November 27, 2012                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLVII   No. 59


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, before we get into members' statements, I want to welcome to the public galleries today Mr. Ward Gosse, who on this past Saturday evening was recognized by the Softball Newfoundland and Labrador Hall of Fame as an inductee. He was recognized as the co-winner of the Most Outstanding Player Award for the last quarter century, 1986 to 2012.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaking to a point of order.

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

I would like to correct comments I made yesterday as part of the second reading of Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

There were comments relating to the indexation of benefits for survivors who are under the age of sixty-five. The indexation of benefits for those survivors is not included in the bill that was tabled yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, there are many issues that we are evaluating as we are reviewing that legislation and the legislation that will be debated this afternoon for uniformed services. The issue is currently under review, but it was not included in the amendments of Bill 43. There will be discussion of benefits in terms of Bill 44, which we will do today. I apologize for the error. There was no intent to mislead, and the responsibility is mine.

Thank you.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from: the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South; the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District of The Straits – White Bay North; and the Member for the District of St. John's East.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize the accomplishments of seven individuals who have given their time and talents to the sport of soccer in the City of Mount Pearl. Four of these individuals: Walt Mavin, Dave Legrow, Mike Mooney, and Paul Miller have been inducted into the Mount Pearl Soccer Hall of Fame in the category of Builder; Gerry O'Brien in the category of Player; Andrew Moyst in the category of Player-Builder; and Ed Moyst as the first Honorary Life Member.

Soccer, like many other sports, provides tremendous benefits to our youth, not only from a health and wellness perspective, but also in providing lifelong lessons such as the value of hard work and commitment and of working as part of a team.

I would therefore ask all members of this hon. House to join me in commending these seven individuals for their contribution to this great sport and congratulating them on being inducted into the Mount Pearl Soccer Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista South.

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I rise in this House today to recognize Mr. Calvin Hayley for his timeless dedication to the Town of Elliston. He has contributed countless volunteer hours over the years through a host of committees and organizations.

Mr. Hayley was the founding Chairperson for the Bonavista Area Chamber of Commerce. He was the Chairperson for the Discovery Trail Tourism Association and Director for Tourism Elliston for a number of years. Calvin was the Public Relations Chair with Tourism Elliston and can claim responsibility for having Elliston recognized as the Root Cellar Capital of the World.

Mr. Hayley has ten years of experience as teacher, vice-principal, and then principal. He was the owner of a retail grocery store for thirty-five years, the founder of Nanny's Root Cellar Kitchen restaurant, and is the owner of Jams-N-Jellies wholesale.

He is currently the Heritage Events Planner for Tourism Elliston. He can be credited with the success of Elliston's annual Puffin Festival, drawing thousands of visitors each year. He also has a strong involvement in Elliston's Annual Roots, Rants, and Roars culinary festival, and he is an advisor for Elliston's Sealers Memorial.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, please join me in recognizing Mr. Hayley for such significant contributions to the tourism industry.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in this House to recognize Ward Gosse, a former resident of Bay Roberts, who last week was named by Softball Newfoundland as the co-winner of the Most Outstanding Player Award of the last quarter century: 1986-2012.

I have known Ward for over forty years, where he began his softball career in the minor softball program in Bay Roberts. Over the years, I have had the privilege to coach, to compete with and against this outstanding athlete.

His achievements are many, but I would like to highlight just a few. He is a ten-time Playoff MVP; seven-time Regular Seasons MVP; numerous provincial and national tournament awards including MVP, Top Pitcher, and Top Batter. He is the career leader in home runs, RBIs, pitching wins, and strikeouts, and the list goes on, Mr. Speaker.

At forty-four, Ward continues to play and adds to his records each time he takes the field. This past season he was part of his eleventh city championship team, and a member of the gold-medal winning Three Cheers Pub who won the Province's first National Fast Pitch Softball Championship.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

seventeen-year veteran of Commissionaires Newfoundland and Labrador. His final post was here at the House of Assembly.

Tom was very professional, but he was always smiling. I am sure I am not the only member with pleasant memories of his good humour.

Thomas had a long career with the Armed Forces, retiring in June 1995. He served as the Commanding Officer of RCSCC Terra Nova and HMCS Avalon here at home, HMCS Gimli in Manitoba and HMCS Qu'Appelle in Saskatchewan.

Thomas spent more than forty-one years with the Navy League of Canada and is renowned for his involvement with the sea cadet movement. He is survived by his wife of forty-eight years, Mary; five children: Craig, Blair, Paul, Kellie, and Colleen; and eight grandchildren.

He, like other Commissionaires, was pleased to be a part of the history we all made here in June when they, like the rest of us, were here for the longest filibuster in this Province's legislative history. Throughout that whole filibuster, Thomas' good wit was unfailing.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute my constituent Rex Saunders of St. Lunaire-Griquet. In July, Flanker Press published his autobiography.

Mr. Saunders' story is a compelling one. He was born in St. Lunaire, then called St. Leonard's, and spent his first years there –and he is very clear that he was a bit of a hard case in those days. After working in Main Brook, he moved back to St. Lunaire to raise his family.

While all of Mr. Saunders' story is fascinating to me, the part that made headlines nationwide happened in 2009 when he was sixty-six years old. He set out for a day of sealing and, after a phone call to his wife, ended up stranded on the ice flow about fifty-three kilometres from his home, with nothing more than his floatation suit, a five-gallon gas can, and his very strong personal faith.

Rex is the second eldest of Fred and Olive Saunders' ten children and is married to Irene, nee Earle. They have five children and six grandchildren.

I assure all hon. members his book, Man on the Ice, is a great read and hopefully it will be under many Christmas trees this year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour a constituent who has personally helped hundreds of people from different countries settle into new lives in this Province. Bridget Foster immigrated to Canada in 1978 and she has been Executive Director of the Association for New Canadians since 1984.

In the almost thirty years that Bridget has been Executive Director, the Association for New Canadians has grown from a small organization to a full-service immigrant settlement agency. She was awarded the 2012 Paul Yuzyk Award for lifetime achievement in Multiculturalism, an award given by the federal government for dedication to advancing diversity, multiculturalism and the integration of newcomers into Canadian society.

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

I was delighted to award Bridget a Jubilee Medal in September this year in a surprise presentation in front of 150 of her friends, relatives, Association for New Canadians clients and co-workers. She thought the ANC was honouring students for participating in the Terry Fox Walk – instead, we were all honouring her.

I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking Bridget Foster for her decades of work in helping to build this Province, as well as the country, and congratulations on receiving the Queen's Jubilee Medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to remind the people of the Province that the deadline to apply to become a founding member of the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq First Nation is November 30.

The Government of Canada announced the creation of the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq First Nation on September 26, 2011. The Qalipu Band has the distinction of being a landless band, that is, while members have First Nation status, the band itself does not have reserve lands and thus members live in various communities throughout the Province.

The Qalipu Band was created with an initial list of close to 21,500 members and since that time, thousands of people in the Province have made application to become a member of the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq First Nation. It is anticipated that applications could reach upwards of over 60,000.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supports members of the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq First Nation in efforts to unite in sharing culture and heritage. Also, members will be able to access all federal programs and services available to status Indians, including the Post-Secondary Student Support Program and Non-Insured Health Benefits.

Mr. Speaker, November 30 is the deadline for receipt of applications to become a founding member. Further information is available at www.qalipu.ca.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the leadership of the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq Band on their pursuit towards a land claims settlement, if you may. Mr. Speaker, as a beneficiary, as an Aboriginal person who was involved in and part of a land claims agreement that spanned some thirty-five years, I certainly support them in their trials and tribulations in pushing forward.

It is good to hear the minister talk about the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq receiving education and health benefits. It is certainly very important, and these are two very important issues that should be put forward.

I also encourage all potential members to come forward with their applications before the end of the month. It will be a proud day for all Aboriginal people when we see another Aboriginal settlement in our Province. I wish the Qalipu Mi'Kmaq all the best in their future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Congratulations to the Qalipu Nation. It has been a long time in getting there, I think almost fifty years. It has been a long and sometimes rough road of negotiations, but after all this they have achieved something historic.

It is encouraging to see so many people take an interest in their Aboriginal heritage. This interest was shown recently in the latest round of historic elections. I encourage anybody who thinks they may qualify to apply before the deadline, not just because of the benefits but as well as a celebration of their heritage and their culture.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight a tourism partnership that is helping to promote Atlantic Canada as a preferred destination.

Earlier this month, representatives from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial governments and industry associations responsible for tourism in Atlantic Canada, gathered to announce a three-year renewal of funding for the Atlantic Canada Tourism Partnership.

The approximately $20 million agreement provides an opportunity to position Atlantic Canada as a leading travel destination. The partnership enables us to expand the industry through two research-driven marketing campaigns, one promoting the Atlantic Canadian provinces in the United States, and a second in key overseas markets, such as the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are committed to building partnerships in Atlantic Canada and in our own backyard. In 2009 we released the vision Uncommon Potential and established the Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism Board as a public-private partnership. We have led the way in the country in tourism marketing through our award-winning Find Yourself campaign, which has won more than 170 regional, national, and international awards since 2006. In fact, the provincial tourism campaign swept the ICE Advertising Awards last week, winning an astounding sixteen awards, including Best in Show.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, working with our partners, we will continue to build the tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. We too on this side also say it is great any time that we can find funds and work with partnerships to promote Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot to offer: snowmobiling, hiking, summer destinations. Newfoundland and Labrador is a place that a lot of people come to enjoy and relax.

Anything that we can do here as Opposition to help the government promoting tourism and promoting Newfoundland and Labrador, we are willing to help. If tourism helps in Newfoundland and Labrador, it helps all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. There is certainly no question that our tourism marketing campaign is paying dividends and I commend the renewed partnership with ACOA. I would like to express a need, though, for adequate supports for our cultural and heritage sectors to advance programming.

Beyond marketing, we need to make sure that we have appropriate financial investments for our tourism and cultural industries. Infrastructure, such as good transportation and telecommunication links, is vital.

I also look forward to hearing about other campaigns and partnership initiatives from the minister.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, from November 12-18, two people from Newfoundland and Labrador took to the rural stage to represent Canada and showcase excellence in cabinetmaking.

Justin Bennett of Corner Brook, a College of the North Atlantic graduate, and his instructor, Kelly Tompkins of the Codroy Valley, participated at the WorldSkills Americas Competition in Sγo Paulo, Brazil.

Mr. Speaker, after competing among 800 elite tradespersons from twenty regions and countries of North America, Central America, South America and the Caribbean, Justin Bennett received a bronze medal for his efforts. He also helped Canada earn nine medals in total and placed third overall at the prestigious international competition.

Mr. Speaker, Justin Bennett was selected and sponsored by Skills Canada to join Team Canada based on his stellar performances at the Skills Canada National Competitions in 2011 and 2012. The provincial government is pleased to support Skills Canada Newfoundland and Labrador in building awareness of the skilled trades and technologies in the Province.

As a College of the North Atlantic graduate, Mr. Speaker, Justin Bennett learned from the best. The college is producing world-class skilled tradespeople, and its cabinetmaking course is no exception. The hard work, passion, and skill of instructor Kelly Tompkins led to the formation of this program.

Through Mr. Tompkins' guidance and support, Justin Bennett has made this Province very proud. This is the first time ever that Skills Canada has sent a national team to the WorldSkills competition.

I ask all hon. members to join me in offering congratulations to Justin Bennett and Kelly Tompkins. They have demonstrated excellence in their skills, and are outstanding global ambassadors for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

I too would like to congratulate Mr. Bennett and Mr. Tompkins for what they have done in representing this Province. I think we all need to recognize that what we have here in this Province, and in the College of the North Atlantic, is we are not just great provincially or nationally; we are being recognized internationally for the good things that we are doing. I think that says a lot about the quality of education at the College of the North Atlantic.

I am very lucky to know Mr. Tompkins. He is from the Codroy Valley and he teaches at the campus in Port aux Basques, which is where Mr. Bennett was trained, so very happy to speak to the success coming out of the Port aux Basques campus of the College of the North Atlantic. I also think it speaks to the success promoted by Mr. Jan Peddle and all the staff at the College of the North Atlantic in Port aux Basques.

We have a great thing going there. The cabinetmaking is just one example of the great programs that the college is offering. Kudos to Justin, Kelly, and the entire college for what they are doing in representing this Province on a global stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I would also like to congratulate Justin and Kelly on their WorldSkills win, one of the many great things that are happening at the College of the North Atlantic. As we celebrate this success, Mr. Speaker, of students and staff at the college, I hope that government will also look forward to the future and ensure that the college has the resources it needs to build accessible and innovative programs in the area of skilled trades and technology training.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Harper has directed Minister MacKay on at least two occasions this year to find a new role for 5 Wing Goose Bay. The Premier seemed to be taken by surprise when told of the letters, despite her claims that 5 Wing has been one of her main priorities in the last election.

So I ask the Premier: With the daily back and forth with the Prime Minister on a loan guarantee, why did you not have prior knowledge of the new proposed developments at 5 Wing Goose Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, I have had a very close contact with the federal minister, Minister Penashue, concerning 5 Wing Goose Bay. I have had several meetings with him, as well as several phone calls, and we are keeping a close eye on the Happy Valley-Goose Bay 5 Wing, and are hopefully going to see something move there very soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's letter to Minister MacKay calls for the establishment of a clear sovereignty protection mandate for 5 Wing Goose Bay. Even our federal Cabinet representative, Peter MacKay, says the Prime Minister will fulfill this promise.

So I ask the Premier: What will be included in the clear sovereignty protection mandate for 5 Wing Goose Bay, and have you been privy to any discussions with the Prime Minister or Minister Penashue?

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

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in the last question, I have had several meetings with Minister Penashue. I am constantly keeping in touch with him, and through him, with Minister MacKay. We are keeping a very close eye on 5 Wing Goose Bay and Happy Valley, and as I said, the Prime Minister has made commitments there. We are hoping that he will stay and stick to his commitments. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the CEO of Nalcor has said publicly that if Muskrat Falls is not sanctioned by the end of November, timelines for the project will have to be pushed. This will force Nalcor to revisit numbers on the cost estimates.

So, I ask the Premier: The end of November is just three days away; how can this government possibly meet this deadline?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there have been various time frames that we have dealt with, with this file. It has been ongoing. We are in the process of finalizing the loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker. Certain work has taken place at Muskrat Falls, as the member opposite knows. Essentially, what we are doing is trying to get to the stage where we can make our decision on sanction. Once that decision is made, we will proceed from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, well, the question was more about pushing the timelines and what you would do in this situation.

Mr. Speaker, the spending spree at Muskrat Falls continues, with Nalcor spending $35 million on the project in September. Last week, Nalcor promised to release their October expenditures, but we still cannot find them; they are still hidden.

I ask the Premier: How much did Nalcor spend on Muskrat Falls in October and how much was the transfer that you made to Nalcor to cover those expenses?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

To this point, the only money that has been released from Natural Resources has been the $45 million that was discussed in the House last week. There have been no further monies released.

Mr. Speaker, I should also remind the member opposite that the Lower Churchill project – prior to 2003, there had been over more than $100 million spent on the development of the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While government is touting the main benefit of Muskrat Falls as the ability to shut down Holyrood, we have twenty-one communities along the Labrador Coast on diesel generation paying some of the highest rates commercially anywhere in the Province.

Why is government prepared to bypass the coastal communities of Labrador to bring a transmission line to the Island, to Nova Scotia, and to the cottagers of New England, yet no long-term power solution for Labrador's communities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ratepayers on the Coast of Labrador subsidize to the tune of $40 million through our rural subsidy, which means you, and I, and everyone else is paying for that, Mr. Speaker. The residents of Coastal Labrador currently pay 3.28 cents a kilowatt hour for their first 1,000 kilowatts, which is 5 per cent of the true cost. Commercial customers pay 18.14 cents, which is still less than 25 per cent of the cost.

Mr. Speaker, the total demand on the Coast of Labrador, it is my understanding, is ten megawatts of power. There was a Coastal Labrador study in 2010, Mr. Speaker; we are updating that study and we will be in a position within the next few weeks, we will be receiving a proposal on small hydro for the South Coast that looks at either the St. Lewis River or the Alexis River to provide four megawatts of power for Port Hope Simpson, Mary's Harbour, and Charlottetown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is being built in Labrador and it should benefit all Labradorians who live adjacent to the development.

I ask the government today: What is government prepared to do to protect the interests of Labradorians and to ensure that they receive maximum benefits from this project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Residents of Labrador currently pay the lowest rates in Canada in terms of residential rates, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing here: Muskrat Falls will create billions of dollars in economic benefits to the Province as a whole, jobs in Labrador with the Innu to receive the jobs first, then other Aboriginal peoples, then residents of Newfoundland, the Island.

We are acutely aware of the need for power. The Premier, when she was there as the minister, commissioned this study. We are also looking at if Voisey's Bay goes underground, that will allow us then to provide power to Nain and Natuashish. If the Paladin development goes ahead, that will allow us to provide power to the closer communities such as Postville.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is we are trying to provide power. We are looking at also wind to provide to the Northern communities with small hydro (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Muskrat Falls is going to see the same power go to Maritime Canada at a cheaper rate than it will to Newfoundlanders; however, in Labrador we have communities that are obtaining power from the Lake Robinson system in Quebec. They pay 55 per cent more for that power than the residents of Quebec do.

Where is the fairness in that argument?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is exactly one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why we can no longer rely on Quebec and one of the reasons that we have to build Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I have heard members opposite and critics say we should re-buy our power from Quebec, Mr. Speaker. Well, Quebec has never given us a good deal in the past. We are not going to get a good deal in the future. Muskrat Falls allows us to escape the geographical stranglehold, Mr. Speaker, to take charge of our own future and our own destiny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Environment and Conservation stated in this House that the recommendations of Aboriginal groups regarding environmental assessment of Lake Melville have been considered. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government supported by the Joint Review Panel recommends an environmental assessment to be carried out in Lake Melville.

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs: Why are the recommendations of the Nunatsiavut Government and the Joint Review Panel being ignored?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the member for the question. Metal mercury certainly is a concern we take very, very seriously. Nalcor, during the environmental assessment, has consulted with Aboriginal groups, key stakeholders, and the general public in the Upper Lake Melville area to gain insight into concerns of the community members. Feedback from these consultations has certainly been considered throughout the entire environmental assessment process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the Joint Review Panel concluded that the Muskrat Falls Project would have significant adverse effects on traditional activities by Aboriginal people, including the harvesting of food in Lake Melville.

I ask the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs: Will you direct Nalcor to reconsider their decision not to do an environmental assessment in Lake Melville?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are always aware that increased metal mercury concentrations will occur with flooding. It is a known impact of hydroelectric developments with utilities such as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Hydro-Quebec, and Manitoba Hydro are just three examples.

Consumption advisories are the key mitigation measure for increases in this concentration. These advisories, established by Health Canada, educate residents on the amount of fish that can be safely consumed. These advisories are currently in place in reservoirs such as Cat Arm on the Island.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all contingencies and doing what is necessary to ensure the safety of the people and their eating habits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this government is forcing school boards to close schools all over the Province. The fallout, as we have seen in the news, is an anguishing, emotional, and divisive process whereby school boards are pitted against children and their parents.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, any time there is the motion to close a school it is very, very emotional. Anybody who has been involved in it realizes that, as are the people who are going through it right now.

Mr. Speaker, there are some realistic facts that we have to take into consideration here. Over the past ten years, we have had a reduction of 20,000 students. Mr. Speaker, that means that in parts of our Province we have schools that can accommodate more students and whatnot.

We have an elected board, Mr. Speaker, that goes and offers a process of consultation with parents and the community at large, and then decisions will be made. To this point, people have made their representation. I encourage them to do so and continue to do so, and then in due course the boards will make their decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, during the 2005 by-election, the then Premier Danny Williams overturned the school board's decision to close Leo Burke Academy in Bishop's Falls, arguing that the school is viable and it should stay.

I ask the minister: Is school viability a consideration for his department, or is viability only considered during elections?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to stoop that low. Mr. Speaker, I refuse to stoop that low. We have people who are elected school board officials who are going out and we know how emotional those issues are, and, Mr. Speaker, I refuse to stoop that low.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the original tender for the facelift of the Confederation Building was $39 million. The completion date has passed and the cost has risen dramatically.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: How much of taxpayers' money have been spent to date on this project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the hon. member opposite asked the question because I get asked the question on a regular basis, what is happening here at the building with the construction that is going on here.

This is a building that has been the centrepiece of democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador for generations, Mr. Speaker. It has been here since the 1960s. It has never undergone any significant repairs or upgrades –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has never undergone any significant repairs or upgrades to the exterior, which is taking place. There is replacement of windows, replacement of brick, repairs to roofing that is underway. It is a significant piece of work that needs to be done to continue for this building to be operational for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: I say to the minister, the former minister stated that the windows are being tinted blue while line-ups at the food bank are rising in the Province. That is a waste of money going on here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, multi-million dollar projects –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: How much will this facelift cost the taxpayers of this Province over and above the original estimate, including the cost to tint the windows blue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I can tell you, I am the minister in a department that is very big but I have not dug down to find out what it cost to colour windows, or framing around windows as of yet, but if he wants to know that I can try and find it out for him.

The windows that are being installed and the replacements that are being done in this building will also increase the economic feasibility of the operations of this building. It will improve the air quality for the people who work in this building. As well, it will repair the building so it lasts for generations to come and serve the people as it has before, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again, I am sure the minister knows, to date, how much this project has cost. I am sure of it. If not, the minister should go up and check it. When the minister does check it, can you tell us what the estimated cost is of completion of this building? Because I am sure there are engineers in your department who have given you an estimated cost to complete this building.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite pleased to stand here in the House and answer questions to the hon. member opposite, but when he asks what it cost to colour windows, I am not sure that is what is in the best interest of the use of time here in Question Period. If he wants to know the cost of the investment that we are making in this building, I do not mind answering that and I will provide details to him if he is interested.

The initial cost was in the range of $40 million when the first initial assessments were done. Since that, the assessment now on the complete and total cost – what happened, Mr. Speaker, is when we got into actually opening up the envelope, as it is referred to in the construction industry, you sometimes find that there is more work to be done within that envelope, and inside those walls than previously anticipated. We anticipate the cost now, Mr. Speaker, is the range of $50 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, the former minister okayed to change the tint of the windows, and he said it in Estimates in this House of Assembly.

My question to the minister: How much has been spent to date? What is the total cost, as estimated by your department, has been given to you at the cost of the taxpayers of this project?

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

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I clearly answered his question. If he has some other information he wants to know, I will be glad to supply it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, 5.3 per cent of the Province's population used food banks last year, which is over double the national average. No other province or territory has a higher percentage.

I ask the minister responsible for poverty reduction: With all the resource wealth, and a Poverty Reduction Strategy that they have touted as leading the way, why is our food bank usage double the national average?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government was serious back in 2003 when it took over government, and at that time we looked at the poverty rates in Newfoundland and Labrador, compared it within Canada. At that time, Mr. Speaker, we had the highest rate of poverty in Canada. We set out over a ten-year period to create a Poverty Reduction Strategy, which we invest approximately $150 million annually to insure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador benefit from anti-poverty strategies.

Mr. Speaker, today, this Province, as opposed to being the highest, is now the third-lowest ranking in poverty (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his review of the Muskrat Falls Project, International Energy Expert, Dr. Gordon Weil said the federal loan guarantee would protect against a bad deal, and the details and conditions of the federal loan guarantee are of critical importance.

Yesterday, the Premier once again gave an indefinite answer to when we will see the loan guarantee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is this government hiding from the people of this Province about the loan guarantee negotiations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the loan guarantee is to reduce interest rates on this project, which, in turn, will reduce rates for the people of the Province. That is the whole purpose of the loan guarantee and why it is critical to this project, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, we are negotiating with the federal government, and detail is important. We have shown that time and time again in the agreements that we have negotiated, particularly in our offshore, Mr. Speaker.

When the negotiation is complete and the document is ready for signature, Mr. Speaker, then we will share with the people of the Province the good news of the loan guarantee and the benefits it will bring to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I will be really happy when it finally does happen because it has been one moving target for the last six months – a moving target.

Mr. Speaker, this government started off saying the Lower Churchill would supply markets in the Atlantic Provinces and the US. Two years ago, we were told Muskrat Falls would replace the Holyrood plant. More recently, government said Muskrat Falls is needed for Labrador mining interests. Two months ago, the Premier said in a speech the project would get us out from under Hydro-Quebec's thumb.

The Premier is moving target again – a moving target; this time, her communication strategy moving target lacks credibility.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not have a myopic view of the world. The sky is not falling as far as this government is concerned.

Our number one rationale for developing Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, is to provide needed electricity to the people of the Province from 2017 forward, and to make sure that we are providing that electricity at the cheapest possible rate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we will also enable development in Labrador. We will also break the stranglehold that Quebec has over us and we will engender and empower development here for years to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been here over a week asking questions and getting nothing new in reply. Government is sealed in a hydro bubble, while the rest of the world is changing. There are predictions of a worldwide drop in oil prices and of the disappearance of long-term markets. Every week we hear of sea changes in global energy markets. The rationale for Muskrat Falls could very well be evaporating.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why does she continue to wear blinkers that keep her from seeing what everybody else knows?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and time again, this is the most studied project in our history. We have released more information on this project than any other project in the history of the Province.

We have experts at Nalcor who provide their analysis, Mr. Speaker. We have experts from all over this country and the world validating the expertise at Nalcor and the good project that we have under development here. Yet, the Leader of the Third Party has yet – has yet – to provide one iota of evidence to say that what we have said is incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, meeting Labrador mining interests is the most recent justification by government for their Muskrat Falls Project. The Premier has stated if Muskrat Falls was not built, mining companies would be forced –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – to go to Hydro-Quebec for power. With a surplus of power and close proximity to these projects, Hydro-Quebec is already able to provide competitive rates to these companies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What would stop mining companies from playing Hydro-Quebec off against Nalcor in a race to the bottom for cheap power rates?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual circumstance to stand in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador and have elected officials advise the government to allow development in Labrador to remain in the hands of Hydro-Quebec. It is absolutely unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

Not only are we living with the Upper Churchill contract, Mr. Speaker, in which Hydro-Quebec to date have earned over $20 billion, where Newfoundland and Labrador have only earned $1 billion, we have failed attempt after failed attempt – two by the previous Liberal Administration – to get a deal that was favourable and advantageous to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now she wants us to turn over all development in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fire services in the Province are suffering due to a lack of staff at fire halls around the Province. Volunteers are hard to come by in a Province where going away to work is still the order of the day. It is difficult to retain volunteers to keep the basic emergency services operating.

Can the minister please tell this House what his department is doing to help retain volunteer firefighters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where he is getting his information, but I have been in many fire halls over the last number of months; there is not an issue in regard to volunteers coming forward to provide that service to their communities. As a matter of fact, I was on the Burin Peninsula just this weekend and they have gone beyond their complement, actually, to be honest with you, in regard to what they need.


The other thing we are doing in this Province is investing in our fire services. We have been investing ever since we created Fire and Emergency Services, since 2007. You should get out and see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess he is not in the same places where I have been over the last couple of months, because there is a shortage of volunteer firefighters, and you and I know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, government has been re-announcing investments in fire trucks and associated equipment for firefighting, which are all good investments, to be fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: The fire truck tour continues, however. Municipal Affairs have close to sixty requests for fire trucks that are badly needed in this Province, Mr. Speaker. There will be new requests for this next Budget year.

Can the government tell firefighting services in the Province how it will meet the need after it cut over $2.2 million more in the Budget than in last year's fire truck tour?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, one other thing I forgot about in regard to volunteer firefighters is the tax credit that will put approximately $1,000 in each one of the pockets of volunteer firefighters in this Province, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Since the creation of Fire and Emergency Services, we have invested over $20 million in regard to equipment and vehicles in this Province, and we will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, will this government put its money where its mouth is and stop charging the provincial portion of HST on affordable housing projects in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, every time the hon. member gets up and talks about the housing circumstances – we know there are people throughout our communities who from time to time have challenges in their lives, and sometimes that deals with housing. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things going on in housing in this Province as well – a lot of good things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: This morning I had the great benefit of visiting the Lilly Building, down on Bond Street in St. John's. It was a project by Choices for Youth, built about three years ago by youth from our community, young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who actually hands-on built this project. It was part of what they call a Train for Trades program.

That Train for Trades program has continued since then. These young people are now actually working on retrofit projects at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units. They are working in the community, Mr. Speaker. Eighty per cent of the participants are now working full-time or are now in post-secondary education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Will this government, Mr. Speaker, commit to freezing the sale of all government-owned land and vacated buildings until a solid, comprehensive housing policy and strategy is in place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad again to have the opportunity to get up and talk about some of the good work that has been going on. As we progress and deal with such important needs as housing and homelessness, one of the things we have had great success on is partnerships.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province we are now partnering with private developers who are building affordable housing. We provide them with assistance and support, and they build affordable housing for seniors and people who are most in need of housing in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the future of housing and that is the future of success as a government, Mr. Speaker: work with partnerships and the people on the ground who are providing the services to those people who need it most.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, government boasts about spending money on social housing, yet many people are still facing a housing crisis, uncontrolled rent increases, and zero per cent vacancy rates, with no relief in sight. Single folks and young working families often spend over 35 per cent of income on shelter and heat, leaving little for food, clothing, and transportation.

They are not getting the rent supplements; they are not housed in the new Affordable Housing Initiative units. These programs assist only the most economically disadvantaged.

Mr. Speaker, what will this government do to address the uncontrolled rent increases these people must pay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am glad the hon. member opposite mentioned rent supplements, because for twenty-five years the budget of the Province of the day was set at $4 million. Mr. Speaker, we have doubled that – we have doubled that. The annual budget now given to rent supplements in this Province is set at $8 million annually. Last year, we created 375 new rent sups for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, not only that, but an interesting gauge you quite often use is the wait list. The wait list in 2010 in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing was 1,215 and this year it is down to 890, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities reference to the board, review of two generation expansion options for the least cost supply of power to Island interconnected customers for the period 2011-2067, Mr. Speaker, and I refer the Leader of the Third Party specifically to page 65 and 66. She has read the executive summary, Mr. Speaker, now we will try to get her to the rest of the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils and Tribunals. (Bill 47)

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

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a point of order regarding the petition given yesterday by the Member for St. Barbe. I want to note that in the prayer of the petition, in the fifth clause that states: WHEREAS the amount of $677,000 in grants awarded to the District of Trinity – Bay de Verde is factually incorrect.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that in his commentary he indicated that the government recently rolled out the first round of JCP proposals. Mr. Speaker, that is factually incorrect, it was the second round.

Further to that, he also indicated that the highest number and amount went to Trinity – Bay de Verde when, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the highest amount right now has gone to Burgeo – La Poile. Trinity – Bay de Verde is not even in the top three.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think it is a point of order but we certainly appreciate the clarification for the House. Oftentimes when petitions come to MHAs from their district they are worded in a way that the people of the Province are seeing a particular issue, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Member for St. Barbe so that the information can be passed along.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS early childhood educators are trained professionals essential to the operation of child care centres and indispensable to many parents and children across Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS on the occasion of Early Childhood Educators Week in May 2012, government conveyed its support and recognition for the role of early childhood educators and expressed its appreciation for their value; and

WHEREAS early childhood educators working in child care centres receive salaries that are the lowest in Canada amongst ECEs; and

WHEREAS government's 2012 increase in subsidies paid to ECEs applies only to Level I ECEs working in child care homerooms and Level II early childhood educators who operate child care centres; and

WHEREAS all early childhood educators are highly educated, skilled, and deserving of a fair and equitable wage subsidy; and

WHEREAS government is discriminating against some of the most skilled ECEs in Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to revise the enhancement to the Early Learning and Child Care Supplement to include all early childhood educators working in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that was started after government's announcement last spring. There are approximately 650 additional signatures to the petition that I am presenting today.

It is timely because last week in the House of Assembly we celebrated National Child Day here in the Province. I think there was just a study that was released yesterday, or perhaps it is today, by TD Economics which shows that there is quite a high return on investment in education in the early years. It showed that for, say the average child the return was up to $3 for every $1 investment. For children who come from disadvantaged situations, more challenging say socio-economic backgrounds, the payoff can be even higher than that.

Investments in early childhood education are a great thing; there is a high return on investment. I know government has done a number of things to date. I would encourage them to continue to look at this particular issue, because there are a lot of ECEs in Newfoundland and Labrador who are dissatisfied with the subsidy situation right now.

All of these additional signatures on this petition are evidence of that. I hope the members will consider this and hear the pleas of these petitioners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, on a point of order.

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to raise a point of order. My understanding, according to the rules of the House, Standing Orders 90-97, it says when a petition is presented to the House it should be presented by a member in his or her place who shall be answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper matter.

The member just mentioned that our ECEs are the lowest paid in Atlantic Canada, Mr. Speaker. This is not the case. I feel that this is an improper manner in which he is presenting it before the House. They are, in fact, the highest paid in Atlantic Canada. I would like for him to table where he received that information.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the exact wording here on the petition is, "Early Childhood Educators working in child care centres receive salaries that are the lowest in Canada amongst ECEs".

Thank you.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, because there have been a couple of petitions where the accuracy of the information has been referenced. I appreciate, for all members, that they receive petitions and they fill incumbent to bring them to the House.

I would ask you, as Speaker of the House, to give consideration and to rule on section 90 in the Standing Orders of the House. It puts the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, for the accuracy of information for petitions not on those who sign the petition. It puts the responsibility, as I see it, in here, clearly on the shoulders of the member presenting the petition before the House.

I would respectfully ask if you would consider that and give a ruling on how we accept petitions from here on in and how we validate them.

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

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

I do not have my copy of O'Brien and Bosc open, but I do know that in O'Brien and Bosc it does refer to the fact that the members feel an obligation when petitions are presented to them, whether they agree with them or whether they do not agree with them, to present the petitions on behalf of the petitioners.

To me, that means that whatever is in the petition does get presented. So, in doing your review of the points that have been just made, I would like to have a ruling of my understanding of O'Brien and Bosc that if a petition is presented to us and the petition goes to the Clerk of the House and it gets certified by the Clerk, then we speak to what the concerns of the people are, as expressed in the prayer that they have signed.

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

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

With respect to the comments just made, I would ask you to do a couple of things, respectfully, in your ruling. First of all, I think it is very important that the House have a clear understanding of what takes precedence as orders and rules for this House, whether it is O'Brien and Bosc, I believe, that was mentioned a few moments ago – which, if memory serves me, it is the big green book we have that relates to the House of Commons in Ottawa – or, does first priority go to our own Standing Orders, referred to as Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, titled Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, it very clearly outlines here the responsibility has to be placed upon members.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I believe, and it would be government's belief that notwithstanding the petitions presented here, all members in this House, when they stand to present information, you cannot use as a shoulder the fact that somebody else misquoted or misrepresented information on paper. You have an obligation. People in this House and people throughout the Province who listen to us speak in this House expect that we bring accurate, reliable, and truthful information here.

I believe, as I would ask you to rule, that the fact somebody else wrote something on a paper does not give any member of this House justification to come in here, present it, and argue it for three minutes as being factual in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister and the Government House Leader are interested in where that information comes from, they should refer back to the Early Years Study 3 that was released last fall that showed Newfoundland and Labrador was lowest in the country on every metric that the authors of that study looked at.

If you want that information, that is where that is written. Go read it. If you are not up on it, then I have serious concerns about your ability to manage this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I, too, am looking at section 92 under petitions in our Standing Orders. I do not read it the way that it has been read by the Government House Leader. "Every Member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains. In no case shall the Member occupy more than 3 minutes in so doing, unless by permission of the House upon question put".

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I say, with respect to members opposite, there is no need for any member to stand in their place and insult other members of the House. We are merely debating a point of order in this House, as every member in this House has a right to do and a right to raise their opinion, there is no need to insult people or suggest that people cannot read information. We will certainly do our homework, but this focus is on the point of order about Standing Orders.

Specifically to the comment made, the Leader of the Third Party is reading a paragraph not that I quoted. I refer to you specifically that I quoted section 90, not section 92. Section 90 reads, and I quote, "A petition to the House shall be presented by a Member in his or her place who shall be answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper matter…"

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has heard –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has heard multiple representations with respect to the point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services. I will take all of them under advisement and report back to the House at a future date.

Further petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

WHEREAS the crab being processed in Area 2J is currently landed and processed in Area 2J – I am pretty certain about that, Mr. Speaker; and

WHEREAS this ensures that processors and plant workers adjacent to the resource benefit appropriately from the resource – that is pretty certain, too, Mr. Speaker; I have consulted with a lot of them; and

WHEREAS any changes to this practice will be detrimental to communities where processing plants in communities adjacent to Area 2J – it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker: if they do not have the resource, they have no reason to open;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to commit to maintaining this practice and disallow any Area 2J crab to leave Area 2J to be landed or processed in other parts of the Province.

That is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what people are asking in the district. They are doing so because of a regulation that came into place in the early 1990s. It was there to protect the crab industry in Labrador, to allow for companies to go into Labrador, make significant investments in processing plants, in infrastructure, and in port facilities, and they would be guaranteed a quota to maintain that operation and to stabilize it for the long term.

What we are seeing now is a review of that policy by the provincial government. The review has been undertaken simply because there have been two processing plants that have closed down. Some of these processors had investments in harvesting operations and enterprises. Those enterprises are now looking to be able to sell outside.

I totally disagree with it, Mr. Speaker. The reason the policy was put in place in the first place has not changed. There is a huge dependency upon those quotas being landed and processed in Labrador, and because of policies like that we have seen stability in the crab fishery in Labrador when we have seen complete instability in other areas of the Province.

I will give you an example: there have been years when the crab fishery was shut down in this Province by processing companies, when they shut their plant doors and they forced enterprises, fishermen, to tie up at wharves with crab aboard their boat and they refused to buy that crab.

That did not happen in Labrador. It has never happened in Labrador. There has always been a working relationship between the processing companies, between the fishermen, between the plant workers. There has always been give and take. There have been times when fishermen have taken cuts in quotas; there were times when plants have been able to reinvest more money to help communities than they probably could have, but, Mr. Speaker, it all works because they work hand in hand, and part of that success is the Province –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have two minutes?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I have one minute?

MR. SPEAKER: The member has been granted one minute to clue up her comments on a three-minute presentation.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In order for this to work in Labrador, the government has to be a partner in it as well, the provincial government, and they have been since the early nineties. The people are asking that you continue to be a partner with us, and you continue to work with the shrimp company, with the harvesters, with the plant workers and with the communities to ensure that we maximize this resource and that it works to provide employment and stability in the industry for all those who are affected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS with the passage of Bill 29, the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Amendment Act, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has weakened citizens' access to information, and has reduced government transparency – and I believe that to be true; there is nothing redacted here in this petition, Mr. Speaker; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has moved towards greater secrecy and less openness; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is breaking its own commitment for greater transparency, accountability, and freedom of information, which it said at one time was the hallmark of its government;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repeal the passage of Bill 29.

As in duty bound, you petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I keep getting copies of this petition delivered to my office from people from all over the Province. The people of the Province are outraged about Bill 29. They do not believe that this is the direction that they want our democracy to go in.

They do not want less transparency; they do not want more secrecy. They believed this government when they ran on a platform of greater openness, and greater transparency and accountability that this government would provide that. In fact, this government has turned its back on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and provided the exact opposite.

I have a petition here signed by people from St. John's, Mount Pearl, Torbay, St. Phillips, from Paradise, Portugal Cove, Conception Bay South, Paradise again, Mount Pearl, Lord's Cove, Gander – let me see, from all over the Province. From Coachman's Cove, from Glovertown –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – from Brigus Junction, from Foxtrap. Mr. Speaker, we have people from all over the Province signing this petition saying that they want this regressive piece of legislation to be repealed. From Marystown, from Burin, from across the Province, the people of the Province want their voice heard on this particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain within the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011 as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people the option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers in the 2012-2013 Budget.

And in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first petition for family caregivers that I have presented in the House. Unfortunately, I do not think it is going to be the last one that I present in this House.

I should say a time commitment has been put in place by the minister and that was about six months ago, it was very, very soon. In the last week, now that has been upgraded to very soon. I am looking forward to hopefully the next question I ask it is going to be soon.

The fact is, this is something that is needed all over this Province, and we know it. The fact is people did rely on that promise. The promise was made and we all hope that it is going to be committed to. I understand that it is a challenge because it is not an easy thing to implement. It is a huge procedure, but if it was promised it should be lived up to, Mr. Speaker, and I am hoping that it can be done.

We hear stories on the radio of people in very drastic situations who are relying on this and not getting the help they need. I am pretty sure I can virtually guarantee there are not many members in this House who have not heard of this issue from one of their constituents at some point or another and they will continue to hear about it.

Again, in this case the petition is coming from the Diamond Cove, Rose Blanche – Harbour Le Cou area of my district. These people are hoping that this promise will be fulfilled, as am I, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind members, who are presenting petitions, of a ruling the Speaker made in the last session. The petitions, before they are presented on the floor of the House of Assembly, are first to be presented prior to the sitting to the Table Officers of the House. Those petitions will be initialled by that individual doing the review, and only those petitions that have been initialled by one of the Table Officers prior to the session and the member presenting such a petition, only then will the member be recognized to present a petition on the floor of the House. I remind members of that earlier ruling this past spring.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain in the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for St. John's South, given my earlier comment, is the member presenting and tabling a petition today that has been signed by one of the Table Officers who are sitting today?

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, I believe a copy of this petition has been accepted by the House. It has been presented by other members.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the one you have there presenting on behalf of yourself today, has that one been presented to the Table for authorizing before it is being presented to the House?

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

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Before we get into Orders of the Day, on November 22 the Member for St. Barbe raised a point of order with respect to comments made by the hon. Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador during Oral Questions which the member called a mischaracterization of what he had said.

The Speaker has reviewed Hansard from that day's session, and the comments made by both members, and the Speaker believes there is no point of order, but rather a difference of opinion between two hon. members.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 2, third reading of Bill 43.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, be now read the third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 43 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 43)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 5, I call for second reading of a bill, An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department, Bill 44.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that Bill 44, An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 44, An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department". (Bill 44)

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I had the pleasure in my capacity as the Finance Minister to move amendments to the Public Service Pension Plan. Today we are, for the most part, making similar amendments, with some others as well, to the pension plan for our police officers, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and the correctional officers. Generally it is known as the Uniformed Services Pensions Act. We are proposing the name be changed to the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 2012.

All members have a copy of this bill. Defined pension plans are quite complex and not easily understood, but I think it would be wise for members maybe to take a chance to read this legislation. It is not only making amendments, it is really modernizing the legislation as well. There are a number of housekeeping amendments in here as well. There are a lot of provisions that are no longer applicable, so they are being removed. So, it is a good act, not to thick, where members could get a darn good view of a law that deals with a defined benefit pension plan, and that would lead to a better understanding of these mystical plans – if I can use that particular expression.

So, the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, commonly known as the USPP, is one of five government-sponsored defined benefit pension plans that we have. As I said earlier, it provides pensions for correctional officers at the government's penitentiaries throughout the Province, members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and a limited number of firefighters with the City of St. John's. It is interesting to note that as of December 31, 2011, Mr. Speaker, there were 693 active members, and 751 retirees under the plan. So, as our civil service ages as part of the demographic shift that is happening in this Province, we now have a situation here where we have more people on retirement than active members paying into the plan.

As I said yesterday, the pensions in this Province are governed by the Pension Benefits Act, which is in the Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, but we have these five pension plans for our own employees and they are handled in the Department of Finance, and that is why I am the minister, rather than the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, who is speaking to this legislation today on behalf of the government.

This act, Mr. Speaker, is being amended at this time to bring the text of the plan in line with the provisions of the provincial Pension Benefits Act, 1997. As I said, that is the act that regulates all pension plans in the Province, and of course, it is provincial plans that are regulated. We have plans in the Province, for example, the RCMP's plan, CBC as an example, federal government employees, which are regulated by the federal government.

The amendments are also to bring this plan, the USPP, in line with the requirements of the Income Tax Act of Canada. Compliance with the Income Tax Act is necessary to ensure that the contributions under that pension plan are, in fact, deductable for income tax purposes. Most of the changes proposed to the language are, as I said, housekeeping in nature and will not impact members' benefits.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, there are some amendments that in addition to making this pension plan more consistent with the Pensions Benefits Act and with the Income Tax Act, the members will provide more retirement flexibility for terminating employees over the age of fifty-five. It will increase the level of benefits for survivors of some of the older plan members – I hope to get it right today, not like I did yesterday – and will ensure consistency in the cost of crediting periods of unpaid leave among all the public sector plans.

Mr. Speaker, the current Uniformed Services Pensions Plan was enacted back in 1991. It was enacted to comply with changes that had taken place in the income tax law. Those changes had been implemented to limit the amount of benefits that employees could earn under a registered pension plan.

The act was changed in 1991 because of changes in the Income Tax Act of Canada. The plan, at that time, provided more generous benefits that were now permitted under the new income tax law and the regulations there under. As part of the transition to the new tax compliant plan in 1991, members of the Uniformed Services Pension Plan who had more than twenty years of service were given an option. They could either keep the benefits, the more generous benefits that were in place at the time but pay higher contributions, or they could move to the new Uniformed Services Pension Plan that was brought in at that time.

Those who opted to stay in the old plan were identified as a separate class called RCA employees. These members have now all retired, so the necessity to maintain the separate class of employees has now lapsed; therefore, removing reference to this group and the unique benefits that they had will result in a much easier act to understand and to administer. That is one of the things that is happening under this legislation.

The first amendment that we are making to the plan provisions – and I think it is contained in section 20 of Bill 44. It provides an actuarially reduced pension for a member who is age fifty-five and has at least five years of service, and who currently would not qualify for a pension before the age of sixty. The way the act reads right now is that you have to wait until age sixty to get a pension, but if your pension is vested, in other words if you have more than five years of service, then when you hit the age of fifty-five by this amendment, you can now receive an actuarially reduced pension.

This amendment will provide the member upon retirement with access to an immediate actuarially reduced pension from as early as age fifty-five. The actuarial reduction is necessary to ensure that the early payment of pension is cost-neutral to the plan, thus resulting in little impact on the plan's liability. While the member's plan is reduced, it does give the member additional flexibility with respect to accessing a pension. You can retire early with a lower pension rather than wait until sixty to get the unreduced pension.

The second amendment to the plan provisions are set out in section 27(6) and (7) of the amendment. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will adjust the benefits of certain survivors of plan members who died after January 1, 1997.

When the act was overhauled in 1991, the old plan benefits, which, as I mentioned earlier, some of the members had the option to keep, those plan benefits provided that the survivor on death of the member would get a benefit equal to 55 per cent of the member's pension upon the death of the plan member. That 55 per cent survivor benefit is not consistent with the requirements of the Pensions Benefits Act; therefore, Mr. Speaker, this amendment will increase the survivor's benefits from 55 per cent to 60 per cent.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will be retroactive to January 1, 1997, and it will impact sixty-five survivors, approximately. This will increase the annual pensioner payroll by $76,000 annually and the cost to the pension fund of the retroactive amendment will be approximately $500,000.

Mr. Speaker, the third amendment that is set out in the plan provisions is to make the terms and conditions for employee purchasing periods of unpaid leave. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that employees of government can take a period of leave without pay where they may go and take a position somewhere else, but their position is held for them and they have the right to return to that position. I am talking about things as parental leave and educational leave.

The amendment is to make the terms and conditions for employees of the Uniformed Services Pensions Plan who are purchasing periods of unpaid leave to be consistent with those that are in place for the Public Service Pension Plan and the Teachers' Pension Plan.

Currently under the existing law, USPP members can at any time prior to retirement purchase periods of unpaid leave by paying the contributions on the salary they would have earned during the period of leave while the employer pays the matching share. When the employee takes the leave and then returns, the employee can wait until retirement before paying for the unpaid leave. He will pay for that leave based on the salary he would have been earning during the time he was on unpaid leave.

This ability, Mr. Speaker, to delay the purchase until retirement means the employee would not be paying the true cost of the pension that is related to the period of leave. The Public Service Pension Plan and the Teachers' Pension Plan require that plan members purchase the period of leave within ninety days of returning to work, if they want to pay the contributions with the employer paying the matching share. Once the ninety-day period is up they are required to pay the full actuarial cost based on their current age and their salary at the date of purchase. This will ensure that the cost to purchase is neutral to the plan and therefore fair to everybody. This amendment will ensure that the crediting of periods of unpaid leave will be cost-neutral to the Uniformed Services Pension Plan as well.

Mr. Speaker, to accommodate members who may have existing periods of unpaid leave which they have not yet purchased, we have to have a transition period for them. We are going to be giving them a window period to elect to purchase at the favourable rate. Members will have 120 days from the date this bill receives Royal Assent to make an election. They can elect to purchase the unpaid leave by paying the contributions they would have been required at the time the leave was taken with the employer paying the matching share. Alternatively, Mr. Speaker, if the employee does not elect within the 120-day period they will be required to pay the full actuarial cost of the service.

The last amendment, Mr. Speaker, is contained in section 10(3) of the legislation before you. It has to do with providing more flexibility to terminating members. Under the current provision, a member leaving the plan has to decide within 180 days whether to take a lump-sum payment or instead to elect to take a deferred pension.

Someone who is terminating their employment, and they are vested – that means they have worked for the government for more than five years; they are not eligible for a pension because they have not reached the age of fifty-five for a reduced pension or age sixty for the full pension. They have to decide whether to take a lump-sum payment or accept the deferred pension. The lump-sum payment would be a payment that would be made to a deferred life annuity or that would be made to a locked-in RRSP.

At the expiration of 180 days, if they do not make the election they are deemed to have accepted the deferred pension, which means that they will wait until they are fifty-five or sixty in order to access their pension. We are amending the plan, Mr. Speaker, to give the employees, similar to what we did yesterday with the Public Service Pension, to give the members of the USPP the option to take the lump sum after 180 days with the amount calculated on the new day, because we know that for a lot of people, it is difficult for them to make the decision. They defer making the decision; they are seeking advice from others and do not get it. I think this will be more fair to our employees.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated previously, as I did yesterday, that registered pension plans have to comply with the Income Tax Act of Canada in order for the contributions to be deductable for tax purposes. Amendments that we are making to this act relating to Income Tax requirements include applying a limit on years of service that can be credited under plans for periods of unpaid leave, leaves of absence, to five years plus an additional three years of parenting.

As I said, employees can get unpaid leave, but the Income Tax Act provides that there has to be a limit on the pension that you can purchase during these unpaid leaves of absence. The limit is five years plus an additional three years for parenting, and we are amending the act to comply with that.

Specifying that transfers to the USPP from a member's former plan can only occur if the other plan is willing to transfer 100 per cent of the member's entitlement. If the plan can only transfer out less than 100 per cent, such as 80 per cent, then under Income Tax rules the transfer cannot be accepted.

We are requiring a returning employee wishing to reinstate prior service where the contributions were paid into an RRSP to use the RRSP funds to reinstate the prior service and specifying that a refund of contributions payable upon the death of a member can only be paid to the member's estate and not to the member's personal representative.

The other changes, Mr. Speaker, are very minor. They are housekeeping in nature or they are simply repealing lapse provisions that will not impact an employee's pension entitlement under the Uniformed Services Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, we had a good discussion yesterday of pensions and the changing environment which is having an impact on the pensions that we have. Mr. Speaker, we have not placed, as I said yesterday, any specific proposal before the unions at the bargaining table for collective bargaining.

Because of our concern that the plans may not be financially sustainable, government is reviewing options for the plans. We are only reviewing options for pension reform, nothing specific has been decided. No specific proposals have been put forward.

I am looking forward to a meeting that I will hold in my capacity as Minister of Finance with the public service union. I have spoken to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress to seek the input of that organization into the problems that pension plans are facing across the country. We are going to be having a telephone conversation this week with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress and some of their experts on pensions.

It is fiscally responsible for government to review the pension plans. We need to look at all our options to ensure that our pension plans for our workers are sustainable over the long term. I said yesterday that many other jurisdictions were in fact reviewing their plans, particularly in the light of long-term projections for demographics where the workforce is aging and workers are retiring earlier, but fortunately are living longer, and the fact that investment returns over the last number of years have not been sufficient to fund the pension benefit.

I mentioned New Brunswick. New Brunswick had a pension commission which has completed a review just this past summer. I read a very interesting statistic, somebody said: How can someone who is contributing a contribution of 10 per cent over the period of their work life, which could be thirty years, expect to retire for the same amount of time, thirty years, receiving 10 per cent of their salary? The math just does not add up. Contributions of 10 per cent and benefits of 70 percent, the math simply does not work.

We must ensure the pension plans are sustainable over the long term and allowing the liabilities to grow jeopardizes that sustainability. We cannot move forward under the assumption that governments will have the fiscal capacity to continue to contribute billions of dollars to the pension plan as governments have done since 1997. I mentioned the figure $4.7 billion.

Unfunded pension liabilities and the other post-retirement benefits comprise a very significant portion of the Province's long-term debt, currently at approximately 50 per cent. Governments have worked very hard to tackle the liability, paying $4.4 billion into the plan since 1997, but there is more work to be done. This year, this government is putting another $258 million into the fund. These monies that are going into the fund are monies that are not available for the other things that members raise in this House: affordable housing, new hospitals, and new, important programs.

During the time we have all worked to reduce our direct debt, the pension liabilities have continued to increase. As I said, any special payments or any additional payments that governments and taxpayers provide to address the unfunded liability divert funds from other programs and services. While the problem can be defined, the solutions to solve the problem are complex and will require careful review and analysis.

I am looking forward to hearing from members opposite, from our public sector unions, from the taxpayers of the country, from the academic community, and from experts in this area to help us find the correct solution.

Mr. Speaker, with that, this pretty well covers what is in the amendment. I look forward to hearing the discussion from hon. colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a few minutes to respond to the minister's comments on Bill 44 and the amendments that were outlined there, the three amendments that he mentioned. This is obviously very similar to what we discussed yesterday with Bill 43. Indeed, we will support this, but I would like to make a few comments regarding the amendments being proposed here.

For instance, the minister did mention the value of a defined benefit plan. Of course we all recognize this and the importance this has to the 693 active members and the over-700 retirees who participate in this plan. Of course, this all becomes part of the five plans that are administered by the provincial government through the Pension Benefits Act, 1997, as was mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, there are three areas that were discussed here, and I must say, we did attend a very good briefing session from the Department of Finance about this piece of legislation. Indeed, a lot of it is just really around compliance with CRA, and getting this pension plan, really making it not conform and be similar to what we see with other pension plans in the Province.

One of the things that – the ability to buy back was mentioned and this being an anomaly in this pension plan. It really was an oversight in the previous act but is being corrected in this bill. Members will now have this ninety-day option to – through other pension plans they would have a ninety-day option, but in this particular case they will be given 120 days to make that decision.

One of the questions we raised about this was the ability to pay for proportionate amounts in this particular pension plan so that we could – just in case the member did not have the ability to buy back all the years of service, that they would indeed be given the ability to buy a proportionate amount of time back. This is important because when you look at the different financial situations that many of the members could find themselves in, to do this on a proportion is important. Giving members that option to do this makes sense in our opinion, Mr. Speaker.

I do understand that even though there will be some changes that will be in this pension benefit plan here, that the members who are affected by this have been notified. I think what happened is they had been notified when the bill was first read in the House of Assembly. So, we do expect that there would be some time for the employees and the retirees who are affected by this, they would be given time to respond. We expect for that to happen, and we certainly do not anticipate there will be much of a reaction to this, but it is something that would need to be considered here throughout all of this.

The minister mentioned about section 20 of Bill 44, who can receive the reduced pension plan from age sixty now to age fifty-five. Again, this is something that just brings this piece of legislation in-line with what we see with the Public Sector Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, most of what we see here are things that we did discuss yesterday. It really brings this piece of legislation – and it is time, it is time that we do catch up here. The leave of absence, the ability to pay for five years of unpaid leave plus the three years that could be accrued through parenting, this essentially means the pensioner could buy upwards to eight years here of leave of absence without pay. Mr. Speaker, these are all things that we see very similar in other pieces of legislation.

One thing I do want to speak, just for a few minutes, about is the ability of the pensioner to be able to transfer 100 per cent of the pension from one location to another. We have seen this from time to time of certain members of other plans. This is becoming more and more of a problem with some other plan holders. We have seen people who would leave a particular employer and then expect to transfer their pension from the previous employer into the area of new employment. Unless the plan is 100 per cent funded then the plan cannot be transferred, and we see this.

I know in my own situation here, I have seen many people who would have transferred from – let's say working with a company like Kruger, and as they would move into an area, wherever they go, that if the particular plan they are leaving from is not fully funded, well then, of course, this cannot fit into a plan like this. The ability for the employee to fund that plan themselves, that option is not there. Indeed, when it comes over it would have to be funded by the previous employer.

This is something we are seeing happening more and more today. The plans are just not performing. As of yesterday, we know that in order for this plan to work it needs to perform at a rate of 7.25 per cent on an annual basis, which we all know is very difficult in today's environment.

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly pleased to see that the survivor benefit of 55 per cent is now increased to 60 per cent. This is now made retroactive to the survivors of the plan. This is something that we can support. This is $500 million that will go back in a retroactive basis to the subscribers of these plans.

MR. MARSHALL: It is $500,000.

MR. BALL: Sorry, $500,000. Thank you for the correction there, Minister. It is $500,000 that will go back into retroactive payments to the benefactors of these plans.

There was one thing that did come out of our meeting at our briefing session; it was about the contribution changes that have been made over a number of years and the evaluation that was done back in 2005 from the Uniformed Services Pensions Act. Back in 2005 the contributions would need to be increased, and they were; an example of that would be, for instance, the percentage of the proportion of the employee's salary that is the employer's basic exemption under the Canada Pension Plan.

We have seen that move from, in 1991, 6 per cent, to in this bill, 9.95 per cent. This is something that I understand has been in place a number of times. The amendment to this act and the changes here will actually make – the provisions will be made within this piece of legislation. This is something that the employees have been doing now for a number of years and something they are fully aware of.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, this is an amendment that we will be supporting, these three amendments we will be supporting to Bill 44, the Uniformed Pension Plan. Even though considered to be housekeeping to many extents, it is something that we need to do to get all of our pension plans in compliance not only with CRA, but indeed, our own Pension Benefits Act in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continued discussion on pension plans. I am sure there will be lots to talk about over the coming months; again, the three amendments that we are discussing here in Bill 44 are amendments that we will support and I look forward to the continued debate in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I would like to thank the minister and his department for the great briefing they gave us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: I would also like to thank the minister for the last couple of days, the education part that he has given us. I think we have been in lesson 201 on the pension plans in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: 101.

MR. K. PARSONS: 101, I believe.

Anyway, the minister has spoken the last couple of days on the importance of pensions and the importance that they are to the people of the Province and how important they are, especially, to our public service. Today we are speaking about the uniformed service, where we are talking about our firefighters, policemen, and correctional officers.

Mr. Speaker, the Uniformed Services Act, 2012 is one of five sponsored Defined Benefit Pension Plans provided by our government. Like I said, it goes to the correctional officers at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, members of the RNC, and a limited number of firefighters in the City of St. John's. As the minister said, right now there are 693 active members and 751 retirees.

Mr. Speaker, there are three parts to this bill, and they are technical, key points that are there. The amendments will reflect changes in policy. The amendments will comply with the Pension Benefits Act and also with the Canadian Income Tax Act. Mr. Speaker, it will comply with and bring everything in line; what we are doing here is making all pensions in compliance with these acts: the pensions act and the Income Tax Act.

There are several amendments to the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, and like I said, they are mainly policy changes and housekeeping to repeal pension provisions. Most of these changes are consistent, again, with the pensions act and the tax act. These bills will repeal and replace the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991 to modernize and clarify the laws respecting uniformed services pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points in the bill I would like to speak to. First of all, I would like to speak to where we allow survivors of pensioners, certain members or survivors, to now be able to collect benefits of 60 per cent. Before, it was 55 per cent. That is going to be retroactive back to 1997, which will affect sixty-five people who are survivors right now. That is important. It is important they get treated fairly like everybody else. That is what it is going to cost the purse, as the minister said: $76,000. It goes retroactive to those people back to 1997, so it is going to mean monies in peoples' hands who deserve it and should have gotten it in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the uniformed services group are a dedicated bunch of individuals. Most of these, and I know a lot of residents in my district, are the pillars of our communities: Her Majesty's Penitentiary wardens down there, the firefighters, and the RNC. Mr. Speaker, these bills will just make them in line with all the other pension acts we have here with the government.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak a little bit about the service they supply to the people of my District of Cape St. Francis and to the Province as a whole. I think we are very lucky. I look at today the investments our government has made in the RNC. I look at so many of the young officers who are here today and are getting trained right here in Newfoundland at Memorial University. It is important that we as a government make sure we support them. They have an important role in society where they protect us and make sure that laws are upheld and people are doing things that are right. It is important that they get served with proper pensions and whatnot.

Mr. Speaker, also I have a little bit of allegiance to the St. John's city fire department and the fire departments in general. My dad was a firefighter; my brother was a firefighter, who is retired. My father served with the federal fire department down in Pleasantville and also, earlier years, with the St. John's Regional Fire Department. Firefighters play a very important role in our society today and they protect us, as well as the wardens down in the pen; I know quite a number of those.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member across the way, the Leader of the Opposition, that this is a housekeeping thing, it is policy changes, and it is good for the people who we are doing this for today. In closing, I just support this bill 100 per cent.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am glad to stand and be able to speak to Bill 44 relating to the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 2012. It is an important piece of legislation, as are all pieces of legislation in this House or any House. Legislation is what is required to keep good order in our Province and governance is what we are about here. In actual fact, there is no piece of legislation that is not important. Obviously some carry heavier weight than others. This one is actually quite important because it is all about protecting and making sure we have good order with regard to the pensions that relate to the uniformed services here in the Province.

As I did yesterday, I would like to thank the minister and the people from the Pensions Division of the department for the briefing that we received on Bill 44, to make sure that we understood the import of the bill and if we had any questions to have them cleared up. I am not going to repeat everything that the minister has said and that others have said ahead of me. I will acknowledge that I, of course, will support the bill; it is essential.

Basically, as the minister has pointed out, a lot of what is happening in this bill is modernizing of language to bring a practice up to where it is using the correct language and the correct determinations with regard to the pensions, who is getting the pensions, and all the rules and regulations regarding the pensions. Instead of just making changes in the old act which went back to 1991, the department did the logical thing and wrote a new act, because there were certain things that had to be changed over and over in the act.

For example, the reference to the retirement compensation arrangement, which no longer had any meaning because under the retirement compensation arrangement there were no retired workers any more who fit into that category. I understand that there were quite a number of references to RCA in the old act. So, it made absolute sense that a whole new act would be written. Although there are a few new amendments that have to do with policy, most of it is the modernization of language and making sure that there is nothing that has no meaning in the act. So, I am very glad to see that we have an up-to-date act, and an act that is referring to realities as they are.

I, too, want to point out the Christmas gift, if you would, or Hanukkah gift or whatever December celebration gift one celebrates in this act, and that is the money that will be given to survivors of workers who had pension plans, survivors who, since 1997, have not received the adequate amount of money that they should have been receiving. The minister has referred to it, as has the other speakers.

The $76,000 a year that it will cost is obviously not large in terms of our budget, but for the survivors whose benefits will go up from 55 per cent to 60 per cent of the deceased member's pension, it is going to mean a lot, and the lump sum that has to be paid, well, it has to be paid. I am really glad to see that we are correcting this situation for people who were – and it was not deliberate, but not fairly treated over the past years.

So, I do not want to go into all the detail, because the minister has gone into it, and anybody who is interested in the details is going to be able to read Hansard and get all those details. I do want to use the opportunity to continue to say to the minister –and I do believe the minister is very sincere about his concerns with regard to our defined benefit plan, one that we have ourselves, but the ones we are talking about here are the plans for the uniformed services pensioners in our Province. We have to find a way to protect those plans in this country. We have to find a way to make sure that those plans continue. As the minister has pointed out, sometimes people refer to the plans, for example, of the public service sector as gold-plated plans. They are not gold-plated plans. They are plans that, as the minister has said, ensure that people who have worked hard all their lives have further protection and benefits that they have worked for and paid for over those years. We have to find a way to be able to make that continue for people.

People who have worked – whether it is in the public sector or not; we are talking about the public sector, and in this case we are talking about uniformed services. In talking about the uniformed services we are talking about members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, correctional officers, and certain firefighters of the St. John's Regional Fire Department.

Just looking at them – it is not only because of them, but these particular groups of people are in working situations that are not easy working situations. They are in situations where, in some cases, they actually put their lives in danger in order to be of service to us. I think that when we are looking at the pensions for these people, it becomes something that is symbolic of why we have pensions; it is because pensions recognize how people should have the same quality of life after they are earning money through their work as well as they did before earning, because the work that they are doing is beneficial to the economy and beneficial to the community.

Whether it is somebody who is in the uniformed services, whether it is somebody who is sitting in a desk up in Transportation and Works, or whether it is somebody who is not in the public service sector at all, everybody in our society who is working in our society – and that is both for paid and unpaid, actually – are bringing a benefit to our society. Their work has benefited society, and that work – if we do our economic analyses correctly – gets counted in who we are as a country and as a Province.

We have not become sophisticated enough, I do not think, with regard to looking at how we really determine our economy. There are economists out there who do much more sophisticated analyses of our economy than just looking at the gross domestic product. Counting people's unpaid work, counting the actual work of people, period, in doing our economic analyses becomes essential. When you do a more sophisticated analysis it becomes essential to looking at what our worth is as a community.

Pensions are an essential part of that. As I pointed out yesterday, just from the raw dollars perspective, our pensions in Canada – the pension programs, the investments that are made through the pension programs in this country – contribute $1 trillion to the economy. They are essential to the fabric of our economy, so we have to find a way to make it work.

I know the minister does want to do it in a consultative way. I know that he believes government, with all of the different players involved, has to sit and have to find a way to make it work.

The thing that is disturbing, and this is something that is way beyond us, obviously, in terms of something we have control over, is that we do not – let me put it another way; I am not going to put it negatively. In our society, and on a global level, there are all kinds of money. The investments that people make as individuals and the investments that people make in groups are essential to the economy, but unfortunately an awful lot of the money in our society is controlled by a small group of people. My concern is that we not allow something like that, Public Service Pensions, to suffer from an economic system that tries to convince people like us that we do not have enough money. The thing is, the money is there; it is how the money is distributed and how the money is used.

I do encourage the minister, as he continues to lead the discussion on behalf of government with regard to our public service sector and the pensions for our public service sector – whether we are talking about those who are in uniformed groups or whether we are just talking all public service sector – that he be committed, as I am sure he is, to try and find a way that is always going to benefit the worker, always going to benefit the individual, benefit the person.

We have to look at the fact of people being secure right to the day that they die, not just secure for five years or ten years after they retire; until the day they die, they have to have that security. They deserve to have the economic security and we have to find a system that makes that work.

I know that the minister believes, because he has said it publicly - he has said it to me privately, and he has said it publicly - that the very best way to do it is through the defined benefits. We have to make sure that we try to make that work.

Along with the Defined Benefits Pension Plans, the public plans that are based on the workplace, I would encourage the minister too, in discussions with the federal Finance Minister and in discussions with provincial Finance Ministers, especially with them, to pressure the federal Finance Minister with regard to our public pension system. Our public pension system is still essential in order to keep our defined benefits plans as well, because it is a back up for the defined benefits plans.

The defined benefits plans, on their own, are not adequate – not here anyway, and we know that. Our public pension system in Canada is the back up. One of the big pieces in that is the Canada Pension Plan. Everybody who has a workplace pension plan also pays into the CPP. The CPP is absolutely essential to really ensure that our workers – especially our public service sector workers because that is who we are talking about – do have security in their retirement years.

We do know that the CPP right now, the benefit levels are way too low. There is a lot of study going into the CPP. I know governments are looking at it. Some of the provinces have taken a position with regard to the CPP, increasing the benefits. I actually think this Province did say it supported changes that were being proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress with regard to the CPP.

The work that has been done by the Canadian Labour Congress shows that a doubling of the CPP benefits would be something that would really secure people, that would really help people have a better lifestyle after retirement, whether they have a workplace pension plan to go with it. Now, obviously, if you do not have a workplace pension plan life is harder, but for everybody, we have to expand the CPP. It virtually covers all Canadian workers right now and it offers a guaranteed income to all retirees, but we have to make sure that the benefits are adequate.

Work has been done with regard to the amount of money that would be required for the CPP to be doubled. In actual fact, it comes down to a fairly small amount of money when it comes to the overall federal budget. It would mean individuals paying more into the CPP, and it would mean the employers paying more into the CPP as well, but the amount of money that would be put in when it comes to looking at somebody's paycheque is actually quite reasonable.

I am here looking for my notes, that has the figures. I would like to read out some of the figures. I am like the minister yesterday. He got tied up in his notes yesterday, too, so I am as well. I think I have them. Yes, right here.

I think it is important to have this read into the record. For example, this stuff has been worked out by the Canadian Labour Congress. For a worker earning $47,200 or more a year, the initial cost of gradually doubling future CPP benefits works out to about nine cents an hour, or $3.50 a week. That is less than the cost of a newspaper subscription. For a worker earning $30,000 per year, the initial cost would be about six cents an hour, or $2.27 a week. That is less than the cost of a medium double-double and a donut at Tim Hortons.

I will not continue doing figures, but just to point out that in actual fact if you said to a worker it is going to cost you $2.27 a week to pay in, in order to double your CPP when you retire, I do not think there is any worker who would say no to that; so, to point out that there are options out there. Here we are talking specifically about the CPP.

The provincial governments – and I know this one has said it is committed to it – do have to be putting pressure on the federal government to support this notion of doubling the CPP as payments when people retire or else we are going to continue to have seniors living in poverty, seniors who did not live in poverty when they were working but living in poverty when they are retired. That has to be what we are trying to get at when it comes to maintaining pension plans, being able to make sure pension plans are defined benefits plans, and that our public pension plan, the CPP, is there to make sure that people are not living in poverty when they retire. We owe more to our workers than that.

The other thing, of course, that has to happen as well, is our other pension plan, which people do not always call a pension plan, but it is, and that is the Old Age Security. That, too, is a public pension plan. That, too, has to be beefed up. Again, that is something that is federal but it is going to take provincial lobbying and provincial pressure on the federal government and on the federal minister to make sure, certainly in a way to help provinces as they continue dealing with their own defined pension plans and trying to keep them in place to make sure that our Canadian public pension plans are there as the backup to make sure that our seniors, our people who are retirees, are not living in poverty.

I think these are the main points that I was hoping to make over the past couple of days, Mr. Speaker, with these two bills that we have been dealing with. I know today we are dealing with Bill 44, but Bill 43 and Bill 44 are quite connected, as the minister pointed out.

I feel confident that the minister will take seriously the points that I have presented here today, and I look forward to the ongoing discussion as we continue with this bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: It is certainly a pleasure to be able to rise today and speak on Bill 44, Mr. Speaker. Just to make it clear, we appreciate the support and the comments from the other side; however, just to be clear to the people out there today, we are not really doing anything that is going to have an effect on the CPP or anything that is going to affect the old age pension.

We are here today to discuss the amendments that we are bringing in on Bill 44. Bill 44 is an act to revise and amend the law respecting pensions for the members of the uniformed services in our Province, which is the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, correctional officers, and certain firefighters of the St. John's Regional Fire Department.

That is basically what we are doing today under Bill 44, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing is basically sticking with the amendments to our Uniformed Service Pension Plan. Of course, these amendments are improvements to the act, and it is a positive improvement. Mr. Speaker, what we also must realize, and I am sure, without going into duplication and trying not to be too repetitious, our uniformed service people provide a valued service, a very important service. As the Leader of the Third Party said, they are out there in all kinds of weather. They operate day and night, on the weekends; we depend on them for the protection that we get and the service that we get and what they provide.

Lots of times we take it for granted, Mr. Speaker. We probably are home in the nights, on the weekends, we go to bed, and there is a fire; we do not know it, and the firefighters are out there, there is an emergency, and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary are called out as well. They do provide a very good service, and we appreciate that.

Now, there are some amendments that it is worth speaking about, Mr. Speaker, in Bill 44. Actually, these are technical amendments within the Pension Benefits Act. These changes will make the act more consistent with provisions in the Pension Benefits Act and the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments: Under the current provision, a member leaving the plan must decide within 180 days whether to take a lump sum payment or a deferred pension. At the expiration of the 180 days, they are considered a deferred pensioner. These amendments will give the employee the option to take the lump sum after a 180-day period, with the amount calculated at the new date, Mr. Speaker.

This one is very important, Mr. Speaker, this amendment: Under the modified Uniformed Services Pension Plan of 1991, survivor benefits for a deceased member's spouse remained at 55 per cent of the deceased member's pension. Effective January 1, 1997, under the new PBA, the minimum standard for survivor benefits was set at 60 per cent of the deceased member's pension.

Because the USPP – Uniformed Services Pension Plan – was not exempted from this PBA provision, pensioners who died after January 1, 1997, their survivors should have been receiving 60 per cent of survivor benefits. Therefore, the survivor benefit will increase from 55 per cent to 60 per cent, Mr. Speaker. This amendment will be retroactive as of January 1, 1997.

Mr. Speaker, the PBA – Pension Benefits Act – provides that the terminated, vested employees should be provided an option to receive a pension from as early as age fifty-five, regardless of service. There would be no additional cost to the plan. Basically, this means the amendment will provide a reduced pension for a member who is age fifty-five and has at least five years of service. That could be someone probably who has served in other areas or worked in other jobs, or probably worked with the Armed Forces or whatever, and then came with our uniformed service in the Province. They may work for ten years, or twelve years, but at age fifty-five they would be able to retire at a reduced pension with a minimum of five years service, Mr. Speaker.

As already mentioned, there are five plans under the Newfoundland and Labrador pension plans, there is: the PSPP, Public Service Pension Plan; the TPP, Teachers' Pension Plan; Uniformed Services Pension Plan, which we are discussing in Bill 44; the MHA Pension Plan; and the last one is the PCJPP, which is the Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan. Mr. Speaker, the uniformed pensioners that we are talking about today – and I believe it may have already been mentioned – right now active there are 693 uniformed workers in the Province and there are 751 pensioners.

These amendments today, Mr. Speaker, will certainly make a positive impact on our 751 pensioners, and any pensioners from thereon. I am expecting that because these changes are good for our uniformed workers, I will be supporting the bill and I am sure that all the members in the House will be doing so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, I will be happy to speak to this bill, Mr. Speaker, Bill 44, the Uniformed Services Pensions Act.

One of the things that has not been discussed, or I probably have not heard any discussion, is the fact that three of the groups we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, are the RNC, all the full-time correctional officers in this Province, as well as the firefighters in the City of St. John's. Anything we can deal with to help their cause – because these are three positions that carry with them a high level of risk. So anything we can do to assist them in that regard is a great thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that a lot of this, as per many of the bills in this section, is housekeeping in nature. There are some small policy changes but a lot of it is bringing it in-line with the federal Income Tax Act. Again, we have to be compliant there. In that regard, we are making sure that everything in our legislation is up to date.

In speaking to this bill – I do not mean to continue on ad nauseam over it. I think the minister did a very good job of explaining the intricacies and certainly I enjoyed hearing what our leader, the Member for Humber Valley had to say, as well as all the other members of the House.

Again, I just wanted to commend the three groups that we are dealing with in regard to this piece of legislation and make sure that I put on the record our appreciation for the services that they provide.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say I appreciate the comments that hon. members have made here, especially the comments of the Member for Burgeo – La Poile while I was out there tending to other business.

Mr. Speaker, this debate that we are going to have on pensions, this discussion we are going to have on pensions, it is certainly going to be very interesting and it is not going to be easy. I just want to respond to the Leader of the Opposition who talked about the contribution rates that are set out in the act, nine-point something and eight-point something. The rates change, of course, every time there is an actuarial evaluation. An actuary is hired to come in every three years and do an evaluation of plan. Then the actuary tells us what the contribution rates are.

The last actuarial evaluation of this particular pension plan, the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, was in 2008. It indicated that the cost of the benefits was greater than the total contributions that were being paid by members and the employer. The remedy to this, Cabinet approved an increase in contribution rates of 1.45 per cent effective January 1, 2009. This increase was implemented back then. The amount that is in the amendment as the contribution rate has been the rate since 2009. All plan members were notified when the contribution rate increase was implemented back then.

I appreciate the comments of the Leader of the NDP. Of course, we are talking now about occupational pensions, and she made some very important points on what are called public pensions, like the Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan. I guess the Canada Pension Plan is a Defined Benefit Pension Plan. You get out of it what you put in it. You have to contribute to it; all workers in the country have to be members of it and all employers have to be members of that plan.

It is interesting that the Canada Pension Plan is not paid for by the Government of Canada. The Canada Pension Plan is not paid for by the taxpayers of Canada; it is paid by all the workers who contribute to the plan and by their employers who contribute to the plan. The returns that those contributions make, the returns they earn, are what come up with the money that pays for the benefits.

The problem we are having in our occupational pension plan, the Defined Benefit Pension Plans that people in the country have and government employers have, is that there is not enough money going into the plan. There are not enough contributions going into the plan to earn the promised benefits. So, we have set up a promise of what the benefits are going to be, but the plan is not earning enough to pay for those benefits. That is essentially the problem. Someone said the other day: how can someone make contributions of 10 per cent over a work life of thirty years, of 10 per cent of salary, and then expect to retire with a pension of 70 per cent of salary over thirty years, if the person lives that long?

So, these pension plans work if people are on the pension for a certain period of time, but as I said, we have a demographic change happening here, and it is a good thing; we have people who are living longer. People are healthier; at least, most people are healthier. Therefore they are living longer and therefore they are withdrawing from the pension plan for longer periods of time.

Of course, you have to match up the contributions with the money that is being – the money that is being contributed has to pay for the benefits that are being paid out. If they are not – and they have not been; I want to point out, the Member for St. Barbe talked about what was called the roads-and-bridges money, where governments took the contributions and spent them on roads and bridges and therefore that money did not stay in the pension plan and did not earn more interest and dividends during that time. That has now been paid back; $4.7 billion long since has paid that back, and that has been acknowledged. It has been acknowledged by the teachers. It has been acknowledged by the Public Service Pension Plan as well.

There was a concept discussed, I understand, years ago called joint trusteeship where the plan is run not by the government but by the members. The risk of loss is shared equally between the employer and the employee. That could be an option to be looked at. I talked about certain options when I spoke yesterday.

With respect to the Canada Pension Plan, what I like about the Canada Pension Plan is that everybody is in it and it is mandatory. One of the biggest problems we are having in this country right now is that people cannot make the contributions. They are not saving enough of the money they have to save to provide them with a good retirement.

We are going to end up in this country with a two-tiered retirement system: the people who have worked for an employer who has a Defined Benefit Plan are going to have good retirements and decent retirements; people who do not work for employers who have Defined Benefit Pension Plans, who only have their RRSPs or only have Defined Contribution Pension Plans, will not be able to contribute over their lifetime enough money that will fund a decent retirement for them. We are going to have two groups in our society, and that is not good.

I am not saying that because one plan is good we should destroy that plan because other people do not have a good plan. I am not saying that. What I am saying is we have to come up with a retirement system that provides a decent retirement for all of our citizens.


With respect to the Canada Pension Plan, our Province has attended I do not know how many federal-provincial-territorial meetings of finance ministers. We have supported the proposal that was put forward by the Canadian Labour Congress to increase the Canada Pension Plan. Now, to increase the Canada Pension Plan, that means people have to pay more money in. That means the workers have to contribute more money, but it is mandatory. It also means their employers have to contribute more money in.

What Minister Flaherty said to me was that the concern, given the fragility of the Canadian economy, with forcing employers now to contribute more money into the plans could go against job creation in this country. That was the concern. I made the proposal at the meeting last December in Victoria: Why don't we start the process now of coming up with amendments to the Canada Pension Plan? I said: By the time we get that work done, with governments being governments, the economy may come out of its weakness. Unfortunately, people do not always listen to you.

There is cause for optimism. We have had a change of government in Alberta. We have a Progressive Conservative government in the Province of Alberta now. We have had a change in Quebec as well. So, possibly with that change, the dynamics can change and we can see headway being made. I am hoping that the next meeting of Finance Ministers, which is set for December 17 at Meech Lake, that we can possibly make some headway.

Again, I thank hon. members, the discussion is going to be very, very interesting, and I urge passage of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department. (Bill 44).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44 has now been read a second time.

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

MR. HUTCHINGS: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 44).

MR. SPEAKER: The Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 44.

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 Bill 44.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 44, An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department.

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers and Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department". (Bill 44)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 42 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 42 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 42 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 Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, Correctional Officers And Certain Firefighters Of The St. John's Regional Fire Department. (Bill 44)

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 Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 44.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 44.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave and the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 44 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 44 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Bill 39

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) Bill 39.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to amend the schedule to the Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

MR. SPEAKER: Minister of Finance, I think you had an order to make a motion to resolve into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 39.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to bring consideration to an amendment to the Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, and that I do now leave the Chair.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 39.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957". (Bill 39)

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend the Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations".

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This particular bill will provide an amendment to the schedule to the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, in order to ratify new loan guarantees or changes to such guarantees, such as increases in the guarantees or an extension of the term of guarantees to guarantees that are already out there.

Mr. Speaker, this is a practice that is routine in this Province. The Minister of Finance will come with whatever new guarantees or loan agreements have been signed since the last time we did this.

Over the years, government has provided guarantees to support the borrowings of a number of companies that are private and Crown-owned, except those established under established programs such as the Aquaculture Working Capital Loan Guarantee initiative or the Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program. The use of these loan guarantees is to provide financial assistance to the private sector. In other words, non-program guarantees have been reduced substantially. Those few non-program guarantees still outstanding essentially represent special circumstances and they have been in place of many, many years.

Where circumstances permit, it has been the government's strategy to negotiate with the companies and their lending institutions who would grant a reduction, an elimination of this form of financial support.

Amendments to the schedule of the act are a regular item in the financial administration of this Province. The last amendment had been approved in this hon. House in June of 2011. Under the act, and subject to the approval of the Lieutentant-Governor in Council, the Finance minister is authorized to provide guarantees, the most common being guarantees of operating lines of credit. The act requires that all such guarantees that are approved and issued be ratified by this hon. House as an amendment to the schedule to the act.

Obviously, when it comes to the spending of money, there has to be approval of the members of this House of Assembly.

The current bill includes only one amendment to the schedule, which is an increase in existing guarantee. A change that is the subject to the current amendment is the recurring one on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited, which is a Crown corporation since 2005. It has been the vehicle for the Province's participation in the Business Immigration Program of the Government of Canada.

The way I understand it works is that people invest money with the Government of Canada or they lend money to the Government of Canada, which is in turn relent down to the Provinces. Our Province receives a monthly allocation based on the formula of the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, under the provisions of the act the minister periodically presents to the House for amendment to the schedule of the act new loans and loan guarantees since the last amendment.

The bill today is to amend the schedule to include new loan guarantees and guaranteed extensions or increases that have been granted since 2011. I mentioned the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited.

In 2005, the Province did enter into an agreement with the Government of Canada to participate in Canada's Business Immigration Program. We established the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund as the vehicle for the purposes of receiving from the Government of Canada and investing this Province's monthly allocation of funds. The federal program provides that immigrant investors must be repaid their money at the end of a five-year investment period. The Minister of Finance on behalf of the Province must provide a guarantee of repayment.

In the event of failure of the fund to repay any monthly allocation on its due date, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, pursuant to its guarantee, must make the payment within thirty days. Periodic amendments to the act are necessary on an ongoing basis to ratify the Province's repayment guarantee related to allocations received during the fiscal year.

Funds allocated to this Province from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011 totalled $55.4 million, which amount is net of a 7 per cent commission which the federal government pays to agents who distribute and market the program. Agents sell the program on behalf of the Government of Canada. They receive the money, the money goes to the Government of Canada, and the Government of Canada in turn lends it to the different provinces. We have established the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund for that purpose.

The gross amount of the proceeds in this case is $59.5 million, which we have to repay during the year 2015-2016. The Province's guarantee of the fund repayment obligations for the gross amount received is being ratified through this amendment. This will bring the total amount of allocations guaranteed by the Province to $237,567,397. That is $238 million, approximately, as of March 31, 2011. There are no financial implications as a result of changes to this loan guarantee, unless there is a default of the loan guarantee.

Mr. Chair, the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development will be able to answer any specific questions about the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited. By moving the bill and the resolution, I am seeking the approval of the hon. members to this year's amendment to the schedule of the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 and urge passing of this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Chair, I understand that this is considered to be a money bill. The comments hon. members make can be on whatever topic they want to talk about. One of the things that certainly come up when we are talking about guarantees, of course, is the guarantee related to the Muskrat Falls Project, which, of course, is a guarantee that – because it will be from the federal Government of Canada - will be a guarantee that will reduce our borrowing costs. It will reduce our borrowing costs from – when I say our, I really mean subsidiaries of Nalcor, who will actually be doing the borrowing.

The federal government's debt is rated at AAA, and our debt is rated by the bond rating agencies, depending on which ones you look at, at about A. The fact that Nalcor's subsidiaries, the subsidiaries that will build the generation plant at Muskrat Falls, the subsidiary that will build the transmission line from Labrador down to the Island, which of course will be a limited partnership between a subsidiary of Nalcor and a subsidiary of Emera Newfoundland.

Those particular guarantees will now borrow money, because of the federal guarantee, at a much lower interest rate than otherwise. That provides value to the project, as the MHI report had shown, and that value will mean the cost of our borrowing will be lower, which means the rates that electricity users in this Province will pay will be lower. So, the fact that there is going to be a guarantee from the Government of Canada is like putting money in the pockets of ratepayers in this particular Province.

That particular project, and with all the debate that has happened over the past two years, the debate during an election campaign, when I believe our government received a mandate from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to proceed with this project if it is the lowest cost project to the people of the Province. You would ask: Why would we do a project like this? Why would the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take on a project like this? There has to be a good reason.

The reason, of course, is that we have hydroelectricity in this Province. We have had, in this Province, hydroelectricity facilities. We have been building them for over 100 years. The first one was built at, I understand, Petty Harbour in 1904, I believe. That is over 100 years that it has been producing hydroelectricity. It is still operating; it is still putting power into the grid. That is one thing about hydroelectric facilities, you know, they cost a lot of money to build them, but once you build them and once you pay off the loan, the operating costs are not great and they last for one heckuva long time.

Deer Lake is another great example, the power plant in Deer Lake, which is producing power, I think, at a cost of $5 per megawatt. That was built in 1923, 1924 or 1925. It is provinces in this country that have a lot of hydroelectricity are the ones that have the lowest rates. The question is: What about us? What about us in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Labrador – those of us who live in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in Churchill Falls have the lowest electricity rates in the country, but they did not build the link. They did not build the link down from Labrador for us on the Island. They were not thinking that way, because it was being developed by a company, a private company, whose mandate was to make money for its shareholders. It was a company called Brinco. It was owned by companies like Rio Tinto. I think Bowaters was involved. I think Anglo- Newfoundland company was a shareholder. I think Montreal Engineering was a shareholder. Their goal was to make money for their shareholders.

Nalcor's goal is to provide a reliable source of power to the residents of this Province at the lowest possible cost; they are mandated by law to do that. That is the difference. Brinco is for export; Muskrat is for us.

What is happening here on the Island, we have lots of hydroelectricity. We have Cat Arm. We have Granite Canal. Come on, tell me some others.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay d'Espoir.

MR. MARSHALL: Bay d'Espoir, of course, the biggest one of all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hinds Lake.

MR. MARSHALL: Hinds Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: Upper Salmon.

MR. MARSHALL: Upper Salmon.

What is causing us the problem is that even with all that hydroelectricity, our rates are going up, and they are going up because we are making electricity by burning oil at Holyrood – 15 per cent of our needs, 30 per cent when it is at full capacity is being provided by burning oil to produce electricity, which David Suzuki says is madness, to burn fossil fuels to produce oil.

Seventy-five per cent of the increase in our electricity bills that have been happening of late, and there have been lots of applications recently by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to the PUB to increase rates, it is because we are burning oil, so we want to shut down that facility. We want to shut down that facility and stop burning oil and replace it with a different source of electricity. We would like it to be hydroelectricity.

The choice that the people of this Province are going to have is that we can continue the way that it is and not build Muskrat Falls; we can continue to just keep Holyrood going, keep importing oil, watching the price of oil going up and up. When Holyrood was commissioned back in the 1970s, the cost of Bunker C barrel of oil, I understand, was $3 a barrel. The last time I looked yesterday, West Texas Intermediate was $88 a barrel.

The projections for the future, as the Minister of Natural Resources has pointed out over and over again, are that oil is going higher. We do not know what the future is going to bring, nobody does, but the experts are telling us that long term the price is going up and in the short term nobody knows what is going to happen because it is very, very volatile. We are seeing the effect of that. We have been on the good side of that volatility. We certainly have. We are also now seeing, because of the global slowdown, the bad side of the volatility.

Mr. Chair, this project is being built essentially – and the question was asked in Question Period today – but the main reason is that we want to come up with a facility that will provide us power to the people of this Province to meet our needs. In addition to shutting down Holyrood, which we want to do, we have more needs coming on the Island, as the Minister of Natural Resources has pointed out. We have big needs in Labrador. Dr. Wade Locke from Memorial talked about $10 billion to $15 billion over the next ten years in potential investments in the mining industry, and they are going to need power. We need power on the Island to meet our needs, we need power to shut down that environmental dinosaur at Holyrood, and we need power to meet needs in Labrador.

Also, through this facility and through our link that is going to be built and paid for by the people of Nova Scotia – they talk about a $7.4 billion project, but it is only $6.2 billion to the people of this Province. Nova Scotia's Emera is going to pay for the Maritime Link. We can use that link if we have any surplus power, rather than letting it flow down the river, until such time as the mines come on in Labrador and we get firm contracts in Labrador. There is the opportunity to sell that power into New England, into Nova Scotia, into New Brunswick, or into PEI, and at least get some money for it.

I hear people saying: Oh, well we may not get as much by selling that power to Nova Scotia or selling that power to New Brunswick as we are paying for it. It is better to get something for it than let it go down the river for it and get zero for it.

The issue is there is nothing we can do about the market in New York and there is nothing we can do about the markets in New England, but we can sell into those markets and monetize any surplus we have. We think eventually the mines in Labrador will take up all that power and then somebody else can do more hydro projects on the Island, can do wind, export that, and sell it into the market. It is a good project, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I remind the minister his speaking time is up.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for bringing up the Muskrat Falls debate. It is very interesting that he would bring up the Muskrat Falls debate and tout the benefits of such a great deal when we are debating the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund. The funny thing about it, I say to the Minister of Finance: if the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to know why we are asking questions about Muskrat Falls when the minister is trying to bring it up under this fund, in the Auditor General's report, this fund, through 2010 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I know they cannot listen to the truth. I sat down and I listened to the minister – I never said a word – very attentively.

In 2009, 2010, the Auditor General's report, we lost $5 million on this fund. We lost $5 million on this fund, and the minister brings up Muskrat Falls, about what a great deal it is, Mr. Chair. What a great deal. We have this fund here, we are bringing up this fund; here is a bill, now let us talk about Muskrat Falls. We are talking about investments coming in, guaranteed investments.

Just to let you know, Mr. Chair, the Province invests and guarantees this fund. There has not been one person who used this fund. If anybody in this Province wants to know why we are asking questions on Muskrat Falls, there has not been one group who used this fund since 2005.

It cost the Province $5 million just to have the money in the bank account. We are losing money, which could have been put towards the hospital in Corner Brook. Mr. Chair, do you want to know why the minister then tries to bring up Muskrat Falls on such a great bill? Such a small amendment, but yet the minister tries to slip Muskrat Falls through this bill, and we lose so much money.

Let us just go through the Auditor General's report. Let us just go through it here, Mr. Chair. Here is what the Auditor General said, the immigration fund: "As a result of the current low interest rates paid by chartered banks, there is a risk that the Corporation may not have sufficient funds to repay the commission fee to CIC." That is what the Auditor General said. That was the report that the Auditor General did.

Here we are getting all this money in from Ottawa. Thank you, Ottawa, for all these funds; we will put it in an account. We will go out and say we are involved with this investment fund across Canada, but it is costing us –

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Finance, I never said one word when you were speaking. You will have your opportunity. This is in Committee. You will have your chance again to stand up, so you could stand up at any time you want to. You had your opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, you can tell the Minister of Finance, then, that he will have his opportunity. If he wants to go out and tout what a great immigration fund we have here, let us talk about how much money we lost on it.

I will go through the report and I will go through these statements here by the corporation itself. Not one group – not one – in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador since 2005 has used this fund, but yet we are touting about the big immigration fund we have, we have this $170 million in the bank that we can use – not one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred and fifty-seven (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Two hundred and fifty-seven, I am sorry. I am just going on with what the Auditor General had in his report.

Mr. Chair, you can see why we are asking questions. You can see when the Minister wanted to bring up Muskrat Falls; let us put it all on the table here.

If we just have a listen to the Minister of Finance, just in his ten minutes – what a great fund. What a great fund we are getting from Ottawa. We are putting all of this money in the bank. We have all of this investment ready to use. We all have all of this money; anybody can use it, but we are losing $5 million a year.

When he brings up the loan guarantee from Ottawa – if we ever get it, which I am assuming we will – hopefully we will see the details, that we will get the loan guarantee. This fund is a loan guarantee and it is costing the Province $5 million. That is just one thing that I am going to bring up here, Mr. Chair, and there is a lot more that we can talk about.

In the Auditor General's report: "Although the CIC guidelines allow the funds to be used…"; Mr. Chair, this is the Auditor General's report, so anybody who wants to read it over there, I know not a lot of people in the Province would read such a minor detail, but when you look at it, this major fund, with the amount of money that is put through – it is in the Auditor General's report, Mr. Chair, page 371: "…allow the funds to be used to finance capital projects in such areas as health and education sectors that would have a positive economic impact on the Province (e.g. Memorial University of Newfoundland, College of the North Atlantic, or the four Regional Health Authorities), no such projects have been undertaken" – since 2005.

Eight years we have been touting this fund as a Province, eight years we have been talking about this big immigration fund that we have in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have not used one penny of it.

Mr. Chair, there were the type of projects that we could have used somehow. I used an example, Mr. Chair: the hospital in Corner Brook. I used that example. A prime example is the hospital in Corner Brook. Are there any other ways that we could have used this fund?

When I go through the guidelines and what the fund was originally used for, the objective and aims of the department, Mr. Chair, I think a lot of people in this Province are going to say: Well, if this was such a great fund, how come we never used it? Why was the Province out touting this?

Then we bring up Muskrat Falls as a money bill, and the Minister of Finance bringing up Muskrat Falls. I am glad he did, because we can see that when you look into the details you can see a different picture. This is a prime example, for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, when they say: Why are you asking questions? I say, look at this investor fund. Look at this investor fund that is supposed to be around here to help out rural Newfoundland and Labrador, help out things like the hospitals, and help out things like Memorial University. Mr. Chair, we could not even get people to avail of it and we have not used it. We have put it in a bank account, now we have to start paying them back the schedule.

Mr. Chair, I am just going on memory now, and I can look it up if I need to. We have to pay 7 per cent back, the minister said, on this fund; 7 per cent interest. Do you know how much we were getting, interest on the funds? Do you know how much, Mr. Chair? Take a guess. You are correct, Mr. Chair, .045 interest; yet, we are paying 7 per cent back to the federal government on all this money. Can anybody explain to me the business sense behind that, why we would not opt out of this fund to save money?

Now, we can sit down as a money bill, Mr. Chair – and I have lots to talk about this. My question is, what could we do with $5 million? What can we do with $5 million, Mr. Chair? We can ask every member here in this House of Assembly, what can we do with $5 million that we are throwing away? The sad part about it, Mr. Chair, in eight years we have not used the fund. We are still paying interest and we are still involved in the fund. We are still paying interest today. We are losing money on this fund in the bank, losing interest today.

The minister brought up Muskrat Falls, which I am glad he did so we can all have an opportunity to discuss it on this money bill, and he was talking about Emera. Again, the devil is in the details, Mr. Chair. He was talking about Emera on the link, the link going across to Nova Scotia. What he forgets to tell the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair – and I used that today, because I brought it up to the Minister of Transportation and Works today. The cost of this building itself was $39 million, it is up to $50 million now and half complete. So we are at a 25 per cent cost overrun already. That is what you said today, 25 per cent cost overrun already, Mr. Chair.

What the Minister of Finance and the government is forgetting to tell the people of the Province is the link from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia – Mr. Chair, this will be good for you, for when you have to vote on it, too – any cost overrun will be covered by the taxpayers of the Province by 50 per cent. Now, if we take that $1.2 billion, if we just go 30 per cent overrun, that is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province $150 million to $200 million – if it is only 30 per cent. We already know it has gone higher. We already know that.

That is the kind of details, Mr. Chair, when you get into it, the cost overrun to build that link, which we are saying: Oh, Emera is going to take care of that cost. We are not telling the taxpayers the full story on it, Mr. Chair. We are just not telling them. Once that goes to cost overrun, 50 per cent of the cost overrun for the link to Nova Scotia, we have to pay for it as taxpayers.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is well aware of that, Mr. Chair. When he goes to vote for that, he will know that. He is well aware of it. I just want to let you know that when we start the discussion on this debate here, and the Minister of Finance brings up Muskrat Falls, I hope you put all the details on the table, Mr. Chair, put every bit of the details on the table.

Mr. Chair, if you want to talk about a money bill let's talk about the hospital in Corner Brook. Then again, the devil is in the details. When you ask one minister when we were in Estimates: Oh, it is in the design stage. When we asked the minister at the time about it, who is very upfront and very straightforward – we have it in Hansard – he said: No, it is in the pre-design stage. All the people in Corner Brook were expecting this big construction to start. Guess what? It is not even in the design stage.

This is why, from my point of view, I have to ask questions. When you do, you find out the details. When you find out the details of it, then you can say: Here is where it is, good or bad, but here are the facts. When you start hiding it, like the minister just said – and I do have respect for the Minister of Finance. There is no doubt; I do have respect for him. The facts are, Mr. Chair, when this minister stands in this House and says Emera is going to pay for that link, what he is saying is they will pay for the $1.2 billion. Any cost overrun the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the taxpayers, will have to pay for it.

We go with the hospital in Corner Brook, where the Minister of Finance is out $750 million; the Premier is out telling in a private meeting with the city council, with the Minister of Finance, his good buddy, Leo Bruce, out publicly saying – the Premier said if it is $600 million to $700 million, it is not on.

So, who do you believe? Mr. Chair, who would you believe? Would you believe the Minister of Finance, who I have a lot of respect for? Would you believe the Premier, who I have to respect her position? One of them cannot be right. If the Minister of Finance is out saying that it is $750 million, and the Premier is out saying that if it is $600 million to $700 million, it is not going to be on, Mr. Chair – cannot be correct. This is why as an Opposition we have to ask questions. We have to do our due diligence to ask questions.

I know I only have a few minutes left, but I will be back again. I just want to outline just a few things here in the report, and the message from the chair, who happens to be Brent Meade. Get this now, Mr. Chair: $278 million, and here is what is put out in the Province in a big glossy brochure to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the investment fund – the big glossy brochure that everybody says, oh, my God, we are doing a great job; this department is doing a great job with this fund. Here is the mission: "The vision of the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development is a vibrant, diverse, and sustainable economy with productive and prosperous regions throughout the Province" – never spent one cent of it, but yet, that is what is in the report.

Never spent one cent – that $5 million, how much would that go to the RED boards here in Newfoundland and Labrador to keep them going? How much? How many RED boards can $5 million keep going, Mr. Chair, for how long? Five million dollars – that is what we spent. You want to talk about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, keeping it going? Is it not better to opt out of that fund, take that $5 million, give it to the boards and say: keep some visibility in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair? Would that not be the prudent thing to do?

What do you think, Mr. Chair? Would that not be the prudent thing to do out your way? If you had an option to put some money into the RED board, Mr. Chair, out your way, to keep sustainable development, would you rather have that done, or write a cheque to Ottawa and say, here is your $5 million interest, thank you very much?

We are getting a lot of PR out of it, but we are not getting any results. What do you think, Mr. Chair? I am willing to bet you are willing to say: let us keep the RED boards in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what I think every member here – and I am sure I will be back again. I ask how many members opposite knew that it cost us $5 million for this fund that we have not created one job.

I see my time is up, and I thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sure I will be back again.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: (Inaudible) speak to Bill 39. It speaks to the Immigrant Investor Fund; it is one of the reasons for it in regard to the guarantee. As the Minister of Finance indicated, Mr. Chair, it was established in 2005 to receive and disperse funds through Citizenship and Immigration Canada under the Business Immigration Program.

This board of directors, Crown corporation through IBRD that oversees the fund, and officials, as well, with the Department of Finance – this fund is intended to use for large-scale economic initiatives, Mr. Chair. After a period of five years, in regard to whether it is not utilized, money is repaid to its entirety after five years. Repayment originally included a 7 per cent administration fee, which has changed to 5 per cent by the federal government for administration fee of the fund.

In its very essence it is not free money, Mr. Chair; it is investments that are identified, large economic development investments that are prudent in terms of the criteria of the program, to make sure that it is a good investment. The important part here is there is a stable fund there. A lot of the funds – massive investments this government has done over the past number of years.

While this fund has not been utilized to date, the investment has come out of various other parts of government and their economic development portfolios right through government. Investment has been done, as we know – hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars in various projects and infrastructure builds throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, as I said, we continue to invest. This is a fund that is available. It is there for those investments; there have been reviews done on possible investments through the Department of Finance. That money is there to use as we move forward for the appropriate type of investment when it becomes available.

As I said, we did look at proposals considered by the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund. There were none deemed eligible; otherwise they were funded through other programs in government, in economic development and other funding streams we had through various infrastructure programs.

We identified with other departments in terms of coming forward in initiatives they could identify with. In terms of accessing the fund, that will continue. Every year, proposals will come forward; they will be reviewed in the context of that proposal and looked at accessing funds.

The important part is that we maintain the stability of the fund and we are able to meet our repayment schedules. After the first five years, of which we are into our sixth now for the fund, that repayment schedule has started and we are meeting our obligations toward that fund.

That is the important element here, Mr. Chair. The fund is now roughly about $256 million or $257 million. We are meeting our requirements in terms of fees on that fund, and that is the important thing. So, that fund there is now available. As projects come forward, they can be reviewed and if it meets the criteria can certainly be utilized. That is really the essence and the importance of managing that fund, that we are meeting our obligations, and it is there to be used in the future.

In 2010, the Province made sure we could cover off our administration on a cost back to the federal government, as part of the repayment. We purchased strip bonds, in regard to $88 million now, and that is allowing us to cover the carrying costs for that fund and paying back, along with the principal, any costs that are required as part of the agreement with the federal government. That is being met as well, Mr. Chair.

Again, I get to being able to manage the fund, make sure it is sound – it is – and we are meeting our obligations in regard to that fund right now.

MR. MARSHALL: Two point four million in retained earnings.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes, $2.4 million in retained earnings. Obviously, we made money on the fund, Mr. Chair, and that is in essence two-fold. We maintain the integrity of the fund. We have retained earnings from the fund that we are making, and we are meeting our obligations in regard to the fees that the federal government expects. After your five-year period, we have to pay back monies that is received from the fund.

Again, overall in terms of infrastructure expenditures there was reviews, considerations given to various projects. Some were considered that we could move forward with, but there was funds accessed through other means in government that we could fund those projects, so they proceeded.

The key is right now, certainly, that the fund exists, it is there, it is buoyant, and we are able to on a go-forward basis, if we get those partnerships – and as I said, it is not free money, but we can get those projects that we think are good, we can access them, and this fund is there for that, and that is certainly the purpose for it.

The amendment to the bill we are speaking today secures the repayment, and that is what it is all about – the total net of monthly allocation less payments in the amount of $33.3 million, which was received through the fund during 2010-2011 fiscal year. That brings the total amount of allocations guaranteed by the Province to $237.6 million as of March 31, 2011.

There were some comments by the hon. member in regard to monies lost and the fund was not used. This fund has been well managed. We indicated that we are meeting our obligations into our sixth year in terms of meeting our obligations of paying back the fund. The fund is stable. We invested in strip bonds to make sure we could cover the carrying cost of the program; those are being met. We have net earnings. Again, this is a fund that is there. It is available. Every year we will take proposals from various departments within government on what this could be used for as we move forward in terms of economic development.

Mr. Chair, I am happy to speak to this. The Crown corporation falls under IBRD as a suite of programs. We have almost $135 million that we have invested with mostly small and medium enterprise businesses around Newfoundland and Labrador driving economic development, which is so important in attracting investment to Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair.

The other day I saw from 2010 to 2011, almost two-year period, direct foreign investment in Newfoundland and Labrador in a number of our sectors increased by almost $1.6 billion. Nationally and internationally, certainly in our mining sector and our oil and sector, the world is seeing what is happening here in terms of our commodity market.

Traditionally in our commodity markets, obviously, we had significant direct foreign investment. That has continued to grow over the past number of years. The world recognizes the environment we have here in terms of industrial development seeing huge foreign direct investment that continues and significantly increased over the past two years. As the commodity market goes and the world needs some of the commodities we have, we expect that to continue to increase. We look forward to that. That is all about making the world aware of what we have and marketing ourselves and those commodities as required. That drives economic development in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That drives supplier development. That drives small and medium enterprises. The spinoff is enormous in the service sector for big industries. It is enormous in terms of driving local economies and small communities in regions. That is all part of our strategy in terms of economic development. Small and large projects, it does not matter, whichever they are, they drive economic development in all parts of this Province, on the Island and in Labrador.

We support that through the Department of IBRD and government as a whole. We are having great success. We are going to continue it. This fund here is an option in the future that is available to access where we deem appropriate that projects would meet the criteria. We are quite pleased that we are meeting our obligation to the fund. Two hundred and fifty-six million dollars there exist. As move forward, if there are projects that are appropriate then we can certainly support it.

Mr. Chair, it was great to have an opportunity to have a few words on this particular bill. I ask all members to support it as we move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is a pleasure to stand and speak to this particular piece of legislation and this amendment, Bill 39, the Loan and Guarantee Act. It is funny, when we first started looking at it, it is so similar to the loan guarantee which is getting obviously lots of attention.

There are a couple of things I would have to say to this. Number one is that the amendment itself is very minute. We are talking about a couple of pieces of paper here, and we are talking about an amendment to the schedule where we are inserting an amount of money, $33,337,720 into the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited.

When you look at the legislation itself you think one thing, but then when you actually dive into this, you see that it is relating to something very different than what you thought. That is the beauty of having the opportunity and the privilege of being here and looking at legislation, is that you often get a chance to research these things and look into them. A lot of times you find out things you really had no idea about. This is one of those programs that I had no idea about before this bill came up and we started doing the necessary research into it. That is the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund.

There have been a number of things brought up here speaking to this bill. Muskrat Falls played a big role, but I want to stick to this in my first attempt to speak to this legislation, because I am very interested in this corporation and trying to get some more insight on what it does, what it does not do, and how the money is being used. Again, that is our job as the elected members, especially as an Opposition member, is to hold government accountable for the expenditure of taxpayers' money.

I did read the last report that was put out by this group. It is a Crown corporation, which has a committee appointed by different members that looks like come from within the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development. I looked through the message that came from the chair – a gentleman by the name of Brent Meade, who I believe serves in that department – trying to get an understanding on what this piece of legislation or what this group does. A lot of what I am saying might be general conjecture, but I do have some specific questions to the minister that I am hoping will be answered in the course of this committee stage.

Now, the fact is, from what I gather, if one had never heard of this organization, this Crown corporation, you would have no idea of what its purpose or how it operates, or how does it get money. The fact is that this Crown corporation receives money from the federal government, and it receives that under the Business Immigration Program. I understand it receives the money, and then it is the Province's job to administer and manage that amount of money which is generally for the purpose of investment into our economy through the immigrant program.

I do not want to get into too much minutia here, but I feel it is necessary that we at least speak to some of the facts and figures that I have seen here when looking at this. This Crown corporation was incorporated on April 28, 2005. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Chair, on May 13, it was accepted by the federal government as an approved fund under the Business Immigration Program.

The interesting thing is that as of today's date, since 2005, this program which has received a significant amount of money from the federal government has not made one loan in this Province during that time. If we are receiving federal monies, that it is our job as a Province to administer those monies or hand those monies out for investment and we have not done one, then we have to question the validity of whether this whole thing is working. What are we doing here, Mr. Chair?

I understand, and I am going to leave it to the Minister of Finance – I have some questions and I am sure you can answer them probably specifically when it comes to the money side of this. There are two Ministers of the Crown who are – this is a Minister of Finance bill and he spoke to it, but this is a Crown corporation where all of the shares of this Crown corporation are owned 100 per cent by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development. That department and that minister is the primary and sole shareholder of this company. I have different questions, I will try to steer them to either minister and they can answer them as they wish during this process.

What I am wondering is, we receive that money and I understand that money – which we are supposed to give out but have not given out – is then invested. It is invested at a particular rate of return, so hopefully we are making money on this investment or this federal government money that we have. I am wondering, how much money has this program made, or this Crown corporation made, since 2005? That is the first question that I would put to the minister. Has there been money made, or is there a shortfall? Are we losing money because we have not given it out?

The fact is that there is a commission fee that is also associated with this. What is the net difference between the commission fee that has to be paid and the interest that is being accrued on this money that is being invested by us? I have to come back to the point that money, that is given to us to give out, that has not been given out since the third year of this government's mandate. I have to wonder about how well we are doing here.

What I will do is just get into some other specific questions. That is number one: have we made money? Have we made any?

The second part I would ask is: if we are making money, is that really what the core mandate of this fund is? Is that our job, to take this money that we are supposed to hand out to foster and promote economic development, we are actually holding onto that just to invest it, to make a couple of dollars? Is that what we are supposed to be doing?

If we are making the money, that is one thing, because if we are not then we have a serious problem; if we are making the money, we have to question: is that the primary focus of what we are supposed to be doing here?

The second thing is I would be interested in knowing – and again, I am sure this is statistics that the minister may not have here right now, but I am hoping that he can get them at some point – is how many requests have been put into this department and this program under this funding since 2005? It would be interesting to know how many did we get.

The fact is that I understand you are going to get a lot of requests and a lot have to get turned down. That is the due diligence that government has to go through. They deal with it on a daily basis, people coming for funding. The fact is you just cannot give it out to everybody, but I would be interested in knowing who has come for it, and not even who, because that might be a breach of privacy, but how many requests have we had.

The second part is – I know, looking through the document here that I have that was presented by the Chair, there was a process, an evaluation of new investments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: There are criteria here on the evaluation of new investments and the management of that fund. I would like to know how these requests are graded or how are they evaluated because, obviously, at this point no one has made the grade – no one.

A lot of this is not just in this information, but it is in the Auditor General's report from 2010, wherein he referenced that – I think I have it right here – the review has identified that the corporation had not made any investments and therefore has not been successful in using any of the $176.8 million provided by CIC to improve the provincial economy.

I understand that amount is greater. This was 2010; we have received funding since that time.

Other than earning interest at a chartered bank, the funds have not been utilized.

If we are receiving the money that is meant to be used for economic development, but we are actually using it to spur investment, what are we doing? Maybe we have to look at what the purpose of this organization, this Crown Corporation, is and see if there is stuff we can change. I suggest that not to be critical for the sake of being critical; I say that for the hope that we all, as members, want to know that our monies that we are receiving from the federal government are spurring economic development, especially in our rural economies, where we have had a tough time over the last number of years. That is what the money is there for. Hopefully it can be used for that regard. If it is not, then we have to look at: Why is it not being used? What are we doing there?

One specific question I would ask – and I have a little bit of time, so maybe what I will do is save that question for the next time I get up for this. I do have some concerns here. I look forward to hearing from both the ministers because I am trying to find out more about this program, the future intentions of the program, what we are going to do to make sure it is really achieving what it was set out to do, and if it is not, how we can get it back on track to achieve that goal.

I am going to sit at this time, and I appreciate the time, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. The amendment that is put forward is to look at the Immigrant Investor Fund, which falls under the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development as part of the Crown Corporation that was established.

Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that a 7 per cent commission is paid by participating provinces to financial institutions of $28,000 for their recruitment efforts. An immigrant who is an investor that comes to Canada pays a fee of $400,000 under this fund and $28,000 goes to a financial institution for the recruitment piece. The rest, the $372,000, is dispersed to the provinces and Territories. The provincial allocation of $400,000 per investor is repayable to the federal government without interest on the anniversary of their receipt over a five-year period.

Canada has stated that this fund overall is $2 billion in economic contributions to the Canadian economy, but in order for it to be a contribution, it really has to be put to work, Mr. Chair. Investments made through the program are a five-year, zero-interest loan. The goal of it is that the funds are to be distributed to participating provinces and Territories, of which we are one, to fund economic development and job-creation initiatives in their regions. Yet, as other members have stated, this fund we have had since 2005 has not spent $1 when it comes to looking at economic development and job creation.

I looked at the review of the financial statement for March 31, 2012. At the time, the assets in the fund were $259,281,239. As the Minister of Finance has said several times, when it comes to looking at a financial statement, we look at net debt. If we look at net debt, we see that the debt owed under a liability is $6,013,226. Now, overall, we look at non-financial assets and we have over $9 million there.

That is significant when we look, from a financial perspective, that we do have a net debt but right now because we have these deferred financing costs of $9 million, they are considered an asset because they can generate future revenue. The obligations to the investors and the bonds and the debt are liabilities. Currently, this company or this fund is in a loss position because they have less assets than what the instruments are currently worth, and because if everyone cashed out these bonds right now, these strip bonds today, we would not have sufficient assets to pay for them.

Over time, we may have the potential to generate the revenue and we may not be in this net debt position. Right now, we are in a net debt of over $6 million, as opposed to the $5 million that one of the members have listed.

Now, if we look at trying to generate revenue from this fund, we can look at what other provinces have done. Other provinces, like British Columbia, under their Immigrant Investment Fund, have invested in public infrastructure and venture capital. They took $90 million to pursue investments in information technology and new media, in life science, and clean technology.

The $90 million attracted six venture capital managers; fund managers who collectively manage now more than $2 billion of investment capital. This is very significant. This seems, to me, that BC is getting a return on its investment when it comes to a fund that we are allowing to sit dormant and just collect a small amount of interest when it comes to bonds. It is very low risk what we are doing. We are not looking at the potential growth that we could have from it.

Nova Scotia, Mr. Chair, was the last to join the fund. They invested in things like pulp and paper, hi-speed wireless broadband service with East Link, that partnership. We have many communities, over 200 in Newfoundland and Labrador, that do not have access to broadband services. They put $120 million of their fund in a knowledge infrastructure program for participating with the federal and provincial governments and nine Nova Scotia universities. This is advancing technology, an area where we should be going into.

Manitoba used its money to create the Manitoba Opportunities Fund. They have already supported over ninety-seven economic development projects. Newfoundland and Labrador cannot find one project – not one project to invest in to use this fund. It was reported that the board received no investment requests from the Department of Finance for any type of assessment. Are we doing anything to promote this fund?

Ontario used its fund to develop the Innovation Demonstration Fund to develop leading-edge technologies in the environment, in alternative technologies, bioproducts, hydrogen, and other globally significant technologies to look at advancing their economy. They look at developing special five-year funds for next generation of jobs, six years for manufacturing, how they look at the repayment model.

We look at Quebec, Mr. Chair. The Quebec model, they project what they have done with their Immigrant Investor Fund. They have a new model where they have an equivalent of 6,000 full-time equivalent jobs –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Thank you.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

They have 6,000 full-time equivalent jobs in Quebec under this fund, economic production exceeding $430 million, estimated net revenues of $131 million. They are not in a net loss, Mr. Chair, of $6 million as to what our current position would be. Should our bonds be pulled out we would lose money in this fund, where other provinces are doing it very successfully, they are making money. It shows to me that there is some form of failure in looking at how this program is being administrated to create the brightest benefit for us as a Province.

We are not seeing that here and we should be. We should be looking at how we can be investing like some of the other provinces are when it comes to infrastructure investments, when it comes to loans to small and medium businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, and take that focus when we look at maybe there would be a role for Regional Economic Development Boards. Their cost of administering is less than $5 million per year, but to refocus them and refocus what their mandate is to create economic spin off and economic development for our region. To look at venture capital, it is something that we are not doing when it comes to this type of fund, where British Columbia has over $2 billion.

What we have done, we have just taken money, allowed it to sit in a bank account, invest it in low-risk bonds, strip bonds, things like that where we are not really making as much money as we should be on this. We are really into the no or low-risk investment such as the bonds, the cash deposits.

We could really look at investing a portion of this. We have $250-something million into areas of the economy where we can have a higher return on investment and really create economic development and job creation for the Province. Look at specific needs on how we can repay. Why are we not looking at true infrastructure projects that can create a return on investment? Look at some of the other provinces and what they are doing. I really think we should be doing that, Mr. Chair. Why would we just be sitting on funds that are not going to be generating money?

The Minister of Finance projected that we are going to have a Budget deficit this year of over $200 million. If we were putting this fund to good use, some of this could be put into general revenues and really pay off in the short term and in the long term. We have been spending a lot of our money in research and development. We have several funds out there that are investing in research and development. Let us focus. Let us create a focus around this fund and how it is going to create a greater return on investment, because it is always a revolving fund. We are always going to have money being put back into it on a monthly basis when we receive funds.

I think there is less risk involved to really diversifying the portfolio. Mr. Chair, I ask that when we look at Bill 39 and we look at the amendment, we really need to take a greater look at how we are spending money in this fund and what it can do for the region and the economy, especially in rural regions of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, I see that my time is winding down. I will take my seat.

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

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I just want to respond to a couple of comments made by the previous member in regard to the fund. It is extremely important here to remember this is a fund we are receiving that we need to pay back within a five-year period. The provincial government, through this bill, is securing that. It is extremely important when we look at investments and where we may go with this that we are confident we have the ability to get a return and get that money paid back over that five-year period.

The hon. member talked about regional economic development and REDBs. Whoever we partner with in terms of this project, there needs to be the ability to pay this money back or else the public purse is on the hook for it, Mr. Chair. It is very important we recognize this.

The Department of IBRD has a suite of programs. We have gone through a number of times in this House what they are and how we help small and medium enterprises. The Workplace Skills Enhancement Program is millions of dollars to upscale and up-train workers in small and medium enterprises. Our Business Attraction Fund is for larger attraction and larger entities.

In terms of rural broadband, we have done significant investments through the first RBI call last year and invested close to $27 million in leverage over another $100 million, significant investment since 2003.

We have programs in government to deal with various economic and infrastructure programs. We access those as needed and that gives us – with those programs we have some latitude in terms of recurring costs; some of those are high risk, and that is why we have the suite of programs we have, so that we can enter into those high-risk entities for economic development. We think it is very important, and I think it is very important to distinguish that kind of activity and investment to what we are talking about here today.

This is a distinct program with strict criteria in terms of what the requirement is from the Province once we sign on. We have signed on for the second period of this program so that we can meet our obligations in terms of repaying it after five years.

The hon. member mentioned other jurisdictions. In reality, many jurisdictions in the country as well, much like Newfoundland and Labrador, are having challenges and want to be certain and have a high degree of certainty when they enter into programs that they are able to recover those funds within that five-year period, because at that point it becomes a liability for the people of the Province and we need to start paying that money back to the federal government.

I think it is very important that we put it in context in terms of what this fund is. Today we have a fund of $256 million; we are meeting the requirements of that fund in terms of servicing it and paying fees. We are meeting our obligations and every year we go through a process of looking at particular economic development projects.

I do believe over the last number of years there were some identified that could possibly have gone under this fund, but recognizing the particulars of a project, there were other funds within government through various infrastructure programs we had, and those programs would have gone through those other ones.

As I said, it is important to recognize the overall suite of programs we have for economic development, this program and what it is, and what the obligation is on government and the public purse to ensure that any investments, we can recover those funds and we can return them to the federal government within the time frame to make sure we are meeting our financial obligation and there is no further liability for the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I stand again to speak on the money bill and on this fund. Once again, as the minister said, it is all open; we can talk about it.

Mr. Chair, I just want to correct something that I said earlier, because I have to ensure that whatever I say on the record is correct to the best of my ability. When I spoke earlier I said the government was getting a percentage of .048; it is actually .045. I just wanted to make sure that I am correct; it is in the Auditor General's report, just to ensure, Mr. Chair, that I try to speak as best as I can to the fund.

Mr. Chair, I will just continue on to go through the Auditor General's report on this. As we know that the Auditor General at the time was Mr. John Noseworthy. As we know, Mr. Noseworthy, when he did his report on this fund and it was presented to the House, there were some concerns.

The objectives and scope of the Auditor General at the time: "whether the Corporation has delivered on its mandate to improve the Provincial economy through investment from the capital in the Fund; and whether the Fund will generate sufficient revenues to cover the 7% commission payable to the Federal Government."

Mr. Chair, I will just speak about the first one for a few minutes: "whether the Corporation has delivered on its mandate to improve the Provincial economy through investment from the capital in the Fund". I think the answer is no. When you have a fund of $267 million and not one penny was used in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it is obvious to anybody, even the members opposite who have to stand up and say this fund has no value to people in Newfoundland and Labrador, rural Newfoundland and Labrador of which it was designed to. My colleague for The Straits – White Bay North said there was $131 million in Quebec from the same fund – $131 million generated in revenues in Quebec.

We have to ask as the Opposition, we have to ask ourselves as a government: Why are we into this program? Why are we taking this program when one of the scopes of the work that the Auditor General did at the time was to see if we are fulfilling our mandate, and obviously we are not. So, the question has to be: Why are we still collecting money from Ottawa, scheduling now to pay it back, and it is costing us money?

MR. MARSHALL: It is not. We are making money. We made (inaudible) –

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chair, it is in the Auditor General's report. If you disagree with the Auditor General's report, go up to the office and speak to Mr. Noseworthy yourself because it is in his report. If you do not think it is in his report, Mr. Chair, ask him.

MR. MARSHALL: Tell me what page.

MR. JOYCE: Page 378.

I will say to the minister, Mr. Chair, he is shouting across that we are losing money – the Auditor General's report, just look at page 378. I will read it for the record, but anybody can look at it, anybody can get it and look at it, "As at 31 November 2009, the Fund had earned $8.3 million and owed commission fees of approximately $13.3 million, representing a shortfall of $5.0 million." Those are not my words; that is the Auditor General.

MR. MARSHALL: We will talk about 2012 (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The Minister of Finance is over there again, he is talking, Mr. Chair. He had his opportunity. If he wants to really stand up and do something constructive for me to really understand, stand up and say the construction of the hospital in Corner Brook is starting. He is the one who was out in 2011 during the election saying it is going to be started. He is the one, Mr. Chair. As we say, this is a money bill; we can speak on what we like.

So, when you look at a fund administered by this government by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, and we are losing money on a fund that is being administered, and you are wondering why I am asking questions when we have different ministers talking about different things about the hospital in Corner Brook and we have the Premier making another statement in a private select meeting with the City Council of Corner Brook, leaked out by the Minister of Finance's good friend Leo Bruce?

So, it is very important, because here we have the REDBs across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador looking for funds, looking for a lot of funds. They are looking for funds to keep the rural Newfoundland and Labrador, keep the boards – $5 million; that is what we lost, Mr. Chair. So, we have to ask questions. We definitely have to ask questions, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I will just go on with the Auditor General's report. I know there may be some people arguing with me, but there is no need to argue with me. You can read it yourself, the Auditor General's report. What I am going to read from now is page 380. I see a few people flicking through their pages; it is on page 380, "The actual interest rate available as at 30 November 2009 was 0.45% which is due to the prevailing economic conditions that weakened short-term rates in the market."

Mr. Chair, I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; he is awake. He is awake over there. It is the first time we heard him since he got moved back to the backbenchers, Mr. Chair, and you heard him too. He is awake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: He could not even stand up and answer questions that the Member for Torngat Mountains asked him, but it is good to see, Mr. Chair, that he is over there. I thought he went to Moldavia for a trip or something.

Mr. Chair, the Member for Humber West was talking about all of the investments in Corner Brook. Where is the hospital that you committed to in 2011? Where is the hospital?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Thank you.

MR. JOYCE: That is right, Mr. Chair, let him stand up on his own to speak about the hospital in Corner Brook if he wants to say it is going to be done. If he wants to talk about the hospital in Corner Brook, let him stand up and say it, Mr. Chair, because I can tell you one thing, I will not rest until that hospital starts construction, the hospital that we want, and the hospital that we were promised and committed to.

If the Premier wants to go out and have private meetings with the city council and say if you want this type of money, it is going to be a scaled down version of a hospital. Mr. Chair, I will not be standing for it as long as I am elected in the District of Bay of Islands.

The Member for Humber West, if he had any intestinal fortitude, Mr. Chair, or as we say in Newfoundland and Labrador, guts, he would stand up with me for the people in Corner Brook and not let the Premier have private meetings that he was there, Mr. Chair, that he was involved with.

Mr. Chair, I want to get back to the bill itself because he will have his opportunity to stand up and say what the Premier said she did not say, because he was at the meeting. Either the Premier said it or that the city council said it, one of them cannot be true. Either the Premier has to deny she did not say it, if it was $600 million or $700 million that it will not be built, Mr. Chair, or the city council, the members who said that she said it, it is not true. You cannot have both.

The Member for Humber West was at the meeting, so the Member for Humber West can stand up and say whichever one is correct. It is up to him, Mr. Chair, it is up to him. I know I was not at the meeting. We have two conflicting views and let it go.

If anybody over there wants to stand up with me on the hospital, I welcome it, but if not, get out of my way because I am going to make sure it is going to be built, what was supposed to be built, Mr. Chair, as committed to, to the people in Corner Brook.

Like Israel Hann said, Mr. Chair – they all know Israel who is pushing for the health care in Corner Brook – when they got the $1 million everybody thought it was for construction, the $1 million. It was going to start. He said it was a slap in the face to the people of Corner Brook, Mr. Chair. That is what he said, because there was a commitment made. The commitment was made to have the start of the construction. That was the commitment that was going to be made, to start the construction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Member for Humber West, in the last fifteen minutes, stand with me. Either the Premier made the statements in the meeting you were in or she did not. Tell us which one is actually telling the truth, Mr. Chair, out in the media. Here is the opportunity. Did the Premier say it or did city council say it?

CHAIR: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. JOYCE: I thank you, Mr. Chair – I am sure I will be back again – for this opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say to the Member for Bay of Islands, it was a riveting speech. Unfortunately, or luckily for the other side, the Liberal caucus, twenty years at once, we hear the same speech from the members on the West Coast here every time we have caucus in Cabinet. We continuously hear that speech. Unfortunately, we are hearing it again today.

It is great to talk about Corner Brook. I applaud the member. I hope he gets up again. I hope he talks about the courthouse and I hope he talks about Herdman and Regina, the investments in roads, and the great investments we made in the fishery, Mr. Chair, which is closer to home for the Member of Bay of Islands. I look forward to him talking about some of those things.

I also look forward to some of our members on this side having the opportunity to get up when time permits to respond and have a good old back-and-forth debate. A debate is not full –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KING: – and a debate is not complete, Mr. Chair, when you only hear the negative perspective. When you hear all the good things that have happened on the West Coast of this Province over the last nine years as a result of this government, I think the people of the Province and the people of Corner Brook and the West Coast would be very proud.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I am conscious of the time and where we are with the debate. So I would like to move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask for leave to sit again, please.

CHAIR: Thank you.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and 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, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, given we are just about to 5:30, I move, seconded by the Member for Bay of Islands, that we do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Motion carried.

This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, being Wednesday, Private Members' Day. The House stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

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