PDF Version

November 15, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 42

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

If I

may, it would give me a great honour to introduce into the Speaker's gallery

today some visitors from 5 Wing Goose Bay. We have with us Lieutenant Colonel

Stéphane Racle, who's the Commanding Officer at 5 Wing Goose Bay; Master Warrant

Officer David McDowell, 5 Wing Goose Bay; and 5 Wing Mitigation Officer, Mr.

Tony Chubbs.

Welcome

to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also, I understand in the

public gallery today, I believe over here to my right, we have with us Mayor

Juanita Stone and her husband, Bob, from Red Bay.

We have

a great welcome to you. Thanks for being here with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

You can't hide.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we have the hon. Districts of Cape St. Francis, Humber - Bay of Islands,

Bonavista, and Mount Pearl - Southlands.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize Ms. Mary Fleming of Torbay, who will be celebrating her 100th

birthday on November 16. This is a milestone that few of us get to see. May has

lived every year of her 100 years to the fullest.

Mary was

one of 13 children born of John and Annie Mahon and, like many in her day, Mary

was taken out of school at an early age to help out at home. Mary later married

Edward Fleming and had children of her own. In her early days, she helped her

husband run a convenience store and barbershop in Torbay.

Mary was

widowed when she was just 40 years old. Following her husband's death, she

closed the store and went to work in retail and the food industry while raising

her children. For a brief period, Mary also went to Churchill Falls and was

among the first group of women to go there.

Mary has

been blessed with good health and has been an active member of her community.

She has enjoyed her independence and drove until she was 89, and remained in her

own home until she was 98. I believe she's the oldest person in Torbay.

Mr.

Speaker, Ms. Mary Fleming is a remarkable woman and I ask all hon. Members to

join with me in wishing her continued good health and much happiness as she

celebrates this incredible milestone, her 100th birthday.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize Jamie Brake of Meadows.

Earlier

this year, Jamie was awarded Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador's Volunteer of

the Year Award. This award recognizes a volunteer for outstanding efforts and

invaluable contributions to the development of recreation.

Jamie,

who is also the Mayor of Meadows, has been involved with sports for many years

both as a player and a coach. He avails of every opportunity to complete

training programs and is always eager to share his knowledge and skills with

others.

Because

of his vision to offer recreational opportunities in the town, programs like

Learn to Skate, ball hockey, pond hockey tournaments and many other activities

have been major successes under his leadership. It is not uncommon in the winter

to find Jamie in the early hours of the morning flooding the rink, or in the

summertime ensuring everybody is ready when children arrive for the day.

Jamie

also received NAPE's Community Volunteer Step Up Award this year and in 2019, he

will be one of the hockey coaches for Team Newfoundland and Labrador at the

Canada Winter Games being held in Red Deer, Alberta.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Jamie on this recognition and for his

continued contribution to his community and the province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, imagine making

it to 80 years of age. Now, imagine being committed to an organization for 80

years. That is the case for Frances Sweetland of Bonavista who has been

committed to the guiding movement for 80 years.

Under

the guise of a cake walk, Ms. Sweetland was recently surprised by well over 100

Sparks, Brownies, Guides, Pathfinders and Rangers, past and present, to whom she

is known as Brown Owl. Ms. Sweetland began her lifetime commitment to guiding in

1938 at age eight as a Brownie. She would later become a Guide and Pathfinder,

and serve as a leader, commissioner, and even a cookie conveyer for our area,

amongst other roles.

After

the initial shock wore off, Brown Owl was presented with a number of gifts and

well wishes from those who couldn't attend. The highlight of the evening was

when 80 women each took a flower and formed a circle around the campfire and

toadstool. Each dropped their flower in the basket, offering congratulations or

a story as to what Brown Owl means to them.

For

empowering women for generations, fellow leader Leigh-Ann Ryder said it best:

“Brown Owl was Girl Power before Girl Power was cool!”

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

coming Saturday, over 400 players and coaches from the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey

Association will be hitting the doorsteps throughout the City of Mount Pearl, as

well as the Southlands and South Brook areas, as part of their 7th annual Big

Give Food Drive.

This

year they will be joined by a number of other sports groups and community

organizations including Scouts, Cadets, Lions, Kinsmen and many individual

volunteers.

addition to door-to-door collection, there will be food bins set up at Mount

Pearl's four grocery stores throughout the day. All food and monetary donations

will be in support of our two primary food banks located at St. Peter's Parish

and Mary Queen of the World. This is a tremendous initiative, which not only

fills a real need in our community but also teaches these young players the

importance of sharing with others and in giving back to their community. I

certainly encourage all citizens to please give generously to this very

worthwhile initiative.

For

residents who may not be home on Saturday morning, I encourage you to place your

non-perishable items in a plastic bag and hang it off your doorknob or lay it on

your front step and a volunteer will pick it up when they canvas your

neighborhood.

initiative such as this would not be possible without the hard work and

dedication of many volunteers. I therefore, ask all Members of this hon. House

to join me in commending the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey Association and all of the

other aforementioned community groups, sporting organizations and volunteers for

taking up the challenge to ensure that nobody goes hungry in our community.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to update Members on the 26th Annual National Conference on

Public-Private Partnerships, which I had the pleasure to attend last week in

Toronto.

This is

an annual conference that is recognized as the world's premier event on

public-private partnerships with participants from across the country.

As I

spoke with participants from the rest of Canada, I was happy to hear their

excitement as they spoke about what our government is doing to provide

large-scale infrastructure projects in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just

yesterday we began the procurement of a new mental health and addictions

facility – our fourth project since January 2017 where we are partnering with

the private sector to build infrastructure at a cost that is reasonable to

taxpayers.

Value-for-money assessments on long-term care homes in Gander, Grand

Falls-Windsor and Corner Brook, the replacement of the Western Memorial Hospital

and the new mental health and addictions facility have concluded that partnering

with industry will be more cost effective than traditional procurement methods

on these projects.

In this

fiscal climate, this is a smart decision, making it wise for taxpayers' money.

The

Corner Brook long-term care home is under construction, construction on both

long-term care homes in Central Newfoundland and the West Coast hospital will

start in 2019, and the construction of the new mental health and addictions

facility will start in 2020.

All

these infrastructure projects that we are delivering are on time and on budget.

Finally,

at this conference, Cory Grandy, Assistant Deputy Minister for Infrastructure in

the department, became the newest board member of the Canadian Council for

Private-Public Partnerships, recognizing his knowledge and hard work on these

projects that are underway in our province.

Mr.

Grandy and Ms. Andrea McKenna are leading our energetic team in the department

that is embracing these projects to help our government deliver large-scale

projects. They've hit the ground running, and I'm very proud of what they have

accomplished in the last two years.

Mr.

Speaker, these projects demonstrate our commitment to delivering services and

creating jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we look forward to

delivering more infrastructure projects in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. As the minister would be

aware, our administration supported the concept of public-private partnerships,

and I'm glad to see that his government has adopted work that we had already

started.

The

project that the minister highlighted is very important to the residents of

those regions, and to the province as a whole. We, too, certainly welcome the

construction of these facilities and look forward to their completion.

Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to congratulate Mr. Cory Grandy on his appointment to

the Canadian Council for Private-Public Partnerships. I have worked with Cory in

the past, and it is nice to see his knowledge and competency recognized in this

way. The value that members of the public service such as Mr. Grandy and Ms.

McKenna bring to all projects throughout government cannot be overestimated. It

is important that they be acknowledged for the great work they do.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advanced copy of his statement. I do have to make a

comment, though. It's easy to have all the infrastructure projects on time and

on budget, when only one is under construction yet.

In the

meantime, I tell the minister that he says P3s are a wise use of taxpayers'

money, but time will prove the inaccuracy of that statement. Auditor General

reports across Canada show that infrastructure, built by P3s, does not save

governments' money in the long term. In fact, the costs are higher.

We have

a government that's running scared from our financial situation, and making

short-term decisions to look like they are saving money, but they won't be

around when the long-term costs of P3s become clear.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The World Health Organization has declared November 12

to 18 World Antibiotic Awareness Week.

Antibiotics are used to treat and prevent infections

and illnesses. When antibiotic resistance develops, the antibiotics we use may

not work for some or fail entirely. This means that conditions, like pneumonia

or strep throat, become untreatable.

The number one cause of increased antibiotic resistance

is overuse or inappropriate prescribing for prevention or treatment. Here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, antibiotic usage is the highest in the country.

Through the Provincial Antimicrobial Stewardship

Committee and ongoing work by our partners, Quality of Care NL and Choosing

Wisely NL, we are seeing positive behavior changes in prescribing patterns. This

past year, we have decreased usage by 9 per cent.

All health care professionals have the tools and

resources at their fingertips to help encourage more conversations with

patients. One of the themes of World Antibiotic Awareness Week is Think Twice.

Seek Advice. I encourage people to take the time to have a conversation with

their prescriber to determine whether the antibiotic you are being prescribed

is, in fact, the best course of action.

By working together and learning to use antibiotics

responsibly, we can help prevent antibiotic resistance.

We can ensure the right treatment, gets to the right

patient, at the right time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Since the discovery of

antibiotics, they have served as the cornerstone of modern medicine; however,

the persistent overuse and misuse of antibiotics in humans and animal health

have encouraged the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance.

The onus

is on the Department of Health to educate people about the proper use of

antibiotics, so they will not press their doctors for prescriptions that doctors

know they don't need. Such an education campaign will help doctors resist the

pressure to prescribe antibiotics when they are not needed.

People

also need to be warned not to store antibiotics to take when they see fit. It's

dangerous and affects us all. Antibiotic resistance is a nightmare scenario.

What could be more frightening than a serious infection that cannot be treated

because the antibiotics have been so overused that the bacteria is resistant to

all of them. We all must do our part for good health.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister. With the highest rate of inappropriate use of antibiotics in the

country, it is good to see this improving. And bravo to the folks on the

Provincial Antimicrobial Stewardship Committee, Quality of Care NL and Choosing

Wisely NL for the good work they are doing.

Since

this government cancelled the Adult Dental Program, doctors are reporting the

increased use of antibiotics for recurring dental infections because people

cannot afford dental care. If the minister is serious about decreasing

antibiotic use, he would reinstate the Adult Dental Program that he so

recklessly cut.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, we can all feel

the tentacles of windy winter reach even into this Chamber.

I have a

question for the Premier: Could he give an update if there have been any

communities negatively impacted by the severe weather to the extent that they

have required provincial assistance?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes,

we've had some terrible windstorms in the last 24 hours. There has been a number

of power outages. In fact, some are still ongoing, but our latest information is

that most, if not all, will be back up by 8 p.m. tonight. As of when I left my

office just a few minutes ago, there have been no requests from any community

for assistance in damage that has been done by the storm. Mostly it has been

power outages and that type.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister for that

update.

According to the MHA for Placentia West - Bellevue – and this question is for

the Premier – a tentative deal was struck in August 2018 for the former

Marystown Shipyard after meeting with the Premier, the Mayor of Marystown, the

MHA for Burin - Grand Bank and Kiewit.

I would

ask the Premier, who is paying Kiewit for the asset?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

think it has been widely discussed publicly about the transfer of ownership

between Kiewit to the Town of Marystown. It's something that we've been actually

working with Kiewit. This is an asset that's been available. We see it as a

strategic asset for economic development on the Burin Peninsula, and that is the

reason why we got involved. That asset has been there for quite some time

bringing really no work and no value to the people of the Burin Peninsula.

The Town

of Marystown has always looked at that and saw significant opportunity for

employment and development in that area, and particularly around the aquaculture

industry that is developing on the Burin Peninsula. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the

reason why we got involved, to help facilitate a transfer of that asset into the

community of Marystown.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I'm sure the government of

the province has laudable intentions, but the question had to do with how was

Kiewit, who owns the property, which is a private enterprise, being paid and

from where is the money coming from?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

So, Mr. Speaker, right now

the way it will look, the money to Kiewit will come from the community, the Town

of Marystown to support the transfer of the asset into the Town of Marystown.

And, hopefully, what you'll see then is that at some point, as has been publicly

discussed, there would be a company that would move in there and create a centre

of excellence for the aquaculture centre on the Burin Peninsula.

There is

an asset right there that exists that could bring economic impact to the Burin

Peninsula. The Town of Marystown are showing significant interest in making sure

that asset brings employment to their community, indeed to the whole province.

That is

our job as government, to help facilitate the movement of those strategic assets

so they can be used appropriately for economic development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we can all share the goal of facilitating employment and

growth in the province.

The

question, rather, was specifically as to: Where is Marystown, who's not known to

us as having a large war chest for these matters, getting the money, and what is

the purchase price?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the community of Marystown is

not capable. That's what he's saying, that's what he's suggesting. That the

community of Marystown is not capable of getting involved in economic

development in their own community, Mr. Speaker. I have more faith in a

community the size of Marystown. I have more faith in the work they can do to

actually bring employment to the Burin Peninsula.

I have

more faith in the community of Marystown, obviously, than the Leader of the

Opposition. Maybe his chief of staff doesn't feel that way, I'm not sure. Maybe

this is the discussion he's had with him. Maybe he needs to be included in this

decision, but the money for the transfer of that asset to the community of

Marystown will come from the business arrangement that, hopefully, Marystown

will be able to get involved to bring jobs to that community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I realize that

Standing Order 26(5) does say that: “A Minister may in his or her discretion

decline to answer any question.” This is a creative way of doing that.

I would

ask the Premier. Did the former Liberal candidate in the Winsor Lake by-election

attend the meeting to which I referred earlier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the meetings

that I had was with the Town of Marystown. I don't know which meeting you're

referring to but there were quite a few that I would have had with Kiewit, with

the Town of Marystown. At that point, there was no MHA from anywhere in any

by-election or any election. It was with the community of Marystown and with the

officials of Kiewit, including the MHA who done a remarkable job in advocating

on behalf of the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker.

We want

to bring jobs to the community of Marystown. We want to make sure that the Burin

Peninsula is well established to be actually involved in the aquaculture

industry on the Burin Peninsula, unlike the deal that you could not get done,

that your administration could not get done in 2015.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The Premier is fond of

attributing to me histories that I don't have, such as having had an

administration already.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

Members –

MR. CROSBIE:

The question is, has the

environmental assessment been completed? And, if so, do we know the cost of the

cleanup?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

engaged a consultant to do an environmental assessment of the Marystown

Shipyard. As a former mayor of a town that I spent many years in, I take

exception to the fact that he's alluding to the fact that Marystown is not

capable of doing their own economic development.

Mr.

Speaker, we will work with the Town of Marystown to make sure – we'll do what we

can to make this deal happen. The consultant's report is due in the next few

days, and when that report comes in we'll assess it and we'll make our decisions

accordingly.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Well, the salient fact I get

out of that is that the assessment is due in the next few days.

Who

assumes these liabilities – if I might ask the minister that – as well as future

liabilities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's

something we'll have to assess when the consultant's report comes in. We have no

idea what the consultant is coming back with at this point. We do know the

report is being done and the assessment is being done strategically and very

thorough. When we do get the report, we'll have a better idea what's involved in

that, and we'll make our decisions accordingly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

May I ask the minister, or

any other minister who could answer this: Has the Minister of Municipal Affairs

authorized the town to take over ownership of the former shipyard?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the line of

questioning that's coming from the Leader of the Opposition, and the

conversation that's actually occurring to his right about they've done the deal

– he's saying that the administration that he had served in, that they had done

the deal. If they had done that deal in Marystown, why are we asking those

questions today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what we're

talking about here – thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Please proceed, Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So what

we're talking about here is trying to facilitate a transfer of an asset, on the

Burin Peninsula, for economic value, into the community of Marystown. They are

prepared to take this on for economic development.

We are

not talking about an environmental liability, like Abitibi, that the former

administration put through in 2009, which put a burden on the taxpayers in this

province. This is not about Abitibi –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The Premier, again, is fond

of sending zingers past my head, because I know nothing of the events to which

he refers.

Has the

Minister of Municipal Affairs authorized the town to take over ownership?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will

work with communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter where they are. If

there are economic opportunities that are available through them, we're more

than willing to work with them.

I am

very surprised today to see the Leader of the Opposition who is not aware at all

that the party that he now leads, the liabilities that were passed on to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as a result of the expropriation of the

Abitibi assets.

So is

the Leader of the Opposition saying today, as he stands and asks questions, that

he is not aware of the expropriation of Abitibi?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I think we've

gotten all we can squeeze out of that particular question, and the government

may wish to take note that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will have to be

involved to make this lawful.

Again,

for the Premier: Can you confirm that there were other parties interested in

obtaining the Marystown shipyard, including the Burry group in Clarenville? And

did you have discussions with other parties?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I met with

Kiewit and, at that point, they were not able to facilitate or close any deal,

including the people that you just mentioned, and others.

Mr.

Speaker, this was a private company that was looking at for saying –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I take exception from the Member opposite who is heckling and

saying that they were not Liberals. That is not true and I ask, Mr. Speaker, if

you would ask her, ask the Member opposite to just withdraw the statement that

she made across this floor. That is not accurate what she's saying. Our job was

to try and facilitate the economic development in the community of Marystown,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

There is no point of order to

the question; please proceed.

PREMIER BALL:

And our job there, the

community of Marystown, with Kiewit, they put together the proposal that was

accepted by Kiewit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

It's not productive, in my

submission, that during Question Period the parties involve themselves in

dialogue with other people than the one asking the question.

So,

final one on this for the Premier: When does the Premier expect the deal to

close?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Only when it's ready, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Question for the Minister of

Finance, I ask the minister: Does he take refuge in Standing Order 26(5) which

says he may, in his discretion, decline to answer any question; or did he find

out the names of the shareholders in the numbered company that owns the land

leased to Canopy Growth?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

gives me a great opportunity to talk about the significant industry and jobs

that we are creating for cannabis here in Newfoundland and Labrador since it

became legal.

We have

been able to incentivise and get over 400 jobs that are going to be coming

through retail and production. The ones on the West Coast are going to be valued

at $54,000 in annual salaries, 120 production jobs; no money from the provincial

government, no risk – all the risk is with the company to sell and produce here

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Whereas

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune wanted government to take unlimited

risks. With a product like cannabis, you could import your product and then

export it, and then a company under an EDGE status would have to pay millions

and millions of dollars – the province would, the taxpayers – to ship out that

product for no value in return.

We have

a good deal.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Again, for the Minister of

Finance: Did somebody tell him not to answer my question?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One

thing I can say is that by having two cannabis production facilities here in our

province, and hopefully more – we want to see growth. I've been saying time and

time again that we've been behind when it comes to cannabis production in the

country. We didn't have any licensed facilities and now we're leapfrogging other

provinces. We're finding ways to develop the supply chain, R & D and other jobs

that are going to be created because of the incentive program that we have

developed – that template. We've been able to secure supply through the

contracts that we've put in place. There are a number of matters that are

happening.

What the

Member opposite is talking about is a private business matter. It's the same

thing that he was talking about earlier in his line of questions, asking

questions about business-to-business deals that would happen outside (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Question for the Minister of Transportation and Works: Is his department

monitoring the moose fencing pilot project on the Trans-Canada Highway near

Gallants, and what are the results?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, we are always

monitoring accidents on our highways in our province, and we'll always work to

ensure that the safety of our motorists is taken into consideration.

Mr.

Speaker, we work with SOPAC. I met with SOPAC just a few weeks ago on ongoing

discussions. I'm actually attending SOPAC's AGM on Saturday. We want to continue

to work with SOPAC. Moose fencing is something that we've certainly looked at.

We know the Members opposite were a part of a pilot project that was a flop with

the detection system on the highway. We want to find the best way for the safety

of the people of our province and on our highways.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Just so we're all clear on

this, is the minister saying that his government will consider adding to the

inventory of moose fencing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker,

we're continuously looking for opportunities to improve safety on our highways,

and we're obviously looking for ways to do that. One of the main things we do is

brush cutting, and that's why we dedicate $2 million a year to brush cutting,

and as well working again with groups like SOPAC.

But yes,

we do look at moose fencing as a possible measure to help improve safety on our

highways.

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.

question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works. Minister, yesterday you

admitted in the House that the numbered company involved in Canopy Growth

requested a meeting with your department.

You said

there was no meeting, but I ask the minister: Who from that numbered company

reached out and asked for the meeting?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I just have to

go back in my

preamble to yesterday, and I take some offence to the questioning

from the Member opposite. At one point yesterday, he actually asked me to come

clean. Well, I can assure the Member opposite, I'm clean. Everything I do is in

the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the taxpayers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROCKER:

I'm not interested, Mr.

Speaker, in going into the gutter with the Member opposite. What I clearly said

yesterday, very clearly said, there was an inquiry from the company –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Check

Hansard .

MR. CROCKER:

Exactly, you can check

Hansard .

Engineers in the Department of Transportation and Works, the very same competent

public servants that a few minutes ago he was complimenting, had a conversation

with an engineer from that company, which went no further.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

this is a simple question: Who requested the meeting?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, there was no

meeting. He's fishing without a hook again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. CROCKER:

It's unreal that the Member

continues to ask these questions.

There

was no meeting. There was a 10-minute conversation between two engineers. One of

the things being in Transportation and Works, I often got to say, is I'm not an

engineer. Mr. Speaker, that was a very technical discussion and that was it.

There

was no meeting. There was no meeting. There was a request come in from a company

about a piece of land, and in my next answer I will explain to the Member how

this happens through the Registry of Deeds.

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.

And that

was my question, who requested the meeting? I knew he said they never had a

meeting. He said there was a request in, simple question.

So I'll

ask: Minister, were these two engineers discussing the transfer of land on Mews

Place for $1 to the numbered company?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, it's unreal.

I can

assure you, our engineers in our department are not the people that discuss land

sales. It's the people in the Lands division that go out and assess value.

So if a

company in this province wanted a piece of land which is owned by Transportation

and Works and owned by the people of the province, they would go to the Registry

of Deeds. You'd walk into 59 Elizabeth Avenue, and you'd go in and you'd see the

land that the province owns – currently over 50 pieces of land in St. John's

belong to the people of the province – and then they would reach out to us,

which this company did, reached out to T & W and inquired about this land.

There

was no meeting. There was a conversation that ended very quickly after the two

engineers had a discussion.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So we

know that the officials in the minister's department were discussing the land on

Mews Place. So once again, that's confirmed. He won't tell us who requested the

meeting but we know they were there.

So once

again, I ask: Minister, did you or the Premier's office give direction to your

officials to transfer this land for $1 to the numbered company? Simply answer

the question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Absolutely, positively, not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Has Nalcor cancelled the Astaldi

contract for Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

been advised that they have indeed done so.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the minister indicated it has been cancelled. My understanding is there was 30

days from the time that notice was given to come off the site to Astaldi to

make, I guess, known that they could carry on. So I assume within that 30 days

Nalcor decided that it could not occur.

I ask

the minister. What contract obligations, and now for securities and bonds, what

has been triggered in the contract to protect what's left there in bonds and

securities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These

are important legal matters, and it is before the courts. As we can all

appreciate, we want to ensure that those sureties are there because there are

requirements moving forward. It is before the courts as we speak, Mr. Speaker,

and as that process unfolds, I'm sure we'll be advised how things will progress.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, so the

cancellation of the contract, does that impact the payment of non-union

employees who haven't received payment for pensions and health benefits and for

the non-unionized employees that are still not paid to date?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've

advised this House several times this week and I think last, Nalcor has been

working with a surety to work towards payment of wages for workers that stayed

post the stop-work order of October 20.

As I've

said in this House before, on October 18 the stop-work order was made. All

employees were paid up until the 20; all employees, both non-unionized and

unionized.

Subsequent to October 20, there were a number of employees at the request of

Astaldi who did stay on to do further work, Mr. Speaker. Nalcor is working with

the surety to try and arrange payment, but that is – we were waiting on

information from Astaldi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I know in Question Period some days ago the minister referenced a

figure of $400 million.

Could

she indicate what security and bonds are triggered now in the contract and

what's the amount there to protect wages and penalties for work that's not

completed by Astaldi up to date?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did

say in the House there are securities, there are sureties, and there are letters

of credit to the total of $400 million. I don't have it at my fingertips what

the breakdown is for each of those. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess this

afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I think I know the levels but I'll check on the exact

ones which are letters of creditors which are surety.

Please

be assured, there has been a lot of work done; 95 per cent of the work has been

done by Astaldi. The critical path has not been impacted. We don't have any

anticipation of any challenges to first electricity.

Mr.

Speaker, things are happening at the site today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for that information.

She did

indicate that the work – we heard a figure before, 90 per cent completed. So,

obviously, there's a piece of work that's not completed.

Is the

minister saying there is no adjustment to the first power indication? If work is

not completed, has a process been initiated to have that work completed by

another contractor?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

These are very important

questions, Mr. Speaker.

I have

been advised by Nalcor that the Astaldi work is 95 per cent complete and that it

has no impact on the schedule, that the critical path is still being maintained.

The work

of other contractors is ongoing. There is some outstanding work by Astaldi that

they are making arrangements to have completed. That process is ongoing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could

the minister advise what the value figure is of the Astaldi work that's not

completed to date?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said, these are legal matters that I would like to consult with Nalcor to ensure

that I have the correct figure as to what dollar figure there is in outstanding

work.

I'm sure

the Member opposite can appreciate, we want to make sure that we are protecting

the work of Nalcor as we move forward in this project, but I will endeavour to

find him some kind of an answer that would be satisfactory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

issue we brought up here in the House, I'm just wondering – the minister for

updating the general public. We haven't heard from the CEO of Nalcor or anybody

else on this issue.

Was

there a plan to update the public on this particular aspect of the project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources for a short response, please.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'll try

to make a short response. Obviously, things are progressing through, from

October 18 to 20, making sure that people got home safely, making sure that

their wages were paid. Now Nalcor is working on the surety for subsequent wage

payment to the workers that stayed on the site.

All

those things are the most important first steps – are now moving towards the

next step of Astaldi's contract being terminated. And the next step after that,

of course, is determining who can fulfill the work that is outstanding.

I'm

sure, in the near future, we'll get more updates.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, we learned the Waterford Hospital replacement will be built using a

public-private Design Build Finance and maintenance model, a P3. This is will be

the fourth one government has commissioned.

I ask

the Premier: When Auditors Generals across the country have reported P3 models

have cost far more than they should have, why does he persist in saying P3s will

be good for the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

we've engaged a number of consultants that have significant experience in doing

this work across the country and the value-for-money analysis that have been

done has come out that Newfoundland and Labrador would be the beneficiary.

Mr.

Speaker, what is very different than what we seen from prior administrations in

this province is that work, for instance, on the replacement for the Waterford

Hospital, or the Western Memorial Regional Hospital and those long-term care

sites, the services inside those facilities would be done by public sector

workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's a very important and a very

different distinction that we would have seen from the previous administration.

I can

tell you now when you speak to the residents and the people who are looking

forward to seeing those replacements of the buildings, they see this as a

benefit for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, EY was paid $1.7

million to evaluate the best financial model for building a P3 facility in

Corner Brook. EY drew up comparison budgets and then recommended a P3 project.

Then the same firm, EY, was given the procurement contract for this new project.

I ask

the Premier. Can he explain this very apparent conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, when you look

for the consultants that are equipped and have the resources to do this work,

companies like EY in this particular case was the group that was chosen by the

department and by this government.

Mr.

Speaker, this really comes down to value for money for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and the cases that we looked at, in all those cases, the value for

money Newfoundland and Labrador would be the beneficiaries of that.

People

in this province have been waiting for the replacement of the Waterford Hospital

– it was opened in 1855. The best opportunity that we had to get a new facility

for mental health patients in this province, Mr. Speaker, was to use this method

and the value-for-money analysis that was done showed that Newfoundland and

Labrador – this was the best option that we could use.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we

absolutely do need a replacement for the Waterford. If the Premier is so

concerned about value for money, I ask the Premier: Will he invite the Auditor

General to review the P3 contracts now going forward and report to the House on

her findings about this value for money?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, in this

province, the Auditor General can come into the departments as that office so

desires. In this particular case, I would welcome the Auditor General to go in

and look at the analysis that was done.

As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would even welcome the Leader of the Third Party

if she so sees fit that she has the expertise in dealing with all of this, if

she is so comfortable that there was a mistake that was made here and she wants

to slow down this process, I would encourage her to come on and speak to the

department herself, rather than sit in this House here, come and look at the

information, get the technical analysis that has been afforded for you. I think

you've done this already.

Mr.

Speaker, we've done the analysis. The value for money is to the benefit of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are waiting to get those new buildings in

place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We look

forward to hearing of the invitation by the Premier to the Auditor General.

The

people of the province are learning too late that the Muskrat Falls boondoggle

could have been avoided if all the facts had been made public.

I ask

the Premier, before he embarks on multiple mini-Muskrats will he make all P3

financial documents public so it can be determined if these –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

– projects are truly saving

money and are in the best interests of the people?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the former leader of the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, sat in this House, as I did,

from 2011 to 2015 in Opposition at that point in time. I think the former leader

of the Third Party recognizes the position that I had taken on the Muskrat Falls

Project, Mr. Speaker.

I did

not need an inquiry at the time, did not need people – we did our own

assessment. We knew at that point that this project was not the best project for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I think the Member opposite would know that.

We sat through filibusters here trying to slow down this project. We fought to

have it put in place, put to the Public Utilities Board, the former

administration refused to do that, Mr. Speaker.

I will

assure you that any future developments in this province will be to the benefit

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time

for Oral Questions has ended.

MR. BROWNE:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

A point of order, the Member

for Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

Section 49 of the Standing Orders. During Question Period there were

questions raised with respect to the Marystown Shipyard. While the Premier was

responding to one of those questions, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune

made a comment, heckling the Premier, saying that we were searching for a

Liberal to purchase the Marystown Shipyard. We're just trying to put the people

of Marystown back to work and they expected better of the Official Opposition,

Mr. Speaker.

I ask

that you ask the Member to withdraw the comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Do I have any speakers to the

point of order?

I don't

see it as a point of order. It is a disagreement between hon. Members.

Thank

you very much.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Housing

Corporation Act, Bill 40.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic Act, Bill 39.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you.

During

Question Period, I was asked when Mr. Marshall may update on the Astaldi

situation.

There

will be a Quarter 3 call tomorrow, and certainly he'll be available to answer

Astaldi questions at the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Further

answers to questions for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a

time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels

of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased

bankruptcies, many are being forced to choose between food, heat and

medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are

continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities

Board. Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to

further increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizen of

our province. While government has indicated that they are working with Nalcor

to mitigate these rates, they've provided no detailed plan as how they intend to

do so.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all the potential

options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal

with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to

the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential

suggestions for improvement.

Mr.

Speaker, the petitions I have here today are primarily from St. John's, Mount

Pearl, Paradise, Pouch Cove, Conception Bay South areas. And without getting

into it all again, time to time, we all understand that we are looking down the

barrel of a gun in terms of where power rates could potentially go. I understand

that we know how we got there. We know how we got there and we're learning a lot

more every day as we watch the inquiry. As a matter of fact, it's absolutely

infuriating. I have to say, it is infuriating, some of the stuff that's come out

in the inquiry the last couple of days in terms of reports not being provided to

top government officials and so on, allegedly, and not being given all the

information. And it's very, very troubling, to say the least.

But

really what this petition is talking about is not how we got here, it's the fact

that we're here and people have concerns about where the power rates are going

to go. The government has said they are going to look at methods to mitigate

rates. Everyone's glad to hear that, but they're just looking for some detailed

plans as to how that's going to happen.

On a

related note, Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad to see that Newfoundland Power has

reached a settlement agreement on their proposed rate proposal, and for the next

two years rates are going to stay the same as they are. The 8.5 per cent to 9.5

per cent increase in profit margin is now off the table I've been told, and

that's good news. It wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador putting the pressure on Newfoundland Power and putting

the pressure on the PUB. I'm very glad to see that happen. Power to the people.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm going

to call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the

Order Paper, I would call Order 2, third reading of Bill 12.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 12,

An Act Respecting The

Protection Of Intimate Images, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Protection Of Intimate Images. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Protection Of Intimate Images,” read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 32, An

Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

usually don't get up on third readings, but in this case I have to thank the

minister, the acting minister at the time, for arranging for the people from the

Assessment Agency to come forward. And you, too, Mr. Speaker, myself and you

attended the briefing. I know it was requested by other Members who didn't show

up, but we were very informed of what we got that day. I just want to thank the

people, especially Mr. Martin from the Assessment Agency for coming and spending

an hour or so with us and explaining it.

Again,

in the future it's probably something we should do when we do have questions

about certain bills to get people in like we did. Again, I know you attended the

meeting and I attended the meeting and it was very informative, and I just want

to thank the department for that.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Labour Standards Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on

the Order Paper. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Order 4, third reading of Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 34,

An Act

To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the bill be now read a third time.

The hon.

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the hon. Member had the wrong bills, but that's okay. I do accept the fact that

when this bill was in Committee there was a request from the Opposition to have

a briefing with the Municipal Assessment Agency to get some clarification on how

we could go from three years to one year without costing the MAA any more

resources and any more cost. I think the MAA has come back and pretty clearly

defined how that could happen, is through technology and other means.

In fact,

Mr. Speaker, it's ironic that they would talk about increased cost. Right now,

the cost per parcel of land is $27. That's what it costs municipalities. Because

of what we're doing here today, and because of efficiencies found in the MAA,

there's a good chance that price will decrease – decrease, Mr. Speaker – and not

increase.

I'll

have to say, the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis did attend the meeting;

unfortunately, the Member who requested this briefing did not attend.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Assessment Act, 2006. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006,” read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

Motion 2.

The hon.

the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Health and Community Services, the following resolution:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the Member for the District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave be

appointed Deputy Chair of Committees for the remainder of the Forty-Eighth

General Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Do I have any speakers to the

motion? Seeing none.

Is the

House ready for the question?

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 8,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And

Compensation Act No. 2. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the MHA for Harbour Main, that Bill 36,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health,

Safety and Compensation Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 36,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act No.

2, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Act No. 2.” (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

I am pleased to stand today

to speak to the amendments to Bill 36,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health,

Safety and Compensation Act No. 2. We know that workplace injuries have long

lasting physical and emotional impacts on many individuals and families

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before I

speak specifically to the amendments we are bringing to the floor of the House

today, I would like to provide you with a brief overview of workplace injury

rates and the improvements we've made. We know there have been significant

improvements in workplace safety in our province. More and more workers are

returning home safely to their loved ones at the end of their work day.

In 2017,

for the third consecutive year, the lost time incident rate due to workplace

injury or illness in Newfoundland and Labrador remained at an all-time low of

1.5 per 100 workers, which is among the lowest in Canada; 92 per cent of

employers in our province are injury free. This is a direct result of the

co-operation and hard work from all safety partners including employers,

workers, labour, industry safety associations, training providers and

government.

As an

example, our province now has eight mandatory safety training programs that are

standardized and regulated for over 60,000 workers each year – about 25 per cent

of the workforce. As a result, the rate of falls from height has declined 31 per

cent since specific training requirements were instituted in occupational health

and safety legislation. Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province with a

provincially regulated occupational health and safety high school course: OHS

3203. We've had a dedicated focus on creating awareness among young workers, and

we can now proudly state that workers aged 15 to 24 lead the province in

workplace safety.

The

injury rate among 15- to 24-year-old workers remains stable in 2017, for the

second consecutive year, with a 1.3 per 100 workers, and remains below the

provincial rate. They consistently have a lower lost-time incident rate than the

provincial rate. Mr. Speaker, these young workers are our future. We must

continue to arm them with workplace safety fundamentals to carry forward

throughout their careers.

Back in

2000, the injury rate was more than double what it is today. Workers today

continue to receive safety training, are more informed on how to identify

workplace hazards and are using safe work practices. We also know the

devastating impacts that workplace injuries are having on workers and families

in our province today.

WorkplaceNL serves approximately 13,000 injured workers in our province every

year. On average, 13 workers are still being injured, or falling ill, due to

their work each day. We know that, in an instant, a person's life can change

forever. For some individuals, the effects are felt for a short period of time,

and they are able to return to work relatively quickly, but for others, it may

last a lifetime.

Reducing

workplace incidents is everyone's responsibility and, together, we must continue

to find ways to ensure that everyone returns home, healthy and safe, at the end

of each workday.

WorkplaceNL remains committed to maintaining a sustainable workplace injury

system for workers and employers in this province. We also remain committed to

finding ways to improve the system. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased

today that in this hon. House we will debate an amendment to the

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act to make retirement

benefits available for more injured workers in our province.

The new

retirement benefit will be a one-time lump sum payment of 5 per cent of extended

earnings loss benefits, plus interest. For workers who are previously part of an

employer-sponsored pension plan, the payment will be 10 per cent, plus interest.

This

change will apply to all injured workers who receive extended earnings loss

benefits from WorkplaceNL on or after January 1, 2019. This means that it

applies to workers receiving benefits in 2018 that continue into 2019.

Workers

will receive the one-time retirement benefit when they turn 65 years of age,

even if they are no longer receiving extended earnings loss benefits at that

time. Should an injured worker pass away before the age of 65, their dependant

may qualify for the benefit. I would like to highlight this change, Mr. Speaker,

as the previous program did not pay dependants. Injured workers will have the

flexibility to invest or spend their tax-free lump sum payment according to

their own choice.

Mr.

Speaker, this amendment will make the calculations for retirement benefits

easier to understand, and we have also reduced the paperwork involved. We have

reduced the red tape. Injured workers can expect to receive their lump sum

payment faster than before. Under the previous program, it could take up to two

years to process the more complex cases.

These

amendments will also increase the number of eligible injured workers. In fact,

the previous program excluded approximately 45 per cent of injured workers,

including those who did participate in an employer-sponsored pension plan at the

time of their injury – many of whom were women. Therefore, the new retirement

benefit program is more inclusive and equitable.

Mr.

Speaker, the workers' compensation system in our province is fully funded at

131.6 per cent, as of December 31, 2017. It can now sustain a benefit increase

for injured workers without increasing the average base assessment rate paid by

employers. In fact, the average assessment rate for employers was lowered to

$1.90 per $100 of assessable payroll for 2018, a 31 per cent decrease since

2013. Remaining fully funded ensures the security of funds to pay for the

current and future costs of workplace injury and illness in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

As I

referenced earlier, Mr. Speaker, the positive trends in workplace safety across

our province, along with the lost-time incident rate at an all-time low of 1.5

per 100 workers, has resulted in fewer claims. This, in turn, has led to lower

employment assessment rates. The change in retirement benefits we are debating

in this hon. House today will have an initial cost of $23.7 million. But there

will not be any further additional cost to employers. These costs will be

considered with determining the assessment rates to be paid by employers next

year and will not result in a rate increase at this time.

Mr.

Speaker, over the past several years we have made a number of significant

improvements to workers' compensation system, with a view to improving the lives

of the many individuals in our province who have experienced a workplace injury

or illness.

Mr.

Speaker, back in December of 2016 we announced the implementation of presumptive

cancer coverage for career and volunteer firefighters. Our government recognized

the need for a benefit that firefighters have been seeking for more than a

decade and was already provided in most other provinces.

We also

increased the income replacement rate for injured workers and updated the mental

stress policy to make it more inclusive. These are but a few of the many

positive changes we have made in the workers' compensation system to help

improve the lives of injured workers.

Today

represents one more positive initiative in our efforts to improve the workers'

compensation system for injured workers and their families in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We know this legislation is welcomed by many injured workers in our

province. It is one more step along our path to help reduce the financial,

emotional and physical impacts workplace incidents are having on injured workers

and their families and their communities.

Our

government is proud of the amendment we are debating today. Proud of the fact

that we are making retirement benefits available for more injured workers. This

debate also provides an opportunity to continue the dialogue on workplace

safety. Together with employers, workers, industry safety associations, employer

and labour advocates we continue to build an even stronger culture of safety in

our province.

Workplace health and safety is everyone's responsibility and we will continue to

work together with everyone who plays a role in keeping our workplaces safe as

well as supporting our injured workers.

As I

have stated previously in this hon. House, it is important that we constantly

review and amend our legislation to ensure it is meeting the needs of the people

of our province.

I am

pleased that we are here today to debate this amendment to the

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Act.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly an honour and a privilege to rise in this House and speak to Bill 36,

An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act No. 2. Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as the minister just outlined, is to amend

the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Act to repeal the currently monthly replacement benefit

that is available to injured workers and replace it instead with a tax-free lump

sum retirement benefit.

First, I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the

background on the bill, Mr. Speaker. The

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act comes under the purview of

Service NL and the Minister of Service NL, of course, is responsible for

WorkplaceNL.

Under

the authority of the act, WorkplaceNL administers a mandatory, employer-funded,

no-fault work injury insurance system, and there are various benefits and

services available to injured workers through WorkplaceNL. The pension

replacement benefit that is being repealed with Bill 36 is one such example of

the types of benefits that are available from WorkplaceNL for those injured on

the job.

What is

the pension replacement benefit, for the purposes of people who may be watching

here today? According to WorkplaceNL's Injured Workers Handbook: if an

individual is receiving compensation benefits from WorkplaceNL and they turn 65

years of age, wage-loss benefits usually cease.

Currently, in such circumstances with the act as it's presently written, in such

instances a person can apply for a pension replacement benefit. In order to

actually receive the pension replacement benefit, the individual must show a

loss of retirement income from either the Canada Pension Plan or a registered

employer-sponsored pension as a result of their injury.

So for

the years they were receiving compensation, they were no longer paying into

these pension funds and, of course, as a result, once they reach 65 their

benefit would be reduced. If that was the case and they were able to demonstrate

their loss of benefits, they may be entitled to the amount of pension lost due

to their work-related injury.

describing the current pension replacement benefit, during our briefing

yesterday WorkplaceNL officials noted that the pension replacement benefit is

not payable to a dependent or spouse upon the death of the worker. So, in such a

situation, you have two people living as seniors on a fixed, reduced income and

if the person who is a recipient of the WorkplaceNL pension benefit passes away,

then there is no portion of that that can be availed of by their partner or

spouse.

As well,

45 per cent of potentially, eligible injured workers do not quality for this

benefit once they reach age 65. Often the reason for their inability to qualify

is the difficulty in producing the required documentation to show how they

suffered a pension loss.

The

process of applying for the pension replacement benefit, another current

impediment that was identified is that when you apply for the pension

replacement benefit now, it can be a difficult and lengthy process as the

relevant supporting documents have to be gathered and the actuarial assessments

have to be carried out. We were informed yesterday in the briefing that this can

take anywhere from eight months to two years, which is a fairly lengthy time

frame for those who reach the age of 65 to continue on living without any type

of additional supports.

So with

the amendments that are being proposed in Bill 36, the monthly pension

replacement benefit will be repealed and replaced with a new lump-sum retirement

benefit. It will take effect on January 1, 2019. So we're just about a

month-and-a-half away from that.

Any

individual who is currently in receipt of the pension replacement benefit under

the existing program, however, will stay on the old system. So there is a

provision, Mr. Speaker, for grandfathering those who are already in the

(inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

– system to stay there. But

anyone who turns 65 and is on Workers' Comp in 2019, they will fall under the

new system which is being introduced through this bill.

What is

the new retirement benefit going to look like? Well, it's calculated to be a

percentage of a total extended earnings loss benefits which will either be 5 per

cent or 10 per cent, depending on the circumstance of the individual, plus

interest. It will be 5 per cent for persons just paying into CPP and 10 per cent

for those who have also paid into an employer sponsored pension plan prior to

their injury. It will be a tax-free, lump-sum payment at the age of 65 and all

extended learning loss recipients will receive a benefit if active any time on

or after January 1, 2019.

Mr.

Speaker, a significant change in this new bill, or new law that's being brought

forward, is that the new benefit will be payable to a dependant such as a spouse

upon the death of the injured worker. It is projected that the average lump-sum

payment is estimated to be about $44,000. That will be the average payment.

Officials noted there will be significant upfront costs associated with

switching to the new retirement benefit but they are projecting within the

long-term it should result in savings. There will be an initial cost of $23.7

million to WorkplaceNL's injury fund, but they are projecting that in the long

run this will translate into a savings of $700,000 in annual savings to the

fund. In addition to that, they're projecting that the expense now being paid

out to actuarial services is about $200,000 a year. So that money will be saved

as well.

The

switch to a lump-sum payment is also going to come at a cost to government,

though, Mr. Speaker, because government is a self-insured employer. WorkplaceNL

officials stated there will be added budgetary pressure on some government

departments upfront, but over the long-term there would be a future benefit

liability savings of $4.9 million. What that immediate pressure is going to be

on some government departments upfront, we don't have the information provided

to us on that but it should be reflected in the upcoming budget documents, I

would think, Mr. Speaker.

Officials also noted that the switch to the new model will not impact employer

assessment rates at this time. We were unable to get any clarity with respect to

the quote at this time. We're still a bit unclear as to what that means in terms

of future outlook. Will there be an impact on employers in the long run? Maybe

that is something we can talk about when we get to Committee of the Whole and

see if we can get some more clarity on that issue.

The

positive impacts of the proposed changes were highlighted in the briefing we

had. These include – and I'll just reiterate them again for anyone in the public

who may be watching this with keen interest and are currently recipients of this

benefit that will be impacted.

It is

projected, by department officials, that more people will be covered under this

new retirement benefit because there'll be a greater catchment area in terms of

the need to demonstrate your pension's loss won't be there. So more people, the

4 per cent to 5 per cent of people who are now falling through the cracks will

most likely be encompassed in this new benefit.

It's

predicted that this will be, in particular, of benefit for women, and up to 54

per cent more women will be covered. All extended earnings loss recipients will

receive a benefit. The new benefit will be payable to a dependant upon the death

of the worker, which again is something that isn't happening now and certainly

will be of significant help in reducing financial hardships once a person's

partner has passed on.

Individuals will be treated more equally and the process will be far less

cumbersome for injured workers and WorkplaceNL, so it's anticipated there should

be a substantial administrative savings as well, Mr. Speaker.

Workers'

compensation boards in six provinces now across the country have a benefit

payable at age 65, based on a percentage of financial benefits. And these are –

I'll explain some of them now – Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia

provide for 5 per cent of benefits, while New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Yukon

provide for 10 per cent of benefits. I guess what the bill here is proposing in

Bill 36 is that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will actually be using

a hybrid of these and the rate will be from 5 to 10 per cent, depending on the

individual's own circumstance.

During

our briefing yesterday, WorkplaceNL officials stated that there has been

frustration with the current model, but the real driver to make the amendments

is the growth in the liability of the current system. That liability was $22

million in 2007, which represented about 3 per cent of the value of the injury

fund. But here we are 10 years later, and that amount has grown from $22 million

to $104 million, which represents 9 per cent of the injury fund. And going

forward that number would continue to climb. So by introducing this new measure,

they're hoping to cap the liability where it is and, moving forward, minimize

any future liabilities for the taxpayers of the province, and for the injury

fund – the business taxpayers, I guess.

Officials stated that representatives from the Federation of Labour and the

Employers' Council sit on the WorkplaceNL board and, as such, were consulted.

They said that the response has been positive. It was not indicated whether

representatives of the injured workers or other groups were consulted, Mr.

Speaker. We made some effort to reach out today, but we didn't have a whole lot

of time before the bill was called. So we certainly would like to do more

consultation before really finalizing where it is those most impacted by this

bill, where their thought processes are on these changes.

Officials said that an average of 200 clients will turn 65 each year, and about

12 per cent of clients could have been better off under the old program, as

their monthly payment could have been more beneficial. That speaks more to

longevity, Mr. Speaker, if someone lived a very long life, and they would draw a

monthly benefit. So it's anticipated that about 12 per cent of people will be

impacted by the lump sum.

In terms

of the proposed amendments now, Mr. Speaker, I'll just briefly give an overview

with respect to these. Subsection 2(1) of the act is amendment to add a

definition for employer-sponsored pension plan which includes, under

section

(j.1)(i) “a pension plan that is registered with and certified by the

Superintendent of Pensions under the

Pension Benefits Act, 1997 or an equivalent Act of another province or of

the Parliament of Canada; and (ii) a pension plan that is established under an

Act of the province.”

Section

75 of the current act outlines requirements for the pension replacement benefit

paid to eligible injured workers in receipt of wage loss benefits at the age of

65. It is based on the principle of compensation for demonstrated pension loss

and provides monthly pension replacement benefits. It is not payable to the

dependant's spouse upon the death of the worker. But, with Bill 36,

section 75

will be repealed and replaced with text outlining details and requirements for

the new retirement benefit.

Just

again, for purposes of increasing awareness to our listening public, the new

retirement benefit will be a percentage of the total extended earnings loss

benefits, plus interest, and it will be a lump sum, non-taxable at the age of

65. The payment will be 5 per cent of eligible earnings for workers without an

employer pension plan, or 10 per cent for those who have an employer-sponsored

pension plan, Mr. Speaker.

All

extended earning loss recipients will receive the benefit if active and in time

on or after January 1, 2019. The new benefit will be payable to a dependant upon

death of a worker. So again, I've said that several times, Mr. Speaker, but it's

important that people realize some of the changes and these are beneficial

changes in terms of the portability of the benefits being payable to a

dependant.

Mr.

Speaker, these proposed amendments will come into effect on January 1, which is

within about a month and a half or so. But we do still have a lot of questions

surrounding the bill. It is a rather significant change and one we certainly

would have appreciated more time to do more research with. Some of the questions

we have outstanding and that we will be posing in Committee of the Whole pertain

to how does this impact the other benefits that a person at the age of 65 would

have. For example, in the past, at the age of 65 you received a monthly benefit,

which was spread over 12 months and factored into your total gross income. From

your total gross income, Revenue Canada determines your eligibility for the

Guaranteed Income Supplement. If you cannot receive the Guaranteed Income

Supplement, you cannot receive the provincial drug card because it's a

stipulation you must be in receipt of the GIS in order to avail of a provincial

drug card.

Many

people think that automatically at the age of 65 you will qualify for a drug

card, but such is not the case. It really does depend on your total gross

income. So how does this impact from a taxation point of view and a calculation

of other benefits that seniors receive? Will this lump sum, then, have to be

written off over the next three or four years and thereby prevent someone who is

on workers' comp from availing of the GIS and drug card?

So,

these are some of the types of outstanding questions that we have and that we

will hopefully be able to get some more clarity on once we get into Committee of

the Whole.

I thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for your time, and look forward to the rest of the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased

to rise in this hon. House today to speak on Bill 36,

An Act to Amend the

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act.

Like all

MHAs in this House, we have heard the stories of workplace incidents that have

forever changed the lives of our constituents. Too many times we see the

tremendous impacts that workplace injuries have on their physical, emotional and

social health.

While it

was just last week that I became parliamentary secretary to the Minister

Responsible for WorkplaceNL –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

– I am aware of the

tremendous work that has been done to help improve the lives of injured workers

in our province. I have learned of the tremendous effort that is underway by

many dedicated individuals to help improve the lives of injured workers in our

province.

As the

Minister of Service NL said earlier back in December 2016, our government

announced implementation of presumptive cancer coverage for career and volunteer

firefighters. This coverage represented a benefit that firefighters had been

seeking for a long time, and was already provided in most other provinces. It

means that firefighters diagnosed with specific cancers are presumed to have

contracted the disease as a result of their work, and their adjudication

processing faster through WorkplaceNL.

They can

now receive wage loss benefits, medical aids and certain other benefits through

Workplace NL, while health care costs associated with firefighters' cancer

treatments are paid through the medical care plan.

Earlier

this year, our government initiated a review of WorkplaceNL's mental stress

policy in order to explore options through a modernized approach of work-related

mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Changes were

made to the policy to recognize that work-related mental illness issues may be

caused by exposure to multiple traumatic events.

It also

includes events that are an inherent part of our occupation, such as first

responders, witness fatalities. The revisions, all in our policy, to be applied

more fairly across their occupations. The worker must have a diagnosis from a

regulated health care professional such as a physician, nurse practitioner,

psychologist, psychiatrist, and demonstrate exposure to one of our most

traumatic events.

Mr.

Speaker, as the Minister Responsible for WorkplaceNL has indicated publicly on

many occasions, work continues on this very important matter. Our government

also increased the income replacement rate from 80 to 85 per cent of pre-injury

net earnings. This increase has certainly been a benefit to injured workers or

their dependents. It gave us the ability to improve the lives of approximately

13,000 injured workers or the spouses of deceased workers, and that is

significant. It is especially significant given the income replacement rate that

has not increased since 1998.

Mr.

Speaker, last February, WorkplaceNL and Service NL launched a new five-year

workplace injury and illness prevention strategy. This plan was developed in

consultation with injury prevention partners and stakeholders and is aimed at

helping protect workers from hazards in the workplace.

Mr.

Speaker, serious injuries have increased by 21 per cent over the last decade.

These types of injuries can be devastating to injured workers and their

families. We also know that young workers, those aged 15 to 24 years, have a

lower injury rate than the provincial rate. We need to continue to provide a

solid foundation of safety awareness to that generation so they will carry that

proactive safety culture throughout their careers.

Our

workplace safety programs also need to respond to the aging demographics of our

workplace. While we need to maintain a focus on preventing workplace injuries,

we also maintain focus on those who have already been injured. The amendment to

make retirement benefits available for more injured workers in Newfoundland and

Labrador is a wonderful example of this effort.

When an

injured worker turns 65 years old, they will receive a one-time, lump-sum

pension payment of 5 per cent of extended earnings loss benefits paid by

WorkplaceNL, plus interest. Those injured workers who were members of an

employer-sponsored pension program will receive 10 per cent of extended earnings

loss benefits, plus interest. Plus, one of the greatest aspects of this

amendment is its impact on the number of injured worker who were previously

excluded under the previous program. Given it had excluded approximately 45 per

cent of injured workers, this change we're debating today is significant.

I am

proud to stand with my colleagues today on a bill that will have such a

profound, positive impact on the lives of so many injured individuals. It

reminds me of why I chose to serve the public of my district and the province in

the first place – to make a difference. It represents one of the most important

issues we have to tackle as a government for injured workers in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how delighted I am to rise to speak to these

amendments. I think it's important to also highlight, once again, the fact that

there will not be any additional costs to employers as a result of this bill. I

think it's also important to highlight the fact that a dependant spouse will now

be eligible for the benefit should an injured worker pass away before the age of

65. This was not the case under the previous system.

We will

continue to work to improving the workers' compensation system in our province,

for both injured workers and employees. We will also continue our efforts to

help keep safety foremost in everyone's thinking, as one workplace injury is one

too many.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It is

good to stand today and speak to Bill 36,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health,

Safety and Compensation Act.

I have

to say, before receiving the bill and being briefed on it, I was not aware of

the situation that existed with regard to the monthly pension replacement

benefit which is paid to people on workers' compensation when they turn 65.

Knowing

what the situation is – and it's been outlined by the minister and also by the

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune. Knowing the current situation and the

inequities that are in the current situation, I think it's really good that

government is bringing this bill here to the floor. It'll do two things: it will

make things better, both for people receiving the benefit and for their spouses,

especially when the person receiving the benefit dies; and, it'll be better also

internally in government with regard to the red tape. Because even the

administration that's involved is difficult both for staff and also for the

workers receiving the benefit.

We are

told the documentation that the person who is on workers' comp has to produce in

order to receive the benefit is quite extensive. It includes old records of

pension payments, et cetera, and there has to be an actuarial assessment done.

It can go on for months, sometimes up to a couple of years. So it seems to me

the system we have really is not working well, especially for those who should

get the benefits and for their spouses. It's extremely important I think that

the government has taken action on this and has brought this bill forward.

We are

told by the officials that it will not affect employer assessment rates, and I

think that's important as well. So while the lump-sum payment will benefit the

recipient, this new way of paying the benefit will not affect the employer

assessment rates. That's something we would be happy about as well.

Moving

to the lump-sum payment will mean a future liability savings to the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

I won't be crass and say

that's the reason the government is doing this. I would hope they're doing it

mainly for the recipients, and I'm sure they are, but it's also not a bad thing

that government will save money by using this new method without the recipients

themselves suffering a loss of income.

Some of

the positive impacts; the average benefit, the lump-sum payment will be $40,000.

The new benefit will be paid to the spouse if the worker is deceased, and more

people will qualify for it. I think that's really important. Fifty-four per cent

more women will qualify – because so many women aren't part of a pension plan

and they will qualify for it.

There

will be no more long waits. A small group who has yet to turn 65 may have been

better off under the monthly payment. If they live long enough, their monthly

benefits might be higher than a lump sum. That's more a possibility for somebody

with a high earning, like a miner at IOC, for example. But it would be a small

group, and the majority, a larger group would benefit from the new system.

There is

one question that we have, and we can ask it in Committee if the minister

doesn't get to it when she stands again, and it has to do with the income tax.

Will CRA consider this lump sum payment taxable income?

remember – and we haven't had a lot of time to work on this. I know there was a

good briefing yesterday, but it was only yesterday. But I do have a memory of

something happening a few years ago with regard to payments to public service

sector workers under one of the agreements, and there was lump sum money

involved, and the lump sum payments were taxable under CRA.

So that

is a question for us. People may need a tax-free savings account or a similar

mechanism to spread the money out over a number of years and not be taxed. So it

is a serious question, and I hope that we might get an answer from the minister.

I know

that six other provinces do have some form of lump sum benefit, so perhaps this

is an issue that has been dealt with. Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia

pay out 5 per cent across the board; New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Yukon pay

out 10 per cent; and we will pay out 5 per cent or 10 per cent, depending on the

source of the pension.

brings us in line with several other jurisdictions in the country, which is

good. As I said, perhaps because it already exists, this issue of potential for

its being a taxable income has been dealt with, and I certainly hope that we

will get an answer to that. As it happens, this won't be grandfathered. People

who are the existing monthly benefit will stay in that system. So the new system

is for moving forward. I think it's going to be effective January 1, 2019, so

this coming January.

So we'll

be happy to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 36 be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Carried.

CLERK (Murphy):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

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

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation

Act No. 2,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House presently, by leave. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Service NL, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole to consider Bill 36.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 36,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And

Compensation Act No. 2.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2.” (Bill

36)

CLERK (Barnes):

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a

number of questions for the minister. The first one is: Why are these changes

being made now at this point in time?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

We are now responding to a

request that was in the stat review and the injured workers and individuals who

represent injured workers are looking forward to this change, as is the

Employers' Council.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Can you provide some

elaboration for us with respect to what the proposed changes are being driven

by?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, they are being

driven by the requests from the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council,

requests from the Newfoundland and Labrador labour representatives, and the

individuals.

There

was a stat review completed by the previous administration. There were extensive

consultations done and this was one of the recommendations that was put forward.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How many

individuals are currently in receipt of the monthly pension replacement benefit?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

I can't get the exact number

that's receiving pension benefit right now. I will get it for you though. There

are 1,300 clients in receipt of WorkplaceNL benefits.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Minister and thank

you, Mr. Chair.

Can you

tell us what the amount of the average monthly benefit being paid to an

individual is currently and, furthermore, can you confirm for this House that

all of those individuals will continue to receive the monthly benefit once the

new system comes into effect?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

So, it's done on an

individual basis, as you are aware. Each individual is based under the MCAE for

that particular year and the percentage of their income. I can't give you an

exact amount because the individual range, the incomes are totally varied.

The

individuals that are presently receiving the pension benefit today will continue

to receive the same pension benefit that they're getting. Right up until

December 31, 2018, individuals will be under the old system. January 1, 2019,

they'll be under the new system.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The lump

sum payment, as we understand it, is going to be tax free. Is the monthly

benefit that individuals are receiving under the current regime tax free as

well?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, this is a tax-free

benefit and there are 1,200 individuals receiving the pension plan today.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Are the

lump sum payments for these benefits consistent with what is occurring in other

provinces? I also understand that the average lump sum payment is going to be

approximately $44,000. Is there any data available with respect to what will be

the absolute minimum and absolute maximum of these lump sum payments?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Again, the minimum and

maximum are based on the individual's income. You could have an individual that

was receiving minimum wage when they were injured, or an individual that was

receiving over the MCAE, which is $64,375 right now, and they would get 85 per

cent of that amount. So it's totally dependent on the individual's income at the

time at of injury.

Some

provinces are doing 5 per cent; some provinces are doing 10 per cent. We alluded

to the 5 per cent for individuals who can't prove that they were attached to a

previous pension, so it reflects the different impacts that the injury had on

potential retirement savings into the future.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

briefing highlighted the positive impacts that these changes will have on

workers, but can you provide any detail with any items that may have been

considered by your department, with respect to how injured workers might be

negatively impacted with this change?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

As with any income that you

receive in that particular year, it's going to affect your income line;

therefore, what we are doing here is we are allowing individuals – so this is a

lump sum payment at 65. However, the individuals have an option that up to a

year from their 65th birthday – so they can receive this payment. They don't

have to receive it in that calendar year; they can wait until the next calendar

year, but it has to be by their 66th birthday. We are going to give them that

option, so it doesn't have that actual impact on their income on that particular

year.

It's

like with any lump sum payment that an individual receives. It is going to raise

their income for that particular year, but it's not taxable. So that's the

impact.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member Fortune

Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could

individuals, with a more generous pension plan, be paid a lower amount under the

new system?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, it is possible. The

actuaries use mortality charts, so it's totally dependent on an estimation of

how long an individual would live.

It is

possible that there may be a small percentage of people, that if they stayed on

the old pension plan as it exists today, and they lived longer, they could

receive more money. However, this change is a more equitable and equal change,

and it also enables beneficiaries and spouse to get a payment, which they

wouldn't have gotten before.

So this

type of change to the pension benefit plan allows people to have a lump sum

payment at once, which individuals wanted. If an individual passes away, their

spouse or their dependants could qualify for funding, which they can't now.

If an

individual is on extended earnings loss, let's say, after January 1, 2019 and

they're off for a couple of years and then they go back to work, well, in the

future, at 65, they're still entitled to a percentage of this pension benefit

payout at 65 based on the length of time they were off on EEL. So, there are a

number of benefits with this change that are not existing today.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you

confirm that the tax-free lump sum payment will count as part of an individual's

gross income?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, it will count as a part

of an individual's income for the year that they received the funding.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Was any

consideration given to any implications that this could have on individuals who

avail of programs where gross income is a factor in determining program

eligibility, for example, the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors, social

housing programs like Newfoundland and Labrador Home Repairs, GST credits,

access to legal aid – can you tell us how this will be impacted?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Right now if an individual

receives a pension plan and it affects their income – they receive that amount

per year, so it's a long term. With this, they're going to receive it in one

year, so it will be an impact on that particular year or when they determine –

when they decide to take it, like within a year.

WorkplaceNL will continue to pay the necessary health care costs related to the

work injury. If an individual has an extraordinary medical cost, they can apply

to the Assurance Plan within Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Plan.

What I think you're getting at is if this bumps a person's income up so they no

longer qualify, it could happen for that one year that they take the money; but

if they wait until the next year to take it, that will be their income so it may

not effect it the same way.

There

are a very small percentage of people that are in that bracket. But again if you

have extenuating medical circumstances that require the funding, you can qualify

under the Assurance Plan.

This

plan as a whole is a much better plan than the present one that exists today.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you

outline for us what the implications of the proposed changes will be for

employers?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

The cost of the current PRB

program is projected to continue to escalate.

In 2007,

the program liabilities were $22 million. By 2017, they have grown to $104

million. The actuaries are projecting an annual savings of $700,000 in the

benefits cost, plus an additional annual savings of $200,000 in actuarial costs

is expected, compared to the continuing current PRB.

So there

will not be an impact on the employers with this. The employers want this

change. This is a way of being fiscally responsible because this plan is just

growing out of control.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is

a very important issue because of course employers are very much a part of this

equation as well, and they are what fund the workers' compensation system, so we

need to ensure that we have balance for both groups.

One of

the difficulties I'm having with respect to being expected to approve this bill

today is we really don't know what the future effects on rates are going to be

for employers. We don't know if the rates will go up or if they will go down.

Has

there been any research into – I know it's clearly stated in our briefing that

there will be no change at this time, but do you have insight with respect to

future as to whether or not there will be increased cost to the employer or a

decreased cost?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Well right now, the injury

fund, we're overfunded. We were 131 per cent and then we had the income

replacement benefit, we went from 80 to 85 per cent which decreased us, and our

objective and goal is to get it to 110.

So, this

right now will not have an impact to employers, and the fund is very healthy,

and funded. In actual fact, I anticipate there will be a decrease in the

assessment rate to employers. That's the anticipation in the next year, not that

this is going to have an impact.

This is

funded, and this will actually be a better program, as we move into the future,

for the employers.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Minister, and

thank you Mr. Chair.

So can

you give us any further detail with respect to how the injury fund itself will

be impacted?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

So, December 31 the injury

fund was at 131.6. Our objective and goal is to get to 110.

introduced the income replacement rate. We went from 80 to 85 per cent. That

brought the injury fund then down to 124. Again, like I said, we're moving

towards 110. We have one of the lower assessment rates. We're on par to lower

with the rest of Canada. New Brunswick just increased theirs dramatically.

For the

employers, this overall program will actually help make this program more

fiscally responsible.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Minister, and

thank you, Mr. Chair.

Will you

be able to provide some more detail for us with respect to the upfront cost to

government?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

I can, in one second.

Right

now, government – we are aware that between January 1, 2019 and March 31, 2021,

there are 21 employees across different departments. The estimated impact – this

is a total estimation impact based on 44,000 – for January 1 to March 31, about

176,000; from April 1 to March 31, about 484,000; and from April 1 to March 31,

264,000.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland – my apologies.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was

wondering if the minister could just comment on – currently, under the wage-loss

system, it's my understanding that when someone reaches the age of 65 a benefit

could terminate, but there are provisions to allow for – if someone can

demonstrate they have a deficiency in their retirement income from CPP or

registered employer pension plan as a result of it, they may be entitled to the

amount of pension lost due to the workplace injury.

Under

the new system, is there any provision if someone can demonstrate they've had a

loss of other retirement benefit that they will be accommodated with the new

lump-sum payment, or would there be any accommodation for this under the new

system being proposed?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

So that is the 10 per cent,

that's the difference. So it's 5 per cent for individuals that cannot show they

have a wage loss from a pension they previously paid into or a pension loss, and

the 10 per cent component is for individuals who can show they had previous

pensions. There is that allotment to allow because individuals show that there

is an actual demonstrated pension loss.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister for that. I'm just wondering, was there any assessment done based

on those individuals you just referenced to be better off or not as well off, or

there would be no significant change in their financial position based on coming

from the old system to the new system to demonstrate retirement eligibility

after 65?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

So, overall, this new benefit

is a better benefit. And there's probably – because, again, as I explained

earlier, it's based on mortality rates. So there could be a group of people – I

can't hear, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

There could be a small group

of individuals who would live to be 90 or 100 that possibly could have received

more money under the old system than the new one. So that is certainly possible,

but, overall, the new package is better for employers, is better for injured

workers, is better for dependent spouses, dependent children. Overall, it is a

more equitable program, and more people will receive the benefit under the new

program.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Would

you be able to provide for us some more detail on the $4.9 million future

benefit liability savings for government as a whole?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

So the $4.9 million is a

one-time savings. And the difference between the future liability for government

under the current PRB, in the proposed retirement benefit, actuarial work was

determined that the new model is expected to cost government $4.9 million less

than the current model. So that was actual actuarial work that was completed to

arrive at that number.

Again,

it's based on – they use mortality factors to determine.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Minister.

Can you

provide to us some information – can you explain the growth in the liability of

the current system as it presently stands in terms of its growth to $104 million

where it sits today?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Really, what I can say is,

like, in 2007 it was at $22 million and it has grown to $104 million. So it's

showing that this particular program that we are using is not sustainable and it

is not fiscally responsible; therefore, making this change to a new benefit that

the injured workers support and the employers support is the best way to go.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Minister, and Mr.

Chair.

Can you

tell us which groups were consulted in the drafting of this legislation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Consultations were done as

part of the stat review that was done in 2013. There were 15 consultations in 13

communities; 65 written and verbal submissions.

So this

was a recommendation from the stat review, this exact change.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Can you tell us if there were any discussions with the injured worker – well, I

know the injured workers through the provincial consultation process, but with

respect to the Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers Association, Workers'

Advisor, the Federation of Business, those types of entities. Were any of these

directly consulted?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

During the consultation phase

that happened back in 2013 by the previous administration, they were included in

the consultations. Since then, we've worked with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Employers' Council and the Federation of Labour, which are the representations

at the table.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder

if the minister could comment on the – there was an actuarial analysis done to

see the lump-sum component of it and paying out – when someone receiving

extended earnings loss (inaudible) at 65 is supposed to be paid out until death.

I'm

wondering, in the actuarial analysis, what age was used for both male and

females in doing that analysis?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

I will have to get that

answer for the Member.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you.

So I

guess, in the briefing, am I understanding there was reference made to the

initial cost of about $24 million to the injury fund? But a $700,000 in annual

savings to the fund and an annual actuarial savings of roughly $200,000.

I assume

those numbers are directly linked to the ages that were used for a male and

female in the actuarial analysis to determine what the savings are, because

those individuals who exceed the ages that you used for your analysis, that

would be money that would never be paid out under this system.

So would

that be correct, and these numbers would reflect those changes?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, and the mortality tables

use the age of 83. So that's correct, what you just said.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

They just came back and told

me the age is 83 in the mortality tables.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

will be my last question, but I understand my colleagues have a few left as

well.

What is

the plan, once this bill is passed, to inform stakeholders, particularly the

employers and the affected injured workers, about the changes to the retirement

benefit?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

The way it works right now is

that if an individual passes away, for example, the family usually contacts

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation to say stop those EEL payments. Also,

we have an agreement with Health and Community Services in the event somebody

passes away, to inform us that that individual has passed away.

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation will contact all individuals who are

receiving extended earnings loss on January 1, 2019, and inform them of this

change to the pension plan.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

want to revert to the age that was identified by the minister in regard to age

83, in regard to the actuarial analysis and paying out lump sum. Those

individuals, when they hit the age of 65 in 2019 and they're on extended

earnings loss and they get a lump-sum payment, if those individuals live beyond

the age of 83, they're not entitled to benefits any more from the system, even

though they have a work-related injury.

Is there

any assessment done at that point in time of what programs may be available to

them either provincially or federally to offset the fact at that point in time –

even if they invest their money and they had to draw down, and up the age of 83

after the fact that would be spent. Is there any, after that time, any programs

or any analysis done to what would be made available to them to offset that loss

of income?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Jurisdictionally, no, there

is nothing. We've done jurisdictional analysis on that to see; however,

WorkplaceNL still does provide the medical assistance, and any other programs

and assistance that they provide for injured workers.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister for that. I guess my issue is related to the lump-sum payment

upfront. There are very many pension plans that people are entitled to. Some do

have the ability to provide lump-sum payments, others do not.

I guess

my question is just – in regard to those individuals long-term, they had a

work-related injury. They received a lump-sum at the age of 66 or 67. That

affects – because that is, while it's not taxable, it would go into their annual

income and be reflective of what benefits they could draw down over the next

number of years, because that's probably prorated much like severance. When you

receive severance, if you're entitled to EI, that's prorated over a bunch of

years; therefore, you're not entitled to certain benefits.

Such an

individual, at the age of 84, has not drawn down on any of those benefits

because they were deemed probably not eligible. So I'm just wondering, from that

perspective, at the age of 84, what benefits is that individual entitled to that

had a legitimate work-related injury, but because you brought in this new

lump-sum program they're not entitled to benefits after that point?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Okay. So you're using the age

83-84, that's a mortality table. So that's just a table that the actuaries use

to determine an amount. That's not a factual number, because I could live to be

90 or 95 and I