PDF Version

December 14, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 66

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

Today, we will hear Members' statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of

Terra Nova, Bonavista, Placentia - St. Mary's, Conception Bay South and Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We can all agree that 2020 has been an extremely

difficult year. When times are tough the community spirit in Newfoundland and

Labrador, especially in my District of Terra Nova, shines through. This year has

seen so many barriers and changes to the normal with a creative twist, which has

now become the new normal. The last nine months have made me really proud to

live in my District of Terra Nova.

The Lions Club in Southwest Arm realized the need for

help in the community. They drove through the community, picked up donations,

stationed trucks throughout the district and at the school for drop-offs and

established a local food bank.

Glovertown hosted an outdoor classroom reverse

recycling blitz for its students. The Clarenville Lions Club hosted a drive-by

event with Santa, instead of a parade.

The Power to Hope hosted their annual fundraising

dinner for the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy and raised over $50,000. They did this

virtually. Many other areas opted for virtual tree lightings and online messages

from Santa, just to name a few.

The local residents have stepped up, the community

spirit has been unending and rural areas are alive and well.

Please join me once again in acknowledging the

community spirit in my beautiful District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Saltwater Community Association Inc. is a newly formed

group of dedicated volunteers in Bonavista. They embrace social excellence

through partnerships and they're raising funds, awareness and addressing some of

the most pressing issues facing youth, families and seniors, including food

insecurity, poverty, affordable housing and advocacy.

“Food insecurity was already an urgent problem before

the COVID-19 crisis, with one in eight Canadians struggling to put food on the

table.” Here in Newfoundland and Labrador we are extremely grateful for federal

government funding programs that were delivered by the Canadian Red Cross,

Community Food Centres Canada, Food First NL, SeniorsNL and United Way NL.

This group applied for funding from these agencies and,

with the support of the Town of Elliston, received $161,900. Partnering with No

Frills in Clarenville they were able to purchase 2,447 food hampers and

coordinated efforts to deliver the food hampers to those in need in every

community from Bonavista to Clarenville. This small, but mighty, not for profit

has a simple philosophy: perpetual generosity, positivity and openness to

limitless possibilities.

I ask the Members of the 49th House of Assembly to

congratulate these champions and their efforts in making measurable differences

in the lives of others.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, the phrases “best-before date” and “durable life” have significant

value to the many food banks across our province. The Placentia Area Food Bank

serves families from Branch to Ship Harbour. This volunteer group operates out

of the Freshwater Community Centre within the District of Placentia - St. Mary's

and they truly understand the importance of such phrases.

While Food First NL is monitoring the impact of

COVID-19 on community food banks, the Placentia volunteer group, led by

Chairperson Danny O'Reilly, have seen an increase in the demand this Christmas

season. This increase has kept the group of volunteers busy.

On November 29, I attended a fundraiser in Argentia at

the Argentia Pavilion for the Placentia Area Food Bank. It was heart warming to

see the community come out to support this cause.

Volunteers are the heart of any community, and today,

as the MHA for the District of Placentia - St. Mary's, I wish to recognize the

following volunteer board members of the Placentia Area Food Bank: Danny

O'Reilly, Glenda Barnett, Roxanne Mulrooney, Julianna Kerrivan, Sharon Upshall,

Lee Everts and Pricilla Mooney.

Thank you for what you do to help families in the

district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on December 4, the Economic Developers

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, EDANL, announced the winners of the

2020 Economic Development Awards of Excellence during their AGM and virtual

event. I am pleased to announce CBS Community Garden has won the Community

Project of the year for populations over 3,000.

This award recognizes a project that has had a major

economic development impact in a community or region. It rewards such things as

strategic planning, sector development, tourism and community involvement.

The CBS Community Garden committee members are: Amanda

Janes, Emma Power, Julia Bloomquist, Kimberley Hobbs, Kristy Ford, Mark Strong,

Mary Holloway, Peter Fudge, Sarah Burton, Sarah Eddy, Sarah Pritchett, Stephen

Pretty, Trina Porter and Lesley Burgess.

Our community has always been an agricultural one and

it's wonderful to see the great work of families and friends learning and

supporting each other through sustainability and food security.

Congratulations to the CBS Community Garden for their

hard work and dedication in inspiring community initiatives and I wish them

continued success.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR.

TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I take my place in this House to honour a very

deserving lady in my district, Jackie Thompson. Through her important work at

the Status of Women in Central, Jackie has helped feed hungry families, clothed

them and obtain furniture for countless numbers of homeless.

Jackie has proudly given blood over 125 times. She

proudly wears the QE II Diamond Jubilee; has been a team member for Disaster

Relief Canadian Red Cross; is the former vice-president of Branch 12, Royal

Canada Legion; and is a huge part of our community.

Jackie enjoys her time with the Exploits community town

band and keeps busy as an executive member of the Exploits

Chapter of Ducks

Unlimited.

She has a heart of gold that is big enough for all

those that need a piece of it. Jackie is always there to lend a helping hand.

Please join me in honouring her today for her exemplary

work in the community of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans and surrounding areas.

Thank you, Jackie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

MR.

LOVELESS:

Mr.

Speaker, today in this hon. House, I would like to bring awareness to a special

permit program available to registered food banks, which allows them to accept

and distribute donations of moose and caribou meat.

We are delighted to partner on this initiative with the

Community Food Sharing Association, which represents 54 registered food banks

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Hunters can donate meat directly to participating food

banks or through Sharing The Harvest NL, an organization which assists hunters,

fishers and farmers in donating locally-sourced food.

All donated moose and caribou must be processed at a

government-licensed processing facility. Participating food banks are

responsible for managing the collection and distribution of the meat donated by

hunters.

Mr. Speaker, permits can be obtained from the

Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture up to one week after the close

of the big game hunting season, which falls on January 7, 2021. Registered food

banks wishing to apply for a permit should contact our Wildlife Division.

I would be remiss if I didn't thank Eg Walters of the

Community Food Sharing Association, Barry Fordham of Sharing The Harvest NL and

Debbie Wiseman of Social Justice Co-operative NL for their support and advocacy

of this program.

Hunters donating meat to participating food banks

support provincial government's efforts to sustainably and responsibly manage

big game and improve food security.

Congratulations to the province's hunters and food

banks on their exciting new partnership, which is aimed at getting more local,

nutritious food on dinner plates throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Exploits.

MR.

FORSEY:

want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, we, in the Official Opposition, are very

pleased that the department finally made the necessary changes to allowed

registered food banks to accept and distribute donations of moose and caribou

meat. I thank all those individuals who worked so very hard to make this program

a reality and I thank all the hunters who have generously responded with their

donations.

Mr. Speaker, our province has some of the highest food

insecurity rates in the country and thousands of pounds of nourishing moose and

caribou meat being donated will go a long way in helping people across our

province.

This is a wonderful partnership; one that I hope

continues to benefit the people of the province in years to come. As the

deadline for this year's big game hunting season approaches, I want to wish

those involved a very safe and successful hunt.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to thank the hon.

minister for an advance copy of his statement. The Third Party would like to

congratulate Eg Walters, Barry Fordham and Debbie Wiseman for their work in

advocating for this wonderful initiative, as well as the many hunters of this

province for their generosity in donating to this program.

We would also encourage the government to provide more

for this program, namely, to improve and expand the refrigeration capacity at

local food banks to ensure that all of the donated meat makes it onto the dinner

tables of this province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and

Recreation.

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today in this hon. House, I'm very happy to recognize

Dawson Mercer and Alex Newhook on being named to Team Canada for the 2021

International Ice Hockey Federation World Junior Championship, which this year

is set to begin on Christmas Day in Edmonton, Alberta.

In October, Dawson Mercer, of Bay Roberts, was drafted

18th overall in the first round of the entry draft. He is currently a member of

the Chicoutimi Saguenéens in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and is

considered one of the top junior-aged players in the world. I have no doubt

Dawson is very excited to return to this team for a second year in his quest for

back-to-back gold medals.

In 2019, St. John's native Alex Newhook, who is a

constituent of mine, was chosen 16th overall by the Colorado Avalanche. Alex is

currently in his sophomore year at Boston College, playing for the Boston

College Eagles, where last year he received the NCAA's Tim Taylor Award as the

top freshman in the United States. Good luck to Alex as he joins this

prestigious group of talented young hockey players.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time two players from

Newfoundland and Labrador played for Team Canada at the same time at this

tournament since John Slaney – a hero of mine – of St. John's and Chad Penney of

Labrador City, in 1992. I would also like to note that there is a third

Newfoundlander and Labradorian on Team Canada: Mr. Brian Cheeseman. Mr.

Cheeseman will be travelling to Alberta as the team's therapist.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating

Dawson and Alex on their selection to Team Canada and wish them much success in

Edmonton. I'm sure we will hear many, many hockey fans, along with their

families and friends, throughout the province cheering them on as they proudly

take to the ice representing Newfoundland and Labrador and the entire country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR.

TIBBS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to thank the minister for an advance copy of

his statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to

congratulate Dawson Mercer and Alex Newhook on being named to Team Canada for

the upcoming 2021 IIHF World Junior Championships.

Watching the World Juniors has been a Christmas

tradition for many in this province. I know that all hockey fans are especially

excited to watch two athletes from this province compete in this year's

tournament. Alex and Dawson have bright futures in hockey. They have

demonstrated their abilities on the ice and I hope that the World Juniors is a

positive experience for both.

We should also recognize the volunteers, parents and

coaches that help with so much of our hockey talent here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I wish Dawson, Alex and all of Team Canada the best in Edmonton and on

the road to gold in 2021. My family and I will be sure to tune in and cheer them

on.

Go Canada Go!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A huge shout-out to Alex Newhook and Dawson Mercer from

all of us here in the Third Party caucus. It's great to see such homegrown

talent on Team Canada's World Junior team going into the 2021 World Juniors in

Alberta.

We, as a province, continue to foster such talent when

it comes to sports. This is clearly showing of all the hard work and

determination we are known for in this province. A huge shout-out goes to all

the people that have supported these young men from their first day on skates to

today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change

and Municipalities.

MR.

BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to share information with my hon.

colleagues and the residents of Mud Lake regarding the issues of potential

flooding in this community. We appreciate their concerns, and indeed the

concerns of residents in all communities where flood risk is an issue.

Significant work has been done to better prepare for such events.

Flood risk mapping was recently completed for the

Churchill River with the Exploits and Humber rivers soon to follow. We have

launched a new interactive flood risk mapping application to view projections

for flood risk and we have developed the country's first real-time flood risk

forecasting model on the Churchill River to provide residents with information

and advance warning of potential floods. These resources are providing residents

and community governments with the best available tools they need to plan for

the future.

Mr. Speaker, we have been working closely with Mud

Lake, meeting with the community this past fall and sharing this information and

data. We have programs such as the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements to

help residents during a flood event, which many residents of Mud Lake availed of

in 2017. The Community Relocation Policy, which is community-initiated and

community-driven, is another program that communities may consider in difficult

situations.

Mr. Speaker, I'm open to addressing flood concerns with

any community in this province. We will continue to work with communities like

Mud Lake to ensure they have the appropriate tools and supports they need to

help them in making decisions that are in the best interests of their residents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS.

EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. I'm glad to see that the minister and his department are starting to

be proactive on this file. As flooding is a worrisome concern in the area, our

residents need to have peace of mind about their community, their homes and

their personal safety. It is particularly important that people are aware of the

options and the programs which are available to them.

I encourage the minister to ensure that supports are in

place so our local residents and communities don't fall through the cracks and

miss out on programs available to them. I also ask the minister to take the same

community-first perspective regarding the failure of wetland capping and to work

with residents in the communities who will be impacted.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR.

BROWN:

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The people

of Mud Lake deserve better. This report was completed this past summer and no

actions were taken. The river is now frozen and those who live in the historic

Labrador community will now live in fear for one more spring.

The minister's statement suggests that the community

should relocate. This is inappropriate for government to destroy a community's

future with a government-led project and then tell them to move. We, in

Labrador, will not forget government complacency and what is done to

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite statements to the contrary, we now learn in

unsealed police documents that multiple Cabinet ministers interfered in a police

investigation into this Liberal government.

Why has the Premier not removed the Minister of Tourism

and the Minister of Energy for their improper behaviour?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member opposite is fully aware, the highest law

authority in the land, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, did an investigation

here. I was happy with the results of the investigation as they were provided

and were released – the public statement by the investigating officer. There's

nothing further to add here.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, I think we can all recognize that the investigation of which the

Premier speaks, by the Mounties, was into yet a third minister no longer present

in the Cabinet. My question was about two who still are.

I ask the Minister of Tourism: How did he first learn

about the criminal investigation and when?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

I first learned about the investigation when it was

made public that there was going to be an investigation into the activities of

that. The chief reached out to me on the 5th of March to ask me the process in

which case things come forward. I didn't know there was going to be an

investigation from that point on, until it came out publicly.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We'll all have to remain in a state of suspended

mystery as to why the chief of police would reach out to the Minister of

Tourism.

I'd ask: Does the minister believe it is proper for him

to call the chief of police to inquire into an ongoing criminal investigation

involving a colleague?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member would know that I wouldn't have called

the chief of police into an investigation. I didn't know there was one. I called

the chief of police on a personal matter that was dealing directly with how he

was dealing with other things that were happening within the police force at the

time that I had heard through the grapevine or through the processes that would

be through my contacts within the police force. All I was doing was checking to

see how a gentleman that I've known for over 20 years and worked with in

community for over 20 years was dealing with it.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Can

the minister confirm that the subject matter of the investigation into a

colleague was discussed?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.

MR.

DAVIS:

just answered that, Mr. Speaker. That never came up at all. I asked him how he

was dealing with everything else that was going on within the police force at

the time because I have known him for a very long time.

To answer the question previous to that: Why he would

call me is because of that long-term relationship that I had that he asked a

question about how the process would have unfolded. I just suggested to him that

he should reach out to the deputy minister of Justice, as well as the minister

of Justice at the time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, given that police analysis of information in this matter is ongoing,

could the Premier enlighten the public of the province by giving them his

considered position as to whether it is correct and proper for the chief of

police to inquire about the status of an active investigation into a Cabinet

minister?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.

As I said in this House on Thursday, Mr. Speaker,

there's a process here. The RNC received a complaint or initiated an

investigation. They went forward with that to the RCMP; the RCMP actually

determined that there was enough evidence here to warrant an investigation. They

went one step further and – to the information the Member opposite is talking

about – actually got that warrant.

The investigation subsequently happened. Mr. Speaker,

there was a determination that there would be no charges in this case and that's

the end of the case.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, it possibly is the end of one case but not the end of other cases.

We're talking about something different now. We understand there are additional

complaints being assessed by the RCMP involving a current Cabinet minister.

Can the Premier update this House on which minister is

involved and will they be removed from Cabinet, pending the outcome?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell this House that I'm not aware of any

investigation that the RCMP has undertaken or is undertaking into anybody on

this side of the House.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we understand the funds in the offshore

recovery fund have been set aside for Hibernia and that the announcement was

planned to occur last week.

Could the minister please explain why a delay has

occurred? Will Hibernia receive the support they need to bring people back to

work?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, there is money in the fund. Especially since

we've incurred, I think, $41.5 million, so there is money left. We have had

offers from multiple other operators and our goal is to work with each and every

one of them to provide – including for Exxon and for Hibernia.

What I can say, though, there's been no finality to

this. These are very complicated arrangements and we want to ensure best value.

While I would suggest that we hope to see an announcement very soon, there has

not been one scheduled as of yet. I would suggest very soon is the hope.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Terra Nova continues to sit idle in Bull Arm while

her workers are sat at home waiting to start refitting and upgrading the vessel.

Why is the minister delaying giving funds to Suncor and

Terra Nova? When will the monies be awarded to get people back to work? That's

what it's about, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the Member opposite and

certainly I understand the crux of the question. I would take issue with the

word why are we delaying, because we're certainly not delaying anything.

What I would say is that we have to work with the

operators. In some cases there are multiple operators and owners involved and it

can make for complex negotiations. We would love to have this out sooner rather

than later, but what we do realize is that if we don't put the time and effort

into it and work with all the operators, we may find ourselves in a difficult

situation trying to explain how the money is expended.

We want to see the money go out the door, we want to

see the Terra Nova back out there, but some of these things, I would suggest,

are outside of government's control.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS.

EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Labrador and all across the province

often face financial hardship due to the cost of travelling to access medical

services.

I ask the minister: Will he commit to changing the

Medical Transportation Assistance Program to allow for 100 per cent

reimbursement of travel costs for people who have to travel for medical reasons

outside their area?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the

question.

For the information of the House, the Medical

Transportation Assistance Program has been under review now for some time. There

is some input that actually goes back to last year.

Unfortunately, the staff that were involved in that

review were distracted by COVID-19. As we move into the next more operational

phase around vaccination, the staff have been redirected. In light of

correspondence that I've received this weekend, we really got some granular

material that we can work with to try and enhance the program better for

Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MS.

EVANS:

Every patient, no matter where they live, deserves timely and affordable health

care, Mr. Speaker.

Provinces are in charge of prioritization of the

COVID-19 vaccine. Now we've been told that the first 4,000 doses have to be

administered in St. John's and the first group will be front-line health care

workers in COVID care. We fully support that. We understand their need for

protection; we fully support that.

Minister, what's the priority list for vaccines in our

province beyond that? When will the vaccine be available to individuals outside

of St. John's, including Indigenous groups and rural Newfoundland and Labrador

populations?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Again, Mr. Speaker, a very timely question.

The Health ministers nationally have signed off on what

are called the NACI guidelines, that's the National Advisory Committee on

Immunizations. There are, I think if memory serves me correctly, five groups,

broadly speaking. The first group to receive vaccine would be those who are

frail, those who are front-line workers and Indigenous and isolated communities.

Currently, Pfizer and Public Health Agency of Canada

have limited us to no onward distribution of the Pfizer vaccine. Once that

restriction is lifted by them, we will have ultra-low freezers available in all

of the major hubs for our vaccine distribution.

To be honest, Mr. Speaker, it will be quicker and

easier for the rural and remote communities once a broader array come online,

particularly the Moderna vaccine, which travels very well and is stable for 30

days out of the freezer.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR.

DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm hearing daily from many workers that time is

running out with regard to the Come By Chance oil refinery. Workers are worried

that the refinery could become a tank farm and they could lose their jobs

forever. Workers need answers.

When will the Liberal government finally do the right

thing and ensure jobs for the workers in my district?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I empathize with the Member wanting to have this

industry operating again and having people back to work, but I believe he knows

full well that it's not just a government move here. Government doesn't own the

asset; government cannot dictate to the owner what to do.

To say that the Liberal government or the PC government

– or that any government – needs to do something here is one thing, but we know

that it's not the true story here. What we are dealing with is an operator here

who is going through a tough time and there are multiple entities out there that

are looking into it.

I also heard the tank farm implication. That is not

something that this government will endorse or support in any way and we have

communicated that. We continue to work with all the parties to try to figure out

a solution to this, but again realizing that there's only so much that

government can do here. We'll continue to do what we can.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That response is of little comfort to those workers.

Government certainly has the role in creating the environment for employment.

Mr. Speaker, Canopy Growth partnered with Academy

Canada to develop a greenhouse training program for work at the facility in the

White Hills. Despite the minister suggesting the province has not lost out due

to the Canopy deal falling through, roughly 60 of these students are now

impacted by it.

What is this government going to do to help these

students or will they see more out-migration and more tax dollars leave the

province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I answer the question, I have to go back to the

preamble for the Member, because I think he's suggesting that government should

come in and expropriate, or do something along those lines. We all know what

happens when government expropriates entities. You end up paying hundreds of

millions of dollars back. I don't think that's what anybody would want here, so

I would remind the Member of that.

As it relates to Canopy, what I can say is that they

were hoping to partner with R & D projects in this province, which we had hoped

to see get off the ground and there would have been multiple funds committed.

Right now, government has not committed any of the funds because this deal is

now null and void.

As I pointed out last week, and was happy to point out

has been remitted and, hopefully, we continue on with the cannabis industry

elsewhere and otherwise.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly don't need the minister putting words in my

mouth. I know there are jobs that are lost because of this, so that is of no

comfort to the people who are losing these jobs.

Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago I asked about assisting

people living with diabetes by covering advanced glucose-monitoring devices. The

minister said he would gladly have staff look at the evidence to support these

live-saving devices.

I ask the minister: What evidence has the staff

provided?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As we committed, we have money in the budget to provide

a universal, means-tested program for insulin pumps for Type 1 diabetes. The

criteria for selection are purely clinical. The program is operationalized

through Eastern Health and the diabetes program there. The question about what

kind of technology, how it's bought or whether it's even delivered on a service

contract, will be one that they will look at and they will then make

recommendations to the department to live within their budget.

From my point of view, I'm still waiting to hear back

from them; I would be happy to inform the House when I have further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I guess the philosophy of investing in wellness,

not illness only applies to some and not all.

The work to connect the Team Gushue Highway and the

Robert E. Howlett drive has still not happened. The missing link is interfering

with business and residents of my district have raised concern with excessive

traffic congestion and high speeds that this has created on Park Avenue and

Smallwood Drive.

Minister, it has been years now, when will the

government complete this work? What will be done to ensure the immediate safety

for the motoring public and residents of this neighbourhood?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR.

BRAGG:

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for the question.

Road safety is of utmost importance in this province. I

drove in yesterday, and, as everybody would know, we had our first snowfall

event for the province. It took me three hours from Clarenville in, Mr. Speaker.

I was happy to see people paying attention to the conditions and driving to the

conditions.

I would hope anywhere where there's an issue where

people drive at high speeds, we look to enforcement from our officials in the

Constabulary, in this case, and the RCMP when we get further out, so people will

pay attention to the conditions of the road, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR.

PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, he doesn't know the difference between a runway and a highway, and

he doesn't known what the Team Gushue Highway is either.

Mr. Speaker, a number of companies and surrounding

communities have lobbied this government to stop inspections of westbound

traffic at the Goobies weight scales. Government is well aware of the concerns

and the possible consequences. Something has to be done.

Will this minister finally take action to correct the

failure of the previous minister?

MS.

STOODLEY:

Sorry, can you ask the question again? I'm very sorry.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member of Terra Nova.

MR.

PARROTT:

A number of companies and surrounding communities have lobbied Transportation

and Infrastructure to stop inspections of westbound traffic at the Goobies

weight scales. Government is well aware of the consequences and the possible

outcomes. Something has to be done.

Will the minister finally take action to correct the

failure of the previous minister?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR.

BRAGG:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the Member opposite, since my time in this

department, I have not seen any correspondence that would relate to anything

that you would suggest.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR.

O'DRISCOLL:

Mr. Speaker, if it's like all the other legislation, it takes three or four

years to get done, so you can have it in all you like.

In recent years, our province has led the Atlantic

region in ATV and snowmobile fatalities, and sadly these numbers continue to

increase. In September, the minister told this House that related legislation

was nearly drafted and she hoped to present it in this fall.

Minister, another sitting has passed, where is the

important piece of legislation that you promised to deliver?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

MS.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Road safety on our highways, as well as ATV safety, is

incredibly important. We have done a comprehensive review of the legislation, so

this is the final stages. It will be brought forward in the winter session of

the House.

I would encourage everyone to wear a helmet. Do not

drive under the influence. I've learned a lot more about safety lately, meeting

with the STAND for Hannah Foundation. This past week, I met with SafetyNL to

discuss how we can collaboratively work together to improve road safety.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On September 15, I asked about the reported substandard

care at Golden Heights Manor, the long-term care facility at Bonavista, due to

staffing shortage issues. The minister reported that there were issues

particular to Golden Heights, a working group had already been established and

he would be glad to update the House when the review was concluded. Almost 15

weeks later with no change.

Can the minister provide some direction from this

committee to provide hope for the residents of Golden Heights and their family

members?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.

Discussions with Eastern Health show that Golden

Heights is being staffed to acuity and occupancy. What that means, in

translation, is that they look at the number of individuals resident there and

the care needs specified in their individual-care plans, and they staff to that

level. That was the first communication I had following the reference the Member

opposite made. That has happened and I am not aware that there are any ongoing

problems.

I can certainly take this offline with the Member

opposite, if he has some specifics he'd like me to look into further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MS.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, the translation of that answer really does

nothing concrete to help these vulnerable seniors who are still left without

proper care.

Mr. Speaker, each and every day, I hear from

individuals in the District of Harbour Main who are without work. They're

worried about how they're going to pay their bills and provide for their

families. Many residents in the communities are suffering. They want to go back

to work; they need to go back to work.

Minister, your words of empathy are noted but they're

of cold comfort for those people. When will you finally release a real, concrete

strategy and plan for jobs in this province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly happy to answer this question because

there is a lot of good going on, and sometimes it's hard to get that good out

there through the negativity that's created. For instance, just a couple of

weeks ago there was the announcement of 331 jobs with $41.5 million, and as soon

as that was done there was nothing but criticism of that decision by the Members

opposite.

I didn't hear anything from the Members opposite when

we look at the success stories that government has invested in over the years.

One of them, I would point out, was Verafin, which was just sold for over $2.7

billion. Government, a few years back, invested in that and we continue to make

investments. Just last week, we made investments in Rutter. This week you're

going to see more announcements.

The reality is we're doubling down, especially on the

tech sector. We continue to invest in mining and we continue to invest in oil

and gas. I just hope some of the Members on the other side would get on board.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

WAKEHAM:

Mr.

Speaker, I'd remind the minister, we're all about jobs and creation of jobs. We

certainly are wanting to know that – the people that are currently finding

themselves out of jobs are certainly worried about it.

Mr. Speaker, I recently had a senior call my office

because he had to go get a medical eye examination to keep his driver's licence.

Fair enough. He went to see a salaried physician. The salaried physician, under

NLMA rules, is allowed to charge him $60. He paid his $60 for his medical only

to find out later he got a bill for $90 from the regional health authority who

also have to charge for that same procedure.

I simply ask the minister: Would you eliminate the

double-dipping that's going on for medical examinations for our seniors and

others?

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the question.

Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of this issue, I think,

20 minutes before coming into the House. I'd be happy to go back and look into

it; it certainly seems to be unusual. I'd be happy to take this up with the

Member opposite offline afterwards.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

WAKEHAM:

thank the minister for his answer. I look forward to that.

Mr. Speaker, some Walmart employees in my district have

been excluded from receiving the essential worker top-up because they withdrew

vacation pay or received a bonus related to the previous years. These

non-regular payments have put them over the threshold that was established by

government through no fault of their own.

I'd like to ask the minister for an update on the

status of that appeal and are they likely hear something before Christmas?

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's a very important question.

I will inform the House about 25,000 people, essential

workers, have received payment under this program. What the Member is referring

to is he's asked for an extension of this program, expansion of this program

which is under review.

We're very pleased to have been able to offer this

program; we think it was a very important one. I thank the team at Immigration,

Skills and Labour who have worked very hard to make sure these payments are made

to these 25,000 workers. We are considering whether or not we can expand the

program to encompass even more people and we're continuing to work on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

are hurting right now. Many worry about buying gifts for their children, having

enough food for the holidays or paying their electrical bills through the

winter. Pension unlocking will not help these folks. A $15-an-hour minimum wage,

rate mitigation or even offering low- or no-interest loans or grants from our

COVID contingency fund will help lots of people in the province right now.

Mr. Speaker, since we are here under the guise of

helping people through COVID hardships, I ask the Premier: Why are we not doing

more to help the people who need it most right now?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that question.

Of course we're all here to sort through these

uncertain times and the challenges that they present to families, especially in

low- and middle-income families as they struggle through the holiday season.

We're using all the tools in the government's toolbox to get people through

these uncertain times.

There's no magic bullet, there's no easy solution or

else it would've all been tabled and we would've all discussed it and gone out

hand in hand. The truth is that these are issues that we need to explore all

tools available to us so that we're ensuring that we're looking after the most

vulnerable in society and the low- and middle-income classes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll point out to the Premier that the three tools

in the toolbox that I have just suggested have not been even – the toolbox, Sir,

has not been opened.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government's communication of

what this pension legislation will do has been vague and misleading. Many people

think they can access any pension funds they may have before Christmas. This is

simply wrong.

I ask the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL

if she has reached out to the gentleman cited in this weekend's CBC

article who

believes he will be able to unlock his government money purchase plan funds and

others like him who've been misled by this Liberal government's poor

communications of the pension unlocking amendments?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

MS.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think as we all learned, unlocking pensions is

extremely complicated. What we're talking about is unlocking retirement savings

as a result of pensions – that come out of the pension plan. I know we're going

to discuss that later this afternoon.

I don't want to give financial advice to any specific

individual. I'd recommend that anyone considering unlocking pensions or anyone

with questions with their pensions, discuss it with a financial advisor or

contact their pension plan administrator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week in this House the Minister of Health said

that the discrimination in the health care transportation system favoured people

from Labrador.

I ask the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs:

Does she stand behind her Cabinet colleague's statement?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member for raising a very, very important

topic. As an individual born and raised and still living on the Coast of

Labrador – actually isolated until December 10, 2001 – I certainly understand,

Mr. Speaker, the challenges of people that live in the area and the cost of

travelling out for medical services.

That's why, Mr. Speaker, myself and a team of Labrador

MHAs, we proposed a number of policy changes to review. As my colleague said

earlier today, that review is moving along. COVID sidelined it for a little bit,

but very soon I believe that we will be able to announce some enhancements for

the people living in Labrador. Rest assured I certainly understand it. I deal

with it every day with my constituency.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR.

BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year, the department of Labrador Affairs

commissioned a report on improving the MTAP program for Labradorians.

I ask the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs:

Will the department's report show that, contrary to the beliefs of the Minister

of Health, MTAP doesn't go far enough? Will the recommendations in this report

be implemented immediately?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I just said in my last question, the current Medical

Transportation Assistance Program is under review; it was sidelined a little due

to COVID. There are things, Mr. Speaker, that we can do to make the travel out a

little easier for the residents. It's a Medical Transportation Assistance

Program. We recognize that it doesn't cover all of the costs to folks and we

recognize the hardship.

Mr. Speaker, if we weren't carrying this noose around

our neck of the 30 per cent net debt of Muskrat Falls, we'd be able to do a lot

better. We are doing the best job we can. Health is certainly a priority and

supporting those people in health for this government. We'll be happy to

announce something on a review.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

While the time we regularly allot for Question Period has expired, it's my

understanding that there is agreement amongst Members that each independent

Member has an opportunity to ask one question.

Do we have consent of the House to do that?

HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Leave.

The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR.

JOYCE:

Mr.

Speaker, as we know, the fishing industry faces many challenges, some of which

are government regulations. In 2002, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans

brought in regulations restricting the minimum size of herring to be harvested,

which is 24.7 centimetres, for the West Coast. The biomass for herring on the

West Coast is very strong. This has been acknowledged by DFO scientists.

We all know that during the winter herring school

together; however, because of antiquated regulations if boats land herring which

are 20 per cent less than the 24.7 centimetres, it is deemed illegal. They may

face charges, the catch is confiscated and they are left with no choice but to

let the fish go. If the Barry Group loses their markets because they can't

supply their buyers, this will have a detrimental effect on the economy of the

area and result in many people losing their livelihood.

I ask the minister: Would you please reach out to the

Barry Group and work with your federal counterparts and the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans to help these antiquated regulations to be changed for the

betterment of the industry and for the people of Humber - Bay of Islands?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

MR.

LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the Member for a very important

question, no doubt.

Just to remind the Member and everybody that around any

fish stocks, any decision that will be made, will always be guided by good

science. Constant contact with the federal government is always around not just

the herring stocks but around all stocks.

I, indeed, will be in contact with Bill Barry, as he

sent me an email this morning around this. It's a very important issue. I'll

have that discussion, as I've had other discussions with him around the

aquaculture industry. I would be happy to keep the Member apprized of what those

discussions are as we progress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR.

TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank this House of Assembly for the opportunity.

Further on the serious situation facing residents of

Mud Lake and vicinity, I'm informing this House that the department has been

contacted by residents seeking assistance to move out of harm's way. Government

stated it was unable to assist unless the entire community wanted to move.

Mr. Speaker, when the flood occurred in 2017, residents

of Mud Lake had to be airlifted out by helicopter.

Will this government provide financial assistance for

those who wish to relocate to a safer location, as was done for Badger in

Newfoundland? A very simple yes-or-no question.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.

MR.

BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for his question.

First of all, the health and safety of residents

throughout our province is a priority of our government. We understand there are

a number of areas in our province where flood risk is an issue, along with

coastal erosion. As I indicated to the Member and had my staff write him, there

are programs in place that can assist communities. It is to be a

community-driven initiative.

I look forward to hearing or meeting with the Member

opposite. I did send an invitation to him on Thursday via my news release. I'm

still waiting to hear from him, Mr. Speaker. I gladly would sit down and discuss

any issues regarding the problems in Mud Lake or any community within our

province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We recently learned that Canopy Growth would not be

living up to its obligations as it relates to the production facility in

Newfoundland and Labrador. While we understand they have returned the tax

remittances collected thus far to the government, this does nothing to address

the sweet deal they received regarding prime choice of retail locations

throughout the province, as well as guaranteed shelf space in all

non-Canopy-owned retail shops.

I ask the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for

the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation: Does the pulling out of Canopy

from production in Newfoundland and Labrador render their deal with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation null and void? If so, will

government, through the NLC, be issuing an expression of interest to allow

others, preferably local companies, the opportunity to operate these prime

retail outlets?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the question.

I thank the Member for the question.

Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation has issued

a notice of termination to Canopy Growth concerning the production agreement and

the NLC is reviewing all rights and obligations under that particular production

agreement. There will be a new process put in place, and that is still under

review, Mr. Speaker, as this is only recently occurring. Canopy has been given

notice under their production agreement and there will be a new process to

determine how they move forward from here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

In accordance with

Section 6 of the

Transparency and Accountability Act , I

am pleased to submit for tabling the 2020-'23 Activity Plan and the 2019-2020

Annual Performance Report of the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, I give

notice to move the following private Member's resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the

government to change the Medical Transportation Assistance Program to allow 100

per cent reimbursement of travel for people who have to travel for medical

reasons outside their region in order to ensure every patient, no matter where

they live, receives timely and affordable care.

This is to be seconded by the Member for Torngat

Mountains.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with House operations, the private

Member's resolution put forward by the Member for Stephenville -Port au Port

would be the one debate here this Wednesday.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service

NL.

MS.

STOODLEY:

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, Bill 54.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will move the

following resolution:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 84 in particular,

if it is the pleasure of this House, Bill 54 may be read a second time, referred

to a Committee of the Whole and read a third time on the same sitting day;

And that notice shall be deemed to have been given and

moved under Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today,

Monday, December 14, 2020.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR.

PARROTT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the history of this petition is as

follows: The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure are refusing to

plow a gravel road approximately 200 feet in length in my district. The refusal

to plow this road in winter will deny a student with a disability access to

education this year.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as

follows: To urge government to reconsider their decision to not plow Garden Road

and allow this student to access her education.

Mr. Speaker, it's quite shameful that we're even having

this conversation. I want to be clear as to where this road is and how it

operates. The road is inside a local service district in an infill. It was

plowed by Transportation and Infrastructure years ago. Nobody understands why

but it fell off the list and they stopped plowing it. There's never been anyone

paid to plow the road. One of the residents took it upon himself to do so, only

when he could. He had a full-time job so it wasn't always done.

The Department of Education this year supplied a bus

that could accommodate this five-year-old little girl with brittle bone disease

access to education. It's a wheelchair accessible bus. They deemed the bus stop

to be on this road and if it snows this little girl cannot go to school. Not

only can she not go to school but there is no Internet access.

So we're clear, there's a bus being paid for, there's

an assistant being paid for so this little girl can access school, the bus stop

is on the road and the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure is not

plowing it. That says it all right there.

It's a double standard. I understand that I'm going to

hear all about Class 4, five and six roads and all the stuff, but, I can tell

you, I'm highly doubtful that they even went down and looked at the road. I've

been down there; I looked at the road. There's more than enough room for a plow

to turn around. It is 48 feet, more than enough room for a plow to turn around.

That was the excuse they gave the Child and Youth

Advocate: that a plow couldn't turn around. The excuses that they gave us over

the last 12 months, Mr. Speaker, was about policy, a policy that the department

has refused to provide. I'll say again: The department has quoted a policy that

they will not provide to myself, the mother or the Office for the Child and

Youth Advocate. It's ridiculous.

I hear this government talk all the time about safety

and no child left behind. Well, I can tell you, three men carrying a

five-year-old child with brittle bone disease in a wheelchair 200 feet up a road

so that she can access education, has nothing to do with safety and it has

nothing to do with making sure no child gets left behind.

Mr. Speaker, I implore the minister – who likes to use

the word “choose” and is the only one in this situation who has the ability to

choose – to have this road plowed. I'm not asking for it to be added to

inventory, I'm asking for this road to be maintained in the winter so this

little girl can get an education.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure with a response.

MR.

BRAGG:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the

petition.

I would like to remind the Member opposite, and

everyone who clapped on the other side, the decision to stop plowing or grading

or maintaining Class 4 roads was a decision made by the administration before

this government. Let me be clear on that, Mr. Speaker, it was done as a

cost-savings measure that Class 4 roads would be taken out. It was done prior to

anybody on this side coming into power.

There are numerous Class 4 roads in this province, with

numerous reasons why people think they should be plowed. It was a decision that

was made. To plow one means you would plow all, Mr. Speaker. At this time we're

not in a position to take on any Class 4 roads. When people decide to live in an

area with very limited services they should also decide what they expect the

outcome to be.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MS.

CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS individual residents, municipal leaders,

including the Conception Bay North Joint Council, have spoken to the deplorable

road conditions in the District of Harbour Main; and

WHEREAS the district is made up of many smaller

communities and towns like Holyrood, Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers,

South River, North River, Roaches Line and Makinsons, who have roads in

desperate need of repair and paving; and

WHEREAS these roads see high volume traffic flows every

day and drivers can expect potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many

washed out areas along the way;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly and

immediately call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to take the necessary steps to repair and repave these

important roadways to ensure the safety of the driving public who use them on a

regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I've

presented this petition; this has been raised by me on many occasions. I have to

say that with respect to the areas I'm referencing in the petition: Holyrood,

Upper Gullies and Seal Cove, in particular – although the others are very

substandard as well but these are areas in a deplorable state of disrepair –

they need to be upgraded; at a minimum they need to be paved. These are serious

safety concerns which we have to address. We're not dealing with just repairs of

washouts, these roads are very much presenting safety concerns.

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the people in the district

who are very frustrated. They are getting to the point of anger; they are really

at a loss of what they can do. We need to have some indication from the

minister. When can I tell the constituents involved in these communities that

this work will be done?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to also thank the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure for honouring the commitment that was made in

the last sitting of the House of Assembly with respect to brush cutting. I wish

to thank him on behalf of the many communities in the District of Harbour Main

that have received that necessary brush cutting.

They did recognize the need to address the safety

issues with lines of sight and with moose collisions and the problems that

caused, but this, Mr. Speaker, is even worse. It's even a more serious concern

when we're looking at the roads in these particular communities.

I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will

recognize this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. We're hoping that

we will see some action on behalf of the government in this regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR.

BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the petition.

I'm sure the Member opposite, as she realized brush

cutting is important, so is the condition of a road. We have over 10,000

kilometres of paved and unpaved roads in this province, Mr. Speaker. We have, I

think, a $70-million budget to maintain these and getting to them all in a

timely time proves to be difficult.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, getting into Christmastime,

I would like to thank the many hundreds – or many thousands – of people that we

have out on our roads today that are plowing our roads. They're keeping our

roads safe; they're maintaining our roads to a standard that we can get over at

the posted speed limits.

Mr. Speaker, to all these people I'd like to wish them

a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I would advise the Member opposite

that your roads will be taken into consideration, much like the rest. We have

engageNL in which we will be posting, if it's not posted today, our five-year

Roads Plan for negotiations and for conversations.

I look forward to any conversation that I may have with

you in the coming days, weeks or months, concerning the condition of the roads

in your district and, for that matter, for everyone else, on the roads and

conditions in their districts.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR.

TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to enter in the following petition to this

House of Assembly:

In 2020 government announced that Route 520, the

highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the communities of North West River

and Sheshatshiu was now a priority under the Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan.

Although a tender call was issued during late summer to complete upgrades and

pave some sections, the submitted bids far exceeded the allocated budget.

On the 19th of September 2020, in the House of

Assembly, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure stated: Government

will expand the scope of the contract to find better value for next year's

construction season, i.e., in 2021.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of

Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to issue the tender

for expanded work on Route 520 as soon as possible, so that the expanded

contract can be awarded and work started immediately at the beginning of the

2021 construction season.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This highway, this project and

the long-needed attention to it has been a topic in this House of Assembly.

I must say I've been involved and working very well

with the staff in the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Everyone

recognizes the importance of getting on with needed repairs. It's not just

paving, Mr. Speaker. Actually, the roadbed needs to come up in some places quite

significantly as a result of flooding approaches to some of the bridges on that

routing.

I'm looking forward to seeing this tender called. I

worked closely with the minister at the time and I'm well aware the intention

was strong; it's just unfortunate that the bids came in so high. With the

expanded scope of work, it is certainly hoped – and I'm certainly hoping to see

– the tender is called immediately with this expanded scope so that we can get

on with that important work.

I thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure with a response to the

petition.

MR.

BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for the petition.

Mr. Speaker, he couldn't have outlined it any better if

I wrote it myself. That is the plan, was the plan, will stay the plan, Mr.

Speaker, for Route 520.

I thank the Member opposite for the petition.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR.

WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, it must be Transportation day.

I'd like to add to that, but first I want to also echo

the minister's comments and thank the employees that keep our roads clear to

keep us safe in the winter months.

The maintenance and upkeep of the roadway through the

community of Cold Brook is the responsibility of the Department of

Transportation and Infrastructure. Sections of the roadway have been in

deplorable condition for the last five years and need repairs and resurfacing.

Children are required to ride school buses twice daily over roadways where

sections of the paved road are missing. There have been a number of close calls

where vehicles have to swerve in order to avoid driving over a

section of

roadway where the pavement is totally missing. The residents of Cold Brook

deserve better.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to consider repairing,

upgrading and maintaining the paved road through the community of Cold Brook in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I'm here to offer the minister a

great deal, because this past summer a number of cut-outs were made in the

pavement on Route 460 and the road going to Port au Port. They were made in

anticipation of roads being paved in the area, but because of issues with the

contractor, the work never got done. As a result, these cut-outs had to be

repaved. Now they have to come back next year and actually do the paving of the

road and the cut-outs again.

While the crews are back there next year doing this

work, let's make the deal to get the one kilometre of road in Cold Brook done

and over with.

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

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure with a response to the

petition.

MR.

BRAGG:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the

petition.

I think this is four for four. The process of doing the

cut-outs is pretty well a standard process. Today, if you see any road

construction, they will do the ditching; they do the culverts. While they're

waiting to do the initial paving, they will pave over where the culverts are,

because many times it's just a layer of asphalt that goes over the existing

asphalt, so they like to do it.

I'm glad to know that the work is ongoing. It's

unfortunate the contractor in this area did not get the work done, but I'm glad

that the Member opposite pointed out that the culverts were done because that

would be a nightmare for the people that work on our roads today that would have

to plow and be pavement and gravel in that area.

The MHA for that area, I'm sure he's glad to know, in

the spring, it's anticipated the contractor would get the work done.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR.

P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we'll keep the ball rolling on roadwork.

The petition I offer:

WHEREAS Route 60 through Topsail

is a heavily populated area with physically active residents; and

WHEREAS residents and young children who walk daily to

school are finding it very unsafe and a deplorable state of erosion along the

shoulders of Route 60 through Topsail;

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as

follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to find a more permanent solution and

install curb and gutter to the areas affected by erosion.

Mr. Speaker, I've presented this petition, I've lost

count how many times. Last year, I presented it and in this House the minister

of Transportation at the time committed to having it looked at this past year.

I've had a lot of going back and forth with the current minister who was going

to come up and look at it as well.

The municipality and the province seem to be back and

forth on who is responsible for this, or whether it's something subsurface that

needs to be done. The fact of the matter is some of these areas are really

unsafe. There are some areas around the storm drains that are completely gone;

you'd lose a small dog down there, no doubt about it. Now with the first

snowfall, these are going to be hidden hazards for people walking.

So here we are, if we don't get these sections done

soon, you're going to go through the full winter like this. I guarantee you in

the spring it's going to be much worse again. Some of these areas around storm

drains actually have metal plates laid over them. So plows going along are just

going to take that away, that's gone, and you still have a gaping hole in these

areas.

I do implore the minister to have a look at these again

sooner than later, or at least get together with the municipality and determine

who is responsible for what, because this is a safety issue, in terms of people

walking or cars driving. You just have to go up and look at some of these storm

drains, look at some of these potholes, they are real hazards and someone's

going to be seriously injured by hitting these in a car or going down through

the hole.

I hope that the minister will have a look at these and

come to some solution to fix them.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure with a response.

MR.

BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the theme today is definitely going to be the

condition of our roads. I assure the Member opposite, who just presented the

petition, that we will reach out to the town council in that area and have a

discussion and discuss that road. As you're well aware, this time during the

winter season, there's going to be very little, if any, work will be done except

for emergency maintenance work, but we will go and investigate that area and

just see what we can do during the spring, Mr. Speaker.

That, like all the rest of the roads in our province,

will get the same attention, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government

and Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Pensions Benefit Act, 1997, Bill 54, be now read a first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the said bill now be read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and

Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pensions Benefit Act,

1997,” carried. (Bill 54)

CLERK (Barnes):

bill,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 54.)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR.

CROCKER:

Now, with leave.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Now.

On motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a

second time presently, by leave.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Mr.

Speaker, with leave of the House, I move the following resolution:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 84, in particular,

if it is the pleasure of this House, Bill 54 may be read a second time, referred

to Committee of the Whole and read a third time on the same sitting day;

And that notice shall be deemed to have been given and

moved under Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.,

today, Monday, December 14, 2020.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

Was there a seconder for that motion?

MR.

CROCKER:

Sorry, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Does the minister have leave to move this motion now?

HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 1, Bill 54.

MR.

SPEAKER:

need to vote on that resolution that the minister just moved.

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 1, second reading of

Bill 54.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.

MS.

STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety, that Bill 54,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now

read a second time.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we will have convened the House to

discuss changes to the Pension Benefits Act, specifically unlocking of

retirement benefits. There are approximately 180 pension plans registered with

the province under this act and the legislation covers more than 65,000 –

MR.

SPEAKER:

Before the minister proceeds to speak, it's been moved and seconded that this

bill now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Pension Benefits Act, 1997.” (Bill 54)

MR.

SPEAKER:

Okay, proceed.

MS.

STOODLEY:

Mr. Speaker, we have approximately 180 pension plans registered in the province

under the Pension Benefits Act and the legislation covers more than 65,000 plan

members. When we talk about retirement benefits, we're also referring to LIRAs,

LIFs and LRIFs. These are locked-in retirement accounts registered with the

province, of which there are 894, and these are listed on our website. These

fall under the Pension Benefits Act if they are registered in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I just want to touch on the process for a minute. This

process within the department has been ongoing for over a year in terms of

reviewing this legislation. It's something they have done periodically years

prior to that. We did do consultations from July to September 30 and then we did

bring the House back, as Members know, so that we could debate this important

motion.

I would like to start off today by outlining what is

not subject to the Pension Benefits Act, so not subject to what we are

discussing today. Individuals who are actively contributing members to a pension

plan in the province are not subject to the amendment we are discussing here

today for those particular pensions. If you are in receipt of pension income

from a pension plan – so if you're actively monthly getting pension income from

a pension plan – these amendments do not apply to you, you're considered an

active member. No jurisdiction in Canada allows unlocking if you're an active

pension plan member, if you're paying in or if you are actively receiving

pension incomes. That's not something that's offered anywhere in Canada.

If you are a member of the Public Service Pension Plan

or the Teachers' Pension Plan these changes do not apply to you. Those pension

plans have their own specific pieces of legislation. If you are a member of a

federally regulated pension plan, these changes do not apply to you. Those plans

are subject to federal legislation. Essentially, each province has a pension act

which governs pensions, both registered in that province and locked-in

retirement accounts registered in those provinces.

I've spoken with people in the past few weeks who have

wanted to learn more about the proposed changes we are going to make. In

discussing with them, we realized their pensions were registered in Ontario, for

example, and their locked-in accounts were registered in Ontario. If anyone is

listening or watching right now, I would encourage you – if you're not sure you

can go on our website. You can look at a list of all the LIRAs, LIFs and LRIFs

that are registered under Newfoundland and Labrador. If yours isn't there, then

yours would be registered with another province and the plan administrator or

your financial institution could give you more information about that.

These amendments are about allowing former employees

who have previously transferred their pension benefit out of a pension plan and

into a locked-in retirement savings arrangement, which is subject to the Pension

Benefits Act. As I mentioned, there are 894 of these listed on our website.

Presently, these three types of approved retirement

savings arrangements – this is really the heart of what we're discussing today –

a locked-in retirement account, a LIRA; a life income fund, a LIF; or a

locked-in retirement income fund, LRIF. These retirement savings arrangements

are designed specifically to hold locked-in funds when a pension benefit leaves

a registered pension plan covered under the act.

Today, the act provides two exceptions to the locked-in

requirement. An individual can unlock the entire benefit and receive a lump sum

if either a doctor certifies the individual has a considerably shortened life

expectancy, or if the pension is determined to be a small balance, which is

roughly under $6,000. Aside from these two circumstances, current legislation

does not allow any other circumstance for unlocking benefits until retirement,

and early retirement is 55.

Mr. Speaker, the current pandemic has highlighted that

residents facing financial hardship are looking to leverage some of these funds

to help them get by. We have discussed these situations in the House of Assembly

during this sitting numerous times and even today during Question Period.

Undoubtedly, there are many individuals and families throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador who have financially been impacted as a result of COVID-19. My

department has received numerous calls from individuals who have been adversely

impacted and they are searching for solutions, such as accessing these

retirement savings arrangements. I've spoken with many of these over the past

few weeks.

It's important to remember there is no perfect solution

here. Taking money out of a retired savings account for current financial

hardship is a complex issue; we have to look at both sides of the equation. We

all have constituents impacted by imminent financial need, but then I think

always see value in maximizing residents' retirement savings; if part of the

money is spent now, it won't be there for retirement income later. It's like a

spectrum of how much you take out now, there's less available later. With all

this in mind we examined what happens in other jurisdictions and how unlocking

abilities impact residents and pension plans in those jurisdictions as well.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of pension unlocking has been

brought to the attention of previous administrations. Residents have asked for

increased flexibility. As I mentioned, there's no perfect solution. Even across

Canada there is a range of approaches allowing residents to unlock portions of

their locked-in accounts. Some of the other items that are considered here: A

locking-in provision is designed to protect an individual's spouse or cohabiting

partner as it automatically provides them with a survivor benefit should they

outlive the original pension beneficiary.

Aside from the individuals themselves, we were looking

at the impact of unlocking benefits and the impact that has on survivors,

employers and unions; also, the impact it has on women, as women live longer and

they'll be impacted by a reduced family retirement income. We launched

consultations from July until September 30, 2020. We received more than 140

submissions. This feedback was considered in our decision-making process.

Today we're introducing amendments to allow for the

unlocking of pension benefits from a locked-in retirement savings arrangement

when the fund holder is experiencing financial hardship. The amendments define

financial hardship in five ways: The first is in the inability to make the first

month's rent or to make a security deposit when trying to rent accommodations;

secondly, the threat of eviction due to the inability to make a rent payment;

the threat of foreclosure due to the inability to make a monthly mortgage

payment; the inability to pay for medical costs; or the inability to pay for

costs related to equipment or treatment related to a disability. In all of these

cases, documentation would need to be provided to show the actual amount that is

required to be unlocked from the retirement savings arrangement. The financial

institutions will be enabling this and would be managing that process.

For example, if a homeowner is in arrears of $10,000 on

mortgage payments and they're in danger of foreclosure, the homeowner would need

to submit documentation to the financial institution showing the amount needed.

Individuals will not be asked to send any information to our department. The

entire process will be administered by the financial institution, as it is in

other provinces.

We've also included low income as a criteria for

unlocking retirement savings. It is based on a formula to determine eligibility.

This is consistent with the approaches of other provinces. We have a sliding

scale. The formula is outlined in the legislation which we can get to in

Committee but, essentially, the closer you make to the cap, the less you can

unlock. Then, the lower your income, the more you can unlock up to a certain

amount.

Mr. Speaker, I'm missing two pages but that's okay.

Unlocking pension benefits is crucially important for residents of the province.

It's a very complex issue. We do encourage all residents, if you're considering

this, to speak with a credit counselling agency or get financial advice.

Just a few other things I'll add, Mr. Speaker. In the

legislation that we're proposing, spouses will have to sign off that their

partner is unlocking this benefit as – when you take money out of retirement

savings that impacts both partners, so your partner will also have to sign off.

What we're proposing, as well, in terms of medical and disability, those will be

available to the dependents of the fund holders. If they need medical costs for

a child or disability costs for a child, if it's their dependant, then that will

be eligible as well.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a very complex issue.

There's no perfect solution here. As an MHA, I've worked with many of my

constituents thorough these discussions, as well as residents across the

province. I know many of them are eagerly awaiting the option to use this to

help imminent financial hardship. I look forward to the debate and the

discussion in the Committee.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR.

O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an honour here to be able to come in and discuss

this Pension Benefits Act. We've asked some questions in my 18 months here now

and we've been asking questions along the way. Those questions are coming from

concerned citizens.

The people that make statements to say, well, I don't

think we should unlock them; they're not in that situation. The people that are

making those statements are the people that are getting paid. They're not

sitting home waiting for their money. They're getting paid. I'm sure those

people probably need financial solutions themselves. Now these people are

without a job, they've been laid off for some unknown reason. The pandemic is

after bringing this to the forefront.

Speaking on that, I hear these statements all the time

and if I have one person calling me, then that's the person I'm going in inquire

about. That's my job as a MHA. Those people asked and we're asking those

questions. We're not asking them for ourselves – or maybe we will at some point

in time – but we're asking these questions based on constituents and people all

over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asking these questions so they

can get out of financial hardship. It's not to just go get some extracurricular

stuff in their life; these are life-altering situations.

What is the point if you're going to save for tomorrow

if someone can't survive today? It doesn't make any sense. Those people are

asking. I guess it's something that they finally – this is their last straw.

They want to be able to withdraw their money that they rightfully earned.

For somebody to tell them they don't think they should

do it, or somebody else is making statements they don't think they should do it

– maybe they shouldn't but they're not in that situation, they are getting paid.

These people are in a financial crunch and they need their money. If this is

what we have to do to help them, then they can make that decision and get

financial help and do it.

That's where this stands. I don't see how we can be any

more straightforward – I can't, anyway – that if somebody is asking you for

help, then we should be able to help them out. Everybody has arguments for – and

I get beat down wherever I go – on the pension issue and they shouldn't be

allowed, but they're not in that situation, they're getting paid. So just to

touch on that.

I'll just go down through some of the amendments that

we did. First of all – I should have probably done that first starting off – I'd

like to thank the staff for giving us the information when we did our briefing.

They did a great job on it and answered questions; we were probably on it 45

minutes to an hour. I think they did a great job on it, so I thank them for

that.

To get back to the act, it allows a person who

previously transferred his or her pension benefit into an approved retirement

savings arrangement to withdraw an amount not exceeding a prescribed amount from

the arrangement where the person or the pension beneficiary is experiencing

financial hardship; and allows a person who had previously transferred his or

her pension benefit into an approved retirement savings arrangement to withdraw

the full amount in the retirement savings arrangement where the pension has

resided outside of Canada for at least two years. There are a couple of changes

there.

The background on this is the Pension Benefits Act and

regulations are under the purview of the Department of Digital Government and

Service NL and provided regulations regarding the pension benefits and funds.

Locked-in refers to restrictions on when and how the pension benefit can be

accessed annually. Speaking with a financial advisor in my circle, he said if

somebody is in hardship – and he sells life insurance, he's in to all kinds of

stuff. When somebody asked him if they can get into their pension, then he said

they take a form, they fill it out, they put their information on it and he

sends it to the company that deals with it. It's nothing out of his pocket to do

that. He sold it. If that person wants to take whatever that company is going to

give them, the insurance company, then that's up to them, that's not up to him.

He didn't see any reason – and we're the only province.

He deals with people in Alberta that get paid out of Alberta. They can get in to

access their funds and people in Newfoundland can't. He said it was way behind.

If Alberta, Ontario, BC or whoever has it, if they have it done, then why can't

we do it? It gives the person an option and that's what we're doing. I don't

know how we can simplify it any more than that. I've heard other MHAs, speaking

to them, that they've thought the same over the years.

My only concern with any of this – and not just this

legislation, all legislation – why does it take so long? We've been sitting

here; we've criticized governments from 2000 to 2010. If we're in here to do a

job, then why don't we do it? Why don't we speed up legislation? Why can't we

get to the bottom of the problem quicker, instead of taking forever to do it?

Three and four years in regulations, four and five years – that's way too long.

You wouldn't do that in your own life. If you had trouble today and you made a

call to somebody, you'd want to get it done and you'd want to move on, but we

take forever to do it as a government.

If you sit down, you hear people criticizing you. Then

why don't we change it, as 40 people in here, 40 MHAs? Why don't we speed up the

process? It just seems so long. We sit here and we grin at each other, we look

across and we insult each other. We're talking about a roads change today

because in the government of 2012 – that's an individual. I know he can't change

it for one but it's a different circumstance for everything and it should be

looked at. To wait this long is unreal. It just doesn't make sense.

Every legislation is the same way. I asked the question

in the House today – same thing – why do we take so long to gets answers on

stuff that seems just so easy to do? Not easy. I'm not going to say it's easy to

do, but it shouldn't take four years to do it. It's crazy. Get down to the

points, get down to what we're supposed to be doing. We continue to push it off.

We have to review; we have a Committee. How much money do we have to spend on

all this stuff? Sit down and get the people that are supposed to do it and make

the regulations.

We sit here, we look at each other and probably nod and

say, yes, it makes a lot of sense, but why don't we do it? Why don't we be

different than any other government? If you're the government over there, why

don't we be different? Put your name out there and go do the job we're supposed

to do and make the regulations and move on.

I'll just go down through some of the other stuff here

– the five reasons and the minister already touched on that. The reasons for

withdrawing would be: low income, medical expenses and disability-related

expenses. Stuff happens along the way that people end up being disabled and they

need to be able to get – when they started this they didn't need it, but they

need it now. When they're dealing with a disability, now is the time. It's no

good in 10 years' time when they got nothing left – no good. It's important that

we get to it.

Also, mortgage payments was another one that if a

person or a principal beneficiary, principal residence is at risk of

foreclosure, the amount could be unlocked to rectify the default. That's another

example, and rent payment. Obviously, somebody needs money upfront, or whatever

the case may be, that's something that we could look at.

The proposed amendments also require that individuals

must confirm in writing that they understand the impact of making the

withdrawal, principal beneficiaries must consent to unlocking and financial

institutions must submit semi-annual reports; officials note that they will

monitor unlocking through these reports to access impacts on it. At least we're

going to keep an eye on it every six months and be able to report back and get

the information.

It's just not going to go ahead carte blanche and be

able to write a cheque. It's based on the information that they give, but it

gives the person the opportunity to do that. I think that would be something

that they'd look forward to.

We certainly look forward to being able to get into

Committee and be able to ask some questions. I'll leave it at that for now.

We'll move on and we'll discuss in Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me two reports that

suggest that government is not particularly good with managing pension funds.

Starting when we developed the public sector Pooled Pension Fund in 1981, we

were told that we needed to put $500 million into that fund to make the fund

whole. Only recently, we've managed to realize that we've had to go to a joint

sponsorship in our public sector pension fund and that has resulted in decreased

benefits. That's just one example of poorly administered pension funds.

The next one that I'm looking at was another plan that

examined how money that was supposed to go into pension funds was

misappropriated and put into general revenue instead, leaving the Pooled Pension

Fund at another unfunded liability. So in that context, I would suggest that

hastily moving pension legislation amendments through, without fully recognizing

or researching or finding the appropriate evidence, is simply foolhardy.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of concerns about this.

Let's start with: When did the original request to unlock pension funds come in?

Certainly, we've all been brought here today under the auspice of we are

unlocking pensions to kind of offset COVID hardships. That, I do not believe, is

the case. My understanding is that there has been a lobby on the part of private

sector interests to unlock pensions for quite some time now and it is only a

matter of taking advantage of an unfortunate situation that this is being pushed

forward just a little bit more.

In that context, perhaps we can look at some of the

problems associated with the legislation as it has been proposed. It is talking

now about pensions being considered to help alleviate financial hardship. As we

learned from some of my questions earlier in the House today that unlocking

pensions, first of all, is not going to immediately address the financial

hardships that many of us have heard from our constituents. More particularly,

some of the very angry emails that I've been receiving say you've taken

Christmas from my children or my 70-year-old father who is receiving his pension

wants to unlock the rest of it. That tells me that there is enormous amount of

misinformation around this unlocking of pensions. So, again, rushing this

through will benefit no one.

What I suggest we ought to do is, if we are going to

unlock pensions, we do it properly and correctly and ensure that all of the

unintended consequences that will come with unlocking pensions are effectively

avoided or at least mitigated appropriately. I'll go into some of those quite

shortly.

What instead is far more important and what we ought to

be considering here today is not unlocking of pensions, which essentially forces

individuals to trade-off their well-being in the future to instead be able to

deal with some hardships that, through no fault of their own, they find

themselves in. I say through no fault of their own because I guarantee you not

one person in Newfoundland and Labrador has said, yes, I wanted to be laid off

because of COVID or I'm happy that they shut down the Argentia site or I'm glad

that I am not going to be able to find a job next year.

I think we do need to consider this in the context, and

in that particular context we could be doing so much more to help the people who

do need that help today. We could be here having a discussion about how we would

like to best implement a guaranteed basic income that would've helped more than

enough people in Newfoundland and Labrador see themselves through a lovely

Christmas. We could also take some of that $200 million in the COVID contingency

fund, to which we all agreed was necessary in the budget process, and offer

these individuals interest-free loans or even grants to address the issue they

are facing as a result of COVID right now. Not expect these individuals to

trade-off their health and their safety and their financial future when they

retire through circumstances that they face that are, through no fault of their

own, occurring right now. The reason we are here is misguided.

Let's talk about alieving financial hardship. We are

not opening these to alleviate financial hardship, certainly not in the

immediate term. Let's talk about some of the concerns here. As I made my way

through this legislation there were several problems associated with it, none of

which I got much of a response from. Let's suggest – when we first started

talking about this, or when we went through the legislation, recognizing the

importance of pensions to all of us. I can imagine if you wanted to talk to some

of the Members who are waiting for their pension to be vested before an election

is called, you can pretty much get a very good sense of the value of such a

thing.

If our pensions are so important and ought to be

protected, and we want to allow for us to be protected from financial hardship,

we should be building a mechanism for replacing those funds for the individuals

who are going to withdraw these funds. Yet, no where in the legislation do I see

any mechanism to encourage or, in fact, insist that individuals replace those

pension funds. If this is simply to address a temporary financial hardship, then

maybe what we also want to do is ensure the individuals who are sacrificing

their own personal pensions, because government is not putting forward another

option for them to address the financial hardships that are coming out of COVID,

then at the very least we can encourage and facilitate a mechanism for them to

replace those funds so their financial futures are held sacrosanct.

Mr. Speaker, I've asked a number of times who is going

to be eligible to avail of this unlocking of the pensions? When I say who,

perhaps I was looking more for: Can you give me a sense of the number of

individuals who will be able to access this? What I got instead was the Pension

Benefits Act regulates over 180

pension plans. There are active plan members and there are 375 locked-in

retirement accounts and 225 locked-in retirement income funds.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we don't know the number of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with these funds, nor do we know the dollar

value of funds held by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, nor do we have any

sense of who would actually fall under the criteria we have laid out in defining

hardship.

Mr. Speaker, the best I know for who would be addressed

in this is an indication I got from an email and an

article saying that twice as

many people or double the number of people this year than last year have

requested information about this. I don't know if these people are at all

eligible, I don't know if these people were interested in availing of it and I

don't know if these individuals even have these pension plans. They just want to

know if they can unlock a pension.

My understanding from the news articles and the email I

have received was the number has doubled. No one has been able to tell me what

doubled means. Does it mean they went from one request last year to two requests

this year? Did it go from 3,000 requests last year to 6,000 requests this year?

Surely, I think if there were 6,000 requests, someone might have been a little

more inundated and been able to provide me with a little bit more information.

But right now, it seems that we are simply looking at decision-based evidence

making and not the reverse.

We have no idea who is going to be able to avail of

this, nor do we know if the people who are intending to avail of this are going

to be able to avail of this. There are much better things that we could have

done to help the people who are hurting right now than to have us addressing

unlocking pension legislation for an undetermined number of individuals for an

indeterminate amount of money. We are misguided in sitting here today and saying

this is going to alleviate financial hardships brought to us by COVID, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I could go on for – oh, another 10

minutes. I note that when we talk about income in our definition – in

section

44.1(3)(

a) I will note that it says if “the person's expected total income for

the one year period following the date on which the person seeks to make the

withdrawal is not more than 66.66% of the YMPE for the year in which the person

seeks to make the withdrawal ….”

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is essentially creating

a clause that says if you don't think that you're going to make as much money

next year as you did last year, and that much money is going to be below

two-thirds of the year's maximum pensionable earnings, then you can maybe access

these funds. I am unsure of how we are going to get proof that someone's future

earnings are going to be at two-thirds of what the year's maximum pensionable

earnings are. That doesn't even make sense to me.

If we were going to try to prove financial hardship,

wouldn't you base it on this year's earnings compared to last year's earnings?

Wouldn't you have some expectation of an ability to prove that you are not

making the income that will allow you to unlock your pension?

At this point in this wording, an individual could

easily have been making $200,000 a year at any type of project, and then choose

to go into further education; perhaps they would like to do a graduate degree in

something. So they, according to this legislation as it's written right now,

could leave their job knowing full well that they were earning nothing next year

because they were going to school full-time and be able to unlock their pension

to do that with no more evidence beyond: I'm going to make less money. How is

that conceivable? How is someone able to do that? That is not financial

hardship. That, in fact, is far from financial hardship.

This writing of this amendment does not address the

needs of the individuals whom we are trying to leave the hardship from. Mr.

Speaker, off the hop we haven't conceived of this legislation and written the

legislation in a manner in which it will do the things we want it to do. That

tells me that it is not an appropriate piece of legislation.

Here's another concern I have with this and I'm sure

we'll go into Committee and be able to discuss this at great length. I have

found that one of the things that we have not included is: Has there been a

maximum amount of pension that an individual can take over the course of several

years? We have a maximum amount for a particular year, but over the course of

multiple years will an individual be able to completely deplete their pension

funds? There's no mechanism to say yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, there's another unfortunate effect that

may happen as a result of this. I'm sure it's an unintended consequence but I'm

sure those who have turned their mind to thinking about this issue in a much

more comprehensive way, an impactful way, have thought about the possibility

that an individual who is currently in a group pension plan – much like our

pension plan, much like the public sector Pooled Pension Fund, much like

Provident10. If these individuals for some reason have to leave their job – and

here's something that's very important, because if we see public sector layoffs

as a result of the upcoming budget or as a result of the economic recovery task

force's suggestions that we cut our public service, what will then happen is

many of those individuals will be able to take their pension fund, roll it into

a locked-in pension fund and then slowly deplete their pension away.

What will we do then when these individuals have no

pensions? Has anyone given any thought to the negative impact on the Pooled

Pension Fund? Right now, we are paying $300 million per year – and, actually,

it's a little bit more than that – in an attempt to make the Pooled Pension Fund

whole. We owe an enormous amount in unfunded liabilities as a result of that

poor planning and poor pension management that I had mentioned at the beginning

of this discussion. We are still trying to offset those things.

By unlocking these pensions without having the

forethought of what could be the implications of individuals being laid off – or

individuals choosing to say I'm not going to work anymore, lay me off, or I'm

going to quit my job – and being able to take their money out of a group pension

plan, thereby jeopardizing the health of that group pension plan, and then move

it into a locked-in income fund where then they could use, the future earnings

have dropped to be able to unlock that, that hasn't been addressed anywhere

here. I see that is a gross oversight on the part of this legislation, to not be

able to address what, I hope, is an unintended consequence of the legislation

that we are currently discussing.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot – I cannot – in good faith pass a

piece of legislation that has such gapping holes in it, that could potentially

jeopardize individuals' retirement incomes, but also the health of the public

sector pension plan because, as you may note, one of the bullets in our briefing

noted that there are over 46,000 active plan members. That group plan – well, is

it fair if we jeopardize the 46,000 active plan members by allowing some

individuals to withdraw from these plans?

Again, we need to have a comprehensive discussion about

the implications of this legislation before we go racing forward saying: We're

going to fix all your COVID hardships by unlocking this pension plan. Sir, we

will not. That is not what will happen as a result of this. We do not know who

is going to be able to unlock their plan, we don't know how many, we don't know

how much and we don't know when. There are far better ways to address the

immediate needs of the individuals of Newfoundland and Labrador who are

experiencing financial hardship as a result of COVID-19 than asking them to

jeopardize their financial future in their retirement and unlocking this

legislation. There are much better mechanisms that our government can put in

place in the tool box that is as yet unopened.

We could do this to help people out of this, to ensure

that they are able to pay their mortgages, they are able to get access to the

health care that they need, they are able to take care of them because they have

a disability and they are able to manage their mortgage payments because they've

gotten some relief from their mortgage. There are so many better ways to do what

this House is attempting to do right now than to jeopardize financial futures of

individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this legislation.

I will be asking quite an extensive number of questions during Committee to

ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know exactly what is

happening with this pension legislation and the fact that the New Democratic

caucus has tried to provide numerous alternatives to help them alleviate their

financial hardship that go well beyond unlocking pensions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure to speak on Bill 54. I would note that

our caucus is in favour of the unlocking of these pensions. Respectful of

Standing Order 48, I just want to share one thing before I get into the

unlocking, and it has relevance in Standing Order 48.

I attended many Santa Claus parades in the District of

Bonavista recently. Like the unlocking of pensions, the Santa Claus parade lifts

people's spirits and gives them some hope. One parade I witnessed in Trinity Bay

North, there were two young children watching the parade. It was Mason and Piper

and they were jumping up and down with excitement as the parade was inching

closer, but not only did they have excitement, and with the constant reminders

of their dad to move back from the road – the excitement I could see in the

faces in the fire trucks, in the vehicles that had the floats and the extensive

amount of work that went in. This happens all the time because we are thinking

about the people in our community.

The unlocking of these pensions is nothing different.

We are thinking of the people in our community who may be encountering hardship

to unlock them.

I reached out to several constituents in my district

when I knew that I may have the opportunity to speak on that. I reached out to

Roger Ball and his wife Sally. They concur that in these unprecedented times

there are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who may be able to avail of this

pension. If they are able to avail of the pension, they ought to have the choice

to do so.

Josh Clarke, another very astute political mind in the

District of Bonavista and hails from Bonavista, would state and say the same

thing.

But I want to tell you, in a few minutes, about a

gentleman in Little Catalina who's name is Jim Dalton. Jim is 68 years old and

he has a LIF; he has money locked-in. He wouldn't mind me giving the full

disclosure of his matters for the benefit of this House as we ponder the

unlocking of funds. I will get to that shortly, but that's probably one that you

would be anxious, and I would love to hear what your opinion is after hearing

Jim Dalton's situation and his wife Gertie.

Finally, just to reference a 89-year-old friend of

mine; 89-years-young friend of mine, Nancy Vaughan, doesn't have her mind made

up yet on the unlocking of pensions, but I'm hoping after today's debate she

will see the merits in unlocking the pension.

Before I delve into some issues, and not being

redundant, like Standing Order 48 states, and not to repeat what has been said,

one thing I do want to commend is the Member for Ferryland who has talked about

this issue on numerous occasions. I tip my hat to the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

PARDY:

Not

only has he championed this legislation coming forth from the House of Assembly

floor, but he's done it in caucus numerous times. I applaud his initiative and

his passion for doing so.

Two things, two pertinent observations to make:

Government represents the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and we create

legislation that improves the livelihood of the residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That's our mantra. That's our goal.

Several of the people I've asked in the last 18 months

what legislation have we brought forth that would change or positively impact

their livelihoods or their lives? Sadly, there's not a lot this House has passed

that would improve the livelihoods of the residents of whom I spoke with. This

is one.

There are, I would say to you, 100 or more residents

who would be interested in looking into the unlocking of pensions in the

District of Bonavista. Jim Dalton is one that will not be able to unlock his,

but I'll share his story in a short time.

A second thing for our consideration would be the

moment that government makes a decision that we know better than the residents

of the District of Bonavista or other residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

that is misguided.

The previous Member spoke about misguided. I would say

to you, if you think you know better than the Jim Daltons, the Josh Clarkes and

the Roger Balls; that is misguided. It is their money and I would say when we

pass this legislation today, we're putting the ball right back in their court

because we believe they have the intellect and the ability to be able to decide

what's best for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

PARDY:

it's not, I have faith that they will not pull it out. That I would look into.

We're looking at a pension act here, 1997. It's 23

years, I'm assuming, since the last amendment – 23 years. We know that the big

five pensions are not included. That was stated earlier. If you're a member of

the NLTA, the Nurses' Union, NAPE, CUPE, it doesn't apply. Allied workers, it's

not for you. You will have an active pension.

The people that transferred into these three

classifications of pensions – the minister had stated there were 894 of them, I

think, she may have mentioned – just let me name a couple out to you and see

where your mind goes when you hear the names of some of these funds: Investors

Group Securities, Mackenzie Retirement Savings, Primerica Concert RSP, BMO

Mutual Funds, BMO Nesbitt Burns Group, the Trust Company of Bank of Montreal.

There are 894 of these that are governed by very, very large corporations.

The Roger Balls of the world would say that these

corporations would love for you to keep your money in there as long as possible.

Conceivably, he may be right. The longer you have the money in there, the more

they administrate it, the more it contributes to their bottom line which is,

often, companies worth billions of dollars. At the same time, we have residents

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or in the District of Bonavista who

wish to access their money.

I'll avoid duplication as best I can. We said that

we're forging ahead into uncharted territory. I've been in this House for 18

months. There's no forging in uncharted territory when it comes to legislation.

I would say to you that we are often the 10th province to enact legislation that

might be meaningful for our people because we want it tried, balanced and tested

in other jurisdictions before it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador.

This particular legislation that's on the books here is

not something that this government has created out of the blue; they have

patterned and adapted the legislation from three other jurisdictions who have

had it for a decade or more. It's been proven from those other jurisdictions

that there is no downside to unlocking these pensions. Whether you be in

Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia, it's tried and tested. Check that off. We're not

forging ahead with something that's misguided or we're really on a wish and a

prayer going forward. It has proven the test of time. It is not misguided.

Three others I spoke with – and I'll wrap up. I spoke

to a 35-year senior advisor at a bank. She would like to pass on to you 39 other

MHAs: Don't miss the opportunity to unlock the pensions. She is dealing, in her

clientele, with people who can access the money they've got locked in these

types of funds. She has full faith in those people who would like to unlock the

funds because she believes in them having the ability to be able to make what

decision is right for them – so 35 years.

Before I get to the Jim Dalton situation, I want to

share with you an email that was sent to the Minister of Digital Government and

Service NL. I'm sure she's had many. This one comes from the West Coast, in my

colleague's District of Stephenville - Port au Port. I read, quote: I notice

that the amount of withdrawal may be 25 per cent, but in researching other

jurisdictions I've seen mostly 50. Most people like me don't have six figures

locked in. Most have worked for a temporary amount of time and don't have a lot

to withdraw from.

Again, key point: It's our money. We left our families

to provide services to the government. Not one cent belongs to anyone else but

us. For people to be against it: Don't take it out if you don't want to, simple.

This is our own money. People are already at their wit's end with ever-changing,

more stringent rules of government. I speak out online to many people who are in

agreement with me. What's it to government for us to take out our money?

I firmly believe and I know that our caucus is in

favour of it. Let me share with you the Jim Dalton story. Jim Dalton and his

wife, Gertie, are watching now from Little Catalina, probably sitting down with

their cup of tea and watching. He's given me the ability to give you full

disclosure of his situati