April 4, 2011                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                   Vol. XLVI   No. 9


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Chair would like to extend a warm welcome to the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group from the Districts of Mount Pearl North, Mount Pearl South, and the District of Topsail. The group is accompanied by their co-ordinator, Georgina Smith.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East; the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte; and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

Does the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South, by leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize Ms Anne Whelan, a resident of St. John's East, who has been recently awarded the RBC Momentum Award. This was one of six RBC Canadian Women Entrepreneur Awards, the pre-eminent national business award program recognizing leading female entrepreneurs. The purpose of this award program is to provide national recognition to Canada's women entrepreneurs, whose successful businesses and achievements contribute so much to the Canadian and global economies as well as to their own communities.

The RBC Momentum Award is given to an individual who has directed their corporation to successfully overcome obstacles while capitalizing on opportunities for growth in leadership and with a commitment to excellence.

Anne's company, known as CareGivers, has pursued an aggressive growth strategy to meet the needs of home care, nursing and residential care services, throughout the Province expanding from 120 employees in 2005 to over 5,000 today. Under Anne's direction, CareGivers is planning to expand within the Province over the next six months, and potentially explore other opportunities across Canada.

In her acceptance speech, Anne stated that this "award acknowledges our commitment to integrity, safety and continuous improvement through expanded management and dedication to empowering our team". This is a statement which is very typical of Anne, as she routinely deflects credit for CareGivers' success to the team that she has gathered around her.

Anne is just one of six women nationally to receive a 2010 RBC Canadian Women Entrepreneur Award from over 2,000 nominations. It should therefore come as no surprise that Anne also won the 2010 Visionary Award from NLOWE, or the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this hon. House to join me in congratulating Anne Whelan for her many successes and to wish her well in all her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the tremendous work done by volunteer firefighters throughout my district.

Throughout my term of office, I have attended appreciation dinners for firemen in many communities throughout my district: Lewisporte, Stoneville, Horwood, Birchy Bay, Baytona, Comfort Cove, Embree, Gander Bay, and Norris Arm. It is always nice, Mr. Speaker, to see communities come out, many on an annual basis, to express appreciation to the men and women who put themselves in harms way for our safety.

Firefighters are people who care about their community. They not only respond to fire emergencies, they are there to respond to emergencies at sea, traffic accidents, and as we have seen during Hurricane Igor, they are there to help manage the devastation caused by natural disasters. They are people we depend on every day.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join with me in recognizing and showing our appreciation to the many volunteer firefighters throughout our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to welcome the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group on behalf of myself, the Member for Topsail, and the Member for Mount Pearl North.

Ministers do not usually make members' statements, and I thank the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP for granting me the opportunity to recognize these wonderful individuals.

Mr. Speaker, the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group was established to become a voice for all seniors. They advocate, plan, and promote their independence, dignity, health and well-being. There are approximately 220 active members, and I can personally say that I have had the liberty of meeting and conversing with each and every one of them. They are nothing short of a joy to know, and I am happy to be standing here today and congratulating them on their success..

The group provides many initiatives in the community at large including a drop-in centre where they enjoy cards, bingo, rummoli, a cup of tea and each other's company. In addition to the many programs and services such as, free summer odd jobs, free income tax clinics and annual flu shot clinics, to only mention a few. There are a number of other social activities, Mr. Speaker, which include the friendship club, creative crafts, Friday luncheons, summer barbecues, dance bowling every Tuesday morning, and the annual parties of Halloween, Christmas and St. Patrick's Day.

The Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group has done great things for our community and we are very proud of each and every member.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group for their continued contributions.

Once again, thank you all for being here today and we wish you well in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today not only as the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and MHA for Conception Bay South, but as a proud citizen of this Province, to congratulate the Town of Conception Bay South for winning the coveted title of Kraft Hockeyville 2011.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: The town's successful campaign paid off this past weekend during Saturday's CBC Hockey Night in Canada broadcast, when the town was named the grand prize winner.

I think it is safe to say that hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador is a household commodity for many, so to see a community from this Province come out on top and win this popular contest is simply terrific.

Mr. Speaker, the Kraft Hockeyville competition was established in 2006 as a community-driven contest that searches for the Canadian community that embodies the spirit of hockey and hometown pride. This is the second time a community from the Atlantic Region has won this title; Salmon River, Nova Scotia was the inaugural winner. Port aux Basques, Harbour Grace and Bishop's Falls have made it to the top five in previous competitions.

The Town of Conception Bay South will now be awarded $100,000 to be used for upgrading of the Robert French Memorial Stadium. The town will also host a National Hockey League pre-season game and a CBC Hockey Night in Canada broadcast.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the organizing committee for their tireless and dedicated efforts and for providing the country with a wonderful and fitting profile of the community. Their hard work is sincerely appreciated and clearly paid off.

I would also like to thank those who took the time to vote for the town, the residents of Conception Bay South, other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – both at home and abroad, and Canadian supporters throughout the country.

I, along with the Member for Topsail and the Member for Harbour Main invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Town of Conception Bay South as they celebrate this great achievement, not only for their community but for the Province as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

It is indeed a pleasure, an honour to congratulate the Town of CBS on this wonderful achievement. I happened to have personal involvement back in the inaugural year of 2006 when we did it in Port aux Basques; we did not beat CBS but we did do better than Harbour Grace in terms of the overall numbers. It is finally great to see that a town from Newfoundland and Labrador who – hockey runs in the blood here. It is great to see that the Province's largest town, I do believe, right now can certainly attain this award.

It is good not only for the kids who are involved in minor hockey, of course, because it becomes more than a minor hockey thing – it involves the whole community – it energizes everybody and to see that we finally pulled this off on the national stage is great. I certainly congratulate the people of CBS, everybody who was involved. The organizers put their life and soul into this thing to win. In fact I cast a few votes myself because I was hooked on it several years ago. I am glad to see that not only Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but people all over the world using the Internet can go in and vote. It is great to see that that happened and again congratulations to the Town of CBS.

I do not know about the two teams you have coming in, I hear it is Atlanta and Ottawa but in any case hopefully there will be a ticket around.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I am happy to stand and join with the minister and the Opposition House Leader in congratulating both the Conception Bay Regional Hockey Association, which did the organizing and who worked so hard, and as well the whole Town of CBS. They had everybody behind them, both in CBS and outside of that town. I did hear the Mayor of Mount Pearl on the radio one day with the Mayor of CBS giving all his support and giving him hints on how to get the votes and they did it.

They won by a landslide with 300,000 more votes than the second place, the Town of Mackenzie, in BC. That is really amazing. I guess every Newfoundlander and Labradorian around the world must have joined this – and all of their friends as well – to make it happen.

One of the really good things about this – one is what will happen for the community and having the money to do the upgrade to the stadium – but it shows the tremendous town spirit and community spirit that we have, and the spirit in the Province out there. We are one large village really in this Province. We do not have a big population but we can certainly do a lot, and this proves it.

I am sure that the minister will not mind if I say because the town loves hockey so much, I am sure they will join all of us too in congratulating the Exploits Cats on their win on the weekend. I had to do it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members of the many accomplishments within the Provincial Social Housing Plan and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Our goal has always been to address various components of providing affordable housing for those with the greatest need.

For at least twenty-five years, not a lot of attention was paid to affordable housing issues, Mr. Speaker. This government changed that by becoming only the third jurisdiction in all of Canada to produce a provincial social housing plan with input from our many partners and stakeholders. Since its release in August 2009, we have stuck to this plan, which outlines access to adequate, affordable housing as an essential element to preventing, reducing, and alleviating poverty, and provides goals and objectives for our government to pursue.

The provincial government, Mr. Speaker, has now tripled the budget for improvements and renovations to sustain our Province's 5,500-unit portfolio, a budget that was limited for many years. For twenty-five years, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the heat subsidy funding was $6.9 million; today it is $9.4 million.

The Rent Supplement Program remained at a level of $4 million, Mr. Speaker, for twenty-five years. In 2009, the provincial government increased the Rent Supplement Program by 50 per cent to $6 million. I am pleased to say as well that seventy-eight rent supplements, for the first time ever, were provided to assist the Canadian Mental Health Association and Stella Burry Community Services to accommodate persons with complex needs.

The Provincial Home Repair Program, Mr. Speaker, was $4 million per year for twenty-five years; this government actually doubled its contribution to that program to $8 million.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, in 2009 our government introduced the first-ever Residential Energy Efficiency Program, commonly known as REEP. That two-year pilot program saw enormous and positive results – a 35 per cent decrease in fact, Mr. Speaker, in the energy costs which amounted to almost $800 per year savings per household which participated.

We introduced a $1 million annual Homelessness Fund in 2009 that is enabling non-profit organizations throughout the Province to do their part in curbing homelessness and poverty in their communities.

For the past six years our provincial government has been signatory to three phases of a provincial-federal affordable housing program that will see the construction of nearly 900 new affordable housing units for seniors, persons with disabilities, families, and persons with complex needs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say all of these initiatives, which were put forth by our community partners and administered by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, have received positive results. I look forward to more to come in 2011.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, while we in the Official Opposition are encouraged by the investments and government's report card, there are many people in this Province who continue to find lengthy wait-lists looking for social housing.

According to Newfoundland and Labrador's own statistics, Mr. Speaker, on March 18, 2011, there are 1,030 individuals across this Province on the current wait-list; some 564 here on the Avalon, 158 in Corner Brook area, forty-seven in Labrador, including Aboriginal communities in Labrador West.

The poverty activists continue to highlight affordable housing and homelessness in this Province, right throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. The problem seems to span all segments, whether they are seniors, students and various families. Under the guidelines for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, they say that 30 per cent of a person's income they look at as being affordable housing and being qualified.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also mentioned about the Homelessness Fund for 2009. We know full well the family of the Blanchards on the West Coast who are on the verge of being homeless because they are unable to pay their rent. Mr. Speaker, I know of incidents in my own area where a young person was left homeless. He was sent to St. John's, put in a facility for three nights and he had to find a unit on his own within three days or he was on the street again.

Mr. Speaker, much has to be done. We commend the work that has been done but we say the minister should make sure that housing, first approach, is essential to any poverty reduction strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Obviously, we were pleased when the social housing plan was introduced in August of 2009. We needed the plan and it is admirable that we are one of the few provinces with a social housing plan. We certainly need it right now with the crisis that we are dealing with, with the escalating housing costs, not just in St. John's but in major centres in the Province, in Corner Brook and in Labrador West. These escalating costs are really causing hardship to middle income as well as low-income people. The group of people being affected is growing because of the escalating costs. It is really important, Mr. Speaker, that the plan include some deadlines for the creation of new affordable housing units. We do not have timelines there and I would like the minister to look at, start to give us some idea of timelines, and how many units will be available at a certain point in time.

We also need to look at the issue of rent supplements. The supplements ran out two year ago, a month before the social housing plan was even released. It is essential that we have rent supplements for people who cannot afford housing and are not in housing that is in itself belonging to government – not part of NLHC and not part of any of the special housing units that are going up. So, we have to give a serious look to the rent supplements, we need them, and there are many households who need them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we cannot overstate the importance of strong literacy skills and lifelong learning. Today, more than ever, they are the tools which lead to an individual's success, and to the future economic development of our Province.

As we recognize April 2-9 as International Adult Learners' Week, we also recognize the men and women who have worked hard - sometimes under difficult circumstances - to further their literacy and learning during their adult years. As a government, Mr. Speaker, we support their efforts.

Since 2004, $48 million has been invested in such initiatives as increasing the number of sites offering Adult Basic Education, introducing an adult learner scholarship program, and expanding College of the North Atlantic's Comprehensive Arts and Science program. In addition, community-based literacy programming has been enhanced through improvements in our data collection systems. As a result, we now know more about our learners, and their needs.

All these measures are helping adult learners meet the admission requirements for further post-secondary training or employment - which is essential to enabling them to participate more fully in our growing economy.

We intend to build on that success, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to report that we will release a Strategic Adult Literacy Plan this spring. It is important that we continue to remove barriers which prevent adults from improving their skills and education, and this plan will do just that. It is designed to raise awareness, increase participation, and enhance access to effective adult literacy and learning programs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we observe International Adult Learners' Week, I take this opportunity to thank the many literacy leaders throughout the Province whose commitment is making a difference to adults who want to improve their literacy skills and continue to learn. Together, we are making a real difference in people's lives and to their hopes for the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We, in the Opposition, recognize the importance of strong literacy skills and lifelong learning and any initiative that helps to improve that and to bring it along certainly is a good thing. We recognize this week as the International Adult Learners' Week and commend those who later in life recognize the need to further their literacy skills and to improve their education. We commend those who dropped out of high school - for whatever reason, some really not interested and so on, or some falling on different circumstances - and yet, realizing they need to go back and go through that process. We commend those people.

We look forward to the Strategic Adult Literacy Plan that the minister mentioned, and removing barriers is very important. One of the strongest indicators, I believe, of the success that we are having in terms of really conquering the literacy challenges are the percentages of students who are graduating with high school diplomas. We know that basically is (inaudible) we are around 75 per cent or so in the Province. It tells us there are still 25 per cent who are not graduating our high schools and I believe that is a challenge for the department and that is a barrier we need to see removed. Nevertheless, it is good to celebrate this week, the adults who are involved in this week and we trust that improvements will continue to be made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

I am happy to stand and recognize International Adult Learners' Week. It is very important to recognize the work that is going on with regard to adult learning. Literacy is a key to economic success and it is so important that we raise the level of literacy in this Province because it is so essential for citizenship, for work, for lifelong learning. We still have a lot of people whose level of literacy skills keeps some from participating fully in the community and in the economy and in education or training.

Adults with literacy problems, Mr. Speaker, are reported to have two-thirds the income of other Canadians and they are twice as likely to be unemployed and much more likely to receive some form of social assistance. Bringing up literacy levels in the Province is extremely important as part of poverty reduction because poverty and illiteracy really do go together.

I agree with the minister that we must continue to remove any and all barriers that prevent adults who want to improve their skills. We have had a lot of efforts going on in the Province; one, in particular, that I have known since it started is the Rabbittown Learners. These are the kinds of initiatives that government needs to look at, and to continue supporting and making sure they have the resources to do the community-based literacy programs that are so successful in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday evening when the Premier and all of her caucus were down making friends with Stephen Harper and she was shaking his hand, Mr. Harper, with his other hand, was gutting the inshore shrimp quotas in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Premier today: What representations have you and your party made to the federal government to protect the inshore shrimp trawlers in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Understand, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador come first and foremost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: For the Leader of the Opposition, if she wants to check back through my correspondence in anticipating these types of cuts that were coming last year, we started writing a letter campaign to ministers last year in April; in May, we had another. This year, again, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with Minister Shea on it, what we recognize at this particular point is that this is an interim measure to get the fishery started. I am putting in a call to Minister Shea to get the details as to when we can expect the final numbers. Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at this. This is an interim measure and we will await their response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We realize there is a holdback on some of the quotas here.

I ask the Premier today: Do you think that it is acceptable that Stephen Harper, in the middle of a federal campaign, would hold back quota to use as election bait in the middle of an election and put the lives of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on hold who are dependent upon the inshore shrimp fishery in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this was an interim measure to get the fishery started.

Mr. Speaker, we have a price this year for shrimp that has not been seen in years. Sixty-five cents a pound is something that has not been seen in years, and we are looking forward to the start of the fishing season, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You cannot ignore the facts, and the facts are that on Thursday, when the inshore shrimp fishery in this Province was getting one of the largest cuts we have ever seen, you, Minister, and your Premier, was down shaking hands with the very man who is making these cuts.

So I ask you today: In making your representation, did you have any input into where these cuts were going to be made, how they were going to be applied, and why is it that the people in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador have to bear the brunt of all of this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would recognize that there is a Shrimp Advisory Council, and on that council sit fisherpeople and our officials. The debate goes on an on. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we are very much aware of, and everyone in the industry is aware of, the resource is in decline; therefore, decisions have to be made to protect those resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the Premier does not want to get her hands fishy; she will not talk about the fishery in the House of Assembly. We know that shrimp was not on the agenda, obviously, at the Harper event on Thursday evening, but let us see what other critical issues may have been on at the event, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier today: Now that you are best friends with Stephen Harper and have welcomed him with open arms back into Newfoundland and Labrador, what does this mean for the $10 billion broken promise on equalization that he made to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Is that now off the table and no longer a priority? Have you sold out the people of this Province, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may not know it, but our Province no longer is on equalization. We are a have province under that formula, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be friends with the only Prime Minister in fifty years of Confederation that has taken Newfoundland and Labrador's side on a hydro dispute with the Province of Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province, I say to you, Premier, and I say to you, Minister, are smarter than that, and they know that if Stephen Harper had kept his promise to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we would be a lot wealthier today as people of the Province. We do not want crumbs, we want what we deserve.

So let me ask you this, Premier: When you were down on Thursday with your best friend, Stephen Harper, did you talk about 5 Wing Goose Bay and the 600 troops that he was going to bring to Happy Valley-Goose Bay that never materialized? What is the fate of the base in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

What is your best friend, Harper, telling you about that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. I can offer you today example after example when the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader criticized us because we did not have a relationship with the federal Conservatives.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is important when people do hear the legitimate aspirations of the people of this Province and acknowledge them that we speak to that. It is the right thing to do because we certainly spoke when they did not.

With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, you are eight years too late to this bandwagon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, it is never too late to stand up for the people of this Province, and I am not about to sell out the people of Newfoundland and Labrador like you have just sold out the people –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having great difficulty hearing questions asked and answers given. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can guarantee you, Premier, we are not about to sell out the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because we want to hobnob with Stephen Harper. Mr. Speaker, it was the Premier himself who said that Stephen Harper could not be trusted when he made commitments and promises to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier: You have a commitment on a loan guarantee, but what do you have for 5 Wing Goose Bay and the future of that base in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we do have a commitment on a loan guarantee from Prime Minister Harper. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report today that we have a commitment from her own federal leader, Mr. Ignatieff, on a loan guarantee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that people have to come from abroad to inform the members opposite of the benefits of a great project like Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing wrong to have all federal leaders supporting loan guarantees for clean energy development in Canada, I say to you, Premier. We take no exception to that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I once again ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it does not talk to the economic viability of the project that you are proposing. So let us get into that, because you are not going to answer to the commitments on 5 Wing Goose Bay, you are not going to answer to any of the other commitments that have been made to Newfoundland and Labrador and broken because you have sold the people out on one file.

So, Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, Dr. John Collins, who was a former PC Finance Minister, was quoted in the paper as saying that there is no credible –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He said that there are no credible projections on energy costs, construction costs, or even consumer demand.

I ask you, Premier: Why are you not putting that information out there for the public of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, the Leader of the Opposition only provides part of the information. In that article he also stated that he did not have much information on the project. Like her, he decides to speak and find out later.

Mr. Speaker, there have been over fifty information sessions held to date. They continue. Mr. Speaker, we try almost on a daily basis to inform members opposite through briefings with Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is continue to put the information out in the public domain – more information than has ever been made public on any project in this Province. One continues to live in hope, Mr. Speaker, that one day they will get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As my colleague says, we know what the rate payers of this Province are getting: They are getting shafted, Mr. Speaker, by the Premier and by her government.

Why is it that you, Premier, and your government do not want the people of this Province to know the details of Muskrat Falls when it comes to the energy costs, the construction costs, and the customer demand for power?

Why is it that you will not back up your numbers and Nalcor to date has not released the information to the public, to the panel, or to us in the briefings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not only has Nalcor released that information, the Department of Natural Resources has released that information. Information has been filed with the PUB. Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of briefings with Nalcor, and your own numbers get knocked down every time you come in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: They come in excited like children, Mr. Speaker, because they think they have something. They leave those briefings absolutely deflated, gather together for an hour and a half so they can cook something else up before Question Period and, Mr. Speaker, they call this an informed debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not quite as gullible as some of the PC caucus are and they want to see the finer details I say to you Premier. Why is it that you will not put the information out there? Even again, the panel is coming back and saying that the information from Nalcor is not satisfactory and they require more detailed financial projections and information. Why is it that everything is under lock and key in a vault and no one only yourself, your caucus and Nalcor can have privilege to see this information?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there is more information on this project in the public domain than has ever been on any project including your own two attempts to develop the Lower Churchill. Never so much information made available before.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have anything to hide from any body and specifically not from the environmental review. Mr. Speaker, all of the information that has been requested is being provided. This will have an open, transparent debate here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and people will come to the conclusion that all of us have arrived at through the scrutiny of the details of this project: that this is a good project for Newfoundland Labrador, for Atlantic Canada and for the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I will tell you who it is not good for, the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who will have to have their light bills doubled to pay for your legacy project, I say to you Premier. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the government last week was quoted as saying that any excess energy would be sold into the Maritimes or into the United States and have confirmed that it will be sold at a much lower price than it will be in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier: How is it a good deal when a company can set up in Nova Scotia and get power for their business a lot cheaper than they could ever do in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try and explain something very complex as clearly as I can.

Mr. Speaker, the cheapest energy that can be provided to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour. That is as cheap as we – we cannot bring it in from Nova Scotia cheaper, we cannot bring it in from Quebec cheaper, we cannot build it any cheaper in Newfoundland and Labrador; 14.3 cents still gives Nalcor a 9 per cent internal rate of return, so we are still making money.

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia needs power. They need power and they can provide it to themselves for 10 cents or 11 cents a kilowatt hour. They are not going to buy it from us, Mr. Speaker, for 14.3, so we have to go into the market and sell at what the market can bear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is most pathetic picture I have ever seen in my life, a Premier in this Province trying to justify why they have to give Nova Scotia power cheaper than they can give it to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I ask you again, Premier: Why is it that under your Muskrat Falls deal any company who wants to develop industry can do so in Nova Scotia, get their power cheaper from Muskrat Falls than they can in Labrador? What kind of rationalization is that in telling people that is a good deal?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Therein lies the danger of going down this road, Mr. Speaker, because her ignorance is so vast.

Mr. Speaker, at 14.3 per cent, anybody who wants to come and do industrial development in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in Labrador, can get their power for whatever we decide to sell it to them for.

Mr. Speaker, when you are trying to sell power to a market who can produce it themselves for 10 cents per kilowatt hour, there is no good trying to sell it for 14 cents a kilowatt hour any more than they would sell it to us for 16 cents an hour, Mr. Speaker, when we can produce it ourselves for 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, not only will the people in Newfoundland and Labrador be paying the highest price for Muskrat Falls power of any other consumer of that power but, Mr. Speaker, what will be the other impact on the cost of living for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? I ask the Premier because we know we have people living on a fixed income, we know that with the doubling of the price of electricity there is going to be an increased cost in food and other cost of living, Mr. Speaker, that affect people in their everyday expenses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you: Have you done any economic analysis that shows what the effects of the cost of living are going to be on the people in Newfoundland and Labrador under your power regime?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at 14.3 cents, if we do not sell a kilowatt of power to anywhere else in the country, that is still the cheapest rate that we can get in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, we can let the excess water spill out over the dam and not get anything for it, but we can sell it where there is a market and we can decrease that 14.3 cents further for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if power doubles - and it has gone up 35 per cent in the last five years and is predicted to double, not by Newfoundland and Labrador, but by experts across the country. Mr. Speaker, if power doubles, it will not double because of Muskrat Falls. Power is going up over the next ten years because of the price of oil.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am still amazed by the fact that the Premier likes to stand up and defend why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should pay more for their power than any other consumers of Muskrat Falls Power. This is the same government, Mr. Speaker, that does not want to give industrial customers currently in Labrador a break on their energy prices on their new agreements, but yet, they are prepared to give it to Nova Scotians to attract industry. It is unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, even this weekend in The Telegram, Russell Wangersky, who is an editor had a commentary or a piece that talked about how this is going to impact the cost of living of every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

I ask you Premier: Have you looked at what the impact is going to be on businesses, on consumers, on every single person who lives in Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of the high (inaudible) that you are going to pour on them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly have, we certainly have. We understand this project; we understand what the alternatives are. Unlike the members opposite who are proposing that we hook up fifty, or sixty, or seventy different hydro sites around the Province to generate 170 megawatts of electricity not knowing where we are going to get the rest to make up the 490. It is not that kind of planning that goes on, on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we understand completely, and, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the major drivers for developing Muskrat Falls. It is the cheapest way that we can provide for the energy costs of people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is also the cheapest way that we can induce industrial development, particularly in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, news of the cuts to the Northern shrimp quota have many in the Province, especially on the Northern Peninsula, quite concerned about the future of the fishing industry. Mr. Speaker, there are four shrimp plants on the Northern Peninsula that likely will be impacted by these latest cuts. Last year in this House, when questioned on the 28 per cent cut in Area 6 for 2010, the minister reassured that he was on top of the file and indeed, promised a regional impact report for the Northern Peninsula.

I ask the minister today, Mr. Speaker: Has this report been completed and, if so, can he table it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I answered previously in my response to the Leader of the Opposition, the numbers that came out on Thursday, we recognize that if these are the final numbers the impact will be great. Mr. Speaker, we have to wait and find out what the final numbers are. As was released, and everyone will acknowledge, this is an interim measure. We have to wait and see what the final numbers are and what it comes down to, and then we will make our decisions from there.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, as I also indicated, I have written the minister. I am attempting to reach her by phone. If I get that information I will relay it to the members opposite and to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to pose the question again because it is an important one. If you look in Hansard, you will find on May 20, 2010 that the minister very clearly indicated that there would be an assessment done and that there would be an impact report in terms of how it would impact that region in Area 6.

I ask the minister again: Was the report completed, and if so, is he willing to table it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the numbers that we keep getting on shrimp, and as I alluded to before, the actual resource is in decline. There is no one disputing that. So the numbers this year, in all likelihood, are going to be down below what they were last year.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the member opposite what the impacts are going to be on the number of plants that are going to be opened or the numbers that are going to be closed. I have no determination yet as to what the final number will be, Mr. Speaker. We are in the process of attempting to get that final number.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take that as a no to the report not having been done.

Mr. Speaker, the people of New Ferolle has a multi-species fish plant in their community that has seen very little operation in the past number of years. In fact, the plant has only operated for approximately fifty-five hours for the past three years. A fish plant committee worker has long requested a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and while a date was set, we were told the meeting was cancelled because he attended the Boston Seafood Show. Mr. Speaker, the crab season opened yesterday and the plant in New Ferolle is still not ready.

I ask the minister: Why has he not been more accountable to the people of New Ferolle who simply want to get working to feed their families, and will you meet with the fish plant committee?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, you have to be really careful when you use a statement such as the meeting was cancelled because he went to the Boston Seafood Show. I will not relay to him here, Mr. Speaker, what that reason was.

Mr. Speaker, I have met with the member for that area, with the committee up there on two occasions. Anybody who has followed the history of New Ferolle knows that this government have done everything they possibly can to see that operation. Just recently I have learned that Mr. Mulowney is doing some work in that plant. He has to understand one thing that the time is running out if he does not get that plant in operation this year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Premier. It is about that famous Newfoundland and Labrador Office of Federal-Provincial Relations. It cost the people of this Province about $250,000 a year; $100,000 of which is rent and they get newspaper subscriptions, somebody staffing it, but we do not have a representative for the last year.

I know you are kissing cousins now Premier and you may need the place more than ever, but what is your position, Premier, on the continued existence of that office? If you are going to keep it, when do you intend to appoint someone there? It has been vacant eleven months and you undertook in this House in December, you said it is in my radar and I will have a decision made in a couple of weeks. Well, we have been a few months now Premier and we still do not have any decision. Are you going to keep the Ottawa office, and if so, when can we expect to hear an appointment?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have made a decision; made the decision some time ago. The House Leader for the Opposition just has not asked the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue with our Ottawa office. I have had the Deputy Minister of the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector doing some work there over the last couple of months, particularly as we discuss the loan guarantee with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I hope within the next three months to make an appointment, a permanent appointment to that office, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, government acknowledges, and the Premier has done it again today, that electricity rates will go up over the next several years due to rising oil costs and the Muskrat Falls development. Our electricity rates are projected to skyrocket. Mr. Speaker, seniors and families surviving on a low or fixed income will be dramatically affected by the rise in these rates.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is it not fair and in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to remove now the 8 per cent provincial portion of the HST from the cost of home heating?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, never in this House have I said that electricity rates are going to go up because of Muskrat Falls. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have said just the opposite. Electricity rates are going to stabilize because of Muskrat Falls. What is driving higher energy costs over the next number of years, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the price of oil, not with the development of Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, we are very cognizant of the pressures that the people of this Province find themselves under, especially with regard to providing heat for their homes. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have a home heat rebate program. We always, always, are exploring ways that we can reduce costs and support families. We will continue to do that in our new budget coming in the next few weeks, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in 2001, when the party opposite us, now in government, were in Opposition, they called for the removal of the provincial sales tax on home heating, and they said, and I quote, "the necessities of life, like food and warmth, should not be taxed." Since 2001, the price of home heating fuel has doubled. Mr. Speaker, home heating is not a luxury; it is a necessity of life and should not be taxed.

So I ask the Premier, almost ten years later, will her government honour its past commitments and stop collecting sales tax on the necessity of life?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member knows, we do have a home rebate program which, in essence, rebates to people making up to $40,000 a sum of money which is essentially a little bit more than what the provincial HST on home heat would be. So we target it to the people who need it, rather than giving it to wealthy people. We need to do things that help low income and moderate income people, and we continue to do that with low income tax reductions, with the Home Heating Rebate Program, with the Low Income Seniors' Benefit that we have increased on three occasions.

We have an age amount tax credit in this Province which is now the highest of any province or territory in the country. We have a heating allowance, we have a provincial home repair program, we have a drug card, we have the sixty-five-plus plan, and we have eliminated that hated tax on insurance. Mr. Speaker, in the budget we will do more things to help all citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Report by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 24)

I further give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It being the Monday preceding the Private Members' Day of Wednesday, and it being the Opposition private member's motion, I move, on behalf of the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the following motion for this Wednesday.

WHEREAS free and open communication is critical to sound, public policy, essential to good governance and a cornerstone of an open and democratic society; and

WHEREAS public servants have a higher loyalty to the people of the Province than to the security and convenience of their supervisors or political masters; and

WHEREAS whistleblower protections already exist for the House of Assembly service and statutory offices but the same protections are denied to public servants within government departments and related agencies such as health and education authorities; and

WHEREAS this government promised to introduce whistleblower legislation almost four years ago;

BE IT RESOLVED that government consider the immediate extension of whistleblower protection to all provincial and municipal public servants in order to ensure their ability to freely disclose information about something they believe to be harmful to the public's interest without fear of workplace retributions or retaliation.

Mr. Speaker, that is moved by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, seconded by myself as the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the motions as being recited.

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people of my District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is one in a series of petitions being circulated throughout communities across Labrador. It is actually from all Labrador communities. It just so happens that the ones I have today are from my district.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition into the record:

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 Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital, important lifeline for the Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway are unpaved, in deplorable condition, and are no longer suitable and safe for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners urge the House of Assembly and ask the government to provide additional funding for much-needed improvements to Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador in the last year have seen a tremendous increase in the amount of traffic that uses Route 510. That is the highway that extends from Happy Valley-Goose Bay down to the Labrador-Quebec border in Blanc-Sablon. It also includes, Mr. Speaker, branch roads into communities like Charlottetown, Cartwright, Pinsent's Arm, St. Lewis, and Mary's Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, these people, with the increase in traffic, have seen continuous trouble with their highway. It is a gravel road, and with most gravel roads, when you get increased usage on that road or you get extreme weather conditions – both of which they have experienced – obviously you get some erosion to the road. You end up with potholes, you end up with ruts, and as a result of it people are doing a lot of damage to their vehicles. It is taking them a long time to travel from point A to point B. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, they have actually stopped using and have cancelled different meetings and functions because the road has been too bad to commute back and forth from community to community.

While at the Combined Councils of Labrador meeting – because they did form a coalition in Labrador of people from each of the three districts that are affected by road use mostly – I am not sure if there was someone from the North Coast who sat on the committee, because I was not part of the committee. They did form a coalition in Labrador and I know they meet on a regular basis through conference calls.

At the Combined Councils of Labrador, they did meet with the Minister of Transportation and they were very disappointed to learn that the current government has not on its radar at this stage any plan to do anything with that particular piece of road. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they had hoped there would be some kind of a proposal submitted to the federal government to look at the start of paving on this section of road, but the minister outlined that it was not on the radar of their government and would not be for at least another three years. That certainly met with tremendous disappointment across Labrador and that is the reason for the petition today.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry service in order to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom, waiting room area in the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors and disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course of their travels and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a waiting room, restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile may be able to utilize such waiting room, washroom facilities.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth such petition I have presented in this House on behalf of the residents of La Poile and I hope it is not falling on deaf ears to the minister. There are few basic things that you need in life, I guess, and you certainly need them. If you are a traveller, you need access to washroom facilities. This has to be the only circumstance that I can think of in this Province where people use a provincial transit system on a regular basis, every single day of the week, month and year, and they have to wait on the wharf for the ferry and there is absolutely nowhere to use the washroom. It is just unacceptable.

This calls for a washroom, restroom. I am sure if the minister cannot see it in his way to come up with the funding for the restroom or whatever, surely God there ought to be in this day and age, and in this Budget that we have in Transportation, to provide a washroom facility. I do not mean the porta-potties that the Member for Lake Melville put forward for the people of Ramea when he did it. That was absolutely insulting, disgraceful and we would not expect that from the current Minister of Transportation and Works.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a frivolous petition. This is something that deals with human dignity and respect. We charge these people to use the provincial ferry service. I see absolutely nothing wrong with expecting the basic minimum of service, such as a washroom.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get leave from my colleagues to table some documents that I intended to table today.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to revert to Tabling of Documents?

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am today tabling five Orders in Council relating to funding precommitments for the 2011-2012 to the 2015-2016 fiscal years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, we will do first reading of Bill 20.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 20, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 20, and that Bill 20 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 20 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", carried. (Bill 20)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 20 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 4, second reading of Bill 10.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and take an opportunity to talk a bit about Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act - excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

I so move Bill 10, seconded by the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act". (Bill 10)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just so taken aback with the topic that I want to jump right in and get into the debate. I apologize for my miscue.

It is indeed a pleasure to stand today to take some time to speak to this important bill, Bill 10, which will see some amendments to the Labour Relations Act for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, by way of background information, back in 2007 our government introduced our intentions to get involved in what we call a joint effort, working with business and labour through the Strategic Partnership Initiative with the objective of reviewing the provincial collective bargaining legislation.

Mr. Speaker, through the Strategic Partnership Initiative a subcommittee, called the Employment Relations Committee was formed. I want to just take a moment to touch on that, Mr. Speaker, because it is a true partnership. The work we are bringing forward here today was developed in a totally collaborative process involving business, labour, and government working together. As we get into some of the debate today and talk about some of the changes and the nuances that we are bringing forward, what is so good is that it is coming forward with unanimous support and consent from all three parties. I think that speaks well to the kind of work that has been ongoing in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and also speaks to the parties' willingness to acknowledge that while they may not necessarily like all the changes, that collectively we recognize changes are needed to be made.

Today, I am very pleased to be able to table amendments to the Labour Relations Act, Mr. Speaker, that are coming forward from that Employment Relations Committee unanimously. Representing the first changes, I might say, Mr. Speaker, as well, the first changes to the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, when we established the committee some time ago, it was agreed upon by all parties to the committee that we would focus on improving policy and legislation with respect to collective bargaining in the Province. We recognized, more than anything else, that in order to do that, Mr. Speaker, we had to work together. We had to form some common ground and we had to try and develop a consensus-based approach. We recognized that unless we were able to take that kind of a process, it would be very, very unlikely that we would be able to move anything substantive forward. As I said before, I am very pleased we were able to achieve consensus on this bill, very much appreciative of the efforts of all members of the committee who took part in this particular process.

We also recognize, Mr. Speaker, that not all changes that are often required in the Labour Relations Act can be legislated. We recognize that parties have to have the necessary skills to work together in a give-and-take process to make sure that we continue to develop positive working relationships and a positive labour management environment in the Province. Mr. Speaker, as I said, you cannot always legislate those kinds of things, it requires sometimes a spirit of give-and-take and a willingness to want to work together for the betterment of the labour relations environment and climate in the Province.

The committee, Mr. Speaker, has developed and agreed to a number of educational initiatives as well that are not being brought forward today because they do not represent legislative changes. They have agreed to a number of education initiatives that they feel would be of tremendous benefit to the Province as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased as the Minister Responsible for Labour Relations to be able to talk to you about that today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a moment before we get into the heart of this particular bill to talk a bit about labour relations in the Province. For the benefit of those people who may be listening at home, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment have a fairly broad mandate, Mr. Speaker. Not only are we responsible for the Labour Relations Agency and the Labour Relations Board in the Province, Mr. Speaker, but we also have the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation as part of our portfolio.

We also have a broad range of services related to labour and employment, Mr. Speaker. I speak, for example, about career services, supports that we offer to youth in the Province, employment and wage supports. Those benefits, they cover a full spectrum, anywhere from providing career advice and career guidance through our many Career Work Centres throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. I had the great opportunity to be in Marystown not long ago to open the Career Work Centre there. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is a fabulous facility.

We provide a full range of services related to employment and labour to support not only individuals, Mr. Speaker, who need assistance whether that be specific advice and questions answered or advice on resumι writing and preparing applications for particular jobs, but we also offer supports to employers. That could be anything from posting job advertisements to fill positions to providing employers with advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the labour market trends, for example. Assisting them in trying to identify how they may want to grow their business by providing them with information on what the labour market outlook for the future of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is.

Mr. Speaker, I might say on that note that we are very pleased that Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest full-time job increase in all of Canada for the past year. It certainly speaks to the kind of labour climate that we have here in the Province and the kinds of trends that we are seeing.

Mr. Speaker, we also in the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment have responsibility for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. That organization, as well, plays a very vital role in our line of business. A different role, Mr. Speaker, they do a lot of work, for example, with employers on looking at safe work practices in the workplace, for example, on educating employers on how they can improve the working conditions for employees. That includes, of course, a focus on prevention.

We also look at claims management, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, when we talk about claims management we are talking about instances where individuals have, no doubt, had workplace accidents or injuries of some sort and they are in a situation sometimes where they are off work for a short period of time, other times, unfortunately, they may be permanently unable to work any longer.

The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, of course, is there to adjudicate claims and they go through thousands, literally thousands, of claims down there and they do a super job. As a matter of fact, I had the tremendous pleasure to attend the sixtieth anniversary, Mr. Speaker, of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission this past Friday. It was a great opportunity to meet with some of the many employees who are down there, highly professional and very qualified employees. They play an important role, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the whole labour relations climate in this Province because while we have legislation in the Labour Relations Act that guides what happens in the workplace, we also need organizations like the Workers' Compensation division to make sure that we offer supports and protection to employees.

Mr. Speaker, last week we had an opportunity in the House to chat a little bit about a piece of work that they have done recently. I would not mind making a comment on that because sometimes, unfortunately, people do not always have a great understanding, particularly here in the House of Assembly, when it comes to what Workers' Compensation has been doing. What I want to speak to for a moment is that last week we had a little discussion around the audits that have been performed. The Commission performs audits on occasion and sometimes people mistakenly think that the audit is actually a review of whether or not an organization or a department is compliant with the regulations and the rules. Mr. Speaker, that is not what it is at all.

In fact, last week when we talked a bit about the Department of Government Services, for example, the audit that was completed there, it is an opportunity to use a tool from WHSCC. It is a tool where they will go in and they will look at workers' knowledge of safe work practices, they will look at the working conditions in a particular organization, and they will do an assessment noting, first of all, areas of strength and they will offer some recommendations on how the safety environment can be improved.

It is very important to be able to draw the distinction there because last week, at one point, one of the hon. members here tended to suggest that a department was breaking the rules. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that was not the case. It is not a matter of whether you are following the rules or you are breaking the rules. The safety audit is intended to look at how we are doing and in a particular area and whether or not we can improve upon that, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate sometimes when there is miscommunication because one of the things about the audit is that it is a self-select process, Mr. Speaker. Employees and employers volunteer to invite the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission to come in to their place of business, to have a look at what they are doing, and to provide them with an objective view of how they are doing and how they might improve.

I offer that explanation, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes, unfortunately, after what transpired last week in the House of Assembly, some employers and employees tend to say: Well, I do not know if I want to take part in that because it sounds to me like it is a public issue and we are going to be chastised. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to offer that observation because there is some great work happening at the workplace commission. We have some great employees there who play a significant role in supporting the whole labour relations climate here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, back to the specific changes that we are talking about today, I am delighted to implement a couple of amendments to the Labour Relations Act here today. Specifically, we are going to focus on two particular areas. There are two particular categories, if you will. The first, we are going to propose changes to what we are calling the new collective bargaining relationship in the Province; and the second, Mr. Speaker, will be some changes that deal with existing collective agreements.

Mr. Speaker, the bill entitled An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act will focus on these two broad categories. Under each, there are a number of points that we want to talk about. I want to touch on those just for a couple of moments, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, under the new collective bargaining relationships, we are proposing in this act today, these amendments today, that once the Labour Relations Board accepts and imposes a collective agreement, the right to strike or the right for an employer to lock out employees will cease.

To give you some context to that, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision in the Labour Relations Act where parties can make a request to the Labour Relations Board to have a collective agreement imposed. Typically, obviously, that would happen in cases where there appears to be no resolution in sight whatsoever; therefore, the assistance of the Labour Relations Agency and Board are being sought.

What the parties are asking us to do is: In cases where they have asked for the imposition of a collective agreement, that we remove the section so that it no longer provides employees with the right to strike or with the employer to lock them out of their place of business.

So that is the first amendment under the new collective bargaining relationships, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about when we are entering into a new collective agreement for the very first time, between employers and employees in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, the second change I want to touch on under this section deals with the term of a collective agreement, should we have a new collective agreement imposed. Currently, Mr. Speaker, in the legislation, we have stipulated that it will be for a twelve month period. What the committee is saying to us in these proposed changes today, is that is just not long enough, Mr. Speaker. It is just not a long enough time to let things settle out and to move forward in a positive way. So, what we are proposing is that there will be a range of times. The collective agreement can start with a minimum of eighteen months, Mr. Speaker. The authority will be granted to have a collective agreement, instead of a twelve month period now, you can have a range from a bottom of eighteen months, Mr. Speaker, to a maximum of thirty-six months or three years. We are talking about moving the defined term, Mr. Speaker, of a one year, twelve month period to a flexible range of between a year and a half – or eighteen months – up to a three year period – or thirty-six months.

Mr. Speaker, the second amendments that we are proposing to bring forward here today, and I will touch a little bit more detail in a few moments on some specific changes to the language that is provided, but the second changes we want to make deal with existing collective agreements, Mr. Speaker. So the first ones that I talked about very briefly had to do with instances where we are bringing in new collective agreements for the very first time, and specifically looking at instances where employers and employees are just unable to come to a resolution, and therefore are seeking the assistance of the Labour Relations Act to help them move forward.

The second three changes that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, deal with existing collective agreements. The first change that we are making is that we are proposing to provide in our labour relations language now, access to expedited arbitration and grievance mediation. Mr. Speaker, we are providing that change because all parties who are part of the committee that brought this piece of work forward recognize that if we are going to make any substantive gains in settling grievances and outstanding collective agreements, we have to expedite the process to get things moving as quickly as we possibly can.

The second change, Mr. Speaker, is we are asking for the removal in the language of the requirement that currently exists that an arbitrator must be agreed upon by the employer and the employee representatives, Mr. Speaker. I say to those who are listening to the debate, if you think about it for a moment, how frustrating that can be when you have two groups, an employer and employee, who cannot agree possibly, at odds for long periods of time, cannot possibly agree on a collective agreement, whether that is one particular item outstanding or a multitude of items, Mr. Speaker. We are asking these two parties, who are at loggerheads and cannot agree on a collective agreement, we are saying in order to move the process forward, though, you must agree on an arbitrator.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: What is the likelihood that the two groups are going to agree on an arbitrator when they cannot even agree on language that affects them directly in the collective agreement?

Mr. Speaker, for the first time, both of those parties represented by the Business Coalition and the Federation of Labour agree. They agree, Mr. Speaker, in the changes being proposed here today and acknowledge that if we are going to change the Labour Relations Act to improve the relations between employer and employee, then we need to change that process. So now the Labour Relations Act will provide that an arbitrator may be appointed and it does not have to be with the consent of both parties.

The third piece under the category of existing collective agreements has to do with tightening up some language around the presentation of personal grievances in the Labour Relations Act, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with tightening up some of the language. There are some redundancies there that the committee felt we needed to make some changes to tighten up the way the act reads and to make it easier and more practical and functional when we are following the Labour Relations Act to ensure that employees have the kind of support and access they require when they are engaged in situations where they need to in fact avail of the language in the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of minor household changes as well throughout. I believe we provided the briefing to members opposite on some of the small nuances contained. For example, in the first collective agreement, section 81. (1), we are going to see some changes where parties are required to send a request to the minister. One of the proposals we are making, Mr. Speaker, is that the request does not need to come to the minister responsible for labour relations in the Province. They can go straight to the Labour Relations Board.

There are also a number of other redundancies: 81. (2) for example, Mr. Speaker, talks about a matter being referred to the minister as well. We are trying to tighten the language up because, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with very sensitive issues when you are talking about employment relations and in particular when you are talking about situations where we have employers and employees who are at odds with each other. Mr. Speaker, the key thing we want to achieve here is to make changes that will improve our ability to settle grievances and to settle outstanding issues between employers and employees in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, one of the things that I am extremely pleased with today is that the changes and amendments that I am tabling here today for debate and for consideration by hon. members on all sides of the House, it is a partnership document that was arrived at with unanimous support from the federation of labour and the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, that is a first in the Province but it certainly, I think as I said before, recognizes and highlights the importance that these groups place on having good working relationships, good labour relations in the Province. I think it also identifies, Mr. Speaker, that both parties, along with government, recognize that it is only by working together and focusing on the issues that we need to focus on, that we are going to be able to improve the labour relations climate in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, with that number of comments I am going to close out my comments and reserve any further discussion maybe to when we get to Committee stage if members opposite have any particular questions they want to pose. In asking, Mr. Speaker, the House and members here today to endorse these changes I want to as well ask for your support here in congratulating the Employment Relations Committee.

As I have said on a number of occasions, and I will repeat it again, the changes being brought forward here today, while perhaps government played a role through our officials in chairing and directing some dialogue around the issues, it is very much a collaborative approach between the business coalition and the federation of labour in the Province. I cannot say strongly enough, Mr. Speaker, how important that is for me as the minister to be able to table that document and the proposed changes here today, and to be able to say to members in this House that in effect these changes are being brought forward by me but they have been developed and put together by a collaborative approach between business and labour in the Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and close debate for now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First of all let me say it is indeed an honour and a pleasure to be able to stand today and make a few comments with regard to Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say from the outset any comments that I make here today, I do not want for people who are listening or anyone in the hon. House of Assembly to think that I am anti-union, because that is the furthest thing from the truth. I was a member of a union a few years ago and I understand the situation that the businesses themselves, the unions and employees find themselves in from time to time. However, I believe that much can be done to carry out the situation, to alleviate many of the problems and the rights of the people can be heard.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Act is the statute that regulates labour relations and collective bargaining here in the private sector in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As the minister stated, government has been, since 2007, working regularly on amendments to the act. I commend them for that and the partnership they have formed with government, labour and the employers.

The Labour Relations Act also provides for settlement of workplace disputes when a collective agreement is already in place. Bill 10, Mr. Speaker, also introduces two new expedited procedures which set time limits to facilitate resolutions of grievances, voluntary expedited arbitration and voluntary grievance mediation. The rationale behind all of the amendments, and I think there are five probably in Bill 10, is to facilitate the process and resolution and to avoid any disputes or arguments between the parties that are involved.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments were proposed and went through Cabinet with a full consensus of the Committee, and that is good, which includes labour and the employer representatives. The first two amendments, sections 81 and 83 relate to concluding the first collective agreement which can often be the most contentious phase of a process when a trade union is first certified and a union and employers are engaged in collective bargaining.

I am sure some of my hon. colleagues, maybe the minister himself, as well as the Member for Harbour Main, can remember back quite a few years ago now, the first collective agreement with the Avalon North Integrated School Board. That followed a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker. It was their first collective agreement and it involved the schools and the offices belonging to that school board.

Mr. Speaker, after the first week or week-and-a-half we know what happened. The processes that we are talking about here today probably were not in place at that time. Principals and students went in to clean the schools, cross the picket lines, and we know what happened. I remember one evening when the school board officials went into the high school in Bay Roberts to clean the school. Back in those days they did not have those beautiful plastic signs that we have now when they are on strike, they had probably three-quarter-inch plywood. When they started out it was a square picket sign they had. When they were finished damaging the cars belonging to the officials, the corners on the signs were round. Those are situations we do not want to see happen again. I think the process we are talking about here today can take care of some of that, Mr. Speaker.

To facilitate and expedite the collective agreement process, section 81 in the bill removes the administrative steps of going first through the minister. As the goal behind the change is to get the first collective agreement in place, the bill provides that either party can apply now directly to the Labour Relations Board to settle the term of the first collective agreement. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful thing that can happen and it eliminates some of the issues which I just related to.

The major change in section 81 comes in subsection 3, once the Labour Relations Board impose a first collective agreement - and I think the minister explained this very well - you can no longer strike or be locked out. Why continue with the dispute when there is a collective agreement in place? Mr. Speaker, the timelines that were used, the first collective agreement for a minimum period of eighteen months is now up to a maximum of thirty-six months. I think in the present act the term is set for one year.

The remaining changes to the bill relate to arbitration or grievances under an existing collective agreement. This will deal with firings or disagreements or an interpretation of a collective agreement and introduces two new expedited procedures under sections 86.1 and 86.2. Again, the goal behind these clauses is to facilitate the process. These new opinions are voluntary. The parties can still go through the traditional arbitration route, through section 86 of the existing legislation which specifies no time requirements or limits.

It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, under 86.1, either party with the agreement of the other can choose mediation to assist in a settlement before the arbitration hearing. Again, there is a time requirement. Within ten days from the appointment the mediator will inquire into the differences and if mediation should fail an arbitration hearing will take place.

Also, the minister mentioned - and I think this is a bit of a cleaning up of the act, I guess. Bill 10 also removes section 105 of the act where an employee may present a personal grievance to his or her employer. This is not taking away the rights of the employee because this is already covered under section 130 of the act.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a lot to complain about here as the changes to the act are largely mechanical and were agreed upon by the committee, labour and the employers at the table. I guess the two innovative features, expedited arbitration and grievance mediation relate to workplace disputes where a collective agreement is already in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, these changes do not relate to labour disputes when parties are trying to renew a collective agreement or if they are having a dispute with salaries, like two incidents we saw here in the Province, the one that went on for quite some while at Vale, or the Marystown trawlermen strike.

In labour relations, expedited arbitration and grievance mediation have become hot topics, Mr. Speaker. I know in 1992, British Columbia introduced expedited arbitration, as well as New Brunswick, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. However, the federal government's task force, Seeking a Balance: Canada Labour Code Part I Review considered, but rejected any expedited arbitration system for the Code. They agreed that it was felt to be feasible and necessary on a provincial scale, but, Mr. Speaker, that is one of things I think, maybe the feds should have come onside then at least the governing body for our country would be on the same scale as all the other provincial jurisdictions that are coming onside with those changes to the legislation.

One other thing I want to mention to the minister, not that it is directly in relation to the bill any more than the few comments he made with regard to the workers compensation. It has very little to do with a first collective agreement or an existing one. It is probably under labour standards, and I think that is under the minister's department as well. There are many individuals out there who go and take a vote for the first time to try and get their first collective agreement. The vote might fail, or sometimes it would proceed but they find themselves in a very difficult position, the employees, because all too often, and I know it happened in my area on a couple of occasions, where the employers hold that against their employees because they tried to bring in a union; some of them to the point where they cannot stand the pressure anymore, they just quit their jobs, but there are others who have to live through it. They have a job, they have to support their families. I am just saying to the minister, maybe somewhere down the road, not in this piece of legislation, maybe something can be done to help those people.

I can give you another instance of a company in my area that offered their employees a little raise; they were non-union and apparently when they worked there for ten or fifteen years they get a few little benefits, and they looked forward to that. In this particular case, when the time came for them to get the benefits the doors were locked on them, they were locked out. I know I had to go to an EI appeal with seventeen of them to try to get their unemployment because their ROE said they quit their jobs. It is too bad something cannot be done because that same business is still in operation, and rightly so, and there are people there now who were – I guess it was when government, in their wisdom, increased the minimum wage up another fifty cents. Those people are still fighting for that fifty-cent increase over the past year and a half. They have called in, and there is very little that can be done, but I just wanted to bring this up, where it is a labour relations bill, that maybe the minister, in his wisdom, can have a look at something like that.

Under the Explanatory Notes, Mr. Speaker, it says, "This Bill would amend the Labour Relations Act to provide for operational improvements and modernization of the Act." I say, Mr. Speaker, any improvement that would benefit employees is very important; however, I do not think any changes should be made to eliminate their rights. I know every piece of legislation that we bring before the House, after it is passed and gazetted or what have you, there are regulations that go along with any piece of legislation.

I agree with this, by the way, this piece of legislation, but all too often we do not see the regulations that go with it. Hopefully, there will be nothing there to take away from the rights of the individuals with the changes to the act that we are putting forward.

Mr. Speaker, I would say, hopefully, this is a new beginning. I think it is a wonderful thing. The Administration has not been the most co-operative, I will say, over the last eight years when it comes to labour relations in the Province. All too often we know disputes go on and on and on. I know that has to happen, but when government seems to come under pressure, they buckle to the pressure and the disputes are finally settled.

I cannot help but go back to the first years of this Administration when Mr. Puddister was head of the NAPE union. We used to hear about the talks that they had on the parking lot, trying to settle the disputes and so on. I also remember that when this Administration took over they stated that never again would any employee in this Province be legislated back to work. I remember here late one evening in this hon. House, or early one morning, I am not quite sure now, but it was a long debate, there was a piece of legislation put through this House that the civil servants of this Province would be legislated back to work.

We look at the recent doctors' strike which went on and on. That is the right of the individual, to put their issues forward. I know they requested that it would go to arbitration but that was denied; however, in government's wisdom, I guess they saw fit to end that dispute.

We look at the one that was on the Burin Peninsula, a strike that went on for – they say it is the longest one in our Province's history. I remember the Minister of Finance standing in his place saying that we could not get involved to settle this. Every member on the government's side applauded, even the two hon. members from the Burin Peninsula. When the time came, we found a way that we could settle that dispute. Mr. Speaker, all too often when the pressure is put on, governments, in their wisdom, draw their horns in and do what has to be done.

So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe that Bill 10 is a good step forward, but we just cannot forget the relationship that we have seen between this government and the labour unions throughout this Province over the past eight years.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the minister that I will be supporting Bill 10. I think it is a good step forward, good changes that can see to it that the residents of our Province will be given that right and to do what has to be done to get their first collective agreement. Timelines will be put in place so that it will not just pushed by the wayside.

I hope, in closing, that once the regulations come out what we see here in this bill is actually what will be put forward without too many amendments to it or too many changes in the legislation that might take away the rights of the people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased to get the opportunity to speak to Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. Bill 10, of course, deals with only a small part of the Labour Relations Act, but what we have in front of us today, I think, are important amendments because these amendments are the result of the ongoing labour relations review process. What we see here is an ability of union employers and government together to come to agreements on how to have better labour relations in our Province, and especially when we are talking about what goes on when unions and employers are trying to reach new collective agreements or first collective agreements.

The collective agreement, of course, is extremely important because it is the blueprint for the relationship between unions and employers. It contains everything with regard to the relationship between unions and employers, everything with regard to the relationship between workers and employers, and it deals with all of the various issues that affect that relationship.

Having a smooth process for collective agreements, or the creation of collective agreements, having a smooth process for being able to deal with difficult moments when they are trying to reach collective agreements, having a smooth process for dealing with grievances, all of that is extremely important for the climate of labour relations in the Province.

What we are dealing with today is not merely housekeeping, what we are dealing with today is the actual process itself of reaching a conclusion to a collective agreement, whether it is a new one or one that is being redone because it has been an ongoing process.

It is very important that the process is smooth so that the workers themselves are not too badly affected. Of course, the ultimate goal of negotiations is to come to an agreement at the table, while negotiating, without having to have labour disputes such as strikes take place. The more that we can do to have negotiations and arbitrations happen in a way that avoids work stoppages while at the same time recognizing the right of workers, obviously, that is everybody's goal. Nobody wants work stoppages. So, anything that we can do to try to look at standoffs and to look at moments where people cannot come to any agreement to find a way in which to reach agreement without having to have work stoppage would be everybody's goal.

From that perspective, it is a real sign of hope that we have a good process going on here in the Province, I recognize that, a good process where union, employers, and government sit together in a tripartite committee and work out issues which are important. I understand that the issues that we are dealing with today were not really contentious, and there was fairly quick agreement reached when the committee was dealing with these issues. The adding of expedited arbitration and extending the period of the first collective agreement were things that were logical and were part of modernizing the act.

The review, I understand, is now dealing with the more difficult issues to finding agreement on. One of those issues is something that I have raised in the House a number of times, and that is the issue of replacement worker legislation or anti-scab legislation. This is an ongoing issue. I know that the committee is dealing with it, or certainly the past Minister for Human Resources, Labour and Employment made reference a number of times over the past couple of years to the fact that the committee was dealing with it.

I understand the committee is also dealing with how to deal with long disputes. Nobody in the Province wants long disputes. The long dispute we had last year, and did not end until this year, in Voisey's Bay with Vale and the steelworkers is not something we ever want repeated again. I am glad to know that the Committee is looking at how to deal with long disputes. One of the ways to get at long disputes is to allow for anti-scab legislation or replacement worker legislation.

The act is extremely important. Modernizing the act is extremely important, but making sure that the act works for everybody is also important. While we see a bill that right now is the result of a lot of cooperation and I am glad to see it, we also see a bill that was easily reached because the issues that had to be dealt with were not contentious.

One of the interesting ones, for example, was section 91 which says that where a single arbitrator can be appointed under section 86, the phrase satisfactory to the parties is now omitted. In the current section 86 it says that a single arbitrator can be appointed and will be appointed by government but the arbitrator has to be satisfactory to both parties. I was really interested in the explanation that the minister gave, I think it was important information that both unions and employers realized that the possibility of government coming up with an arbitrator that both sides would agree to is rather difficult when you are needing the arbitrator because both sides cannot come to any agreements or have massive disagreements.

It is interesting to see that both the federation of labour and the employers represented on the tripartite review committee recognized the need to trust government to come up with an impartial arbitrator who would be open to both sides. That section 91 certainly shows the way in which labour and employers are working together.

Obviously, this bill is a necessary bill and I am very happy to support the bill. I do want to speak a bit to the issues that this bill does not address and that the review committee is still working on. I hope someday that we are going to get these issues brought to the floor of this House, one of them being the anti-scab legislation or the worker replacement legislation.

Right now in Canada both Quebec and BC have anti-scab legislation. Ontario did have it briefly in the early 1990s and it was gotten rid of rather quickly by a new government coming in, though I understand that province is now reassessing the whole issue. The importance of anti-scab legislation is that it prohibits employers from using workers to do the work of striking employees. What is important about that is when you cannot replace workers who are doing the work of striking employees it puts pressure on employers to resolve the dispute more quickly. If they can replace workers who are striking – and we are not talking about essential workers here now, we are talking about workers that are not designated as essential – if an employer can replace the workers then a strike can drag on as happened with the strike between Vale or the strike by steelworkers against Vale. That stretched over two whole years.

It has been proven that in the two provinces where we have anti-scab legislation, we have fewer strikes happening and when there are strikes, the strikes are shorter. What is really interesting is that very often employers would get their backs up, where anti-scab legislation does not exist, will get their backs up about anti-scab legislation. They do not look at, or it does not seem to me anyway, that they look at provinces like Quebec and BC and see how it is working there and say: Well if it is working there, why don't we have it here?

This is one of the places, and I find it interesting that the minister did speak about how there are times when employers and workers, the unions just cannot come together on something, they will never get agreement. You have to allow the government to name an arbitrator. Well, it seems to me that in the issue of anti-scab legislation, this is where government is going to have to give leadership at the table, that it could very well be, this is going to be a situation where government has to say we really see the benefits of anti-scab legislation both for the workers and for the employers because we will have fewer strikes and shorter strikes. Therefore, we are saying to the committee we really do think as a government we should put anti-scab legislation in place.

So, it is one thing to say you have a committee that is working together, but just as when you are negotiating a collective agreement, you might reach a point where there is something that committee will never agree on and somebody has to step in and say, here is what is going to happen. I think, at that table, that process may have to be used. I put that out to the minister to think about, because my concern is, if we just say both sides have to agree, we will never see anti-scab legislation come to the floor of this House. I think that would be very sad, both for workers in particular, but also for the economy of the Province, because extended strikes are not good for anybody; frequent strikes are not good either.

Another issue, which I understand the review committee is looking at, and I look forward to this coming to the House, is the issue around certification. Here in this Province, we have one of the most stringent provisions in the country with regard to certification. It came in, in 1994, and what we now have in this Province, which everybody I am sure knows, that when you are trying to unionize a workplace, workers sign cards. Generally speaking, the way it used to be and the way it is in the rest of the country, you sign a card, enough people sign cards, you get a union. What happens here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have two steps. First of all, the workers have to vote by signing their card. Then, even if 90 per cent or 100 per cent of the workers sign the cards, they then also have to carry out a vote. What happens there is that you get a delay between workers signing the cards, and then the vote. Unfortunately, it has happened that companies then have time to undermine what happened when the workers signed the vote. Pressure can be put on workers, even though they signed their cards, to now not vote for the union, even though they signed their cards saying that they would.

This does not exist anywhere else in the country; it only exists here, this two-step. In most other provinces, and federally, either 50 per cent plus one, or 60 per cent to 65 per cent of the workers have to sign cards. If that amount of workers sign cards, then that is it, the union gets established, there is no extra vote needed. I think this is something that we really have to look at, and I understand the review committee is looking at. What happens is that that provision, the two-step approach, provides another major barrier to workers exercising their collective bargaining rights.

So, I hope that both of these issues at the table are going to be dealt with. I think both of these issues, we need to see a government giving leadership with both of these issues and supporting the rights of workers.

This certification process, we know that unionized workplaces are good workplaces and not always, but very often, better workplaces. I impress what I am saying: not always, but very often, better workplaces. I am not saying that you do not have good workplaces where you do not have unionized labour. There are many good workplaces where there is not unionized labour. However, we also know there are some very, very basic things that happen in unionized workplaces - especially when it comes to benefits - that are better than non-unionized workplaces.

I really look to this government to give leadership at that tripartite table, not to just be silent; and I am not saying they are. I do not sit at the table. I do not know how the meetings go; not just to be a silent partner, but to express opinions that show they are there for the rights, yes, of employers for sure, but also for the rights of workers. Both of these issues that I have talked about are issues for the workers, the issue of certification and the issue of anti-scab legislation.

These are bigger issues that I want to see come to the floor here. They are bigger issues that are being dealt with by the committee. I put these out to the minister and say that I look forward to a day when these issues are going to come back to us as amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this act as it stands, with the issues it is dealing with, and will be supporting it. As I said, I look forward to when we have these larger issues coming here to the floor.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House this afternoon to speak for just a few moments on Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. It is good to see as well that support for this act extends from across the other side of the House as well. It is good to see that.

Mr. Speaker, positive labour relations is critical if we are to move this Province forward. With hundreds of millions of dollars in developments that have taken place in this Province over the last number of years, in particular in the last decade, Mr. Speaker, labour relations will be the hallmark to a great future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is in that vein, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments to this act, Bill 10, are brought forward by this government.

This act is supported by the business and labour community, as was stated earlier by a number of speakers; by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, by the Newfoundland Business Coalition, the Newfoundland Employers' Council were all involved, Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning and that is good to see.

The bringing forward of these amendments, Mr. Speaker, speaks highly of the partners involved from all sides. It speaks highly to our government's commitment and efforts to work with the people of this great Province of ours and is a collective approach between business, unions, and individuals from the very beginning and it continues to this very day.

It is always great, Mr. Speaker, when we can achieve consensus. This is what the amendments to this act do; it removes, for example, red tape. It reduces red tape and expedites the process in labour relations in many ways, Mr. Speaker.

Common sense solutions, equal common ground is what labour relations in this Province is all about, and whenever we, as a government, can enhance probability for this to occur then we are moving towards making it a better place in Newfoundland and Labrador for employees and employers. Whenever this occurs we are establishing a better Province for current and future generations of workers and businesses and a great future, Mr. Speaker, we have for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Genuine labour management partnerships, Mr. Speaker, are what this legislation speaks to. Partnership is not easy. It is a constant challenge to find the right mix of leadership, commitment, trust, desire to change and honest communications that make partnerships work. Partnership means real change in attitude, real change in roles and real change in behaviours from all sides, Mr. Speaker. We have seen these kinds of attitudes and attitude changes on this committee over the last two to three years. This is why business and labour organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador have worked together for these changes. Our role as a government is to facilitate these changes and we are doing just that, Mr. Speaker.

The Employment Relations Committee under the Strategic Partnership Initiative have reviewed, in actual fact, they have lived with this legislation and have made the recommendations which we are bringing forth, Mr. Speaker. Submissions were sought and received over the past months from business, labour and government. This was and is a great approach, as discussed this afternoon, from all sides. Again, a testament to the support afforded by this government to the organizations in the Province.

The amendments in this act, Mr. Speaker, solidify a positive working relationship and reduce often cumbersome procedures that currently exist in the current legislation. The new amendments, Mr. Speaker, as the minister alluded to, talk about two items: An improvement to the collective bargaining process when employees and employers are seeking their first collective agreement; improvements to the labour relations throughout the collective agreement lifespan. They fall under two categories, new collective bargaining relations and existing collective agreements. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that labour and business have agreed to this and as a government, we have facilitated the process. This is positive for all involved, including government.

Getting first collective agreements, Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, is often a very difficult, timely, costly and often a very long and drawn out process. These amendments, Mr. Speaker, as spoken to today, will streamline the process and expedite the getting of first collective agreements and that is good. For example, proposed measures removes the requirement that a party must first send a request to the minister for the Labour Relations Board to become involved in first settling the first collective agreement. This gives the parties direct access to the Labour Relations Board, and this can only be positive.

Under proposed measures, Mr. Speaker, once the Labour Relations Board advises the parties involved that it has determined it "…advisable to proceed to impose a first collective agreement, an employee shall not strike or continue to strike, and the employer shall not lock out or continue to lock out the employees." That is common sense, Mr. Speaker. This is positive because it ensures that relationships do not deteriorate while the board is conducting its first collective agreement, to determine the first collective agreement, Mr. Speaker.

Under the current legislation, first collective agreements will be effective for a one-year period from the date of settlement by the Labour Relations Board. In the revised legislation it can extend up to eighteen to thirty-six months. What this does, Mr. Speaker, is to allow time for all parties involved to be able to work together in a more positive environment. No one wants to go after receiving their first collective agreement and have to sit down and negotiate, renegotiate collective agreements just a year out. This is why the current amendments talk about eighteen to thirty-six months. That is growing and positive.

Expedited arbitration, Mr. Speaker, does not currently exist. In the new amendments it will exist. There is a provision for voluntary use of expedited arbitration. It would promote an expedient resolution to grievances and it will ensure that arbitrations begin within a set time frame and reduce delays. By reducing the delays, it will often reduce the cost. As well, Mr. Speaker a verbal decision by the arbitrator may be given within one day if agreed to by both parties. That is often and will be very positive.

The new grievance mediation, Mr. Speaker, is very positive as well. There is no voluntary grievance mediation procedure existing in the current Labour Relations Act. Under the proposed legislation it would encourage parties to consider mediation as an option to resolve a grievance. Mutual agreement would ensure meaningful participation in the mediation procedure. These are all positive in the act, Mr. Speaker.

Voluntary grievance, mediation, and expedited grievance arbitration will provide for the expedient resolution of grievances under the Labour Relations Act and would encourage parties to consider both as an option to resolve a grievance. Mutual agreement always, Mr. Speaker, equals meaningful participation in both procedures. As well, a further benefit of having this reflected in the legislation ensures the parties involved have a heightened awareness and utilization of the service.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Labour Relations Act will result in a more effective and efficient labour relations climate in Newfoundland and Labrador, with positive impacts on at least 20,000 employees in 513 collective agreements. They have been prepared in a manner, Mr. Speaker, consistent with jurisdictions across the country and the legislative changes were determined after extensive consultations with all stakeholders across this great Province of ours, Mr. Speaker.

These amendments will encourage a positive climate, positive relations and are conducive to economic growth and prosperity. Mr. Speaker, this can only be good for all sectors of the entire economy for Newfoundland and Labrador. Many of these amendments bring our legislation in line with sister jurisdictions across the country, Mr. Speaker.

I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments to this act are in relation to the Labour Relations Act only and do not impact the other four statutes regulating collective bargaining including the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Interns and Residents Collective Bargaining Act, the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, Mr. Speaker, and nor does it have an impact on the Teachers' Collective Bargaining Act.

Mr. Speaker, my final comment in relation to the question or some thoughts by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, just want to ensure the member that further issues are being discussed and will continue to be discussed, Mr. Speaker, by all parties involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to talk a little bit about Bill 10. First of all, this is the amendments to the Labour Relations Act and we all know how important labour relations are in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain statutes that regulate labour relations and under those particular statutes the government is looking at making several amendments which have been outlined by some of my colleagues already in the House of Assembly. It will allow for or provide for, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, better resolution mechanisms for settling labour disputes in the Province, and to be able to do so in a more timely and expeditious fashion.

I think what we witnessed this past year with the strike in Burin on the Burin Peninsula by public sector workers, Mr. Speaker, was absolutely appalling. They were probably the group – I think it was the longest strike that went on ever in the history of the Province, Mr. Speaker, where government did not reach a consensus with workers, and it was absolutely shameful. That is not good labour relations, definitely not good labour relations.

We are talking about eighteen workers, Mr. Speaker, eighteen workers who were working everyday in minimum wage income positions, because most of them were only making minimum wage. Some might have been making a little bit more – maybe a dollar an hour more, a dollar fifty an hour more or something. So they were in very low income jobs by today's standards, and, Mr. Speaker, they were providing a service to people with disabilities. People on the Burin Peninsula who had disabilities, who wanted to be fully engaged in the workforce, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, could only be fully engaged in the workforce or make a contribution with the aid of a support worker. So these eighteen individuals were support workers for people with disabilities.

You know what, Mr. Speaker, they went out on strike because of a clause that was in their collective bargaining agreement. A clause, Mr. Speaker, that was at one time negotiated by the government and accepted. It was actually, from what I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I am going from recollection here, that at one point, the government actually insisted that the unions put this particular clause in their agreement. So they did put the clause in their agreement, Mr. Speaker, which allowed them to have the opportunity to take on different positions, Mr. Speaker, be assessed for different positions, different roles and so on, in hopes that that would give them a better income, more stability in their work, and so on.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they went out on strike, these eighteen workers went out in the street, who were some of the lowest paid workers in our province, who were providing a service to people with disabilities, and the government did not reach a deal with these workers for over a year – the longest public sector strike ever in the history of the Province, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what it would have cost? The cost of reaching a deal, the cost of leaving this one sentence in the collective agreement that these workers were looking for, would have been somewhere in the vicinity of $17,000 or $20,000. That is what we were looking at, about $20,000 or less, that the government members opposite would have had to invest to get these eighteen workers off the street, back working on the Burin Peninsula, providing services to clients on the Burin Peninsula who actually need it, and instead they were out in the street for over a year making it the longest strike in our history.

So, Mr. Speaker, do we need amendments to the Labour Relations Act, that put some timelines in place? I would say absolutely. More so than that, Mr. Speaker, we need a change of thinking in the government opposite. We need the government to start realizing that workers in this Province have rights, that workers in this Province can make demands on their government, and they have the right to be able to do that.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, when they cannot successfully negotiate deals with the governments that are in power, which was the case with this group of workers, they could not negotiate a successful deal with this government. Keep in mind now, Mr. Speaker, that there are only eighteen of them, so I guess they did not have the masses to be able to march in the street to create the kind of pressure that often comes in the middle of a strike. Anyway, because they could not negotiate a successful deal, they end up having to walk which was their right to be able to do. Mr. Speaker, in walking, this government obviously said you are going to walk for a long time because we have no intentions of putting you back to work.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if there is an amendment or a change that needs to take place, it is in the thinking and the mentality of the government that is in power today who would allow that to happen to some of the lowest paid workers in our society, and would allow them, Mr. Speaker, to stay out on the picket line and allow these people with disabilities to go without having services for up to and over a year. So I think it is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, totally ridiculous. It is shameful on behalf of any government that allows that to happen.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we live in a Province where we have seen labour relations hit some all-time lows. There is absolutely no doubt about that. We have seen it in strike after strike. We have seen some of these strikes get pretty bitter, Mr. Speaker. We have some of them much calmer and much more relaxed. We have seen hard negotiations even without a strike, when you look at what happened with the doctors in the Province just recently, and the Newfoundland and Labrador association of physicians and the fact that they had issues they wanted their government to address. Now, they did not go out on a strike, but it was some bad labour relations that went on for quite a period of time between the physicians in the Province and the current government.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the current government could not buy into the fact that we were losing physicians in this Province because we were not being competitive enough when it came to salary, when it came to benefits. Also, Mr. Speaker, the government would not buy into the fact that everyone should be treated the same. They went out and they did side deals with other professional groups, Mr. Speaker, within the health care sector, but they did not deal with the doctors in general.

We saw where labour relations went there. We saw name-calling every day, names being called back and forth, Mr. Speaker, in the media between the Minister of Health and between the CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. Every day they were out there having digs at each other. That was labour relations, Mr. Speaker, without a strike but labour relations that hit an all-time low in the Province.

There were more negotiations going on, Mr. Speaker, between Open Line shows and in the media than was going on in the boardrooms. Those were the tactics, Mr. Speaker, that the government chose to go with. That was the process that they chose to use as their means of labour relations in dealing with doctors in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

We cannot forget some of these instances that have happened very recently in our history, especially with these workers in Burin and especially, Mr. Speaker, with the doctors in the Province. Health care was very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are too many people out there today, Mr. Speaker, who still do not have a family physician, who are still putting their name on a list with thousands of other people, hoping that I am going to get an appointment, or I am going to be added to the docket in the doctor's office that says that I am now a patient and I now have my own doctor who I can go to, who I can take my children to.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of people out there who saw the gap that the medical association was raising, who saw the indifference that was occurring in the Province and they wanted some reaction from the government. The government did not react. The current government, Mr. Speaker, did not react until the public pressure came to bear. That was the difference between what happened with the doctors in the Province and what happened with the workers in Burin. Remember, the workers in Burin only had eighteen of them. There were only eighteen of them who could march in the streets every single day to try to make their point. With the physicians, Mr. Speaker, the public, in the masses, started to march in the streets. Mr. Speaker, there were many –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member it is often difficult to ensure that relevance is contained within a bill. I understand that it is a labour issue, but I remind the hon. member to try to contain her comments to the bill that is upon the floor to be debated.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a labour relations bill and I am talking about labour relations issues; primarily, one between the doctors and the government that occurred this year and one between the workers on the Burin Peninsula, so I will try to stick to those labour relations issues. There are a couple of others that I will get to as well.

Mr. Speaker, what happened in this particular dispute is that the public supported the side of the physicians; therefore, there was no need of a strike by the doctors because the government knew that they could not win this case.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, on a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just am just wondering if we can get clarification. We are debating a bill on labour standards in this Province, very specific standards and very specific changes. I heard the Speaker just make a ruling and then I hear the member opposite continue the same train of thought after she was ruled out of order.

MS JONES: No, he ruled me on the wait-lists (inaudible).

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I direct my questions to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Both within Beauchesne and within the book on procedures in the House of Commons, it is often difficult to rule on relevance, but all members are encouraged to maintain their comments and their debate within the relevance of the bill that is upon the floor to be debated. I ask the co-operation of any members taking part in debate.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly understand when I was talking about the wait-lists in the hospitals to see doctors that it was probably a little outside of where the bill is, but in terms of the labour relations issues between the doctors and the government that is very relevant, I say to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. If had been paying attention earlier, you would have known why the Speaker ruled me out in the first place, but you missed the boat altogether, Mr. Speaker. That is not unlike the government opposite, they tend to miss the boat a lot these days. They are always a little bit behind in what is happening.

To get back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, Bill 10, which is an important bill because it speaks to the roots of issues that affect workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether those workers happen to be doctors, whether they happen to be home care workers, or whether they happen to be miners. Because you have to remember the strike that went on with Voisey's Bay and the length of time that these workers were out on the street in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, government was not the person who was leading the negotiations in a case like that but, certainly, government was the intervener in terms of trying to appoint an arbitrator, in trying to appoint a mediator to deal with both sides, to try to resolve this particular case. Unfortunately, again, Mr. Speaker, these workers were out in the street for a very, very long period of time. While they were out in the street fighting for better agreements and so on with the company there were employed with, they did not get a lot of support from the government, Mr. Speaker, because this was a government that had originally promised that they were going to bring in legislation to stop replacement workers in the middle of a strike.

Mr. Speaker, that did not happen, and because, in Voisey's Bay, they were able to bring in replacement workers all while their workers were out on strike and out on the picket line, there was no great need on behalf of the company to get this strike resolved, and government did not have any big stick that they could hold over their head to make them do this. So, it was the workers, at the end of the day, the workers who were out there trying to get better rights for themselves in their employment, who were affected, who had to walk the picket line for months and months and months on end, Mr. Speaker, without having their issues resolved.

Labour relations, Mr. Speaker, are very important, and any changes to the act in terms of time frames are also very important, because it is not necessary to allow strikes to drag on this Province. Although, Mr. Speaker, the amendments that are in this bill today may not help people like the workers we saw in Burin that were out on the street. It may not help those particular workers, Mr. Speaker, and it may not help future workers like them. At least in terms of new collective agreements that are going to be put in place, there will be some timelines around it, Mr. Speaker, in terms of settling some of the language that will go into these particular agreements and so on, and that is all good.

Mr. Speaker, I am just glad to see the government is not bringing in a bill that takes away any rights, at this stage, from workers in this Province, workers that are unionized. I think that unions serve their purpose in terms of representing the common working person. Many of the people in this House of Assembly were part of unions before they came here. They were part of teachers' unions, or nurses' unions, or the public service union, or some other union, Mr. Speaker. So, they know the value that the process brings and they know that there needs to be a process of fairness. There needs to be a process of fairness between the workers and the government when it comes to labour relations issues.

Mr. Speaker, it is not anything that is foreign or unusual. It is something that is a natural part of progression in terms of the working population in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly feel when unions are out there and standing up for the rights of people, and the rights of workers, it is a good thing. I think, Mr. Speaker, they should continue to have that freedom and flexibility to stand up for the ordinary working person in our society and ensure that they are treated properly and they get what it is that is fair and just.

In most cases, Mr. Speaker, many of these settlements are fair and just. We understand how negotiations work. We understand that oftentimes there are not going to always be hunky dory labour relations between unions and governments. We also realize that it is a game of push and pull, we also realize that it is always about who can be the most crafty in putting their position out there, and we know, Mr. Speaker, that with the government opposite, if the masses put pressure on there are going to cave in anyway. That was the reason the workers in Burin, Mr. Speaker, could not get their case resolved because there were only eighteen of them, but the doctors got theirs resolved very quickly because the public perception was that government was wrong and that the doctors were right, and therefore government caved in very quickly on that particular case.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that we have no problem with the amendments that are being proposed to Bill 10 and we would certainly continue to debate and examine them further as we get into Committee stages.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is indeed a pleasure to get up to speak a few words on Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, as we listen to a couple of hon. members from across the way, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Member for Port de Grave, they were very positive about this bill. Our Opposition Leader, I did not hear much of the bill as she spoke. She spoke in general but she never spoke a lot about what this amendment is doing here today.

Mr. Speaker, this is very positive for the labour movement in our Province. It is very positive for business in our Province, and it is very positive for our government because we are a partnership; that is what this government is all about, partnerships.

Mr. Speaker, earlier, as we started this session, we listened to a Throne Speech in which it was addressed in the Throne Speech that this government is going to partner with communities, partner with labour, partner with business and partner with all the bodies that are in this Province. We also looked earlier in this legislation as we looked at the Minister for Municipal Affairs who brought in a very positive thing that we are partnered with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador to make it easier for the communities in the Province to do their work every day. We looked at what happened here earlier last week when the Minister of Justice brought in some very good amendments to the justice act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: This is all positive stuff that we are doing in this legislation. Also, I give a plug to the Minister of Health. He brought in a very positive thing this year, and what we are doing to protect our kids so they are not engaged in smoke in a car and stuff like this.

This entire legislation, Bill 10, brings the same thing with the labour movement. It is a bill that, again, is a partnership between labour, business, and the government.

Mr. Speaker, as you look at this legislation and the reason for the legislation, as the minister addressed earlier, he said it started in 2007 when there was a joint committee set up to look at labour and what ways we could improve policy and legislation in this Province to make it better for the labour movement and to make a better climate for everybody else. So, Mr. Speaker, we looked at the review and a committee was put in place. It was the Employment Relations Committee. Mr. Speaker, they looked at improvements relating to the labour market.

Now, these are just the first amendments that they are going to bring to the Labour Relations Act. So this is their first step. I know they have been working hard. I think they meet once a month or something like that, I believe, minister. So this is a part they are bringing to make improvements.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what the amendments are doing here today. We are looking at the first agreement that comes into place. I know my hon. Member for Humber West went through the legislation and gave you the wording and everything else there, but I am just going to give a little what they call laymen's terms. We always know that the first agreements, it is hard to set-up a union in any business because, for one thing, the business more than likely does not want a union set up there.

It is difficult for those people to get people engaged. People are scared, people do not want, or they are not sure what is going to happen. If we start a union, well, what will happen to me and what will happen here? So they are kind of wary about what they can do. Businesses themselves are at a different level too, because they are not really sure what is going to happen and what demands the labour and the union are going to make to their business, and what effect that will have on their business.

So this legislation that we are bringing here today is for the first agreement. What it will do, Mr. Speaker, is it will allow the two parties to use the Labour Relations Board so that they can have their first agreement. It will make it a whole lot easier. It will make it a better workplace for the employees and a better workplace for the business because they will know that the board is going to come in. It is not going to be the end of their business. They are not going to ask for the sky and everything else. It is going to be a whole lot better for the business and it is going to be better for the people working there.

Mr. Speaker, this new agreement that they are going to bring in place, as the hon. member also mentioned, that before they could do this it was a one-year agreement. Now, this is going to be extended to an eighteen month to a maximum of thirty-six-month agreement. That is very important also because what that does it gives time for the union to get used to what they can expect from business. It also gives time for the business to expect what they can get from the union and to know it will make it a whole lot better workplace; it will make it a lot healthier for the people working there. Once you go into an agreement that is only for one year, it seems like a year goes just so fast it is unreal. This will just give them a little bit more time and eighteen months to thirty-six months on a first agreement is huge.

Mr. Speaker, as we talked about this and the partnership that it is – and again it is a great partnership – between government, like I said, and labour and business, I just want to list off a few of the – I am not going to name the individuals but just the people who are involved in this board. You have the Federation of Labour, you have the IBEW, you have the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private Employees, you have the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, you have CUPE, you also have the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Coalition from business, you have private business involved, you have Newfoundland and Labrador Employer's Council, you have the Public Service Secretariat and the Newfoundland government. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, all the major players in the labour movement in Newfoundland and Labrador are involved in this committee. We are very fortunate to have them bring their expertise to the table and make the recommendations that are going to be better for a labour climate in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just close in a couple of words, congratulate the minister on a great bit of legislation, I think it is fantastic legislation to bring in. Again, it is another sign of how positive our government is.

Mr. Speaker, thank you and thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. If he speaks now he will close debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to bring closure to this part of the process. I want to thank all of my colleagues for their contribution thus far today, their support of the bill for the most part. As I said in my comments earlier, this is indeed a good piece of legislative change that we are bringing forward, developed through a very strong, very worthwhile, very positive collaborative process with a committee representing business, labour, as well as, of course, our own government officials. As we have already talked about on a number of occasions, we are focusing both on new collective bargaining relationships, Mr. Speaker, as well as existing collective agreements. The changes that are being proposed today in this legislation are positive and they are important.

I heard the member of the NDP opposite make a comment that she looks forward to more substantive changes, more important changes in the future. I say to the member opposite, any day that we bring changes in legislation before this House that has been brought forward unanimously between employers and employees, it is a good day and it is an important change, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing insignificant about the changes we are proposing here because it is done from the spirit of collaboration and wanting to improve the Labour Relations Act for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, I am certainly very pleased that we are able to do that.

It is also very good to hear some of the positive comments from members opposite in recognizing the role that these groups have played in this process, and continue to play, Mr. Speaker. As a number of my colleagues have already said, this is not an end of a process, this is just step one. The committee continues to work, and we continue to have them, on our behalf, debate many important issues, many important issues that have been raised here today about how we may improve the Labour Relations Act and how we might improve labour relations in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult sometimes when we listen to some of the members opposite who seem to be all over the place in their commentary. Some of it borderline, not even relevant to the topic, others just simply dancing around the periphery but not saying much of any substance to support the parties who have been a part of this process and to support the legislative changes that we are proposing.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. Leader of the NDP speak, and I could not help but see the contradiction in some of the suggestions she brought forward. Maybe she will clarify that for me in committee, but she made a comment early on that it is important when we bring forward any particular legislative changes that it be acceptable to all parties; yet, in another part of her speech she talked about government having the will to impose decisions. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to draw how those two supports each other. You cannot have a way where you want the labour process to unroll as it might, and let people do as they see they want to do and then at the same time expect government and the minister to impose decisions. Maybe the member would like, in committee, to clarify that for members of this particular committee who worked together and brought forward to us, as a government, changes that they have agreed with. Maybe she can explain to them, and explain to me, and to people watching, how it is that you can let that process unfold but at the same time feel the need for the minister to impose a decision and for government to impose directives when people are not happy.

Mr. Speaker, part of the role of the Labour Relations Agency, a big part of the Labour Relations Agency's role is to make sure legislation is followed. It is not the role of the agency, or my role, to settle labour disputes in the Province. It is our role to follow the law, and we become involved when we are asked to become involved. We have done that on any number of occasions. Myself and previous ministers have responded to questions in this House on any number of occasions, but it is clearly not defined in the Labour Relations Act that the role of government and the minister is to impose their will at their discretion. There is a process that has to be followed, and the same process is being followed in arriving at consensus around the amendments being proposed here today.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there are many instances of challenging labour issues in the Province over the last number of years, but that is all a part of the collective bargaining process. You cannot stand and talk about rights but then determine that it is only one group of people who have rights, Mr. Speaker. There are employees and there are employers. A strike occurs or a lockout occurs because there is a dispute between two parties, but both parties have rights. That is what the Labour Relations Act does, it defines process and it talks about rights, Mr. Speaker.

Some members stand in the House and they will use examples of labour disputes as a mechanism to try and beat government over the head, if I might use that phrase, but the reality is anyone who follows labour law and understands labour relations knows that is not how the process works. Every party to an agreement has to have the right to dispute and to disagree and to not be happy with what they see in their particular agreements. That is part of the process. Whether we end up in a situation where it is a unionized environment, as one of the members opposite was advocating so strongly for a few moments ago, or whether it is a non-unionized environment, Mr. Speaker, employees still have rights; also, so does the employer of the day.

Part of what we are defining here today in these particular changes and part of what I recognize and acknowledge, as my role as the Minister of Labour, is to make sure there are policies and procedures in place that guide how those processes evolve. If at some point in time, as the changes here today speak to, if at some particular point in time there is a need for government, the Labour Relations Agency to become involved, we will certainly become involved. If and when we are invited into a process, we will be there. Mr. Speaker, we do it all the time. We do it all the time.

I stood in this House not long ago and talked about the Vale strike. We were involved in that for a very long period of time, providing mediation services and trying to find a way to assist the parties. The reality is, when we talk about rights in this House we have to recognize that rights do not apply to one section of people and not to another, Mr. Speaker. That is part of how things work. If you want to talk about a process of relationships, then you have to give both parties an equal opportunity to decide if they like what is happening. If they do not like what is happening, then they have to be provided an opportunity to express their displeasure, whether that is through a collective agreement, a grievance process or through a strike, or in case of non-unionized environments, whether it is a case that they have to engage the services of the Labour Relations Agency that this government operates. All of those employees, Mr. Speaker, have rights.

I say to the members opposite, if we are going to talk about rights we have to be fair and we have to be just in that discussion, that it applies to all parties, Mr. Speaker. If we look at the global picture of what has happened with labour relations in this Province, I think you are going to find a number of things. There have, no doubt, been disputes. I say, Mr. Speaker, a labour dispute is simply what it is. It is a labour dispute and it is recognition that there are parties disagreeing. It does not mean the labour relations climate in the Province is bad.

Contrary to that, Mr. Speaker, as I said today when I spoke, that Newfoundland and Labrador has had the highest rate of full-time growth for employment in all of Canada for the past year. I say to members in this House, if our labour climate were so bad in this Province how is it that we continue to outgrow the rest of Canada in creating jobs here in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I say to members opposite, how is that we continue to develop good projects in this Province – good projects, Mr. Speaker – that will benefit people, like Muskrat Falls and the benefits it will have for the whole Province, and in particular the people of Labrador? It is all about establishing good labour climate, Mr. Speaker. I say to the members in this House, if you are going to have a full discussion, let's have a full discussion, and let's be fair. It is easy to stand and pick out all of the negatives that have occurred over the last six or eight years in this Province, Mr. Speaker, but let's balance it with some of the good things that are happening.

We are seeing some tremendous growth in employment and labour in this Province. We have seen some fine agreements reached, Mr. Speaker. I refer to our own Premier, when she was the Minister of Natural Resources, a fine agreement on the Hebron benefits. On top of that, not only was it a good agreement for the Province, but an historic day because we had a benefits agreement for females in this Province, the first of its kind. That speaks to the kind of environment we have established in this Province for labour relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: That speaks to how we feel about promoting labour in this Province and how we feel about working with those people. We value the labour climate here. Like other parties, we recognize, as a government, when it comes to working with labour that we also have to protect government and protect the Province and manage the Province's purse, Mr. Speaker.

When we talk about labour relations and the impact that this bill can have, let us make sure that it is a spirited discussion but it is a fair discussion. Let us offer both sides of the discussion so the people at home and elsewhere who are listening to this get the full picture.

I want to thank some of the members opposite for their support, those who have spoken and offered their support. I think this is a good deal, a good series of changes that have come about. I want to recognize it again because some people have not. As a result of collaboration, Mr. Speaker, our government has facilitated a process with this committee, a committee of business and a committee of labour. It is a process that has worked, it is a process that is coming forward today with some very good, very substantial changes that will have positive effects on working relations in this Province and on the process that will be followed to the benefit of employees and employers.

As I hear members opposite make their comments, I remind everyone that the work is not done; this is simply a work-in-progress. The committee continues to work, it is a work-in-progress, and we will continue to make some very good decisions based on very, very strong and substantive deliberations, Mr. Speaker, as we receive input from people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I say that the input will be fair, it will be balanced, and it will be informed input. Before we bring legislation before this House, we will make sure that we have our homework done and we will make sure that we engage in a process that is very collaborative and that is intended to bring the views of everybody in. I say to members opposite, I appreciate those who have supported this bill and I look forward to moving it to the Committee stage if there are any other questions or discussion to be had.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 10)

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

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

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 10)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Order 3, second reading of Bill 3.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act". (Bill 3)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, throughout history there have been great debates in this House of Assembly, great debates on issues such as Confederation, the Atlantic Accord, the Upper Churchill, Muskrat Falls, this is not one of those debates. It is the bane of Finance Ministers to have to introduce, in this House, technical amendments to tax legislation, and they are not money bills. They are not money bills, so hon. members cannot speak about anything. We have to limit ourselves to the principle of the bill. So, if Joe and Martha Chesterfield are out there, this might be a good time to go for a cup of tea.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a technical amendment to an act called the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act. In the Explanatory Notes to the bill, it says that this bill will amend the act and the regulations to permit the transfer of eligible shares of a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation into a Tax-Free Savings Account; that is the first thing. The second thing is to permit a Tax-Free Savings Account to acquire eligible shares of a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation. So, that is it. It is very simple, but now I will provide some more detail so that we can maybe have a better understanding of what is happening here.

We will start off with the labour-sponsored venture capital corporation and, of course, that means we talk about venture capital corporations and access to capital. Businesses that want to grow need capital. There is plethora of government programs, the provincial government, the federal government, through economic development corporations, that are set up to provide capital to people who want to start or want to expand a business. It is very, very important because the more businesses that are created, they create jobs. Why do governments provide money to these organizations so they can lend them out to entrepreneurs? It is not that we love business; it is that we love that they can create jobs. I understand that small business in Canada is probably the biggest creator of jobs in the country. I understand that is correct figure.

Business people are constantly coming to government. They are constantly looking for money to help them grow and expand, and not debt money, not loan money that they would have to pay back. They are looking for partners; they are looking for people who will put equity into the business with them. They are looking for partners who will be patient, who will provide patient capital and are prepared to wait a number of years before they want to sell their interest in the business and cash out.

Access to capital, I understand, is one of the greatest challenges for new and emerging businesses in this Province because with small business and medium business there is very high risk involved. Venture capital encourages investment in qualifying new and emerging companies. Now, I am only aware of one venture capital company in the Province. I do know the Board of Trade in St. John's has an Angel Network where they try to put new business people in touch with some more experienced people who might be prepared to invest, take some equity in the business, and be prepared to offer advice, and to be patient and not try to take the money out right away.

What we have done in this Province - I think we are the last province to do this - we passed the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit. What that would do is that if there is a registered venture capital corporation registered under this legislation, if an individual in this Province would invest in that labour venture capital corporation by shares in it, then that person will get a provincial tax credit, which is now 20 per cent on the purchase of the new shares in the registered labour-sponsored venture capital corporation. A person who buys such shares can also get a credit from the federal government under the federal tax law and they can get another 15 per cent federal credit there. That brings the total credit to 35 per cent. So, you get a credit back, you get taxes back on 35 per cent of your investment in the shares. That is quite an inducement.

The credit is so high because the investment is a riskier one. If you are taking your retirement funds and you are going to put them into a mutual fund – and this is a mutual fund – normally, you want to invest in something that is relatively safe, relatively risk free, relatively, dare I use the word, conservative. When you invest in a new or emerging business, the investment is high-risk and that is why the credit is so high.

The other point I should make is that if someone buys shares in a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation and gets the tax credit, if you sell the shares within eight years you have to pay the credit back. The reason behind that is to make sure that it attracts patient money only, money that investors are prepared to keep in the business for a period of five to eight years before they try to sell or cash out.

Now, there is one labour-sponsored venture capital corporation in this Province. It is called GrowthWorks Atlantic. It also operates in the other three provinces in Atlantic Canada. So investors who buy shares in GrowthWorks Atlantic are in a pool venture capital fund, and GrowthWorks Atlantic then takes that pool of money and goes out and invests in small- and medium-sized high risk qualifying businesses.

I understand that GrowthWorks Atlantic, GWA, began operations in 2005. They have raised about $3.6 million and they are required to reinvest – seventy-five per cent of the money they get in this Province, they have to invest in companies that are registered and operate in this Province. They have made two investments to date: in Virtual Marine Technology they have invested $1.7 million; in ClearRisk Inc. they have invested $1 million. I understand that they are very disappointed, that they anticipated by now they would have raised about $21 million in the Province. So there is a bit of disappointment there.

Mr. Speaker, when this act was brought into effect in this Province, and I think we are the last Province to bring in a venture capital tax credit, at that time Registered Retirement Savings Plans, RRSPs, were in existence. So the legislation allowed the shares in the labour-sponsored venture capital corporation to be placed in an RRSP. In other words, your RRSP could buy the shares. If a person purchased 1,000 new shares in the capital corporation, they receive a $350 federal-provincial tax credit. If the shares are placed in an RRSP, the individual's taxable income would be reduced by $1,000. If that individual's marginal tax rate was about 40 per cent, the person would save $400 in federal, provincial tax. For a $1,000 investment the investor could receive a total of $750 in tax reductions. It is quite attractive because of the commensurate high-risk, but you can see the advantages of purchasing the shares in the venture capital corporation in your RRSP.

You know that once you make the investment in an RRSP, you get the deduction or the tax credit and then what is in the RRSP, if you earn interest on that investment or you earn dividends on that investment, or ultimately the capital gain on the investment; it is not taxed while it is in the RRSP. Your earnings, your dividends, your interest, your capital gains are not taxed until you withdraw the money from the RRSP. The RRSP contributions are deductible when the purchase is made and they are brought back into income when the shares are sold. It is really a tax deferral and not a taxed income.

In addition, RRSPs are a trust. A trust is a legal person under the law who is distinct from the beneficiary of the trust. The act is flexibly designed to allow an individual who may have purchased the shares of the venture capital corporation, to transfer them to the RRSP without creating what is called a disposition – without creating a sale of the shares so that the person does not have to pay the tax credit back. You could buy the shares in your own name; you could buy the shares in your RRSP. If you bought them in your own name you could end up transferring the shares to the RRSP without triggering a disposition.

In 2008, Mr. Speaker, the federal Conservatives – Finance Minister Flaherty – brought in a Budget that introduced something called Tax-Free Savings Accounts. They were not in existence when this Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act came in. These Tax-Free Savings Accounts are called TFSAs – Tax-Free Savings Account. Those accounts allow people to save money tax-free.

Unlike an RRSP, you do not get a deduction from income tax when you put the money in the TFSA, but the money that is in the TFSA, depending on how you invest it, whether you invest it in a bond fund or a Canada Savings Bond or a savings account, you earn interest. If you put it in a dividend fund you obviously earn dividends. The income is not taxed – the income once it is in the TFSA is not taxed, and therefore when you take it out, because you did not get a tax deduction when you put the money in the TFSA, when you take it out you do not have to pay taxes on it. I understand it has become a very popular investment to encourage Canadians to invest. The annual contribution limit is about $5,000 a year.

There are three different types of TFSAs that can be offered: there is a deposit account, there is an annuity contract and there is the arrangement in trust. As I said earlier when the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act was implemented there were no TFSAs. There was no contemplation of how TFSAs trust would interact with them. Therefore, what we are doing under the current law is basically simple, what this amendment is trying to do is very simple, it is simply saying if somebody already owns a TFSA that they can transfer that TFSA, sorry if somebody already owns shares in a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation and they now set up a TFSA, they can transfer the shares into the TFSA without triggering the disposition and without therefore having to pay back their tax credit.

The second part of this act is allowing TFSA to actually acquire the shares in a labour venture capital corporation and the person who is the holder of the TFSA will still get the benefit of the tax credit.

The bill removes the anomaly in the law that permits transfers to and from a trust without creating a disposition of shares similar to what was happening with the RRSPs and it will now happen with the TFSAs as well. As I said this bill is purely technical in allowing that.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, and labour-sponsored venture capital funds and TFSAs are means by which Canadians can save, save their money, save for their retirement. One of the things that we all know is that prices go up. We all know that we – I recall talking to my grandfather, my father who used to say they could have bought that piece of land or that house for $750 and it is now selling for what $150,000 or $200,000. Prices go up; they have gone up in the past. We look at what our electricity bills were in the past, we look at – I mean, I remember a coke and donut at Woolworth's on West Street in Corner Brook was eleven cents, it is a little bit more. We know costs are going up in the future and we also know that when we work and when we are employed that there is some point in our life we are not going to work any more, we are not going to want to work. We are going to want to retire and we know that the costs are going to be higher then and therefore we have to make provision for our retirement in the future.

The way we do that, is we have to take, we are not going to win the lottery. We know the odds of winning the lottery are impossible, so it is highly unlikely there, so you have to take so much money out of your paycheque every two weeks when you are paid. You have to take so much out that you cannot put toward your mortgage, and you cannot put it toward your car loan, and you cannot use it to put your kids in hockey or music lessons, and you cannot use it to go to Florida. You have to put it aside. You have to save it and then you have to invest it. You put it in a fund, and hopefully that fund will grow over your lifetime at work so that when you are ready to retire, there would be a fund there that will provide you with a pension income. The governments know that, and governments try to encourage people to do that, to save and to invest for their retirement. I guess governments have a reason for doing that; is they do not want people to have to fall back on social plans that are going to be paid for by the taxpayers.

Governments encourage savings by having investment techniques or investment opportunities, such as Registered Retirement Savings Plans where the money you put into the plan is tax deductible and where the money that the plan earns, in terms of interest or dividends or whatever you put it in, that it is not taxed so that the fund will grow even faster. Then you pay the tax when you take the money out of the fund when you retire. Hopefully, at the time you are retired, your income will be less because you are not working anymore and your tax rate will not be as high.

The government has RRSPs and it now has these new things, TFSA, these Tax-Free Savings Accounts. I do not know as much about those as I do about RRSPs, but I understand they are becoming very, very popular in the country. Again, when you put your money into one of those instruments, you do not get the tax deduction but the investment in the fund does grow and when you take it out, you are not taxed on it.

Government also helps by providing tax advantages to people who are fortunate enough to work for an employer that offers a Registered Pension Plan. Whether it is a defined benefit pension plan, or a defined contribution plan, the investments into the plans are deductible. The money in the plans grows tax free, and because of that, the money in the plan grows much quicker and much larger than it would if it was taxed. Again, the objective is to help people build that fund so they can retire.

The TFSA is an instrument that allows that to happen and helps there. The Registered Savings Plan is a plan that allows that to happen, and the labour-sponsored venture capital corporation is another method where people can save for their retirement and have tax advantages that will help them grow their nest egg. As I understand, when you take the money out each week, there is not much in the beginning. There is not much going into the fund. If it can grow tax free and if you make that investment every two weeks over a long period of time, then with the magic of compound interest and with the benefit of time, you can raise a lot of money to help with your pension plan.

Unlike what some people may think, the government does not provide a pension plan. The Canada Pension Plan, for example, is called the Canada Pension Plan but it is not paid for by Canada, it is paid for by you and by your employer. You both have to put the money in that fund. The money is invested and it grows to provide you with help for retirement. Thankfully, the Government of Canada does have a program called Old Age Security. That has nothing to do with whether you have worked or not, or whether you have contributed. It is a plan to help you when you retire. It is a plan to help people who are over sixty-five. There is an added element to it called the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which helps low-income seniors. These are very, very important programs for all Canadians and I am delighted to hear the national parties talking about making enhancements to the Guaranteed Income Supplement to help people who are retired. I praise the Canadian Labour Congress for the campaign that they put on to encourage governments to raise the Guaranteed Income Supplements.

The Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan alone are not enough to provide for a complete retirement. Old Age Security will provide about 15 per cent. I think Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and Canada Pension Plan might provide about 15 per cent of your pre-retirement income. Of course, you do not need 100 per cent. I am talking about the benefit of a Retirement Savings Plan, and you do not need 100 per cent. When you are going to retire you can downsize. You can go to a smaller home. The kids are grown up by that time, they are gone away. You do not need 100 per cent when you retire; 100 per cent of your pre-retirement income. I am told by financial planners you need about 60 per cent, somewhere between 60 per cent and 70 per cent. So, the Old Age Security helps. For low-income people, certainly the Guaranteed Income Supplement helps.

Our government, the provincial government, also does a number of things to help seniors or to help pensioners build that nest egg. We have a low-income seniors' benefit which provides a $900 cheque in October month to low-incomes seniors. There are home heating rebates and there are other things that help pensioners but those things alone are not enough to retire on. Governments encourage people over their working lifetime to build a fund to help them in their years of retirement. RRSPs, Registered Pension Plans, TFSA, and labour-sponsored venture capital corporations and the tax credit that they offer are all things to induce people to save more, and to help people save more and build that nest egg for retirement.

Mr. Speaker, this particular amendment today will allow people who have set up Tax-Free Savings Accounts to now purchase shares in a venture capital corporation and allow somebody who already has some of those shares to transfer in their TFSA, their Tax-Free Savings Account without triggering the tax.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will take my seat and I look forward to comments from other members of this hon. House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I have fifty-nine minutes; that should be more than enough to conclude what I have to say about this Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act.

As the Minister of Finance says, I guess our friends Joe and Martha might not be overly interested in this particular piece of legislation. It does not impact everyone. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to invest or have the dollars to invest. I would concur with the minister, that I think sufficient funds, of course, to look after you when you get older and when you are no longer in the workforce is very, very crucial. There are different vehicles through which to do it.

Some of us are fortunate enough to have a pension because you work in a public sector, whether you are an MHA or you worked as a teacher and so on. Others have to reply upon RRSPs. Many self-employed people, for example, that is their income. Their pension income at least, the bulk of it would come from RRSPs that they save out of their paycheques day in and day out. The earlier you start to accumulate those RRSPs the better, because then, of course, you have a bigger nest egg when you do get older. Then, of course, we have the built in vehicles of Canada Pension that most people who have worked in the workforce get to avail of, Old Age Pension and so on, but there are other vehicles that exist from time to time to allow people to have an opportunity to put away investments.

I am not exactly sure, and the minister could certainly clarify this for me, the most operative two words in this act, originally, was the venture capital piece. In my understanding, venture capital, of course, is not your typical investment. If you go, for example, and buy a government bond, you can be pretty well assured that over time – or a treasury bill, or blue-chip investments. If you invest in Coca-Cola, for example, or GM, I do not know about GM, they had their own tough times there a couple of years ago, but some standard what we call blue-chip investments and you are likely to recoup, over time, your money-plus; whereas venture capital, that is a type of investment that you are venturing. You are going on a venture. It might be an adventure and you do not know exactly where it is going to take you, because it is typically higher risk. So, you are going to venture into that field. Not everybody wants to put their money into it.

Most people feel, if they are going to retire, I want to put my money somewhere that at the end of the day, albeit it grew, I know it is going to be there. Whereas, if I put it into a venture capital investment, that is a bit more risky. I might get a higher return, I might get a higher reward if that company in which it was invested succeeds, but it is a higher risk than if I put it in some blue-chip investment.

Now, the minister was not clear on this, and I am sure he could clarify this, I am just recalling more than anything. My understanding was that the reason we initially brought in the venture capital tax credit act in this Province, because it is sponsored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. The impression is left here that this is a venture capital tax credit that anyone can take advantage of. Now, I would just look for some clarification on that, because my understanding is that this venture capital tax credit act was created as a result of labour wanting to be involved, and being encouraged to be involved in the investment community.

It started in Quebec. The Quebec government wanted to encourage labour unions to participate in economic development, so they came up with this venture capital tax credit regime that would do just that. It grew and eventually it was adopted nationally. Now, as I understand it, we do not have, just in Newfoundland and Labrador alone, enough of a capital pool that would come from labour, because this is sponsored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, that we do not have enough funds that would come through the Federation of Labour to establish such a capital venture pool. So my understanding is that we are into this with Atlantic Canada, that due to the economies of scale, it is just not Newfoundland and Labrador, we are involved in it on a regional basis rather than an individual provincial fund. That is my understanding is that this fund comes about in the first instance from all four Atlantic Provinces and all four Atlantic Provinces have this reciprocal type of arrangement for venture capital tax credits.

The minister talked as well - and I would just like some clarification, of course, how does it work in terms of is it only restricted to you must be a member of labour movement, you must be a union member? Is it only unions that can do it, or is it just sponsored by the labour unions but anybody in the Province who has money can put their dollars into the venture capital fund?

It seems like some pretty good, albeit high-risk investments. It seems like there are pretty good returns in a lot of ways because I understand that the investor receives, first of all, a 15 per cent federal tax credit when they put their money in, a 20 per cent provincial tax credit for their investment. So be it, you have to lock your money in for a period of time - eight years I understand. You cannot put it in today and two years later say, I want out of that, it does not look too good to me, I am out of here. Once you put your money in, you are locked in. That is not unusual for any kind of investment. You put your money into a standard RRSP, albeit you can move it around within your RRSP, you have more flexibility. My understanding is you do not have the flexibility to move it around once you are into that fund, there is no market for it and you are just stuck with whatever you put your money into.

The minister mentioned Virtual Marine Inc., I do believe, as being one of the two recipients of projects that were sponsored from this fund. I did not get any detail, and I am aware of another one. There was one in January of this year actually, 2011, GrowthWorks, the company that is the venture fund. The money has gone into a company that is called GrowthWorks Atlantic Venture Fund.

There was one this year in January that GrowthWorks did. They gave $1 million to a Newfoundland and Labrador company, in fact, called ClearRisk Inc. I do not have any details and I am sort of curious as to what it is. I understand ClearRisk Inc. is a Newfoundland and Labrador-based company. I understand they provide so-called affordable web-based risk management solutions for the insurance industry and to small and medium-sized enterprises. That was in January, but the minister referred to a Virtual Marine Inc., and I am just wondering if he could bring us up to speed as to how much was put into Virtual Marine, when it was put into Virtual Marine, and just how successful it is. I was only aware of one; I say to the minister, I was not aware of this one that the minister referenced. It would be interesting to see because I do believe we have had this fund around since 2004, if my memory serves me correctly. It was about 2004 that we created this in the Province. So, we are some seven years out now. In seven years, if we have had those two investments, the one I just referenced in January, ClearRisk, and the one the minister referenced, Virtual Marine, I am just wondering how much went into the fund over that time and whether there has been more than that.

I would like some updates because we are here amending that very act to say that we want to make and create more flexibility within it as to what you can do and where you can put your money. We know that you could use into RRSPs, for example, which are quite flexible in and of themselves, but now the minister talks about amending this for the Tax-Free Savings Accounts. Obviously, there are quite some differences between the Tax-Free Savings Account and RRSPs. The simple understanding that I have, simplistic as it might be, is that you put your money into an RRSP; the federal tax department allows you to get a credit on your Income Tax this year up to a certain amount for what you put into your RRSP. It stays in the RRSP, of course, it builds up any interest that you might make by some investor who buys shares for you in various companies, those companies given dividends, the dividends go into the RRSPs but it is all under this umbrella of your RRSP. It is okay to stay there for ten years, twenty years, or thirty years and grow and you do not ever have to pay any taxes on it inside. When you strike sixty-nine, I think it is sixty-nine years of age now –

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy-one.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Excuse me; they have extended it to seventy-one. It used to be sixty-nine. The federal government said you have to have it all out or start taking it out by then. They have amended that now to be seventy-one. I guess that is because we live longer. Instead of sixty-nine, the likelihood of survival of us Canadians is gone up quite some years, so they have extended that to seventy-one that you have to have it out.

The TFSA, as the minister says, works a little different. You put your money in on the front end, you do not get any tax benefit nor do you claim any tax deduction when you put it in, it grows within that TFSA while it is in there; therefore, when you take it out, you do not have to pay any interest on it because you never claimed any deductions in the first place when you put it in. So there is not a big difference between RRSPs and TFSAs other than what you put in, when you put it in, what you claim, and so on. That seems to be the major difference.

It is my understanding that this is not complicated, what we are doing here. We are simply saying that beforehand the venture capital tax credit act only applied to RRSPs because those were all that existed when we brought the act into force. There were no TFSAs. Now that we have TFSAs, we are simply amending this legislation to give more flexibility so that people who invest in the Venture Capital Act can have that added flexibility of saying: We are not only stuck with putting it into RRSPs; we can also put it into TFSAs.

Just a couple of questions, because we are dealing with this amendment; it raises the subject of what happened to the investments that have been made. How successful has the Venture Capital Act been since we created it in 2004? We are talking now about giving this flexibility to add the TFSAs, but is that necessary for some reason, i.e. is it just to give flexibility or is it because GrowthWorks Atlantic feels that they are hamstrung in some way and that they have not been able to do what they wanted with it? I am just wondering if the minister could speak on that a bit more.

Anyway, again, I agree, it is not complicated – I do not think. It is just a matter of expanding the opportunities that anybody who invests in that can avail of for tax benefits and so on. The TFSA simply did not exist when the act was created. It does now so now we are going to add it on to say they can make use of it as well.

We certainly have no problem with this, but I certainly would appreciate being updated as to the success of the Venture Capital Act that we did create back in 2004. I am assuming there would have been more than two investments.

Maybe if the minister has any comparative information – for example, if we have had since 2004, how much money went in? How much of it came back to this Province? We know about the two, the one I referenced and the one the minister referenced. It would be interesting to see how much of an investment opportunity is being put back into this Province, for example.

Anyway, we certainly will be speaking in support of Bill 3 when it comes for a vote, but if the minister could respond to my questions it would be much appreciated as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

I am pleased to stand to speak to Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act. I think both the minister and the Opposition House Leader have done a job clearly of explaining what the bill is about. It is a simple bill in relationship to the labour-sponsored venture capital program that we have here in the Province, and GrowthWorks Atlantic Venture Fund has been explained by both the previous speakers, so I am not going to take a lot of time to further speak to that.

Obviously, GrowthWorks Atlantic Venture is an excellent idea, and it is something that happens right across the country, as has been explained, and something that really allows business and labour and government to work together. I think the really good thing about this venture fund is that it really does encourage people putting money into their local economy, investing money in the local economy. The name actually does exactly what it says, the labour-sponsored venture capital. So, the monies invested in small businesses and new business that will be making a good contribution to the local economy. So, for example, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador fund can only invest its money in businesses located in Newfoundland and Labrador. It really is an incentive to those of us who have some disposable income to put our money into our own economy here and to encourage growth in our own economy.

Obviously, there are a lot of us in the Province who do not have disposable income, and there are those of us who do have the ability every year to put some money away in savings of one form or another. For those of us who do have that ability, then having a fund like this one at our disposal is extremely important. I think the changes that are being made to the bill, which will permit the transfer of eligible shares of a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation into Tax-Free Savings Account trusts is reflecting a whole new move, too, in the financial world with regard to Tax-Free Savings Accounts. So, I think the bill is being brought up to date with what is going on with the federal rule now that allows us to put money into Tax-Free Savings Accounts, which, of course, do have limits to how much money can go into Tax-Free Savings Accounts annually.

It seems to me that that is what this bill is about; bringing us in line with the new federal rule, with regard to putting money into tax-free savings, so that now the labour-sponsored venture money can go not just into RRSPs at a certain point, but also into the Tax-Free Savings Accounts. I am not going to go into the explanation of RRSPs, et cetera, because I think it has been taken care of by the minister, and I certainly do not need to get into it for the sake of speaking.

I do want to speak to the fact that I really do encourage all of us who do have the ability to put money into savings and into investments, to look at the benefit. Two of the companies that have been supported so far, local companies here in the Province; one is Virtual Marine Technology, received money in 2008, and to the present is receiving money from the fund to provide small craft simulators to improve safety at sea. It seems to me that is a really important company here in this Province. Research into anything that has to do with marine technology is extremely important for our economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly, for anybody who has money in this fund, I am sure they are pleased to know that their money is going towards a company like Virtual Marine Technology. I have no knowledge, personally, of the company, but reading what I have read about it, in order to speak here on the floor today, it seems to me that this would be a very good way for money to be invested. Then the second company, ClearRisk, which received money in January, I understand provides Web-based risk management solutions for insurance industry and small business.

I think, not just here in Atlantic Canada, but right across the country, it is companies like this that are getting money from GrowthWorks. Companies, especially, that are in IT, so the whole new technology, and in biotechnology as well. So, very interesting companies. They are sort of knowledge companies rather than heavy industry, but the kinds of companies that smaller investments will really mean something to them.

So, the targeting of small- to medium-sized innovative companies really makes this fund unique and I think makes it very attractive to those who want to not only invest their money but also help the economy of their local region. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador we do have a shortage of venture capital in the Province for many potential enterprises, and not just for the high-tech sector. I think it would be really good for people to look at GrowthWorks as a very responsible way of investing their money and helping the local economy.

A venture capital fund could also be used for emerging industries in agriculture, forestry, and fishery where we have a greater need now for technological expertise and solutions for processing and distribution. There are a lot of new ideas that are out there, that having this fund would be beneficial for, as I said already, because it is not as easy to get venture funding for some of these smaller companies and these businesses that GrowthWorks would look at.

I am not going to go on too much longer, Mr. Speaker, just to say that the fund's growth has been slow here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the economic recession affected the growth of the fund, because the fund is not that old and the recession came almost on the heels of the setting up of this fund. That is one reason for its being slow. Also, our economy is not as diversified as compared to some of the other provinces. British Columbia is one province where the fund started and has been very successful, and has a much more diversified economy than ours, which would explain why it took off there much more quickly than here. Also, some businesses here may be hesitant to get involved in venture capital because they lose some equity and control. You have to have patience if you are going to put money into venture capital.

Having said all of that, I am glad to see, number one, that we do have GrowthWorks Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important that we keep our legislation up to date with how things work across the country, and federally, with regard to investment. Because of that, I will of course be supporting the bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is a pleasure to be able to speak to some of the legislation that we are putting forth in this session of the House of Assembly. Today, this act, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, Bill 3, again, it is a pleasure to speak to this particular bill today.

I listened as the Minister of Finance explained the reason that this bill is being put forward, and he explained the particulars of the bill and some of the financial nuances that are associated with it. I have to say, I found the explanation that the Minister of Finance gave was very insightful, very clear, and I thought he did a great job at explaining what the bill is about. If I err in any of my chats today about the finances and venture capital acts and RRSPs and TFSAs, then I hope you will rely on exactly what the Minister of Finance said. I do have some understanding of it, Mr. Speaker, and I want to speak about it today because I think it is a very important bill, because it gives us as residents and the people of the Province another mechanism by which they might be able to better plan for their retirement, a better way to save money.

A venture capital corporation is a corporation that is registered under the programs that have been formed for the sole purpose of investing funds in a number of start-up, emerging and expanding eligible small businesses. The corporations are usually managed by venture capitalists or angel investors. What these people do is they provide small businesses with the benefit of their expertise, their experience and their business knowledge.

An investor can buy shares in a venture capital corporation and then this corporation collects money from many investors, they pool the funds together, and then they will search out, look for start-up, emerging or expanding eligible small businesses that they envision have some great potential for growth and sustainability. They are sort of emerging, newer companies, and therefore, the risk tends to be higher in terms of the investment potential. The venture capital corporations aim to have companies that they invest in to grow and, of course, they hope they will eventually become big enough and profitable enough that they will be able to sell shares on the stock exchange; but, because they are start up and newer, the risk, as I said before, is large.

What governments do, and what the government is doing here, is they are proposing or giving a tax break which would help mitigate against the risk for people who invest in these types of companies. As the minister said a little while ago, GrowthWorks Atlantic is an example, the only example I think, of a labour-sponsored registered venture capital corporation in this Province. One of the great things about investing in a venture capital corporation is that the provincial government will give a 20 per cent tax credit on the first $10,000 invested in this venture capital corporation. The provincial government will give a tax credit of 20 per cent and the federal government will give a tax credit of 15 per cent on the first $5,000. In terms of dollars and cents, what this means is an annual contribution to a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation of $10,000 will result in a net savings of $1,750 on the first $5,000, and then an additional $1,000 on the next $5,000, for a total savings of $2,750. If you put in $10,000 you get back $2,750, which is not a bad deal if you are getting it back right away and that is a great incentive to invest. There are a few conditions, and one of the conditions is if you sell the shares within the first eight years you have to pay the tax credit back.

The Minister of Finance used the term patient capital, looking for people who are going to invest over the longer haul. Of course, that enables these companies to give them a longer potential to grow and to get on their feet. It is possible, under the current legislation, to tie that in with an RRSP. If you are investing $10,000 and you have the room in an RRSP, then you not only get the tax credit of $2,750 but you probably get back as much as about $3,500 in taxes from an RRSP. Now, of course, we all know an RRSP is not exactly a tax back; it is really a tax deferral. You get to defer the taxes maybe to a point in time in your life when your income is lower and you can draw it out and pay a smaller percentage of taxes at that time, or maybe even no tax. Of course, with an RRSP, another way to save the money is if you put it into a spousal plan. If you are, as one partner, making a lot more money than your other partner in the relationship, then putting the money in a spousal plan and eventually – I think it is a three-year minimum you have to have it there -drawing it out in your spouse's name, you will also pay a lot less tax on it.

What this amendment does today is that it permits the transfer of eligible shares of a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation into what is known as a TFSA, Tax-Free Savings Account. What you could do with an RRSP, you can now do with a Tax-Free Savings Account. Tax-Free Savings Accounts are excellent ways to save money for the future because like an RRSP you contribute the money now on earnings that you have already paid tax on, but unlike an RRSP with a Tax-Free Savings Account money that is accumulated, that is earned, is sheltered and when you draw it out you do not have to pay tax on it. As a matter of fact, the government brochure announcing the introduction of Tax-Free Savings Accounts calls it the single most important personal savings vehicle since the introduction of the Registered Retirement Savings Plan.

Generally, the types of investments that will be permitted in a Tax-Free Savings Account are the same as the ones that are permitted in a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. That includes cash, mutual funds, securities listed on a designated stock exchange, Guaranteed Investment Certificates, bonds, and certain shares of small business corporations. This legislation provides another mechanism by which our citizens can better handle their own money. It provides a better way for people to save for the future and to plan for future years.

Most of us, Mr. Speaker, work today and we spend today. What happens when you get laid off work? What happens if you get injured on the job and you can no longer perform that job? Will you be able to survive with no income coming in? Of course, saving money may not be the most exciting thing to do, but it sure is the smartest thing to do. There are many ways to save money; of course, investing in a VCC, Venture Capital Corporation is one, the RRSP, the TFSA. We have municipal bonds is another way to save money, annuities, money lent to insurance agencies, a tax-free savings plan with the employer, mutual funds. There are different ways in which people choose to save money for the future. While it is hard to do, it is certainly the recommended thing to do.

This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has already clearly stated, it is a piece of legislation which simply allows what was happening before with RRSPs and Venture Capital Corporations, now allows you to do the same thing with the Tax-Free Savings Account. It is a good piece of legislation, I am glad to see it on the books today and I look forward to its passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is pleased to recognize the hon. Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to stand in this House and speak about the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit (Amendment) Act. While, again, it is probably not as riveting as some of the other pieces of legislation that we discuss in this House, it still has a very important role in preparing people for future development and particularly for their retirement.

I might add, too, Mr. Speaker, that this piece of legislation has an impact in what we do particularly about venture capitals. While it restricts the amount of money being invested, it also gives people an opportunity to modernize how they invest their money. Everybody, as has been said by the previous speakers, are familiar with RRSPs, but we now look at a new way of investing in the Tax-Free Savings Account that gives people an opportunity who have already paid taxes on their money before they invest it to get a long return further down the road.

It might be added that while we do invest up to $10,000 and we do receive a tax credit at the end of the day, the real benefit also of this act is it is giving us an opportunity to be more creative in what we invest in, particularly when 75 per cent of the venture capital that is raised must be invested back into community or organized labour related businesses in this Province.

As a result, as my learned colleagues there, particularly the ministers, Minister Sullivan responsible for Innovation, Minister Dalley for Business, and Minister King for Human Resources, Labour and Employment would attest to, we offer a lot of programs that entice people to invest in venture capital, particularly creative businesses. As all of our new young people move forward and as we add some other programs and services, this gives them an opportunity to find another way to get some venture capital. That is a real benefit to what we do.

I want to add, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other things here that work for people in this Province. Particularly, there is a train of thought or an unwritten rule that fifty and above you sort of take your money out of venture capitals because they are a high risk and you put them into GICs and more safe investments. This will, in turn, give younger people, from their mid-twenties to fifty, an opportunity to look at, really, where they want to invest their money, what they think will enhance new ventures in this Province, and what would enhance job creation. The better venture capitals we invest in, the higher yield and as a result the more jobs that are created.

While there is a bigger risk, and people understand that, there is a patience level that has to be attached to it. The return, you must invest it for eight years, which is a big investment. If you are in the younger ages and you are getting a good yield on it, you see the benefits long-term. You also see the benefits for the community because you see new venture capital enticing new businesses. You particularly see new creative business being created by new entrepreneurs, which entices everything else to move along as part of our industrial development in this Province.

It also gives you an opportunity to bring in new types of investors. The Tax-Free Savings Account gives you an opportunity to raise money, take that interest without paying taxes on it, then invest it back into businesses, which entices everybody else then to look further down the road.

I want to also add that the amount of money able to be invested, while minimal, is accumulated. Ten thousand dollars a year might not seem like a lot of money for certain investors, but over the course of a lifetime, as you are investing that money, the yield for your retirement can be very substantial. The investment you put into a venture capital can be very substantial with other investors to create other jobs here and to move things forward as part of the whole process.

It is good to see that our colleagues in the Opposition support this bill. They see the benefits of what it will do for this Province. They see the benefits of what it can do for young businesses moving forward. They see what it can do for making this Province really take a stake when it develops its own types of innovative and creative ventures down the road. It also gives Newfoundlanders and Labradorians an opportunity to take full control over the new creative ways that we move business in this Province.

We have been very fortunate in this Province in the last number of years to be able to get into new kind of creative, innovative businesses. What this does is modernize how we invest our money. People really are not comfortable with RRSPs any more, because at the end of the day when they withdraw them, they pay heavy taxes and, as a result, it sort of changes their income at the point. Right now, they paid their money going in, what they would like to be able to do is take their money out and it have no bearing on what they do. Along the way, they invest in various companies and see things that are sustainable for young people in this Province as we move forward.

As we have done with many other programs in this Administration, this is another one that will give young entrepreneurs an opportunity to move their venture capital forward and be creative in what they promote as their products and their ventures in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as we get to the end of this bill, I just want to add, this gives us an opportunity to be on an even playing field with the rest of the people in this country and gives our entrepreneurs an opportunity to invest in proper development when it comes to venture capital.

I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to conclude on that note.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in this hon. House today to speak to Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act.

I will only speak for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, but I did want to rise in support of this important piece of legislation today. This bill, as the title suggests, would amend the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act and the regulations associated with it. We are really doing that to achieve two things: to permit the transfer of eligible shares of a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation into a Tax-Free Savings Account, similar to the provision that exist today already for RRSPs; and, also to permit Tax-Free Savings Account trusts to acquire eligible shares of a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation. That, in effect, is simply what Bill 3 is all about.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had an opportunity to actually read the act respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit, and, I have to say, it was fascinating reading for a Monday morning following a busy weekend at a convention. It was riveting stuff, as previous speakers have suggested. The act covers items like the registration of labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, the process for revoking certificates of registration and related penalties. The act itself speaks to labour-sponsored venture capital corporation trusts, tax credit certificates, registration and filing of returns with the minister, maintenance and location of records, and even the appointment of inspectors. It is a comprehensive piece of legislation and it is one that exists in virtually every jurisdiction in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister pointed out, there are so many programs that governments offer to provide capital for people who want to start businesses or who want to grow businesses. There are provincial programs like many of the ones the minister referenced, there are federal programs and there is even programs offered by economic development organizations in various forms. All of these incentives to help people start businesses and grow their businesses will ultimately create jobs and ultimately grow our economy.

As the minister did point out, access to capital is a major challenge for new and emerging businesses everywhere, but Newfoundland and Labrador is certainly no different. In essence, the labour-sponsored venture capital corporation - let me put it this way, if a person buys shares in a labour-sponsored venture capital corporation they can get a tax credit. That is what this act we are amending is all about. It is a very substantial credit because it is a risky investment. Any time you invest in a new or emerging business, there is obviously risk. As previous speakers have noted, if you sell shares within eight years you have to pay back the credit. So this is an additional risk that is attached to such an investment.

Mr. Speaker, this bill simply fixes an anomaly that now exists, because Tax-Free Savings Accounts were not around when this legislation was introduced. Those Tax-Free Savings Accounts are a great means for people to save for retirement, much like RRSPs. It is important for governments to encourage people to save for retirement for a variety of reasons. One reason is partially because it will reduce dependence on various social programs down the road.

Mr. Speaker, Tax-Free Savings Accounts help people save more money and pay less tax, which is obviously a good thing. With a Tax-Free Savings Account you can pay no tax on the investment income and the growth that you earn in the account, you can withdraw your money any time and pay no tax on those withdrawals, and every Canadian can contribute up to $5,000 a year. The three main benefits of a Tax-Free Savings Account: tax-free growth, tax-free withdrawals, and you can put back any money that you withdraw. Although similar to an RRSP, it is certainly a little bit different and offers some unique benefits as well, and for that reason it is something many consumers may be interested in exploring as part of their retirement savings strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I should also note about labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, you really are relying on investors. You do not have control over the investments in the corporation. You can buy shares in the corporation, or your RRSP can buy those shares directly, but it has to be self-directed. Banks will not get involved with these labour-sponsored venture capital corporations. Again, this act is simply allowing you to do with a Tax-Free Savings Account what you can already do today with an RRSP. There is really no substantive issue here.

This act does provide incentive to invest in new and emerging enterprises. There is a real need for capital, as I have pointed out, and there is a need for that so that we can create more jobs and grow our economy. I think this bill, Mr. Speaker, also highlights the importance of planning for retirement, saving for retirement, and ensuring that people have sufficient funds when they do retire.

So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly do support Bill 3. I think it is a logical and necessary improvement to the existing legislation, and I thank the Minister of Finance for bringing it forward today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank all the MHAs who spoke to this debate. We have all three parties represented in this House supporting this legislation, which I appreciate.

I just noted that we have amended the act three times. When the act first came in there was a 15 per cent tax credit, and that was increased to 20 per cent. We also authorized payroll deductions for provincial government employees who wish to invest in GWA, the only labour-sponsored venture capital corporation in the Province. The third thing we did was increase the maximum amount of the investment from $5,000 to $10,000. Now, all of these things were meant to help GWA increase their capital raising efforts in the Province so that they in turn could invest in small and medium-sized businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador so that they in turn hopefully can create jobs and opportunities for Newfoundland families.

To answer the question from the Opposition House Leader, GWA has raised to $3.6 million since 2005, between 2005 and 2009. The act requires that within three years after raising money, I believe, they have to invest 75 per cent of what they raise in this Province and they have to invest in companies in this Province. They have invested $2.7 million. So they have met their commitment there with the investment of $1 million in ClearRisk Inc. and $1.7 million into Virtual Marine.

All of these efforts are to attempt to allow GWA to raise more money, more capital, so they can meet their objectives of investing into Newfoundland companies. These amendments, including the amendments today to allow Tax-Free Savings Accounts to purchase shares in a labour-venture capital corporation, or to allow someone who already has the shares to transfer them without disposition into a Tax-Free Savings Account, will help GWA as it tries to meet its objectives.

I thank everyone for this debate. With that, I will take my seat.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act. (Bill 3)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow? Presently?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 3)

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

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House stands adjourned until Tuesday at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon.

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