me also say that when the government became aware that the mill had been expropriated as well, we made that information available in February. We have news stories, Mr. Speaker, that were printed in The Telegram that weekend and an NTV report that will substantiate that. That they did not decide to pay attention to it until six, eight, ten months later is something that they will have to explain.

Mr. Speaker, what we did was protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is something we are very proud of to this day. We do have the assets; they are not being taken off the foreign markets to be processed somewhere else, Mr. Speaker. Although we have not been able to find an appropriate use for them yet, we will, and they are here for generations to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The best place start with the explanation is: why did you take the mill? We have not heard that yet.

Mr. Speaker, when government made this $100 million mistake, the Premier was then the lead on this file. Mr. Ed Martin was the CEO of Nalcor; he provided technical briefings. The current Minister of Natural Resources was the Minister of Finance, and the current Minister of Finance was the Minister of Justice. They all played key roles in this botched expropriation.

I ask the Premier: Since the same people of the expropriated Abitibi mill by accident are now leading the charge on Muskrat Falls, how can the people of this Province have confidence in this multi-billion dollar project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the Leader of the Opposition, who did not sit in the House at that time, that his current House Leader was the Leader at the time. The current Leader of the Third Party was sitting at that time as Leader, was part of the briefing, Mr. Speaker. We brought in both leaders of Opposition Parties. We shared every piece of information we had. We brought down justice lawyers so that they could question.

Mr. Speaker, neither one of these learned colleagues pointed out that we were expropriating the mill. Based on the best information that we had, the longitude and latitude that was put before us, and the advice that we had, we were doing the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was in the room when the current Premier explained the Abitibi expropriation and then sent us to a technical briefing with Ed Martin. They stated that they would seize the water and timber rights but would leave the mill because of the environmental liabilities. That was what was said in the meeting. What we voted for, Mr. Speaker, was the expropriation of water and timber rights, not the mill.

I ask the Premier: What we voted for was not what we got, so how can we have any confidence in any of the information that you are providing on Muskrat Falls when it is the same cast of characters that is providing the information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has never tried to defend the expropriation of the mill, Mr. Speaker. It was never our intention to expropriate the mill. The Opposition understands that as well as we do, but we have the mill, Mr. Speaker; that sometimes is a consequence of doing things expeditiously and not doing the due diligence. That is why we do not make the same mistakes twice. We do not come in a week after an election or a month after election and open the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. You do the due diligence that is required.

Mr. Speaker, we did not have the luxury of doing that due diligence and picking up a translation of longitude and latitude that inadvertently caused the expropriation of the mill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier: it is due diligence getting a text on a term sheet at 10 o'clock in the morning and announcing it as 2:00 o'clock in the evening.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that we were told one thing, but something completely different happened. When the Premier finally admitted that she accidentally expropriated a mill in 2010, she claimed it would not be expensive. I quote, on April 27, 2010, she said, "…the polluter pays and under no circumstance will we be responsible for remediation that Abitibi is responsible for. That is the bottom line."

I ask the Premier: The Supreme Court of Canada has given you a new bottom line; do you still think that well over $100 million mistake is not expensive to the taxpayers of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out first of all the House Leader has no idea how much the cost is going to be to that clean up, nor do I – the final cost. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, I have a better handle on it than she does.

The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, we ought not to have to be cleaning up these kinds of messes anyway. The Supreme Court ruling not only sent a shiver through the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador but every government across this country and every environmental group across this country because laws we have passed in our Province that should be binding on companies and industries that work here have been overruled by a federal court, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sincerely doubt the Premier has a better handle on any of this. In fact, I will tell you your Minister of Environment said last week that it could be over $100 million.

Newfoundland Power and the Consumer Advocate have filed lists of witnesses for the upcoming PUB rate review. In contrast, the Premier has repeatedly denied calling expert witnesses before the House on Muskrat Falls and is now planning to remove the PUB from setting power rates associated with Muskrat Falls.

I ask the Premier: Why can Newfoundland Power and the Consumer Advocate call witnesses to the PUB, but you deny that right to the people of Province on Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing in fact is following practice set down by the Liberals when they were government. Mr. Speaker, they removed projects like Muskrat Falls from review by the PUB and not, as they like to shout across the House, just the Lower Churchill, which they had destined for export and export only, forgetting all about the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Granite Canal was developed entirely for the use of Newfoundlanders, yet they exempted that from the PUB process. This is the most analyzed and reported on project in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Removing projects and removing rates from the PUB are two very different things, I say to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has stated that he has no confidence in the PUB, even though the members of that board were appointed by his government and the members opposite.

I ask the Premier: How can you allow the PUB to review Newfoundland Power's rate requests and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's 2013 budget request when you have no confidence in them? How do you justify supporting them on one review, but not on another?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time just in this session that the Opposition is suggesting that we ought to get rid of the PUB. That is certainly not my view, Mr. Speaker. They perform an important role.

What is most disappointing to me – Premier – is that we asked them to do a very specific piece of work on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We gave them the funds – well over $2 million. We gave them the time – over nine months – and they failed to live up to their obligation, I believe, to give this government a recommendation, even though their own expert could do so, Mr. Speaker, and their own Consumer Advocate could do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, parents in this Province have been fighting against proposed school closures all fall. This week, school trustees with the Eastern School District will make a final decision on which of these schools will close. Consistent with the secrecy of Bill 29, the minister has given the trustees the power to vote in secret.

In the interests of transparency and accountability, I ask the minister: Will he instruct that these votes be openly recorded?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very emotional time, Mr. Speaker, for all that is involved in this decision. The people who are elected – and I stress that word, elected – and a legislative process that they go through, these are volunteers who take this extremely serious. They know that their decisions are going to impact upon students, parents, and all. Mr. Speaker, the process that is being carried out right now is in legislation, and that process will be allowed to continue as is in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the process that is in place right now was put in place by the minister in March, 2009, bylaw 2.11 which lets trustees vote in secret.

Mr. Speaker, in a letter dated October 22, 2012, the Member for Bellevue district pressured the Eastern School District to keep Swift Current School open. This also happened in 2005 during the Exploits by-election when the minister reversed the board decision to close a school.

I ask the minister: Who decides which schools must close, the school boards, the minister himself or any government member who exerts pressure on the board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that members, whoever they are on either side of this House, would represent their constituents. That is what the MHAs who have schools being affected have done. They have made the points to school board officials on behalf of their parent community and their student community, Mr. Speaker.

It is not about pressure. It is their efforts to present the facts so all these facts are taken into consideration when the school board makes a decision, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly the point. These are elected representatives and they, Mr. Speaker, make the decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with Kiewit in Marystown have been ongoing for some time. Meanwhile, we continue to experience downtime and delays with our ferry system all around the Province.

I ask the minister: When will you conclude negotiations with Kiewit so construction can begin on these much needed vessels?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the hon. member opposite that some of the ferry services or most of the ferry services around this Province which are – especially the ones that are operated by our own employees, Newfoundland and Labrador employees. They are public servants. They are services provided by contractors. I can tell you, since I came to this department, Mr. Speaker, I have seen great success in the service that has been provided by those people to remote parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are working with Peter Kiewit, we are working with the company. I recently met with officials from the company. I met with the representatives of the union. I have also recently met with the Joint Councils of the Burin Peninsula. In the near future, Mr. Speaker, I will make my decision on how we are going to move forward with ferry procurement to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Section 4.11 of the Muskrat Falls federal loan guarantee clearly notes there cannot be a change of control or sale of Nalcor, but not so the subsidiaries that will soon be created. Section 4.11 is open to the possibility that Muskrat Falls can be privatized and sold. The response of the Minister of Natural Resources last week to our concerns over that section was to say, sale of Nalcor subsidiaries will not happen and that everything is safe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can she guarantee that Muskrat Falls will not be privatized?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as was noted here in the House last week, what you see in our loan guarantee document is normal, commercial arrangements. When you go to borrow money, to build an asset, Mr. Speaker, the asset is put there against the loan. So, unless there is some catastrophe in Newfoundland and Labrador and everybody decides not to pay their light bills, Mr. Speaker, in that circumstance we might lose the generation facility. I cannot imagine who will buy it with nobody paying their light bills, Mr. Speaker. Only under that extreme circumstance would we lose control of the generating facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section 4.11 of the federal loan guarantee makes a clear distinction between the sale of Nalcor and the sale of its subsidiaries. The language in that section could not be clearer. A sale could happen after the people of this Province have paid for Muskrat Falls. That is in that section.

I ask the Premier: Why did she agree to a contract that could allow Emera the chance to buy part or the whole of the Muskrat Falls Project? It does not say in extreme circumstances in that section, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this project is going to be undertaken by subsidiaries of Nalcor and subsidiaries of Emera. What they are going to do is they are going to borrow money; that is the debt part of the deal. The debt equity ratio, the debt part is going to be taken on by these subsidiaries. The debt is going to be non-recourse to Nalcor. It is going to be non-recourse to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The provincial government, we will put in our equity. We will put in what is called a down payment. We will put in our equity contribution. We utilize those funds; we utilize some from cash flow and some from debt. The revenues that will be generated by that project will service the debt of that project. The dividends will then come to us and the dividends will be used to pay down any debt that we take on.

Mr. Speaker, we estimate the dividends that will come to us will average about $480 million a year over the fifty years of the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, clause 4.11 is an out clause. This government is prepared to unload Muskrat Falls when the cost becomes unbearable for this Province, which they will.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Did Emera or did this government ask for clause 4.11 to be written into the loan guarantee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the revenues that will go into Nalcor and Emera will pay off the cost of operating those assets, the cost of constructing the project. There is also a return that goes to the equity holder. I just indicated that we will receive, on average, dividends of about $450 million a year over the fifty years; on average. That is about $20 billion over the fifty-year life of the project. I think we are going to do very well, and I do not think we are going to have to ever worry about losing that project. That project is going to provide stable and fair electricity rates to the people of this Province for over 100 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So now this government cannot only talk thirty years in the future and forty years in the future, it is 100 years now.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has signed a loan guarantee which has benefits for the people of Nova Scotia, benefits for the shareholders of Emera –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – and ironclad protection for the federal government. By removing the protection of the PUB, the Premier has ensured the only group who stands to suffer on this agreement will be the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How could she present such a shameful deal to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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 is unbelievable. It is absolutely unbelievable that a commercial term sheet is no better understood than this one obviously is here in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor is protected. The subsidiary will hold the asset and it will hold all the debt, not Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, not only will we earn enough money to pay off the debt, the government itself will earn $450 million, plus it will grow every year for the term of the project. Not only will we be able to pay off the asset, Mr. Speaker, we will earn hundreds of millions of dollars from Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, just a little bit of a different topic, but I ask the Premier: Is this government ready to table the legal costs to the people of this Province for their bid to try to get Abitibi to pay for the site cleanup of Grand Falls-Windsor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, because the repercussions of the ruling of the Supreme Court apply not only to Abitibi. They have implications for other industrial sites that may be in bankruptcy protection now or in the future, Mr. Speaker. We have to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that we do not get left with the same mess as we did in mining until we introduced the right, appropriate legislative measures to ensure that companies were responsible for their own clean up.

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Opposition parties again, that we did not expropriate Buchans, we did not expropriate Botwood, we did not expropriate Stephenville, but we will be responsible for all of the clean up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, recently in Question Period the Minister of Justice said the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission advised him that there are no gaps in the current legislation protecting the human rights of trans-people. Since then I have correspondence from the commission stating they support the inclusion of gender identity in the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, on International Human Rights Day, I ask the minister: Will he amend the Human Rights Act to explicitly include gender identity and gender expression?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for her question. This is, indeed, a very important day. That is why I took the opportunity to present a member's statement before the House – a minister's statement, excuse me. We take the human rights of people in this Province very seriously. It is why our government actually proclaimed changes to the Human Rights Act in 2010.

Respecting the issue that the member opposite raises, I did in fact provide, as she paraphrases, that kind of an answer. I have been advised, even as recently as last week, that there are no gaps in the legislation at this point in time that prevents anybody from filing a complaint and having it heard before the Human Rights Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, on Human Rights Day that is a shameful answer.

Mr. Speaker, Planned Parenthood provides thousands of young people with condoms to help prevent unintended pregnancies and the spread of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases. Newfoundland and Labrador has a rising incidence of STDs. Planned Parenthood is basically run by volunteers on a miniscule budget. They desperately need help.

I ask the minister: Will her department help Planned Parenthood so they can continue to provide this crucial service to our young people who trust them and use their services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is an issue that has recently come to us. We have committed to speaking with the authorities involved. I should point out as well though to the House of Assembly, and to anyone who is watching, that we do contribute $45,000 a year in base funding to Planned Parenthood and we continue to support the work that Planned Parenthood does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, my district has ten communities without broadband access, with more than 200 communities Province-wide. The last Rural Broadband Initiative announced service for ten communities. This year's initiative had reduced funding of just $2 million meaning fewer communities will gain access. Mr. Speaker, the Tory Blue Book promises to make a concerted effort to provide Province-wide high-speed access within four years.

I ask the minister: How he plans for Province-wide coverage by 2015 with continued cuts to this initiative?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member pointed out this is a four-year initiative. We committed it in the Blue Book; we went to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Since coming to power we have increased by 312 per cent the access to high-speed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Last year, we invested $7 million and partnered as well for another $20 million, for a $27 million investment with our partners.

This year we had a call for RBI proposals; we are reviewing approximately six proposals right now for the Province, so we are continuing on the line that we took for four years. We are continuing to build high-speed Internet. We will continue to see communities, I think, in the hon. member's district, communities in his district and the Northern Peninsula, continue to invest; we continue to do that, and we will see the growth of high-speed Internet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, wireless service is unregulated. Many hotels and small businesses have Wi-Fi or can set up access points for around $100, whereas carrier towers can cost millions. The Tory Blue Book promises to work with service providers to develop a plan to expand digital and cellular telephone access to more regions of the Province.

So I ask the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development: Will he commit funds for wireless development that partner small business and mobility providers for enhanced data service for rural regions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, our initiative looks at all aspects of broadband, looks at fibre, wireless, as well as satellite. In regards to the call we made recently in regards to technology used, there could be a possibility for cellular to grow it out from there; that is something we are certainly looking at. I have had discussions and dialogue with a number of service providers in the Province and outside the Province in terms of what their expectation would be and how we could partner with them to continue the increase in broadband in the Province. We will continue to do that in dialogue; anybody who is out there who wants to come and partner with us, we are certainly happy to talk to them and see what we can do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 25, subsection 5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling eleven Orders-in-Council related to funding precommitments for the 2013-2014 to the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, Bill 54.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 55.

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of a resolution affirming the principal of independent electricity rate regulation in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It will read:

WHEREAS the electricity market in Newfoundland and Labrador is a monopoly where ratepayers have no choice in their preferred electricity supplier; and

WHEREAS robust, independent regulation assures ratepayers that they will have access to electrical power at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service; and

WHEREAS electricity is an essential commodity for domestic and commercial use and the oversight of the cost of its service is in the public interest;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House endorses the principle of independent electrical utility regulation for the establishment of electricity rates in the Province to protect the interests of the provincial ratepayers.

This motion is seconded by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 63, the motion just put forward by my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley, will be called for debate on Wednesday.

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

Petitions.

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

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

WHEREAS with declining enrolment, distance education by Internet is now an accepted way to deliver educational services to students living in small communities; and

WHEREAS students have little to no say in where they or their families reside; and

WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to relocate so that their children can access educational opportunities in larger centres; and

WHEREAS many small businesses rely on the Internet to conduct business; and

WHEREAS high-speed Internet permits a business to be more competitive than does slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the Community of Bird Cove; and

WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed Internet to residents of this community;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner with the private sector and offer high-speed Internet service to these communities.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I was contacted back in the spring session after having presented petitions on behalf of some communities regarding high-speed Internet. The person who contacted me was a high school student in Bird Cove. He was very concerned that even though the announcement had been made, high-speed Internet would, in fact, pass his town, which is the only incorporated municipality in that area, to bypass his town and not reach back as far as his town.

Approximately one to two kilometres away there will be high-speed Internet, and this young man was very concerned that no petition was presented on their behalf. I explained to him how the process worked. He circulated the petitions, and here we have five pages.

This is the petition of the residents of Bird Cove, a community with a fully functioning town office. They pay for all of their own services and they have shrunk in size from between 600 and 700, when cod was king, to around 200 right now – a fire department, a great town, but without high-speed Internet. Mr. Speaker, there are many other towns like Bird Cove in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a petition, Mr. Speaker. To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the residents of the Southwest Coast must travel the Trans-Canada Highway between Channel-Port aux Basques and Corner Brook for work, medical, educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS Marine Atlantic ferries dock at Channel-Port aux Basques at various hours on a daily basis resulting in extremely high volume of commercial and residential travellers using this section of the Trans-Canada Highway; and

WHEREAS the world-renowned Wreckhouse area is situate along this section of the TCH; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a twenty-four hour snow clearing pilot project in 2008 that excluded the section of the Trans-Canada Highway for Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to include the section of the Trans-Canada Highway from Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville in the twenty-four hour snow clearing project.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I started circulating very recently. I believe it was not last Friday, the Friday before. When I went home to my district this weekend, I went back to my office and the stack of them that had been returned to me from constituents all over my district was amazing. I have a stack sitting on my desk that is probably as high as that book, and that shows the concern that people have, the travellers in this area of the district, in this area of the Province, that have to go back and forth for absolutely everything.

The fact is we have the residential travellers that must travel for work. They must travel to go to Corner Brook hospital for absolutely any service. We have to go for any specialist service. You have expectant mothers going back and forth to appointments and are dreading that call that might come during the winter when the road is sometimes not fit to be on, and you know that the snow clearing is not going to happen twenty-four hours a day and that the trucks are off the road at 9:30 every night, no matter the conditions. That is not going to stop you if you have to get on that road and get to the hospital in Corner Brook.

The fact is most of us have to travel to the Deer Lake airport or even the Stephenville airport, but the fact is we do not have the snow clearing there. You take into consideration that we have the Marine Atlantic ferries which are docking at all hours of the night and we have the commercial trucks just coming off, load and go, and heading onto that highway. In some cases, as we saw just a week-and-a-half ago, they are not fit to be on and we are having accidents where people are going to lose lives. It is not an uncommon sight to see trucks flipped over in the Wreckhouse there due to the wind.

What we are asking for here is a service that I think is essential. We must take into consideration the other factors, not just volume. There is a significant volume, but we must take into account the number of people coming, the people who are unfamiliar with that area, and the fact that we have an anomaly in terms of weather, just with the Wreckhouse area alone.

I appreciate the time to present this petition again on behalf of my constituents.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very happy to present this petition on behalf of the petitioners.

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 we, the residents of the City of St. John's, including the Battery, Fort Amherst and environs are adamantly opposed to the Encanex Wastewater Treatment Facility proposal on Pier 17, St. John's harbour front; and

WHEREAS there are potential health risks and ill-effects resulting from such a facility being positioned in close proximity to residents, including excessive noise and odour issues, and taking into consideration the risks of spillage and mechanical error; and

WHEREAS we understand the need for oily waste treatment facilities and support good environmental stewardship regarding the safe disposal of oil waste, however, it need not be based in close proximity to our greatest asset in provincial and city tourism, under the Battery; and

WHEREAS your government challenges us all to take an active role in promoting our environment. Clean air, water, and land are priceless natural endowments and protection of these resources and our historic areas such as the Battery bring a wealth of tourism. As individuals, groups and businesses, and government, it is our responsibility to protect and sustain this environment;

WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reject the Encanex proposal for a wastewater treatment facility that would process petroleum hydrocarbons, total suspended solids, solids, metals typically associated with hydrocarbons, and free oil on Pier 17 right under Battery Road on the City of St. John's harbour front due to its inappropriate location that would place it too close to residents and in direct conflict with the Province's heavily invested and unique cultural tourism industry.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, to stand and present this petition on behalf of the petitioners. There were four members in my district, actually, who came to me with concerns and took it upon themselves to circulate this petition, which has been signed by hundreds of people. Mainly people from the area most affected, but people elsewhere in the city as well who are concerned about what is being proposed for the Harbour Front at Pier 17.

The points of the petition are so very well written. One of the things they are pointing out very strongly is where the facility is being proposed to be placed. That is one of the biggest problems. I was quite shocked myself when I saw how close it was to residences and the impact it will have on people. So I do ask the government to pay attention to the petition as it has been put forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 students who attend smaller community schools are more likely to participate in extracurricular activities; and

WHEREAS Swift Current Academy's extracurricular school activities, such as our basketball team and drama club, provide enriching after school programs for students; and

WHEREAS the proposal to reconfigure Swift Current Academy will deny students fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy and active school environment; and

WHEREAS small schools research shows that students who attend smaller community schools have a greater sense of belonging, feel safer, and are less likely to drop out and leave school before graduation; and

WHEREAS distance education delivered through the Department of Education's Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation have proved to be successful for many students who have graduated from Swift Current Academy and have gone on to attend college and university programs;

We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with adequate funds to maintain Swift Current Academy as a K-12 school.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of schools that are affected by the decision that will be made by the Eastern School District this Thursday, December 13, at a meeting in Spaniard's Bay.

I listened to the Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader on CBC radio last week when he gave an interview that was peppered with outright fallacies in terms of why we are presenting these petitions in the House of Assembly. He suggested we were standing here presenting these petitions to rub this in the face of members opposite. That is certainly not our intention.

We just want to stand here and hand in petitions like this one that I received in the mail last week from a member of the school council out in Swift Current. As we know, government has billions of dollars for Muskrat Falls, yet communities like Swift Current are being asked to make sacrifices with their schools.

The government ministers say their Muskrat Falls plan will bring our light bills down but residents in our communities do not want to be the last ones to turn the lights out in their communities. They want community schools to remain open, they want their excellent schools with excellent teachers, excellent staff and students and excellent records of grassroots support to remain open. I hope the members opposite will think more about those concerns in particular.

Thank you.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, when this petition was first introduced, many transgendered youth across the Province contacted me. They said: Is it really possible that our government is going to do it this time? Not only did the youth contact me, their parents contacted me, a number of teachers also contacted me.

Our Human Rights Act is not about just prohibiting discrimination. It is also about sending out a clear signal to society that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression should be prohibited. That requires us as legislators to take a proactive role to do education, and to do education in the broader public.

We know that it is time to do this. It is no longer okay for our government to hold us back. So often we are talking about the lives of our youth. The statistics show so clearly how vulnerable they are, and also adult transgender people who face the basest kind of discrimination and violations. The United Nations has taken this and done something with it, as have a number of provinces in the Country. All human rights legislators know it is basically time. There is no good reason not to do this.

I beg this government to do the right thing, to amend our Human Rights Act to include gender orientation and gender identity and expression in the Human Rights Code.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: 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 in the District of The Straits – White Bay North, despite the $4 million Rural Broadband Initiative announcement on December 22, 2011, only one community – Ship Cove – is slated for broadband coverage; and

WHEREAS the communities of Pine's Cove, Eddies Cove East, Bide Arm, North Boat Harbour, L'Anse aux Meadows, Great Brehat, St. Carol's, Goose Cove, Grandois, and St. Anthony Bight still remain without services; and

WHEREAS many small businesses within the district rely on Internet to conduct business; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet permits a business to be more competitive than slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet enhances primary, secondary, post-secondary, and further educational opportunities;

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to reinvest in the rural broadband initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I am certainly encouraged by the Minister of IBRD in his comments made during Question Period as he is reviewing proposals. This is signed by petitioners in Bide Arm, St. Lunaire, Bear Cove, Griquet, L'Anse aux Meadows, Green Island Cove, Cook's Harbour, Sandy Cove, Roddickton, Raleigh, Great Brehat, and Ship Cove. There are a number of petitioners here.

One of the things we need to look at when we are talking about really getting a true coverage – because Industry Canada has said within seven years we have to have 97 per cent coverage – is building that ubiquitous network. To do so, if we look at the strategy beyond partnering with the big providers, we can do things that are grass roots as well, that also include Wi-Fi repeaters, point-on-point access through radio, and looking at things like copper wire. There are alternate solutions. The financial implications do not have to be that high. We can reach coverage and we can bridge gaps to these 200 communities that do not have service, ten of them which are currently in my district.

The Regional Economic Development Board in the mid-2000s or early 2000s tapped into the BRAND initiative and levered over $3 million to provide broadband Internet to over twenty communities on the Great Northern Peninsula, a very small expenditure by the provincial government and Bell Aliant at the time.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are creative solutions, and I present this petition to the House urging to move to provide greater coverage to the District of The Straits – White Bay North.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business, and Rural Development, Order 2, under Motions, for leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, Bill 53, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, Bill 53, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994", carried. (Bill 53)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. (Bill 53)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 53 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act, Bill 48.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister for Service Newfoundland and Labrador, that An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act, Bill 48, 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 48 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 The Trust And Loan Corporations Act. (Bill 48)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 48)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3, third reading of a bill.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act, Bill 49, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been moved a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 49 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 The Young Persons Offences Act. (Bill 49)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 49)

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 51)

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

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997". (Bill 51)

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

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Service Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible for the regulation of pension plans in Newfoundland and Labrador through the Pensions Benefits Act and associated regulations. Pensions are an important aspect of the compensation package for many employees and provide a level of security and income to them upon their retirement.

The amendments being introduced today will give the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador the authority to enter into a new agreement respecting multi-jurisdictional pension plans. A multi-jurisdictional registered pension plan is subject to the pension legislation across multiple jurisdictions within Canada because of the nature or place of the plan members' employment. This multi-jurisdictional agreement has existed since 1968.

In 1968, under the former Pensions Benefits Act, the minister responsible in the Province has authorized authority to enter into multi-jurisdictional agreements. Through changes in the ensuing years, it is becoming clear that a new reciprocal agreement is required to establish a clear, legal framework for the administration and regulation of pension plans across the country.

One key area which will be addressed for the new agreements will be a set of rules which govern the division of pension plan assets across different jurisdictions throughout the country. The previous agreement was silent on this aspect, so it is important that these changes be made. This agreement will be monitored by a committee which will conduct a full review every five years to determine any required changes to the agreement. It will also provide a more efficient regulatory environment for planned sponsors and administrators and will reduce red tape.

It is important to note, the amendment today is not the agreement itself. In fact, the amendment today is providing the authority to the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador and the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, or their designates, to sign this new agreement which will come forward later in 2013.

Mr. Speaker, the main part of this bill, Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, is it will allow the Minister Responsible for Service Newfoundland and Labrador, "…with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to enter into an agreement governing multi-jurisdictional pension plans where the agreement contains provisions that are not in the Act or the legislation of another jurisdiction." Also, I should note, "This Bill would also give the agreement the force of law." That is fairly important there.

I will go down through the act in a little while, but some of the things I think are important that we know in background here is that the federal government and nine of the provinces have legislation with a pensions act. The only province in the country that does not have a pension benefits act right now at the present time is Prince Edward Island. The whole purpose of the amendments that I am bringing forward today is so it will give us a clearer, legal framework.

The act as it is right now, what the amendments will do is address some of the former issues that came forward from the present act. These amendments will expand the authority that the minister will have in conjunction, I should say, with the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs so that they can enter into an agreement to make the changes where they see necessary, and most of that is to do with the division of assets.

If you go down, there are two sections where there are changes being made in the act. The first one is in section 2 of the Pension Benefits Act, 1997. It will read now, "Section 2 of the Pension Benefits Act, 1997 is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (v) the following:" The amendment that I am recommending, first of all, in "(v.1) ‘multi-jurisdictional pension plan' means a pension plan that is subject to this Act and to the pension benefits legislation of one or more designated provinces or of Canada" and "(v.2) ‘multilateral agreement' means an agreement entered into under section 8.2". Basically that is just a description of what the amendment that we are suggesting means.

Number 2, the act is amended by adding immediately after section 8 – and there are several amendments under section 8 that we are recommending. First of all 8.1 – and this is addressing the existing agreement, "8.1 An agreement entered into under section 8 continues in force until it is terminated according to its terms or until the minister and the other party to the agreement become subject to a multilateral agreement." It is basically saying that the existing agreement will stay in place until the amendments are put forward and accepted.

The multilateral agreement, 8.2, first of all, "The minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, enter into a multilateral agreement respecting multi-jurisdictional pension plans with the government of a designated province or of Canada, or with more than one of them." This is to do with the multilateral agreement.

Mr. Speaker, "(2) A multilateral agreement may provide for (a) the application of this Act and the regulations to multi-jurisdictional pension plans; (b) the application of the pension benefits legislation of a designated province or of Canada to multi-jurisdictional pension plans; (c) the application of the multilateral agreement itself to multi-jurisdictional pension plans; and (d) the supervision and regulation of multi-jurisdictional pension plans."

Under the status of agreement, the changes under 8.3, the amendments that we are recommending first of all, "(1) A multilateral agreement shall specify the date on which it comes into force and it acquires a force of law in the province as of that date" and "(2) In the event of an inconsistency between a provision of a multilateral agreement and a provision of this Act or the regulations the provision of the multilateral agreement prevails to the extent of the inconsistency."

Under administrator – this 8.4, "The administrator of a multi-jurisdictional pension plan shall comply with the requirements in a multilateral agreement that apply with respect to the pension plan and with requirements imposed under the authority of the multilateral agreement."

When it comes down to the employer, the changes in 8.5, "An employer or person required to make contributions to a multi-jurisdictional pension plan on the employer's behalf shall comply with the requirements in a multilateral agreement that apply with respect to the pension plan and with the requirements imposed upon the authority of a multilateral agreement."

The application itself, the amendment is in 8.6 and this basically speaks to sections 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5, specifying that "…8.3, 8.4 and 8.5 do not apply to a multi-jurisdictional pension plan unless the minister has entered into a multilateral agreement with a designated Province or Canada to which the pension plan is subject."

For publication, in 8.7, "(1) The minister shall publish a multilateral agreement and an amendment to a multilateral agreement in the Gazette as soon as practicable after entering into a multilateral agreement or making the amendment. (2) A multilateral agreement or an amendment to it published under subsection (1) is not subordinate legislation for the purpose of the Statutes and Subordinate Legislation Act."

Basically, Mr. Speaker, what it is doing is it will give the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador an opportunity to enter into an agreement to work with other jurisdictions throughout the country. Some examples that I could give, we have many companies, either private or public, within the country that have employees or people who are paying to the pension plans who work in different parts of the country. What these amendments will do is allow us to step into an agreement with other jurisdictions throughout the country that we can work together with these pension plans on behalf of the benefactors.

One of the best examples I could use is a company that is in my District of Labrador West, and that is Rio Tinto or the Iron Ore Company of Canada. They have employees in Labrador West here in Newfoundland and Labrador and they have employees in Quebec. In Quebec, they have them in Sept-Îles, they have them in Quebec City, and they have them in Montreal. They have employees in other western provinces within the country, so what these amendments do is if we enter into the agreement later in 2013, it gives us an opportunity to work on behalf of all of the pension plan contributors and they can move it.

The important thing is that the province, or Canada themselves, whoever has the larger amount of employees in that province, they would have control of the pension plan. For example, I go back to Rio Tinto or IOC; the largest amount of employees that they have paying into the pension plan are within Newfoundland and Labrador, so if we enter into a multi-jurisdictional pension plan with, for example, Canada or with Quebec or Ontario, we would control and regulate the pension plan because we have the most amount of employees working for that particular company within the plan. That would give us the right to regulate it.

I guess another example I could use would be Irving Oil. Irving Oil has employees and members paying into the pension plan that are within most of the provinces within the country, but most of their employees are within New Brunswick, so in that particular case New Brunswick would control the regulations on the pension plan.

I guess one of the important things with the amendments that we are making, and I spoke about the framework, is that if it comes to a division of assets, someone needs to say: well, what is the best way to divide the assets? With the amendments that we are providing here, that will give the jurisdiction that has the major amount of the employees for a particular plan, the jurisdiction to say: this is the best way to divide the assets. That is very important so that control is there.

One of the other points that I would like to make concerning the amendments that I am putting forward today is that there is actually no increase in cost for us to bring this amendment forward. It actually will not cost us any money; we will save money. By putting this multi-jurisdictional amendment in here and entering into those agreements, we can actually save money and cut out some of the red tape that we have to deal with now. From a regulatory reform perspective, we are enhancing the plans rather than adding red tape or not adhering to our regulatory reform.

Another thing that was questioned: concerns were out there concerning a private company and a public company and the private company being able to buy out the pension plan or the assets of a pension plan from a private company or a public company. That is not something that we as a government would regulate; that would be a negotiation between the two parties of the plan, the private company and the public company. It is really not applicable to government or to the amendment that I am bringing forward here.

I mentioned the multi-jurisdictional plans and the benefits of having a multi-jurisdictional plan. As I was going down through, researching, there are several companies within the country that have pension plans within different provinces or with the federal government. Another example I could use would be CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which as we all know is in all of our jurisdictions. That one affects all of the provinces as well as the federal government. It would be determined then: well, who would control the regulations on that plan? It would be the province that would have the majority of contributors to the plan itself.

When it comes to federal grants, the pension legislation, it goes by rules. There are rules and guidelines that would be followed for the pension plan to be there.

In conclusion, there are a couple of points I would like to make. I think the amendments that we are bringing forward are to tighten up and strengthen the framework that is in the existing act. It is cutting down on our red tape. Regulatory reform is something that we are strengthening here.

We are giving an opportunity to work with other jurisdictions within the country and with the federal government itself. This is an amendment that would allow the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, to enter into an agreement which, if these amendments move forward, we anticipate happening within 2013.

Right now, as I stated, when it comes to pension plans being regulated, there are federal regulations there. We have nine provinces as well as the federal government themselves that are already into it. Ontario and Quebec have already entered into a multilateral agreement, which is something. We are in the process as well, I think there are maybe seven other provinces that are considering moving into these agreements now.

I think it is a good thing; I think it is a progressive move for our government to put these amendments in there, allowing the minister to move forward and consider an agreement early in the spring.

I recommend that we accept these amendments as put forward and move forward with Bill 51.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to Bill 51. The government is bringing this bill into force at a time when we are seeing a lot of major development projects occurring in the Province and we are seeing a lot of companies obtaining contracts in Newfoundland and Labrador, some that have been traditionally based here and employing people for quite some time, but a lot of other companies that are coming in, companies that operate in all different jurisdictions across Canada and even outside of the country in other parts of North America and other countries around the world.

I guess I could see the reason for government wanting to do this. I tried to follow most of what the minister was saying in his comments, but it is my understanding that most provinces across Canada do have this legislation, or at least some of them. I am understanding that PEI is one of the ones that has not yet bought into this kind of legislation around pensions, but it is my understanding that most other provinces in Canada have, or will be passing legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the multi-jurisdictional pension plan, as the minister said, seeks to ensure that there is a minister or manager of a pension plan, even though it may cross over different jurisdictions or different provinces in Canada, but there would be one particular province that would maintain that pension plan on behalf of all of the employees that would be in that particular company.

The act itself under the explanatory notes states that it will "…allow the minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to enter into an agreement governing multi-jurisdictional pension plans where the agreement contains provisions that are not in the Act or the legislation of another jurisdiction".

I would assume that in bringing this into force, these multi-lateral agreements would have to be agreed upon by the other provinces. They would also have to be agreed upon by the employer. That would be my understanding.

It is also my understanding that whatever conditions that are agreed upon in that multi-lateral contract between these partners or jurisdictions, that would be the prevailing legislation, that would be the prevailing terms that would govern that act. So, even if it is not written in legislation, whatever is in that multilateral agreement would prevail in terms of exercising or carrying it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would regulate it.

MS JONES: Yes, would regulate it.

Okay, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that I would want to speak to, and that is that I am not sure if we have any multi-lateral agreements that are already in place in the Province to date, or if we have employees of this Province that are already having their pension funds administered under a multilateral agreement in another jurisdiction of Canada. It would be interesting to know that; it would be interesting to know how it is currently working and if it is working in favour of employees who are under this particular program or not.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to know what happens in a case where a province may not agree, or where a company may not agree; then, of course, there is no agreement, but I guess the pension funds are then continued to be administered by the individual provinces – or would you have a multilateral agreement that excludes somebody?

So, it could be five provinces that are affected, but only four are prepared to sign on to a multilateral agreement. Does that then constitute an agreement or does it not? Can an agreement be broken if one party is not a signatory to it? That is where I am coming from, because obviously there could be situations like that; again, there may be cases where a company may not want to have Newfoundland and Labrador as the manager of a pension fund, even though we may have the predominant number of employees.

Take IOC, for example, or Rio Tinto, that we talked about. We know that Rio Tinto has employees in the Northwest Territories; we know that they have a lot of employees in Quebec; we know they have a lot of employees in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am sure they have employees in other jurisdictions of Canada. So say, for example, that because the majority of employees are in Newfoundland and Labrador in this case, we would become the manager of the pension fund.

What if the company is not in agreement with that and they want to have those pension funds managed in Quebec where they have their head office and where everything is more so based, from a management perspective, for their company? Is it possible to make those requests, or does a unilateral agreement – the term and condition that wherever the most employees are, that is where the pension fund is managed – is that the predominant factor, or is it something that could be settled in a different way? Those are questions that we would definitely have around the fund.

The other piece is with regard to the workers. Is there an impact for employees, for example, where their pension fund is administered? I am assuming there is not, but I would like to ask the question simply because a company pension fund, I am assuming, is regulated and applies the same in all jurisdictions within Canada. That being the case, there should not be any unfair advantage to any employees within that company regardless of where the fund is administered. I would like to have that confirmed.

Mr. Speaker, also we have companies in this Province – the minister has cited Rio Tinto and Irving Oil, which as we know are predominantly Canadian-based companies. We have companies as well like Kiewit that are currently operating in Calgary, currently operating in Marystown. They have two predominant bases in Canada, as well as operating in other jurisdictions of the country.

We also know they are both based out of Omaha in the United States. We know they are predominantly an American-based company. How does that come into play under the new multilateral agreement on multi-jurisdictional management of pension funds if that company is actually based in the United States and not based in Canada? Is there an impact or is there not? Does it even make a difference? I do not know.

We have another company, Vale Inco – or Vale as they like to call themselves these days – that are based in South America for example. What would be the status on a company like that? We know they have employees in Northern Ontario, in Sudbury, in Manitoba, in Newfoundland and Labrador. We also know they are a South American-based company. They are not a Canadian base, while they may have Canadian subsidiaries.

How does that come into play in legislation like this when that becomes negotiated? Who are the people who sign on? Is it the based company in South America that signs on, or is it Vale's operations in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in Manitoba and in Ontario that would be signatories to this particular agreement.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of other things with regard to that. SNC-Lavalin, of course, is another one that has internationally based operations and international operations. Is that impacted at all or are we just restricted to Canadian jurisdictions, or do we take in all jurisdictions outside of our own country?

Mr. Speaker, again, I guess we can look forward to seeing a lot more of these companies doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the mining industry and in the oil and gas sector. As you know, we are one of the strongest players in both industries in this country. We also know we have expertise being used in this Province that comes from all over the world. These people are setting up companies and bases of operation here. In that base of operation, of course, there is a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are employed.

Mr. Speaker, also I would ask: The Province in administering these pension funds as a multi-jurisdictional partner, is there a cost associated with that? If so, who pays for that cost? The minister is saying there is not any cost. So I am assuming that the –

MR. MCGRATH: (Inaudible) going to save money.

MS JONES: We are going to save money. So, maybe he can tell me about that when he gets up, how we are actually going to save money because if we are going to be administering pension funds for different jurisdictions of the country where companies have bases of operations, I would be interested to know how that is going to be a saving to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that would be the premise of most of my questions today. How it will affect the employees, how it affects companies that have based operations outside of Canada. What happens when a signatory of one of these multilateral agreements does not sign on? What would be the cost associated with doing it, and where the key benefits are for us as a Province and for people who work with these companies.

I would ask the minister if he could address some of that when he closes debate in second reading and that will be the extent of my comments. However, my colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, may have some comments that he would like to add as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Parliamentary Secretary of Advanced Skills and Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly delighted to speak on Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

I thank the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador for inviting me to stand and speak in support of this legislation. I would like to call out a few of the high points and highlights of the legislation to make sure that everybody watching fully understands exactly what these amendments mean and the benefits of these amendments because it is a very important piece of legislation

This amendment would give the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador the authority to enter into a new agreement, with the approval certainly of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, respecting multi-jurisdictional pension plans. Mr. Speaker, this is an enabling piece of legislation.

The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair made a couple of very good points here in how this would affect multi-jurisdictions outside of Canada. I look forward to the comments from the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to that. There are a few assumptions I could make. I worked with a global company before I was elected here. Most companies do have to register themselves within the jurisdictions that they operate. I am sure the regulations would come into play then in terms of protecting pensions of employees. I will let the minister speak to that.

Service Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible through the Pension Benefits Act to administer the regulation of pensions in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to multi-jurisdictional regulation, for example between provinces, the ability to regulate pensions is less clear. It is important – obviously, we all recognize how important it is – to protect pensions of workers if a pension plan winds up or goes defunct for whatever reason.

There are many reasons why that could happen, right from businesses going out of business, or businesses or corporations making decisions to discontinue their pension plans. For whatever, and right now that is difficult when jurisdictions cross provincial boundaries, we have to find ways we can protect the monies invested for the employees in these plans. This is what this is all about.

Presently the way regulation works across Canada, eight of nine other provinces have separate regulation that oversees pensions. As recognition of this and a perceived need to co-ordinate pension regulation, all the provinces as well as the federal government, as the minister alluded to earlier, are prepared to sign an agreement around how multi-jurisdictional pensions are regulated. We are moving forward on that agreement.

The federal government has agreed to enter into this agreement and two provinces, as mentioned earlier, have actually signed this agreement. I believe it is Quebec and Ontario. The other provinces are all going through this enabling type of legislation to allow their authorities' representatives to sign on this agreement as well, Mr. Speaker.

What this agreement will mean once all provinces sign on is the province that has the most plan members will end up regulating that plan, which makes, obviously, a great amount of sense. We end up regulating each other's jurisdiction on behalf of the other provinces and vice versa. It is sensible, it is common sense, and it is something that needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, this was not contemplated before and was recognized as a gap in the regulation of pensions across Canada. It has been talked about for several years amongst provinces, amongst the federal government, but now they really recognize with the global economy, with the interprovincial jurisdictions, with the growth of our economy overall in Canada, that this situation could become more and more prevalent and we need to make sure that we are protecting the rights of workers.

How provinces divide assets when pension plans wind down will now be divided between jurisdictions based on an agreed to formula. So, that formula right now obviously needs to be negotiated, that agreement obviously is ready – close to being signed is my understanding, and I think they are going down that right path.

If a pension plan goes defunct, how to distribute funds is very complicated and not clear, and once this was recognized, provincial governments across the country have been working on harmonized legislation, and this agreement brings us a step closer, this agreement will help reduce red tape, and will provide consistency, Mr. Speaker. This is something not only provincial governments and the federal government has been asking for, this is something that industry has asked for as well.

Mr. Speaker, this forty-three page agreement will now set out rules governing the administration, funding, and division of pension plan assets providing a more efficient regulatory environment for plan sponsors and administrators. One of exceptions to note is industries regulated by the federal government, which will have their pension plans obviously regulated by the federal government.

This agreement and this amendment have absolutely no impact on the public service pensioners, which are not affected in any way. So, with regard to our public service pensioners in this Province, they are not affected by this agreement, or by this legislation and these amendments that we are proposing. So, we are basically looking at private employers that have operations in more than one province, that have employees and pension plans, and it is the intent of this agreement to protect the assets in these plans and protect them in a way that is in the best interests of the plan members, the employees.

The essence of the amendments and the legislation goes back to, again, the plan members, the employees, and protecting the monies that they have built up over their careers in their pension plans.

So, let us recap once again what Bill 51 is all about. Today, Service Newfoundland and Labrador is introducing amendments to the Pension Benefits Act. They are responsible, again, through the Pension Benefits Act and associated regulations to administer the regulation of pensions in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A new reciprocal agreement is necessary to establish a clear legal framework for the administration and regulation of pension plans across the country. This agreement will be monitored by a committee which will conduct a full review every five years to determine any required changes to the agreement. The agreement will set up rules governing administration, funding, and division of pension plan assets across different jurisdictions. It will also provide a more efficient regulatory environment for plan sponsors and administrators, and it will reduce red tape.

Just to reiterate, this amendment will give the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador the authority to enter into this new agreement. This amendment is not the agreement. It is the authority to enter into the new agreement, which has basically given him the authority to allow Newfoundland and Labrador to be a signatory to this new agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this is positive legislation for workers in this Province, and as a result, I will be supporting this legislation. I encourage all members to do the same.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is another one of those days and another pension bill. The first thing I asked myself when these pension bills were coming through last week, I had to stop and I had to think to myself that something was amiss or something was happening in this world that was a little bit disconcerting. It is no different today when we are talking about Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Pension Benefits Act. Maybe I am just being a little bit pretentious over this, but there is good reason for concern when we are seeing the changes that are coming up, especially when it comes to administration.

Last week we were dealing with the various other groups that are affected by changes in pensions. For example, we were dealing with teachers' pensions last week. We were talking about uniformed services. What else were we talking about but pensions over the last couple of weeks? It brought to mind the reason possibly why government has had to come back and look at pensions, not only for the unfunded liability end of things, but out of deep concern over pensions.

Everybody in this Province, if not in the country – if not in the world, for that matter – are probably thinking about their pensions more so than they ever have been. This will just give you some sort of a hint with regard to what government is thinking about pensions as well when it comes to this.

They do not enter into agreements like this on a willy-nilly basis. They take their time, hopefully, and they look at the administrative end of things. Again, even just for simple administration, it makes you question about pensions.

Like I said, it seems over the last ten or fifteen years it has been very disconcerting when you are talking about, for example, how much the unfunded pension liability is to the Province and how much the Province has to contribute in order to catch up and make these plans viable again.

Then I ask myself: well, if I am looking at administration when it comes to federal-provincial regulations, I have to ask myself: what is the Province really trying to do here?

I know that some people are probably thinking: listen here, boy. This is pretty basic stuff; this is about the administration. For example, Air Canada, I think, was one example that was used that would fall under federal jurisdiction; for example, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would be something that would fall under provincial jurisdiction, because it operates within the Province and not cross country.

Then I sat down and I asked myself, the changing dynamics of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy here, even begging to question why government has to change it so fast – you turn on the TV every day now, Mr. Speaker, and you are looking at the changing dynamics of Canadian-owned companies. For example, we saw Nexen the other day in Alberta being bought out by CNOOC out of China.

The Chinese state oil company now owns Nexen. I would imagine that some people are going to be concerned over the handling of their pension plan – if there is one at Nexen – and exactly how their funds are going to be held in the future, and how they are going to be dealt with when it comes to pension time, knowing the effect of what is happening.

We also have the same thing happening up in Labrador, where there are massive amounts of Chinese investment that are happening up there. Some people may be wondering exactly what the administration is going to be like of their pension plan, knowing that they are now partly Chinese owned and there is a massive Chinese interest in the Newfoundland and Labrador economy.

One of the things I was thinking of was: what about the effect of this law, for example, on a Crown corporation that belongs to the Province? I thought to myself, one that has obviously been in the news lately, tied up with the Muskrat Falls deal: let us talk about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, being one of the proponents in this particular case, or an arm of Muskrat Falls – what could possibly happen, say, if Emera bought Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro down the road? What would happen to the pension plan there?

It should be a direct concern. Government on one hand would be able to turn around and shake some of the pension liabilities that it would have and it would be able to just say: hey, I do not own you anymore; Emera owns you, so you are going to have to look after your own pension plan. I would like to know where government would stand, for example, there, when it comes to the sale of a Newfoundland and Labrador Crown asset like that.

It could be Newfoundland Labrador Liquor Corporation. There have been rumours of privatization talked about for years there when it comes to that. That was a big concern for me. When it comes to second reading and it comes to Committee of the Whole, it would be a direct concern of me and a direct concern of other workers for Crown corporations in the Province, exactly what would happen there.

We are seeing everyday changes, for example, when it comes to health care in this Province. We are seeing some of the cafeteria workers and everything going to a private concern. We are seeing some other government workers going to private companies. For example, Morrison is another company that recently moved into the Province over the last couple of years.

For example, the people who are doing portering, or the management for portering now belongs to a company from outside the Province and is no longer falling under the ring of Eastern Health, or the health department in this Province. That is the concern where I am coming from, I say to the minister. I would hopefully be encouraged by some of the answers that he will give later on to that.

The changes here are reflective of the dynamics of pension plans themselves. There is no such thing as a solid pension plan anymore. I think, right now, what government is trying to do with this legislation is come out and put a line in the sand and say: this is yours, and this is my responsibility. Because it falls under federal jurisdiction – and other provinces have done this over the last ten, twelve years I think it is now since this type of legislation has been coming through. I think it is about the last ten or twelve years.

I think readily more so now than ever, government has been trying to get definitive lines of responsibility put in there. I can understand that. I can really understand that as regards to how much and everything they are going to have to pay out, but my concern again lies to: Well, what happens when it comes to government workers, for example – if it happens, I am not saying that it is, but if it happens – if they happen to become part of the private community again?

As regards to pension plans themselves; I think there is probably a very strong lesson to government in this, that pension plans – and it does not matter where you are working, I guess, when it comes to the government or the private sector – have to be adaptable to the changing times. Of course, over the last twenty years we have seen the changes that are coming in. They are stepping in and affecting pension plans. Whether that would be changes in our own economy, changes in the world economy, changes to birth rate, for example, aging demographics. All of this is a step forward at the same time and puts pressure on everybody's pension plan. That is why we have seen that government has had to come in and avail of certain changes that are out there.

My understanding as well, as regards to the number of provinces that are on there; I think eight have solidly signed on to this and I think the ninth province is PEI. I think they are the ones that – they have instituted some of these changes. They have not actually signed on yet, but I think they are coming. They have not proclaimed the legislation for that. They have enacted but they have not yet proclaimed the legislation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I guess that is probably it. The only other word I have to say on this is that we understand that the changes have been made. We understand the changes in the economy and why government has had to make these changes, but it is going to be very interesting over the next five or six years – probably the next ten years – to see how the dynamics of pension plans and the ownership and the responsibility of the same are going to be turning about.

We will be voting in favour of this. Again, I say it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out in the end. Hopefully government will make those positive changes to pension plans because we all value our government workers here and we all like to see positive changes to our own pension plan here and see our workers well-served from that.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say on that. Hopefully government will make these changes and make themselves adaptable to any future change so that they will not find themselves in crisis again.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly my honour to speak this afternoon on Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

I think the minister and my colleague from St. John's West gave a pretty good description of what is happening here, but I think – I did listen intently to the Member for St. John's East. It certainly was not my understanding that this had anything to do with public sector pensions, but I will wait for the minister to answer those questions that have been asked and address those concerns.

Certainly, from my understanding, this has nothing to do with the public service, Mr. Speaker. What this does have to with, though, Mr. Speaker, is in the case of companies that have operations in multiple jurisdictions throughout the country. What this is meant to do, of course, is to enable the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to enter into agreements with the other provinces as it relates to the pension plan, in the case that a particular company should cease to exist, and, of course, there are various reasons why that may happen.

So, really what it comes down to, Mr. Speaker, is protecting the pension plans of people who find themselves in that situation. Mr. Speaker, you can see where that would happen or could happen. Just think about it, even from the perspective of somebody who is paying into a pension plan for many years – of course, as we know, not everybody has the benefit of a pension plan. Some people have no pension plan. They simply rely on their government pension through their Old Age Security, Canada Pension Plan, and so on. There are some people, Mr. Speaker, who plan their retirement based on RRSPs or based on Canada Savings Bonds. Some people invest in various things, whether it is stocks and bonds, properties, or whatever the case might be to try to derive some sort of a pension for themselves. There are people who have a public service pension, of course, as we know. There are people who have private pensions. Of course, there are various types of pensions, whether that is defined benefit, defined contribution, or so on.

At the end of the day, regardless of what type of pension plan you have, we all realize the importance of pensions. During your working life, it is all about putting plans in place for your retirement so when the time comes, you have worked for several years, you have supported your family, and you have built some assets around you, whether it is a home, a summer home, or other things you may have, put some savings away. At the end of the day, after that working life, Mr. Speaker, you want to have the opportunity to be able to retire with some degree of comfort and dignity and be able to enjoy your remaining years – your golden years, as they call it. Mr. Speaker, that is what this is meant to do. This has very specific two people who would be part of a multi-jurisdictional plan.

Mr. Speaker, as you think about it, if you did run into a situation where somebody was working for a company – one of the examples given here was Irving Oil. Their main office, if you will, is in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. I think it is Saint John, New Brunswick. It is New Brunswick anyway. I am sure probably in every province of the country they have offices, outlets, and so on. You have people there who are paying into a pension plan. If for some reason that company failed to exist, then you have to ask: What is going to happen to that pension money? What is going to happen to that money that was paid in by the employer and the money that was paid in by the employee so they could secure a decent retirement for themselves?

Mr. Speaker, if we never had this legislation in place, what could certainly happen is now all of a sudden you are into a situation where you have various jurisdictions and perhaps they have various differing legislation and agreements in place. Now, all of a sudden, you are left in this potentially legal mess where you are trying to distribute those assets to all the employees, in terms of which assets go to which employee group and which province and so on.

I can see where you could possibly run into a situation there where there would be disagreements between jurisdictions. As a result of those disagreements, we could be in to court proceedings and then the court costs associated with that. I would imagine if there were costs associated to dealing with that, it could possibly end up dipping into some of the pension funds, costing the fund money for that. Not to mention the delay that could happen. If this was tied up in legal proceedings and so on, there could be tremendous delays I could see that possibly could occur. The longer the delay, that is longer that people are not getting the pension money that they are so rightly entitled to, Mr. Speaker.

What this is doing now, this is giving the minister sort of upfront, before anything were to happen – I mean, obviously we would hope that nothing would happen, but in the event something did happen and people found themselves in that circumstance, the minister now would have the ability to enter into an agreement with all the other jurisdictions that are involved in that particular plan and they would sort of on an up-front basis put together an agreement, a legally binding agreement as I understand, as to how those assets would be distributed.

Then, as a result of that, if the unfortunate circumstance did occur and a company was no more and you had people who had paid into a plan, then I would think that it would be very much more expedited process that the assets would be distributed and people would get their money that they were entitled to. Depending on what their stage is in life and how long they paid into the plan and so on, they could either, I would imagine, take that money and retire with it or take that money and reinvest it into some other type of savings bond or RRSP or whatever they chose to do.

I think the bottom line here, what it comes down to, is that it is meant to protect workers who have paid into that plan for those so many years and they worked for that as part of their benefits package. A lot of times when we see people working, quite often people equate benefits just simply with wages, but there is a lot more to a benefits package as we know than simply wages. There is a lot more to a collective agreement than simply wages. One of the big things, one of the most important things, I believe, is that pension plan and that ability for people to be protected and have some sort of good retirement at the time when they retire.

We do not always think about that. Quite often, what you see happening – I know I look back when I first started working a number of years ago and probably that was the last thing that came to my mind. I am sure most people here would agree. Most people listening would agree. When you are a younger worker and you are going to the workforce, the last thing on your mind is pensions.

Even in a unionized environment and so on, depending on the age of your workforce at the time, there is not always a big push from the union membership asking for enhancements to a pension. The big thing is: I want more money; how big of an increase can you get? Five per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent, whatever it is – it is all about the cash on hand at the time.

People do not always think about: what am I going to do when I retire? I think as we all age, we get close to that retirement time and we start thinking about it. One of the big mistakes we always make, Mr. Speaker, is that we wait too long, in many cases, to do that. We should be thinking about it when we first enter the workforce. I think there is a lot more awareness out there now and people are thinking more about their retirements, Mr. Speaker, which is, like I said, obviously a good thing.

In the case of this situation, we are talking about a group of people who are working in a company that actually has a pension plan which is a great benefit to them. Their employer has paid their share as has been agreed to or negotiated and so on. The employee has paid his or her share into that plan. Of course, there is an expectation that at the end of a certain period of time, the employee is going to derive a certain amount of money which could go to offset their retirement plans and so on. What we are doing here, as I said, is just simply protecting that piece for people who work in multi-jurisdictional operations, companies that have operations in multiple jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is a very positive thing that we are doing here. It is a very proactive thing. It is cutting down on red tape, Mr. Speaker. It is going to help protect people, going to help protect their pensions in this case.

I am sure that as times goes by – I heard some members opposite talk about: well, what about multinational companies, companies that are based in the United States or other parts of the world, and so on? I am not certain – and certainly the minister will answer – what this particular piece of legislation is going to apply to. I think this is more so for throughout the country as opposed to throughout the world and the globe.

I am sure as time goes by and we have more companies coming to Newfoundland and Labrador to do business, as I said, we are going to find ourselves in a situation where further changes may have to be made to different acts or regulations to address that. This is a good first step, in my opinion, and I am very pleased to be able to support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a useful piece of legislation. It looks small, but in fact it should have wide-ranging outcomes or consequences that will be positive for people who depend on pensions for their financial security after a working lifetime. I would like to see a more widespread upgrade in our pension legislation.

Pensions first came into being in the 1800s. The pensions were designed by the Prussians, by Count Von Bismarck, who was concerned about Prussian soldiers who were fighting wars and who came back. What do we do with the old soldiers?

They estimated, when the government of Prussia introduced the first pension plan, that it should start at age sixty-five. At age sixty-five, 3 per cent of the people would still be alive. They would only have to worry about 3 per cent of the people that would be sixty-five years of age. Most of them would not live very much past sixty-five, and at least for their service they would benefit.

Today we have seen pensions progress quite substantially, and in some cases, for better or worse, in more than one direction. A pension really is part of a person's compensation package for working for this company or for serving these people of this government. As part of my package, in addition to getting paid X dollars a day or a year, and in addition to health and welfare benefits, I get a pension so I know at the end of my period of work I will have an income.

Pensions come in two forms. They are either Defined Contribution Pension Plans or Defined Benefit Pension Plans. The defined contributions simply means it is similar to the Registered Retirement Savings Plan, with a contribution made by the employer that generally matches that made by the employee with no thought, really, to the future. What will it provide in the future?

A Defined Benefit Pension Plan is the type of pension plan we see that generally is the one that is most valuable and has the most difficulty in funding and most difficulty managing and paying for. The Defined Benefit Pension Plan is what we have for most public employees, and certainly members of this Legislature benefit from a Defined Benefit Pension Plan. That means, according to the pension plan, if you provide a certain number of years of service, then you are entitled to a certain formula. This formula then kicks in and you receive this income for as long as you live, or you and your survivor receive income for however long.

One of the absolutely important facets of a pension plan is that it is exempt from seizure by creditors. A person can file bankruptcy and creditors cannot attach a pension plan, because a pension plan contains with it certain intangible benefits that have yet to be defined.

Also, because it contains a contribution from both an employer and an employee, at the outset it is not initially all of the employees funds; however, there is a significant problem in funding Defined Benefit Pension Plans because when interest rates are high or yields are high, it takes less money from the employer and the employee to fund that benefit down the road. If the person is going to retire and will receive $20,000 or $30,000, or $40,000 or $50,000 a year for however many years, then it takes a large block of cash to fund that.

If interest rates are high, it requires fewer contributions. If interest rates are low, as they are now, it requires a substantial amount of contribution. That is where we find ourselves today, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, not only this Province but pension plans throughout pretty much all of North America. Because yields have fallen and because people are living longer, pensions are underfunded.

We face a significant pension liability that this Province will have to deal with, as will all others, and the federal government. The pension plans that are best funded, in my view, are those that are trusteed and managed by the people who are going to receive the pension income. When the pension income simply goes into general revenues of government or general revenues of a major corporation, if the government runs short of funds, there is a funding crisis. If the corporation gets into trouble financially, then there is always an inclination to underfund the pension plan.

The people who work long and hard for Nortel found out, quite to their chagrin, that their pension plan was underfunded and even more dramatically their pension plan had invested in Nortel stock –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is becoming hard to hear the hon. member. Could I have order, please?

MR. BENNETT: Not only when the company failed was the pension plan underfunded, it also had assets which were not very worthwhile.

Mr. Speaker, certain major unions have managed to get around this particular problem and pension plans that should be basically benchmarks that could be used throughout this country and this Province would be, for example, the Ontario municipal employees pension plan, the Ontario secondary school teachers' pension plan, because they hire their own pension managers. Those funds are trusteed and they are managed. The employer makes a contribution. The employer no longer has access to the funds. The money is invested in whatever their pension advisors advise them is the best contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I think the day cannot be very far away when in this Province we will need to have pension contributions in addition to the pension liability, satisfied that the Province owes its employees, but that must be taken away from the sphere when government actually handles and manages the pension plan. It will need to be done by professional pension managers on behalf of the employees of the Province. We are nowhere near there yet, but I can see the day when that will be necessary.

Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with it in part, and that is the portability of pension plans. The reference here to different employees working in different provinces, essentially for the same employer and contribute to the same pension plan, so much in Ontario, so much in Quebec, so much in Alberta and so much here, who handles and manages the pension plan? The dominant, or the most important one, the one with the highest number of employees will be the one to manage it. That would seem to be useful, but that does not solve the problem of portability for people who serve one employer for five or ten years, another employer for three or four years, another employer for ten or fifteen years and so on, and never have enough time in one position to build up an appropriate pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, that particular issue has been dealt with in the Province of Alberta by their pension plan arrangement that they have, which is referred to as the Local Authorities Pension Plan, whereby if a person works for any form of local government that has a pension plan and then moves from one employer to another, it may be from a municipality maybe to a public library, maybe to a university, if it is on the list of public authorities, the Local Authorities Pension Plan will permit a person to transfer, to rollover all of these funds and accumulate the number of years of service, maybe three years, five years, ten years, and build up enough pensionable service, plus contributions, so that pension plan then is available for that person even if they have not been with one employer, but if they had been with a similarly aligned employer.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will go there, ultimately, in our pension plan in this Province. This is type of legislation is one small step along the way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues that spoke on behalf of the amendments in this bill. I do think it is a good piece of legislation that we are bringing forward here. I think the amendments will strengthen the framework in what we are trying to do.

There are a couple of points that I would like to make to some of the questions that came out there. First of all, in the explanatory note with the bill it says that the "…Bill would amend the Pension Benefits Act, 1997 to allow the minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to enter into an agreement governing multi-jurisdictional pension plans where the agreement contains provisions that are not in the Act or the legislation of another jurisdiction." It also says "This Bill would also give the agreement the force of law." I think that is the important message that we are trying to get out here.

There were some questions that were asked. I think I can answer most of those questions. I think we need to realize there is a difference in being the regulator of the amendment or being the manager. Our job as government would be to regulate the pension plan, not to manage the pension plan. The companies themselves would actually manage the plan, but the government regulates it.

I did hear the word manage used on several occasions. There is a big difference between regulating and managing. I think it is important that we realize our job as a government is not to manage the pension plan. The companies themselves will manage the plan and we will regulate it.

I gave some examples earlier of different companies and I know that the other speakers also alluded to different companies. Some of them were international. One of the ones that I mentioned – and I would like to clarify myself; I mentioned CBC. CBC, for example, is a federal company; it is not a multi-jurisdictional plan at all. That is jurisdiction under the federal government only. The federal government certainly would always have the jurisdiction to regulate that plan.

One of the other questions that I heard mentioned by a couple of members – and if you read through the act, we talked about international companies; some of the examples that were used: Kiewit was one of the examples, SNC-Lavalin. These are international companies that have employees from all over the world.

If you read the agreement in 8.1, it says in the agreement: An agreement entered into under section 8 continues – I am sorry, not 8.1. Going back to section 2 of the Pension Benefits Act, 1997, in (v.1), it says, "‘multi-jurisdictional pension plan' means a pension plan that is subject to this Act and to the pension benefits legislation of one or more designated provinces or of Canada". So the amendment that we are putting forward is talking about the provinces of Canada and the federal government of Canada within itself, realizing, of course – and the Member for Mount Pearl South made a comment to this being a first step. What we are looking at trying to do here now is tighten up with the amendments that we are putting forward. This is exactly as he said: it is a first step. So we are looking, within our provinces and the federal government, for where we are going to make these amendments.

As was stated earlier, there are eight provinces that are looking at this and there are two that have signed off already – seven of the others, I am sorry, are looking now and working on entering into agreements; the two that have already signed off are Quebec and Ontario, and the other seven provinces are looking at it. Prince Edward Island, of course, does not have a pension plan; there, it is a jurisdictional one, so they are not looking into it. So, when you think of it, nine of the provinces within Canada and the federal government themselves are looking at these agreements.

Also, we talked about savings. One of the questions that were asked: well, where are the savings and what will the savings be? I guess from a provincial perspective, the biggest savings would be through red tape and within the regulatory reform that we are putting forward. Most of the savings here would potentially go to the plan administrators. That, again, would be cutting down on an amount of work, because right now, if you have employees in, let us say, five provinces, and they all agree to join into a multi-jurisdictional plan, then you can actually save on the amount of work that is going into it from province to province. So, the plan itself is what – ultimately that means the benefactors of the plan are the ones that would benefit there, and I think that is very important.

One of the other things that was asked was: in special cases, the jurisdictions that have the most members are the ones that will regulate the plan. The company cannot decide; the company has to follow the regulations. Basically what that would mean is if – let's say Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, is regulating on behalf of other provinces. You are actually speaking to the company on the pension plan on behalf of all its members because your Province holds the largest amount of benefactors to that particular plan. You are not making decisions. You are merely the regulator who is speaking on behalf of that particular pension plan.

I spoke briefly there about the international companies. Although this particular amendment is talking about provinces in Canada and the federal government, when it comes to an international company that has employees within Newfoundland and Labrador, they have to follow and comply with the Pension Benefits Act and regulations within the Province. Also, the regulators I mentioned do not administer the plan. The pension fund itself is regulated by the plan administrators, not the Province. I think it is important that we understand that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are bringing these amendments forward. We think it will tighten up the framework on the existing act. We think with these amendments we can make it more transitional and more transparent for the different provinces, as well as the federal government. I think these amendments are a good step to moving forward to tightening up the pension plans act. I hope that everybody will support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider this bill.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997". (Bill 51)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: I just have a question for clarification around the multi-jurisdictional pension plan classification as to what the minister had just stated.

If there are companies with a very close amount of members operating in a province that would relate to other members in other provinces, what happens during the short term if there are things like mega projects into play where membership might go up for a brief period of time? Would that require the transfer of pensions to the province and an increased cost to the administrator of the pension plan in the province? How would the province be regulating that? Are there situations where there would be a close amount of members who could increase costs? Because you did mention there would be cost savings.

I do believe there will be cost savings. There are a lot of good things in the legislation that is put forward. I would like to make a comment as we go further down on that, but if you could clarify that, Minister, that would be great.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I stated earlier, when you enter into a multi-jurisdictional agreement, the Province that has the highest number of employees for the plan would then regulate. I think it is important, the words regulate and manage, because a province is not responsible to manage or administer the pension plan. They have a set of regulations. If one province has more employees from one point to another then the regulation – that jurisdiction would transfer over.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: In clause 2 there are a number of things talking about how pension plans would wind up, how benefits would be divided. There is a lot of clarification around harmonizing the legislation and dispute resolution there. The minister had made comment that there would be cost savings under how it is being regulated. I am just wondering if he could provide us with some information around how much savings by entering into this agreement.

The other point I wanted to make was – just for my own self, in clarification – under 8.7, it says that the multilateral agreement, an amendment will be published in the Gazette. As the amendment is signed and this information is put forward, will we as legislators in the House be notified that the multilateral agreement is available in the Gazette? Is that something that we are notified on with that information?

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In relation to the first question, when it comes down to the savings and the costs that would be attributed to it, there has not been a dollar amount put on that. It would be very difficult to put a dollar amount on it.

The savings mostly would be, as I stated earlier, from a provincial perspective, in red tape and regulatory reform. For the pension plan contributors, the savings would go back to them, and that cost could vary completely.

As to the second question, I am not sure if there are public announcements put out concerning the publication of the Gazette. I will find out for you and get you an answer to that question.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 51)

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: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 51.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 51.

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): Before the Chair recognizes the Member for Port de Grave, I am just wondering, with the consent of the House, we need to go back to the second reading process so that we can have the vote. The question needs to be called on second reading.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

We just legitimized what took place in Committee.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time and has already been referred to a Committee of the Whole.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 51 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 51 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

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

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow. (Bill 51)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 39.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the Speaker now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.

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 (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This act, an act to amend the schedule to the Loan and Guarantee Act, as we have said numerous times in the House, is a procedure we follow from time to time, usually once a year, where the Minister of Finance will bring in and table with the House any guarantees that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has issued since we did this last year. It gives the members of the House of Assembly an opportunity to ratify these new guarantees.

What happens is that members use this particular piece of legislation as an opportunity to speak on any particular topic. In the past, MHAs have in fact used it to speak about any topic. So I was very surprised this year that MHAs spent a lot of time talking about the actual guarantee we were presenting – except me – which was on the Immigration Investor Fund. Of course, I got up and started talking. I used it as a chance to speak again about Muskrat Falls. I think that caused a little excitement across the way. I still do not understand why. I used it as another opportunity for me to speak once again on Muskrat Falls.

MS JONES: (Inaudible) talk about Abitibi would be better.

MR. MARSHALL: I would like to talk about Abitibi, but I think I am going to talk about the City of Corner Brook and the good people in the City of Corner Brook and Humber East.

I had the opportunity as I was driving down the parkway, to look across the way where the long-term care facility is. I noticed a new building. It was the new residence that the university is constructing there in Corner Brook. So I drove over to take a look and it is quite a large project, 200 units.

This is going to benefit the students who attend the Corner Brook campus, the Grenfell Campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will also benefit students who go to the College of the North Atlantic in the Corner Brook area. They have been allocated so many of the rooms in that.

The good thing about that project, while it is really appropriate now, is that this will free up apartment space that is presently being utilized by students in the city. That will free up much-needed additional affordable housing that will exist in the city. That is a great thing.

I think the project is a $23 million project. I may not be right on that because there are so many projects there. Sometimes you kind of get the millions mixed up, but that is certainly a good one.

I was also very pleased to see that the environmental labs have started. One of the things the Grenfell Campuses wanted and the people on the West Coast of Newfoundland wanted to see, has been graduate programs. As President Kachanoski, and the vice-president of the university and the Principal of Grenfell College, Mary Bluechardt, has indicated, that you cannot have graduate programs in sciences unless you have labs. To attract people to do the graduate programs you have to have the labs to do it.

I am very pleased to see that those environmental labs have started. I know that they changed their initial plans. They have an interesting design. They were going to have the labs over the roadway at University Drive, something like they have at the university here where they have the restaurants right over the pedway, but there was nothing on the other side and they were going to do it anyway. That was going to be certainly interesting to see a part of a building going out and not connected with anything on the other side. I see they have changed their minds. They started the labs and construction has started in another area.

The other thing, of course, was the $27 million academic building that was opened up this past summer. I know, unfortunately, the Premier could not make it to that event, but I know Peter Penashue was down. Minister Penashue was representing the Government of Canada. Wow, that is now a signature building. It is very, very interesting. We are seeing growth there and I think it is very important.

I have gone to look at the other smaller liberal arts universities in the Atlantic area. I went up to Antigonish and I saw what they have at StFX, and then I finally saw Mount Allison. I do not know what it was that would never get me in that part of the country. I had the opportunity to go up and represent the Province at the funeral of Governor General Romeo LeBlanc. So I had a chance to take a look at the beautiful campus they have there. I have seen Acadia University as well.

I do not think any of those areas offer the beauty of what Western Newfoundland offers. There is no doubt in my mind that the facility, the university campus – and that is what it is now. It is not a college anymore, it is a university campus. I think that we can continue to grow that, and I think that will attract students from all over the world. I know that their enrollment has increased.

One of the big things at the Grenfell campus of the university was that when I first got involved in public life and met with them, they wanted more autonomy. At the university campus itself, there was not a great deal of demand for independence. There were a few and there still are a few, but I think most of the professors there – and certainly a lot of the new professors because that is what has happened there. A lot of the original professors, who came when the campus was opened, have now retired and they have been replaced by new professors. Many of whom did their undergraduate degree at Grenfell and then went on and got their masters and their doctorate in other areas and now they have returned to the Grenfell campus where they are now professors and are taking part in the administration. So we have seen a major change.

They indicated to me, when I met with them, that they would like to maintain the connection with Memorial University Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is important, but in the meantime they needed more autonomy. We were very pleased by working with President Kachanoski and working with the Chair of the Board of Regents to see that happen. It is not independence and it was never meant to be complete and total independence, but the university campus is now at a point where there are only two things that would have to happen to make them a totally independent university. One is to amend the Memorial Act, to bring in a separate senate for the campus. Then, after that, there would be an amendment to the Memorial University Act to establish a new university.

There are two simple steps that can happen for complete for independence. I know, for myself, I am a graduate of Memorial University and I am a great supporter of the Grenfell Campus. I think the connection that they have now, the connection with the two campuses, to have the larger campus out here in St. Johns but that the campus at Corner Brook can develop the expertise for people who want the benefit of a smaller campus with different types of degree offerings.

I know I am running low of time here but what we did to enhance that autonomy – and again, there is a difference between autonomy and complete independence. I see the Member for Bay of Islands is here and I know he will have some things to say here as well. The campus was renamed to reflect the fact that it is a university. It has not been a college for many years. The other thing is that the position of the principal at Grenfell has now been made – the principal used to report to the Vice-President, Academic at the university in St. John's and now the principal at Grenfell is in fact a vice-president of the entire university and sits on the president's executive council and reports directly to the president, rather than to the Vice-President, Academic.

Grenfell at one time, its budget had to go to the VP, Academic as well. Grenfell had the status of a department. The principal at Grenfell had the same status as maybe the head of the French department or the history department. So now Grenfell has been given the opportunity to have its own separate budget and go directly to the Board of Regents. Not that they are asking for anything more than anybody else, but by having this separate budget gives them the opportunity to make their pitch directly to the Board of Regents. They know they are going to be turned down from time to time, they know they will be turned down, but at least they have the right to go to the Board of Regents and have their say, advocate for what they want.

Mr. Chair, maybe I will get a chance to speak again. I see I am running low on time. So I will take my seat at this point and I look forward to more discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise today to speak to Bill 39. I think this is actually my first opportunity to speak to the bill in Committee. The minister is right when he alluded to the fact that the Loan and Guarantee Act deals with specific loans that the government is undertaking, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: They pertain to different agencies, and this one in particular pertains to the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited. As you know, because we are dealing with financial bills in the House of Assembly it offers a lot of leeway in terms of what you can or cannot debate.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk a little bit today about the Supreme Court ruling on the Abitibi case. The ruling by the Supreme Court is not the first time that the government has taken this particular issue around environmental cleanup to the courts; in fact, it is the third time. It did not get a hearing in the Court of Appeal, but they did take it to the Court of Appeal. So, this is actually the third time which they appealed this. Mr. Chair, let us look at a little bit of history around this, because I think it is important to understand the context of what is happening around the Abitibi piece in the Province today.

Mr. Chair, I remember very clearly in 2008 on December 16, being called up to the Premier's boardroom at the time, and I was invited there in which he outlined to us – the Premier of the day, including the current Premier, who was then the Minister of Natural Resources – that there was a high probability that Abitibi was going to going to go into an insolvent position, and the company, in its insolvency, could obtain and take control of the assets that were included in the charter agreement, the lease agreement that they had with the Province. Those assets, Mr. Chair, included the timber rights and the water rights. Within the water rights, Mr. Chair, it was relative to look at the hydro development power projects that had been created to support the mill operation.

After that briefing in the Premier's boardroom in which we had a number of discussions around what was contained, one of the things in particular was, and I know because I asked the question myself very clearly: Is the mill contained in the expropriation of assets? We were told no. I think in all honesty, Mr. Chair, the government's intention at the time was not to expropriate the mill. They were providing, to the best of their knowledge, what their intent was.

Mr. Chair, we also understood that Abitibi was on the verge of bankruptcy within days, within hours, that this could happen within the next twenty-four hours. In fact, we would have to call an emergency debate on this bill in the House of Assembly. I remember coming down from the Premier's boardroom and sending the bill off to a law firm here in the city asking them to look at it. In fact, in addition to that we had another lawyer come in, meet with us, and look at the legislation we had. In addition to that, we had a lawyer in our own caucus at the time, my colleague, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile. We looked at all of this.

That afternoon, Ed Martin came in and we went into the Department of Justice where we had a briefing with Nalcor. Ed Martin outlined to us what was going to be contained in this bill. He broke it down in terms of each section under Bill 75 and told us what each section was going to do in terms of the assets and the liabilities for the Province.

We were told, Mr. Chair, there would be zero cost liabilities. In fact, that is in the record of Hansard in the House because those were questions we asked the Premier at the time. The answer was: zero cost liabilities to the people of the Province.

Well, Mr. Chair, what we are seeing today is not that case. In fact, it is a very different case. It was a few months later before things started to unfold and unravel in terms of what was contained in expropriation. People might say: well, if you had all these people look at these documents, how come no one could figure out that you were expropriating a mill? Let me just say this: there was a level of trust and it was a lot of rush behind this bill. It was done within hours. There were dozens of schedules attached to this particular bill, schedules of every section and piece of land that was to be expropriated and contained within the document.

Mr. Chair, did we have someone look at all of these schedules? We did not have the time, so probably not. Therefore, we took government and their legal people at their word that this was not included. Did we support the expropriation of the water rights and timber rights? Yes, we did, because we also knew that under the chartered lease agreement that had been signed – going back almost 100 years in the initial context, some of it – they would have grounds to take ownership of these resources that belonged to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, even though they were shutting down their operations in the Province.

We were there to support that. However, Mr. Chair, we did not feel that the people of the Province should take on the liabilities, the environmental liabilities of this project.

The Premier says that she disclosed in February, 2010 that they had expropriated the mill. That was not what she disclosed. If you look at the press release that was there, it was too cute by half because it talked about doing diligence to expropriate the hydro resources that were attached to the mill: when you expropriate the hydro resources attached to the mill, in our due diligence to make this happen and to get it right we also expropriated other assets.

That was the context of the statement. It did not talk about expropriating a mill in any way, but we realized after, Mr. Chair, in questions in the House of Assembly in the spring session, that the government actually knew since May, 2009 that they had expropriated this mill – in May, 2009, but did not disclose it to the public, in my mind, in February. They were coy with words in a press release and it was not until actually April that it was disclosed that they had expropriated the Abitibi-Price mill.

Mr. Chair, by this time, government, under the Environmental Protection Act, section 99, had already made a claim to have remediation done on the site, the environmental remediation. They were making a claim to Abitibi as an owner when in fact they were they owners themselves.

MR. JOYCE: Did they know it?

MS JONES: Well, we do not know. We do not know that, but that is a very good question.

Was it all a show in terms of going after Abitibi to remediate a site, saying that you own the site, when in actual fact they owned it themselves – they actually owned it themselves? Mr. Chair, it would be interesting to have clarified and to know the answer to that.

Mr. Chair, there are a lot of issues around this. In fact, in 2008, in Hansard, the Premier, who was then the Minister of Natural Resources, outlines in the document that when they expropriated, there were provisions in the bill to develop regulations to guide their discussions on compensation as it related to the electricity generation. Still, there is no deal with Fortis on that expropriation and what the costs might be. That is four years now we have been waiting for a decision – actually, it is over four years. We still do not even know what that cost is going to be to the taxpayers of the Province.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, we asked a lot of questions in this House with regard to the environmental cleanup at Grand Falls and in terms of what the cost was. Then the Minister of Environment, who is today the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, alluded to the fact that they were doing a full assessment of what the cost of the cleanup would be. Then the Premier stands up today and says we do not know how much it is going to cost; however, the Minister of Environment on Friday was out in a media scrum saying it is going to cost over $100 million.

Mr. Chair, since 2008, government has not gotten their facts straight on this file. As of today, it is still evident that they still do not have their facts straight. One day they talk about the cost and it is over $100 million, another day they talk about they are doing the assessment. The next thing the Premier walks into the House and says we have no idea what the cost is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I guess that takes away my chance to keep talking about the Grenfell campus of Memorial University and all the good things it is doing.

MR. JOYCE: You did not give them autonomy, it was us. Do not forget it was us (inaudible) –

MR. MARSHALL: You missed my speech; we gave it a lot of autonomy and three buildings. Go out and look at them, they are beautiful.

Mr. Chair, I want to comment on some of the comments that the Opposition House Leader just did but she has missed a very essential point. The first point was that she and her colleagues supported what the government did back then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: You supported it then and now you are trying to walk away from it now. You cannot have it both ways. Either you supported it or you did not.

Mr. Chair, the key thing is that if government had not expropriated, AbitibiBowater would have still gone into creditor protection, they would still have gone in to bankruptcy protection because that is what happened. The people of this Province would still be left with the environmental liabilities and have to clean it up. What this government did is this government stood with the people of Grand Falls-Windsor – that is what it did – and it stood with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: – and we said no company that has been given those assets to run a paper mill is going to be able to abandon its commitment to run a paper mill and walk out of here with those power assets and with those land assets, and with the fibre and with the water rights, and leave us with the environmental liability. The government went and the government moved and it expropriated.

We told both Opposition Parties what we were going to do. They were totally briefed by Mr. Ed Martin. They were totally briefed by government officials, and the Premier, and they backed the government in doing what it did. The government expropriated and, therefore, yes we ended up with contaminated assets because that would have happened anyway, but we also got fibre – we have most of Central Newfoundland back to the people of Newfoundland.

We have the water rights to make electricity back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: The lands, including the lands that were not contaminated, we got those back as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, the smartest thing we did – that God, we expropriated because we would have been left with nothing. Those valuable assets, at least we can take those and we can use those to offset some of the environmental contamination that the company left.

Mr. Chair, there is a bigger issue here and the bigger issue here is the fact that this Province has environmental protection legislation to protect the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we issued five environmental orders that said to Abitibi that under the Constitution of this country, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the constitutional jurisdiction to pass this legislation to order this company, to order this polluter, to clean up the mess they made, but they did not do that. They skedaddled; they got out of town. They were trying to sell assets in Stephenville, selling in Buchans, getting rid of their assets, getting money and then getting the heck out of town. That is why we expropriated and if we had to go it again, we would do it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, the original legislation, the chartered lease, as the Opposition House Leader mentioned, it said you can have the timber and you can have the water rights and you can have the land and you can have the fibre, but you have to operate the paper mill. They had it for many years. Back in I guess it was 1904, nobody said to Sir Robert Bond: Why don't you make them put some money up? Because they were desperate for the jobs; they were desperate for the economic activity. So, we have learned from that, and it is very unfortunate. The Supreme Court of Canada made its decision and we have to respect that. We are disappointed with it, but they have changed the law. As a result of it, the regulator is left with a first priority claim on the assets that are contaminated, when in reality the regulator should be left with the first claim against all of the assets. That is why we expropriated. That is why we took the action we did with the support of the Opposition and with the support of the Third Party.

Did it happen fast? Yes, it happened fast because there was a feeling that the company was going into bankruptcy and was going to leave. We moved very, very quickly. The officials were given direction. They were given direction of what to expropriate, to expropriate the water rights, to expropriate the power assets, and to expropriate the fibre. Unfortunately, because of the fact that the power assets were located in the mill building itself, the officials did not exclude that.

They were clearly directed. The policy was given. Unfortunately, errors were made. That happens in this life, but that did not cause the problem. The problem was that even if we had not expropriated, we still would have been left with the contaminated assets. By expropriation we got the non-contaminated assets as well which can offset the cost of the environmental clean up.

With that, Mr. Chair, in clarifying that, it has been an honour and a privilege for me to have the opportunity to clarify that, so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will know that this government stood with the people of Grand Falls-Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise, Mr. Chair, and report progress.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to rise and ask leave to sit again?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for Bay of Islands, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The House now stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

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