Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Orders of the Day — 2 May 2018 (48th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLVIII No. 16)

2018-05-02

Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)

PDF Version

May 2, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 16

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 5.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The

Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to speak to an amendment to the

Pension Benefits Act, 1997 . Here in

Newfoundland –

MR. SPEAKER:

Standby, sorry.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Sorry.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

rise today to speak to an amendment to the

Pension Benefits Act, 1997 . Here in Newfoundland and Labrador –

MR. SPEAKER:

No, I'm sorry.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

No?

MR. SPEAKER:

I wasn't ready.

It is

moved and seconded that Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997,

be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.”

(Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Service NL.

apologies.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and indeed throughout the world, people move through their careers and

have an expectation that a time will come when they will be able to retire. Many

individuals pay into pension plans throughout their work lives. Pensions not

only provide retirees with the financial support they need, but also provide a

benefit to the overall economy.

Pension

plans are highly complex financial vehicles and the pension plan's financial

position is changing constantly due to many factors including the stock market

or interest rates. When there are potential negative impacts to pension plans,

we recognize the effects on those who rely on this income at the end of their

careers. We have seen this unfold throughout our province's history.

As an

example, the former employer at Wabush Mines filed for protection from its

creditors under the federal Companies'

Creditors Arrangement Act impacting the pension plans of retirees and former

workers at the mine. Within hours, Mr. Speaker, of the commencement of our

mandate, this administration made a series of decisions all in the best

interests of those most affected by this difficult position created by the

employer.

Most

recently, however, we were successful in our application to have the

Pension Benefits Act deemed trust

clause upheld by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal confirming our

belief that pensioners deserve to be recognized as a priority in creditor

claims. If money is available in the CCAA process, we will work with all

stakeholders to ensure the best possible outcome for the members of the Wabush

Mines pension plans. My department continues to monitor the situation and work

to ensure members' best interests are upheld and the plans are compliant with

the Pension Benefits Act .

Last

year, Mr. Speaker, our government worked with the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper

Limited to develop a solution to secure the future of the company's pension

plans, while allowing the company to focus its financial resources on

maintaining the viability of its operations. Our government worked to protect

the interests of pension plan members. This arrangement helps ensure the

sustainability of the pension plans into the future. This innovative solution

enabled the company to meet its pension funding obligations while allowing it to

focus on meeting its commitments to capital investments and operations under

agreements made in 2014.

I want

to acknowledge the support of my colleagues in the House of Assembly for the

necessary amendments to the Loan and

Guarantee Act, 1957 to facilitate this arrangement.

Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador's pension legislation is among the strongest

in Canada. Provincial laws require all pension contributions to be held in a

separate trust that cannot be accessed by the company or affected by bankruptcy

so as to ensure the money people contribute is safe.

Since

2008, provincial laws prohibit a solvent company from terminating a pension plan

in a deficit without making the required payments to fully fund the benefits

promised to the members. This is known –

MR. SPEAKER:

Sorry.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

I may have heard incorrectly,

but I thought the Government House Leader opened up the second reading on Bill

5, the Pension Benefits Act .

Am I

correct? I thought that was the debate he started.

MR. SPEAKER:

It was Order 4, Bill 5.

MS. MICHAEL:

Okay, which is –?

MR. SPEAKER:

Pension Benefits Act,

1997 .

MS. MICHAEL:

With a permanent exemption

from the requirement to fully fund pension benefits on the termination of a

pension plan is very specific. It has no relationship to anything that I'm

hearing the minister talk about. That's why I wanted to get clarification.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would ask the Minister of

Service NL if you have a comment.

You are

addressing Bill 5?

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, please proceed.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Since 2008, provincial laws

prohibit a solvent company from terminating a pension plan in a deficit without

making the required payments to fully fund the benefits promised to the members.

This is known as terminal funding.

The

province's Pension Benefits Act

protests pensions earned by workers in the province by legislating minimum

standards for pension benefits and be requiring minimum funding to ensure, to

the extent possible, that the pension promise is met; however, not all pension

plans are based on a typical employer-employee relationship, some are unique

relationships. Small pension plans can be set up by business owners for their

own benefit or for key executives to maximize tax deductible retirement savings,

rather than target a specific benefit level. These types of pension plans are

generally referred to as individual pension plans, or IPPs, as they have only

one or two members in the plan.

The

federal Income Tax A ct recognizes

these unique employer-employee relationships regarding individual pension plans;

however, the provincial Pension Benefits

Act does not. All pension plans registered under the

Pension Benefits Act must also be registered under the

Income Tax Act .

Any

instances where a conflict exists, the

Income Tax Act prevails over the

Pension Benefits Act . The Income Tax

Act recognizes differences between individuals within pension plans and

defines specified individuals as employees earning above a certain threshold,

currently around $140,000 per year, or employees who have connected with the

employer such as shareholders of the company.

Mr.

Speaker, there are three parts to the amendment before the floor of the House of

Assembly today which will address current financial concerns for some employers

that have existing individual pension plans. I also anticipate that these

amendments will make it more beneficial for employers to register new individual

pension plans in this province.

Part one

of the bill proposes two amendments to

section 2 of the

Pension Benefits Act adding a definition for an individual pension

plan, which means a defined benefit pension plan with two or fewer members or

former members where at least one of the members is a specified individual; and,

adding a definition for a specified individual which has the same meaning as in

the federal Income Tax Act Regulations .

These

changes recognize that individual pension plans set up for business owners or

executives are a unique type of pension plan under the

Pension Benefits Act . The

Income Tax Act limits the contributions permitted for these types of plans

while the plan is ongoing to avoid excessive tax deferral or sheltering.

Despite

the requirements under the Pension

Benefits Act to fund the pensions, because of the conflict with the

Income Tax Act the necessary funding

is not permitted while the plan is ongoing. This results in many individual

pension plans developing very large deficits.

When the

plan terminates, the Income Tax Act

limits no longer apply to paragraph 61(2) of the

Pension Benefits Act . It requires that the employer fund the full

benefit promised under the plan. This is known as terminal funding.

Very

often the employer and the employee are in fact the same in an individual

pension plan. This complicates the issue as the employer is required to fund

their own pension even if they would choose otherwise. In some cases, the large

contribution required can negatively impact their business and possibly result

in job losses.

Terminal

funding was not always a requirement under the

Pension Benefits Act . Prior to an amendment in 2008, an employer

could choose to terminally fund or reduce benefits to the level that could be

provided by existing pension fund.

Throughout the early 2000s, due to volatility in financial markets and lower

interest rates, many pension plans had significant deficits. The termination of

plans with deficits and benefit reductions led to a trend across the country

where many jurisdictions introduced full funding on termination.

Individual pension plans established before April 2008 were not designed with

terminal funding in mind. They were designed to maximize tax-sheltered savings.

Terminal funding hampered the ability of the employer and employee to use the

plan as originally intended. Now that some plans have matured and the

individuals are looking to retire, the significant cash flow required to fully

fund the pension is negatively impacting these individuals and their businesses.

Part two

of the bill proposes two additional subsections to be added to

section 61 of the

Pension Benefits Act . Subsection 61(3)

exempts individual pension plans from the terminal funding required under

subsection 61(2). Subsection 61(4) provides an exemption for individual pension

plans that exist on the coming into force, provided that the members of the plan

and their spouses or cohabiting partners who will be beneficiaries of their

pension consent in writing to the exemption from terminal funding.

The

protection of terminal funding would remain if they do not consent. The consent

must include a certificate of independent legal advice to ensure that all

parties are aware of any rights or benefits that may be given up. Any new

individual pension plans created after the legislation is amended will not have

terminal funding as a requirement.

In order

to register a new individual pension plan, the superintendent of pensions will

require clear language in the plan documentation to this effect.

Section 18 of

the Pension Benefits Act provides

authority for the superintendent to require certain information be provided when

registering a pension plan. Such requirements are typically outlined in a

directive issued by the superintendent which is copied to all pension plans and

other interested stakeholders and posted on the Service NL website.

The plan

document must be submitted for approval and the superintendent would review it

to ensure it's in compliance with act regulations and any directives before

approving a new plan for registration. Any amendments to a pension plan must

also be filed and approved by the superintendent. So the same process will be

applied before an amendment is registered.

Directive 1 would be an amendment to require that any new individual pension

plans registered after the bill will come into force on December 31, 2018,

include a statement that the employer is not required to fully fund any deficit

that may exist when the plan is terminated, and that this could result in

reduction of benefits. This would ensure all parties including spouses or

partners are aware of the rights or benefits that will be foregone prior to

entering into an individual pension plan.

The

third part of the bill we are introducing today sets December 31, 2018, as the

date for these changes to come into effect. While the changes we propose today

are not unlike the rules in other jurisdictions, the introduction of an

independent legal advice and consent is unique. It aims to protect those

individuals in existing individual pension plans who want their benefit to be

fully funded. Most jurisdictions provide some form of exemption for pension

plans associated with specified individuals or connected persons.

Mr.

Speaker, the amendments we are debating today only apply to a unique group of

pension plans that are set up for shareholders of companies or very high

earners. I cannot stress that, Mr. Speaker. It is for shareholders of companies

or very high earners. It will not affect any pension plan in the province that

has more than two members or diminish the protection for workers or retirees who

have pension benefits.

adding a definition of individual pension plans along with providing a permanent

exemption from terminal funding for these plans these changes will allow

businesses to provide retirement savings for members without imposing

challenging funding requirements for the employer who can negatively affect the

business operations.

Mr.

Speaker, in The Way Forward our

government committed to better services and better outcomes to promote a

healthy, prosperous province. It is essential that we continue to work with the

business community throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to eliminate barriers to

their operations. Amending legislation to ensure it is meeting the needs of the

people we serve is a responsibility that we take seriously.

As I

stated earlier, the requirements associated with the majority of pension plans

in the province are not affected in any way by these changes which deal with a

small number of individuals; however, they will address current financial

concerns for some employers.

It is

important that we as a government continue to address matters like this one

which help create a better business climate for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It is

indeed a privilege to get up here this morning and speak on Bill 5,

An Act to

Amend the Pension Benefits Act.

listened to the minister explain the different changes in the act and why the

act is going to be changed. As a caucus, we have some questions that we do want

to ask when we get into Committee because there is a lot of different

information that I'm sure the minister can provide, but for the general public

out there, pension plans are very, very important. People spend their livelihood

paying into pension plans so they have a future that they can ensure that when

they do come to the part where they can retire, there is a fund in place so that

they can secure their later years in life and know there will be an income for

them and their family.

The

pension plan that we're talking about today is an individual pension plan. So

these are plans that are set up for different – not corporations mainly,

it could be companies, it could be a law firm, it could be a doctor's office or

something like this. And these pension plans are set up for two or fewer people.

So it's not for a company that has a group of employees,

like the minister mentioned about Wabush Mines, but this is completely different

altogether. These are set up for individuals that probably own a company or have

a small business where it could be just two people in that business and they set

up a business plan.

Right now, this particular pension plan that we're talking

about this morning – and this is the reason why we'll have more questions down

the road – there are only 50 of these individual pension plans that are in place

right now. Most of these pension plans came into effect before 2008.

To give you an example – and the minister, I'm sure, will

explain when we do get into Committee – it could be a small company that could

be a construction company that the owner of that company sets up a pension plan

for himself, and it could be a spouse, it could be a minor partner or something

like that. But it's only two individuals that are set up in this pension plan.

Sometimes this is set up for different purposes. It could

be for the actual pension itself, which some do, but it's also set up,

sometimes, for tax relief. That plays a major role in everything too, how people

set this up, because high earners and people have to look and say which way am I

going to pay less taxes. So that's reason why some of these pension plans –

again, it's a very few.

I think the gist of what I'll do, once we get to Committee,

is to dig down some more information and find out what the purpose is, who was

consulted. I know that when we were in our briefing they talked about the board

of trade and different groups that were involved. So I'd like to know what their

role was in this and to find out what the reasons are for doing this.

Again, I understand that it could be important too, for

example, if a company was up for sale , that these pension plans – what they call as windup. So you could wind

up the pension plan so there wouldn't be a huge liability to anybody that wanted

to purchase the company or had to pay this forever and a day until the pension

was over basically.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to talk too much about it, but I think once we get to

Committee I will have lots of questions for the minister. A lot of it will deal

with reasons for this, who was looking for it, why it was done and stuff like

that so we can get a clear – because it's a very limited few that this does

affect.

It would

be interesting to see what happens to those individual pension plans, where they

go forward and what this will do for future individual pension plans also. Will

this mean that there will be a lot more set up or will it mean that – I think

there are only 18, like I said, since 2008 that were actually set up since then.

I will

have lots of questions when we get in Committee. That's all I have to say about

it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, thanks a lot.

I'm

delighted to speak here today to Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits

Act, 1997. I've had the opportunity to stand several times in the House of

Assembly to speak to legislative amendments since I became the parliamentary

secretary to the Minister of Service NL. Over that time, and each time, I'm

struck by the far-reaching impacts the department has on the lives of residents

of our province.

I once

said that it touches everyone's lives, from birth to death and everything in

between. The Pension Benefits Act is a

prime example, given that so many of us contribute towards pension benefits with

a goal of reaching retirement somewhere down the road.

As the

Minister of Service NL just stated, the pension funding rules in Newfoundland

and Labrador are some of the strongest in our country. The act protects

pensions, our pensions earned by workers in this province, by legislating

minimum standards for pension benefits and requiring minimum funding to ensure

that these pension promises are met.

In the

case of an individual pension plan, small pension plans are set up by business

owners for their own benefit or for key executives to maximize tax deductible

retirement savings rather than focus on a specific benefit level. They are

example of a pension plan that isn't based on a regular employer-employee

relationship. Rather, it is a plan with two or few members where at least one of

the members is considered a specific individual under the

Income Tax Act , as alluded to by my

colleague across the way.

It is

important to note that the federal Income

Tax Act has special rules that limit the amount of tax deductible

contributions that can be made while such plans are ongoing to avoid excessive

tax deferral or sheltering. This is also important to note that the federal

Income Tax Act recognizes these unique

employee-employer relations while the provincial benefit act does not. Because

of the income tax limits, the minimum funding requirements under the

Pension Benefits Act generally cannot

be met and many of these plans develop large deficits while they are ongoing.

When the

plan terminates, the Income Tax Act

funding restrictions no longer apply and then the

Pension Benefits Act requires the employer to fund the full benefit

promised under the plan.

On plan

termination, it is common for an employer with an individual pension plan to be

caught off guard by a large required contribution that they cannot comfortably

afford without a significant impact to their business. The large contributions

requirements, often hundreds of thousands of dollars, can be detrimental when an

owner is trying to close or sell their business. Very often, the employer and

the employee are the same. This complicates the issue as the employer is

required to fund their own pension even if they would choose to do otherwise.

Mr.

Speaker, terminal funding was not always a requirement under the

Pension Benefits Act . As the Minister

of Service NL indicated prior, a prior amendment in 2008, an employer could

choose to terminally fund or reduce the benefit to the level that could be

provided by the existing pension fund.

Throughout the early 2000s, because of the volatility in the financial markets

and lower interest rates, many pension plans had significant deficits, as we

know with our own provincial pension plans. The termination of plans with

deficits, the benefit reductions related to many jurisdictions introducing full

funding on termination.

Terminal

funding is vital for the security of pension benefits under most types of

pension plans, but in the case of individual pension plans it has hindered the

ability for the employer and the employee to use the pension plan as originally

intended. Now that some of these plans have matured and that the individuals are

looking to retire, the significant cash flow required to fully fund the pension

is negatively impacting these individuals and their business.

Stakeholders have requested that the terminal funding requirements be eliminated

for these plans, arguing it's unnecessary and noting that many other

jurisdictions have recognized the need to exempt these plans from such pension

rules, including funding requirements. In addition, the St. John's Board of

Trade has recently brought forward this issue as the current rules are

considered to be an impediment for businesses trying to sell or restructure

their business.

Providing a permanent exemption from terminal funding would allow individual

pension plans to provide retirement savings for the plan members without

imposing funding requirements which can negatively affect their operations.

While

the Minister of Service NL has spoken to the individual amendments in detail, I

want to highlight some of the important changes that will come into effect the

end of this calendar year. In order to register a new individual pension plan

after this bill would come into force on December 31, 2018, the plan documents

must include a statement that the employer is not required to fully fund any

deficit that may exist in the plan if the plan is terminated that could result

in a reduction in benefits.

This

will ensure all parties, including spouses or co-habiting partners, are fully

aware that the terminal funding is no longer a requirement. If any party has a

concern with the plan, they can opt not to enter into this type of an

arrangement. For existing individual pension plans, members will be required to

seek independent legal advice and provide consent to ensure they are aware of

the rights and benefits that they would be foregoing. The protection of terminal

funding would remain if they do not consent. Now, that's an important piece.

We need

to be clear that this change only applies to the unique group of pension plans

that are set up for shareholders or companies of very high earners and does not

diminish the protection for workers or retirees who have pension benefits

somewhere else. It is also very important that I echo the important message that

the amendments to the Pension Benefits Act

we have brought to the House today will not – and I repeat will not – affect any

pension plans in the province that have more than two members. Mr. Speaker, this

is a very unique group of individuals.

As the

minister stated in her opening remarks, we have many residents in our province

who work throughout their careers with an end goal of retirement. The changes we

are proposing today will not, in anyway, affect the pension plan that are

comprised of more than two members. This is about providing flexibility within

the pension legislation for a very select group of individuals in Newfoundland

and Labrador. This is also about our government making changes that will help

make improvements to the business environment in our province.

Since

2015, we have continuously looked for ways to improve the lives of the people we

serve, trying to deliver better services, which will result in better outcomes.

Bill 5 is one more example of our ongoing efforts in this area.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

St. John's East - Quidi Vidi,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

St. John's East, sorry.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much.

I'm

happy to stand and speak to Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act.

Different explanations have been given to it by the minister and by the former

speaker. I'm happy to speak to it. They are being accurate around what they're

saying. The bill is a minor amendment to our

Pension Benefits Act and it changes rules around private pensions of

a very select group of people, of companies that are made up of two or less.

I find

it interesting talking about relieving the financial burden for these

situations. Yes, I guess it is a financial burden in a sense that companies of

two or fewer people, which is a very small group of people in this province – as

has been indicated – can have these pension plans, and according to our current

act that when they come to a point where the plans are closed out, the company

ends, or they decide to close out the pension – right now if the plan cannot

support what a pension plan should be able to support, they have to put money

in. They have to make up for the deficit that's in the fund before it's closed

out.

I'm sure

that it's quite possible that somebody all of a sudden after years of having

this fund, whether it's five years, 10 years or whatever, may not like the idea

of having to pay in and make up for the deficit that they've allowed to

accumulate – because they would have allowed that to accumulate. They probably

would very much like not to have to do that.

I can

understand why there was lobbying by the Board of Trade for the 50 or 60 people

that this covers, and that's how small the group is; we were told that in the

briefing. The minister has said that it's a very, very small group of people.

I'm not saying that these people shouldn't be cared about but, in actual fact,

these people could have RRSPs just as well as a pension plan. They could have

RRSPs, which would sound very logical, but the thing is that with RRSPs you

can't be sheltered as much as with these pension plans. So that with an RRSP the

maximum shelter is $23,000 to $24,000 a year;

whereas with a private pension

plan, they can get tax shelter upwards of $40,000 a year.

Basically it's a tax haven, and it's a choice of the people who set up these

plans to do it that way. Now, they're getting protection under our

Pension Benefits Act . They're getting protection by exempting them

from having to make sure that the pension fund is fully viable when it comes to

an end.

I think

it's important for us to fully understand that. In the act, in

section 61 of the

pension and benefits act, it says: “Where, on the termination, after April 1,

2008, of a pension plan, other than a multi-employer pension plan, the assets in

the pension fund are less than the value of the benefits provided under the

plan, the employer shall, as prescribed by the regulations, make the payments

into the pension fund, in addition to the payments required under subsection

(1), that are necessary to fund the benefits provided under the plan.”

So our

act does protect employees. However, as has been pointed out, if you're talking

about one of these pension plans, which is basically one or two people who in

most cases are family, they're saying this doesn't fit because it's a different

situation. Having to fully fund the pension at the end could be hard on them.

Maybe their business will end.

Well,

I'd like to know what the businesses are, actually, of these 50 or 60 wealthy

people in the province. They're probably most likely professional businesses. We

don't have the details. I'm agreement with my colleague from Cape St. Francis

that I'm going to want to have some answers too about, well, what exactly are

these very tiny businesses where the pension is for one or two people.

What is

going to happen is – I just read that subsection from

section 61. What will

happen is this bill shall not apply to an individual pension plan, which is what

these plans are called. They will not have to make payments in addition to fund

the benefits under the plan. They won't have to protect themselves under their

own pension plan, basically. That's what it is, and that's fine.

If we're

going to say these pension plans can exist, I can understand doing this, but

let's not say we're showing tremendous care for the people of the province by

doing this. It's helping these people with this plan, which is a valid plan.

It's legal, they can do it. They're choosing to do it rather than have RRSPs

because they get more of a tax saving by doing it. So we'll be honest about all

of that. If we want to do that, fine, but let's not make more of it than it is,

because that's what it is. That's what it is. That's fine, but I'd like to have

some more information and we will get that in Committee.

I'd like

to point out that if this province really cared so much about people and their

pensions, why isn't the government of this province banging on the door in

Ottawa and saying make a change toward the corporate tax rules in this country?

Why not make a change to the rule around bankruptcy that a company like Wabush

Mines or Abitibi in Grand Falls-Windsor can go under – or Sears, it might be a

large company outside but it affected an awful lot of our workers in this

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

A company like Sears, that

they can go under, they can go bankrupt and the last people to get considered

are the workers of those companies who never get considered. Their pension plans

die. They died in Wabush, they died in Grand Falls-Windsor and they died with

the workers who've worked for Sears.

So if

this government is so caring about people having pensions –

MR. A. PARSONS:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader on a point of order.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I'm certainly one for free

debate, but I would ask that debate be relevant to the bill that's being

debated.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Anyone else like to speak to

that point of order?

I would

remind Members, the intent of this bill is very restrictive and I ask Members to

keep relevant to the subject of this bill.

MS. MICHAEL:

May I speak to the point of

order, Mr. Speaker, please?

MR. SPEAKER:

To the point of order?

MS. MICHAEL:

May I speak to the point of

order?

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes.

The

Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, to the point of order.

MS. ROGERS:

He said there was no point of

order.

MS. MICHAEL:

No, but I need to have an

opportunity before he makes that ruling.

I want

to speak to the point that was made, not to what the Speaker said, but to the

point that was made, the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes.

MS. MICHAEL:

The reason I want to speak to

it is that I understand in second reading we are talking to the general

principles of a bill. The general principle of this bill is protection of people

with pensions. To me, I've been talking about protection of people with

pensions. I respond to the point of order saying that.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes, I would say the Member

has been speaking generally to the principle of the bill and I would encourage

all Members to remain relevant to the subject of this bill.

MS. MICHAEL:

I'm speaking about the care

for people in this province with regard to pensions. I heard the minister talk

about the care that the government has, the concern it has for people in the

province. The minister talked about what happened with the Abitibi workers. So I

think I'm speaking to the spirit of this bill and saying let's care. I'm asking

this government to also show their concern.

If the

board of trade can lobby government for 50 or 60 wealthy people, I can stand

here and ask this government to care about our people in this province who have

lost their pensions and to fight for them in Ottawa and to get Ottawa on the

track with regard to changing the corporate laws in this country.

MR. A. PARSONS:

A point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

A point of order from the

Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Under

section 48, relevance;

I just made this point. I think you made a ruling that we continue on. I would

ask that we be relevant to the bill. I don't believe the commentary from the

Member opposite is relevant to the content of the bill being debated by the

Minister of Service NL.

MR. SPEAKER:

Anyone else who would like to

speak to this point of order before I rule.

The

Member, in my estimation, is speaking to the order of the general principle of

the bill in terms of she's talking about pensions and the principle and how it

should be applied.

I ask

the Member to remain relevant to the subject of this bill.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

You have

indicated that I have been, and I will not make my point again. I think I've

made my point clearly, so I will not repeat it, but I do ask the government and

the minister to listen carefully to what I did say. I look forward to when we're

in Committee to ask specific questions that I'd like to have answered.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to take a whole lot of time and I'm not going to repeat everything that's

been said. I think it's been explained, the details, but basically I guess at

the end of the day this is not – so that we're all clear and anyone watching is

clear, this is not creating some new bill that's going to shelter some people in

big business and so on. This bill already exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LANE:

So there's nothing new here.

Really,

all we're doing here is taking a bill and a circumstance that currently exists,

that allows private pension plans to be able to contribute up to $40,000 per

year as opposed to $26,000 – is the maximum, I think, under the RRSP, like my

colleague for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi stated.

That

provision already exists. The problem we have is there's basically a clash

between the Pension Benefits Act and

the Income Tax Act so that when an

individual – and we're only talking about individuals here, it could be up to

two people but generally an individual – when that person decides to retire and

shut down their pension plan, under the current provisions there's a clash with

the Income Tax Act and they end up

having to basically pay themselves because we're only talking about the same

person. All that's happening is they're saying that you should have – under the

pension plan maybe you're underfunded by, I'm just going to say $100,000. It

could be $200,000, it could be $500,000, I don't know, but say $100,000. The

reason why it was underfunded is because under the

Income Tax Act they weren't allowed to pay that $100,000.

Now when

they shut down their plan, there's $100,000 that you owe. It makes no sense

because all I'd be doing is just taking $100,000, paying it into my own plan and

then taking my own money back again. It just doesn't make any sense. That's the

problem that's created under the act as it currently exists. All that's

happening is that it's just recognizing that situation and fixing that situation

so it doesn't happen again. That's what the bill is all about as I understand it

and from the explanation I received. Based on that, I have no problem whatsoever

in supporting the bill.

I will

say this in fairness, that's not to say the Member for St. John's East - Quidi

Vidi is not making relevant points about the problem we have with pension plans

and the average person. We know how they have – we've seen situations. She gave

some good examples where workers who had paid into a pension their whole life

ended up getting shafted, to some degree, because of the system. I certainly

agree with her there. I think we all should strive to lobby the federal

government to change that.

I do

agree with her, but while she's speaking in the spirit of it, and I agree with

the spirit of it, really what this bill is about is what I just said. Based on

the bill, based on what's written, based on what I understand of it, I will

support the bill.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for the opportunity to stand and have a few comments on Bill 5. I certainly

did listen to the minister as she introduced the bill and went through the

particulars in regard to the intent and some of the information that was

received in regard to challenges with the current bill and what some of the

provisions here in Bill 5 are all about. As my colleague from Cape St. Francis

indicates, I'm sure when we get in Committee we'll have a further discussion

specific to the parts of the bill.

The

Pension Benefits Act, 1997 required

plan sponsors to fully fund deficits for windup of a pension plan. Bill 5, the

intent of that is to look at the Pension

Benefits Act, 1997 to exempt certain existing individual pension plans with

two or fewer members or former members from the requirement in the act for

pension plan sponsors to fully fund any deficits on windup of the plan if

certain conditions are not met.

Now, I

know when the minister talked about this she talked about some of the difference

in regard to the employer-employee relationship with this smaller group. My

understanding, and we'll probably talk about it more in Committee, is this is

relevant to those that owned the actual small business. I am not sure if it's

just something that's incorporated, would it be involved proprietorship,

partnership, and those kinds of set-ups. As we go through, we'll certainly have

discussion about that as well.

She

spoke to provisions of the bill that talks about those that are either married,

cohabitate, have a partnership, and how any windup would affect those

individuals. And some provisions are mentioned here in the bill in regard to

some protection for that. Because as we know, someone, it could be a partner of

an individual, who one individual could be involved in the business, it could be

a director of an incorporated entity, others may not be aware that in some cases

maybe the pension plan even exists.

So what

transpires with the clue-up, with the sale of that business or with bankruptcy

or a number of things that could occur. What protection is there for that

individual or individuals who, as we know with small business, may not have

participated directly, could have participated in some form, but still that fund

and that benefit is for them and has been put aside and their expectation is

they would avail of that at some time in the future as part of a pension plan.

That's

certainly significant and relevant that we have a discussion on that and how

that exactly is set up for those that may not be aware of it, for those that are

aware of it, that full understanding is grasped by all concerned to make sure

everybody's protected as we go through the process.

Just a

little background in regard to the Pension

Benefits Act, 1997 , it governs employer-sponsored pension plans and the

minister referenced that when she spoke in regard to this particular bill and

the Pensions Act . The objective of the

act is to protect the accrued pension entitlement of plan members in the

province, and to assure equitable treatment of all plan members. So the general

principle of a pension benefit, you start out, you put aside in a registered

pension plan, part of your employment; sometimes it can be contributory by the

employer and the employee, whatever that basis; it's looking to the future to

make sure at a time when you leave that employment you have a benefit, and maybe

other benefits as well as you leave that place of employment.

Since

2008 the Pension Benefits Act has

required plan sponsors to fully fund any deficits on windup of a pension plan.

This is what we're talking about here today in regard to this bill. I think the

minister indicated and in some of the briefing information there were about 50

cases of this where it exists. This bill specifically deals with those cases.

There

are certainly different pension plans. The amendments outlined in Bill 5 apply

only to certain existing individual pension plans, as I said, with two or few

members or former members. The individual pension plan is a registered defined

benefit pension plan designed to provide the maximum benefit permitted under the

Income Tax Act . The minister has

indicated some of the concerns or some of the relevancy to the current set-up

and what it would mean in regard to Canadian tax law, how they intertwine and

what the said results could be.

The

pension plans are often set up by business owners, incorporated professionals

and executives, it could be through financial specialists and advisors, to look

at what the income would be at a point in time when you would leave the

operations and go on and have a secondary income. There are also Registered

Retirement Savings Plans when you look at deferred taxation; RRSPs are one

registered means to do it today. I guess there is concern in regard to this

particular instance in regard to whether this will be perceived as a tax shelter

and how that money is protected from taxation under both provincial and federal

taxation law.

hadn't had any discussion before. We know recently the federal government has

looked at small business legislation in regard to small business. I'm not sure

if there's any relevance here in regard to how that's intertwined, if there are

concerns here in regard to that. That is something we'll probably talk about in

Committee.

Some of

the moves that were made then – and I know there were concerns for small

business in regard to infringement on their ability to save for that point in

time in the future where they would retire and would have benefits available in

the form of a pension. It could be monies in that incorporated entity at the

point in time that would stay there. They could use that at a later date to draw

down when they sold their company, when the company was passed on to a family

member, but they would have that to draw down on. So it's something we can

certainly talk about when we get in Committee about if there's a connection to

that as well.

We know

in the discussions, the superintendent of pensions indicated – as I said, there

are 50 more of these type of pension plans currently registered under the

Pension Benefits Act in the province.

The majority of these were set up somewhere around, prior to 2008.

Approximately, 15 to 20 were set up since 2008.

As well,

according to the superintendent, some have started to mature and issues have

emerged. I guess that's why we're here today talking about Bill 5 related to the

requirements in the Pension Benefits Act

for these sponsored plans to fully fund the pensions plan upon wind up. I guess

that's what we're talking about.

Under

these plans, certain circumstances result in individuals being forced to

potential bankruptcy, possibly, for their company in order to find their own

pension plan upon windup. As you get to windup of the particular company, the

unfunded pension plan – currently, my understanding is that deficit today, under

the current legislation, would need to be met. That would be finding the dollars

within that corporate entity or within that structure, within that business to

meet that requirement.

According to the superintendent, there's certainly increased pressure to address

the issue surrounding the requirement for the plan sponsors of the pension

program to fully fund any deficits upon windup. He said his office received

correspondence over the years concerning the issue. There are others who lobbied

for changes that it would improve the ability of business owners to close out

their financial affairs. Other financial consultants and planners have, as well,

expressed interest in seeing the amendments outlined in Bill 5.

understanding is the bill will come into effect in December of 2018. It would

look at – from the taxation point of view in regard to when it would come in, it

would be a full year then in terms of operation for a taxation year. The

department is not, as I said, bringing it in until 2018.

When we

get into Committee, as I said, my colleague for Cape St. Francis talked about

some of the questions we'd want to ask in regard to protection for those that

are involved or involved in the business, corporate entity to make sure they're

protected. I know the minister did talk about that, some of the provisions and

definitions in the bill. We'll probably drill down a little bit on those to make

sure that protection is there for those concerns.

Those

are some of the thoughts as we go through in regard to the exact nature of why

we're bringing this forward at this particular time, how those involved are

protected, what the framework is going to look like going forward.

So it's

an interesting bill. We're certainly looking forward to discussion in Committee.

At that time we'll have some questions and we'll go from there.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. the Minister of

Service NL speaks now she will close the debate.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

Members for their comments.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 5 now be 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:

All those against, ‘nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Murphy):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill has now been read a

second time.

When

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

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997,” read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 5)

Whole for consideration of the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House that we adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, ‘nay.'

Motion

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 5,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.” (Bill 5)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

It took you a long while to

figure that one out, Mr. Chair. I can't believe it.

Amendments requiring the pension sponsor to be fully funded any deficits or

windup has been there since 2008, why are we introducing these amendments now?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, I think it's in

the best interests of the House that I kind of give an example of what's going

on here so people can get a clear understanding of why we're doing this.

The

individual pension plans are generally set up for owners or key executives of a

company. Due to privacy legislation, Mr. Speaker, it would not be normally

acceptable to name a specific company with an individual pension plan without

their consent. I have arrived at that consent from Atlantic Home Furnishings

Limited. They provided me with that consent to identify them.

This

company, Atlantic Home Furnishings, is an established employer in the province.

They presently have a number of employees in their Mount Pearl location. A prior

owner of this company, Mr. Speaker, set up an individual pension plan as a means

of savings for retirement; however, when the ownership changed, the individual

pension plan became an obligation of the new owner of the company. The

significant cost of this funding to the pension is a burden now to the new

owner.

Instead

of being able to invest in the company and into his employees, Mr. Speaker, the

legislation as it exists today requires the company now to invest in this

pension plan. Even though the individual that owned the company prior consented

for him not to do this, but the regulations – the legislation now requires him

to do it.

We're

here today, Mr. Speaker, to try to change the legislation to assist – there are

50 of these plans in the province, 15 since 2008. We're here today so we can

allow small business owners the opportunity to invest in their business, to

invest in the company, to employ individuals, and not to have this over their

head that they would have to invest in a pension plan that the owner who owned

the pension plan agreed they didn't have to do. That's the issue.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

What sort of consultations

were done with any different groups about this pension plan?

CHAIR:

The Minister of Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, we consulted

with Kevin Dunphy. He's the financial advisor for the company that I just

identified. We also consulted with the St. John's Board of Trade. They were

clear that this was a good thing to do and it was needed to do because it was

hindering the growth and the development of some of the businesses in the

province.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I want

to go back, actually, to the first question that the Member for Cape St. Francis

Yes, Mr. Chair, there are

variations in how these individual pension plans are treated across the country

and most jurisdictions provide some form of exemption for the pension plans.

In our

province, we have developed our own made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach.

Actually, Mr. Chair, I do have a jurisdictional scan sheet here. It's quite

lengthy. I don't know if the Member wants me to enter it or read it all out, or

table it.

would be a disconnect as having a connection to the plan?

Someone

could have interrupted service with a small business. It may not have been in

the year prior to the plan winding up or the company being sold. So would they

still have a right to the pension plan?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Chair, it's two or less

people who are in the agreement at the time. I think the Member opposite is

asking me if there's a break in the period of time. Is that what you're asking?

I'll have to get that answer for him.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yes, so just to be clear the

issue is – and it's in the definition here as specified individual. It talks

about a year and the connection. There could be two people in a company, they

may be owners, they may be shareholders, a minority shareholder. They could

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Pension

Benefits Act, 1997.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 5 without

amendment?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I move, Mr. Chair, that the

Committee rise and report Bill 5.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 5.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Those against?

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise and report Bill 5 carried without amendment, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Chair of

Committees, Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 5 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed him to report Bill 5 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

why we would make such a motion, normally on Thursdays this House meets at 1:30

p.m. to start regular proceedings. However, tomorrow is certainly a very special

day in this province, where we have the installation of a new a

Lieutenant-Governor in this province, Ms. Judy Foote.

That

will be tomorrow in this House, actually. There are certainly some festivities

planned, and the anticipation is that regular business may be delayed due to

these ceremonies which are taking place. In order to ensure that there's no

discrepancy here and that the House is not conflicted out, we'll say, what we're

asking is that Members meet and this House open at 2 p.m. I think, obviously,

it's going to be a big day for this province. There are a lot of positive things

about the appointment of Ms. Foote to this position.

I might

not get a chance to say so publicly, what I'd like to do before I sit down is

just to take this opportunity publicly to thank the current Lieutenant-Governor,

Mr. Frank Fagan and his wife Patricia, their Honours, for the great that they've

done over the last number of years for this province. I, like many in this

House, have had a number of opportunities to be in their company and to be in

their presence, and have heard many of their speeches. I have to say, they're a

very warm couple, very giving, always willing to talk to people, to talk to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So the service they've provided to Her

Majesty, to our country and province, certainly they've gone above and beyond.

In fact, I think his term is actually – he served a bit longer than perhaps

anticipated in order to allow for this transition.

To those

fine folks, I would say: Thank you for everything you've done and for allowing

us to be in your presence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

To Ms. Foote and to her

husband, Howard, who will be sworn in tomorrow, I'm sure they're going to do a

wonderful job for this country as well. We all know Ms. Foote's background in

public service to this province and to this country. I'm sure she'll carry that

same record over in service to the country and province in this brand new role.

I look

forward to tomorrow. I think it's going to be a very – it's a big day for this

province and this country. I would be remiss if I didn't note that I do believe

it will be our first female Lieutenant-Governor in this province, and that's a

great milestone.

I thank

the Prime Minister for his wonderful selection and I thank Ms. Foote who has

already served a number of years in public service and taking on this new role.

It says a lot about her commitment to the people here.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the debate on this motion and hopefully

seeing it passed and look forward to the installation tomorrow.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As well,

I concur with the Minister of Justice and Public Safety in regard to this

particular motion at 2 o'clock on Thursday for the installation of the new

Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.

understanding is the regular orders, business of the day, will proceed that

activity here in the House, which is indeed, as the minister said, a special day

for the province as we have a changeover of Lieutenant-Governor.

I, as

well, would like to acknowledge and thank the service of Frank and Patricia

Fagan, their Honours, on the work they've done in their tenure. As an elected

official in the province during that time, I've certainly seen the elegance and

the presentation they have brought to the role as Lieutenant-Governor and their

Honours and thank them for that and for their dedication.

As well,

from the new installation of a new Lieutenant-Governor, we're going to see the

first female Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

as the Queen's representative, as us as a member of the Commonwealth acknowledge

that and look at it as a new age in terms of our province and acknowledge that

and the Prime Minister on making that appointment with the blessing of the

Queen.

Again,

we certainly recognize this motion and we support it, and looking forward to

Thursday and the ceremony here in the House.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

happy the Government House Leader took a moment to explain what is happening

tomorrow for those who are watching and to give us all an opportunity to

recognize this special moment. I think it is most appropriate that we change our

schedule in order to have the installation of the new Lieutenant-Governor in

this House, and noting, along with my colleagues, that it is a very special day

when we have the first female Lieutenant-Governor in our history and for some of

us, somebody whom we sat with in this House, actually.

I am

looking forward to that. I think it is – I mean this in a non-political sense –

a red letter day. I realized as I went to say it.

The

Lieutenant-Governor plays a special role with us here in the House. Albeit it's

a formal role that the Lieutenant-Governor plays but it is part of our

parliamentary system and it's something we all respect.

I'm

proud to say as I stand here, that this actually will be the fourth

Lieutenant-Governor that I will have been an MHA with. So this is significant

for me at this point in time that it is a woman. We all should celebrate that.

Again, I

join with my colleagues in thanking Frank and Patricia Fagan for the wonderful

job they did while in that role.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

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.'

This

motion is carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

call from the Order Paper, Motion 3, the Concurrence Motion.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure for me to –

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LETTO:

I'm speaking to the Resource

Committee.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure for me to rise this morning to have a few words on Concurrence. I just

want to talk a bit about the district that I represent and I want to thank the

people of Labrador West for giving me this privilege to represent them in the

House of Assembly, as all hon. Members do in this House, I'm sure.

Right

now, Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of things said about the budget and some

good, some not so good. I want to focus on an industry this morning that is a

bright light for us – it has been for 60-or-more years, 100 years – and that's

mining. I think that is a great part of our future. We only scratched the

surface, pardon the pun, on what mining can do and the contributions that it

makes to our province.

Labrador

West, as you know, is a big part of that. It's our raison d'être. We would not

be there if it wasn't for the iron ore mines and the great riches of the

Labrador Trough that exist within that region. It's fairly new in relative

terms. Labrador City was established in the early 1960s and Wabush came along

shortly thereafter. In relative terms to many communities in this province,

Labrador City and Wabush are fairly new.

We built

there because our pioneers and prospectors found a great resource in the region

of the Labrador Trough and that's iron ore. Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a

few words this morning on what this industry has done for the region of Labrador

West and what it continues to do, and the prospects and the possibilities that

exist within the region to make it an even stronger region for us.

Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I want to say that if we were to go on today's terms of

what's happening exactly at this very moment, we would not be very prosperous

because, right now, due to an unfortunate labour dispute, the production is at a

standstill. This, too, will pass. We've had many, many of these interruptions

since the 1960s. They're never good. They're never good for the workers. They're

never good for the region. They're never good for the company.

Mr.

Speaker, we have to respect the wishes of the people. When the union members

voted they voted unanimously, I would consider, in the 90-plus range. You have

to respect that. You have to respect their convictions, and I certainly do. That

doesn't mean we sit back and do nothing. I have been very active as the MHA for

the region in dealing with the union and the company to try to get this

unfortunate stoppage resolved. It's in the best interests of everybody within

the region, within the province and within the country.

Mr.

Speaker, we continue to do that. Of course, back in 2014 we had the unfortunate

incident of the stoppage and the shutdown of Wabush Mines. Again, I want to say

that was most unfortunate and the region has suffered terribly because of it.

The people of Wabush have been certainly dealt a severe blow. When you talk

about Wabush, I can't help but talk about the pensioners. The Member of the

Third Party referred to them earlier in her conversations.

Mr.

Speaker, when a group of people – when you work 30 or 40 years and you find out

in your retirement that you're going to lose 25 per cent of your pension, that's

never good news. You were there with me when we had to go to – it was my first

task as an MHA, actually.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Twice.

MR. LETTO:

Twice. Yes, you were there.

My first

task as an MHA was to go and explain to the members, to the pensioners, that

their pension plan was being terminated. Mr. Speaker, that was not a very good

evening. When you start off your rookie career as an MHA on that foot, you know

that you're into the thick of it now.

Since

then, we've been working with the pensioners. One of the things that we did as a

government was referred the

section of the pension act to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Court of Appeal for an

interpretation and a reference. We did get a

very favourable reference from the Court of Appeal. Since then, we've been very

active. I've been working with the lawyers, the company, the union members and

the staff members to try to get some resolution to the loss of pensions that

they've experienced.

I can

honestly say, Mr. Speaker, we're making progress. It's taking forever, in their

terms certainly, because that's 2014, so we're talking now four years later.

It's a long, tedious process, but I think there is light at the end of the

tunnel. We will see some resolution to what they've encountered. We hope that's

going to happen very shortly.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at mining in general, it is a bright spot in our

province, it is a bright spot for our future. When you look at

The Economy , the book from our

Budget 2018 , you will see what mining

really means to this province. It says the value of the Newfoundland and

Labrador mineral shipments totalled an estimated $3.6 billion in 2017,

representing an increase of 24.6 per cent from 2016.

Part of

that, of course, is due to the commodity prices. The last two years we've seen a

drastic drop in commodity prices, whether you're talking about oil, whether

you're talking about iron ore, nickel – all the minerals and natural resources

have taken a severe blow. We are seeing some rebound. It's not as fast as we'd

like, but at least it's steady. Because of that, we are seeing renewed interest

in the mining industry.

So, Mr.

Speaker, when you look at some of the mines that exist within the Labrador West

region – and I would start there – and Iron Ore Company, of course, despite the

stoppage right now, the Iron Ore Company is a great contributor and it's the

largest iron ore mine in the province and is the largest mine in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER:

And the best iron ore.

MR. LETTO:

And the best iron.

What the

iron ore of the Labrador Trough has going for it, even though it has to be

processed, but when it is processed it's some of the best quality in the world.

It's the best quality in the world, and that's why it's in such demand, and

that's why it continues to be a commodity on the world market that is in big

demand. So we will get through this, and we'll get back to production, I'm sure.

IOC have

big plans. As you know, this year they had the Wabush number 3 deposit approved,

released from environmental assessment and that is a big part of the future of

that mine. So what we see, that's already started to develop, and we hope to see

some production from that by the third quarter of 2018.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I got to go back to Wabush. Since the closure of Wabush Mines,

we've been working very closely with different companies to look for a new owner

for Wabush. As you know, as the people of this province know, Tacora Resources

is the new owner of Wabush Mines. We're in close contact with them pretty well

on a daily basis. They have been released from environmental assessment. So

that's positive.

They are

going through the procedures and the motions to raise the capital they would

require to restart the mine. There's a lot of capital work that needs to be

done. We hope to be there within the next couple of months and we will see,

hopefully, the rebirth of Wabush Mines, which would be a tremendous, tremendous

boost to the region of Labrador West, and to the province, because everyone

benefits from such a development as that. I mean, you're looking at employing

250-300 people, maybe more, in a mine that's going to be there, hopefully, for

the long haul.

Mr.

Speaker, as well, because of the renewed interest in mining and the prices have

been rebounded, a project that's been shelved for four or five years, as a

result of the downturn, is Alderon. We've seen renewed interest from that group

as well. Again, I'm keeping in close contact with them, helping them along the

way and we have seen a great renewed interest and they've shown interest in

restarting the Kami project to rebooting, they are called. Again, there's a lot

of work to be done, absolutely, and there are a lot of things that have to come

together in order for it to happen. But the fact that there is a renewed

interest gives us hope for the future.

There's

a mine that's just across the border into Quebec called Bloom Lake that's just

restarted. That was shut down the same time as Wabush. The same company,

actually, at the time, Cliffs Natural Resources, they were shut down. They've

since been sold to Champion and they have begun production, so they have

restarted.

You may

question and people may question well, that's in Quebec. It is in Quebec, the

mine itself is in Quebec. I can tell you, as I said in my last few words that I

had, anything that happens on the border is a benefit to all of us. We have to

remember that the Bloom Lake operating in Quebec across the border, the railway

comes through Labrador, they are serviced by the industrial park in Wabush.

There's a lot of work going on in the Wabush Industrial Park in relation to

Bloom Lake. Mr. Speaker, what happens across the border is a benefit to

everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO:

We certainly are very pleased

to see that train running across the overpass again because it didn't for four

years. I tell you, people felt that effect too when Bloom Lake shut down. It's

not until you lose something do you realize the benefit that it has.

Mr.

Speaker, things are looking positive and we have to get beyond the doom and

gloom. We know we had a couple of rough years but there is a bright future for

all of us. What happens in Labrador West is good for province, is good for the

country, and that's what we have to remember is that we all benefit from renewed

interest in the mining industry.

Mr.

Speaker, in March I attended the PDAC, which is the Prospectors & Developers

Association of Canada, and I can tell you we have prospectors in this province,

not only in Labrador but on the Island of the province, that have some very good

stakes and claims that they've been optioned to junior mining companies, and we

saw that at PDAC.

I have a

prospector in my district who's partnered with a prospector from the Island. I

won't say their names, but they've been very successful. They just optioned off

a property on the Great Northern Peninsula, a sink property on the Great

Northern Peninsula that could possibly develop into a mine, because that's where

mines start. They have to start with a prospect, and prospectors are the root

and they're the beginning of any mining development. It has to start. Just look

at Voisey's Bay, for instance. It started because two prospectors found a nickel

deposit that was the richest in the world, Al Chislett and Christopher Verbiski,

and we all know where that went.

Mr.

Speaker, speaking of Vale, the ovoid is getting mined but we're still very

hopefully that Vale will see the ways and means to go underground into the

eastern deeps and to extend the life of that mine for the next 20, 30 years.

That's very important to my friend, the Member for

Torngat Mountains, and the people of Nunatsiavut. Again, it's a mine that has

fingers everywhere.

Long Harbour, for instance. The smelter in Long Harbour

is there to smelt the ore from Voisey's. Mining has it's fingers everywhere and

its tentacles everywhere. It just doesn't benefit the particular region the mine

is in. It has far-reaching effects.

Mr. Speaker, I can't get up and talk about mining, of

course, without talking about my good friend from Baie Verte - Green Bay. We

know that area is doing very well. That region is doing very well in its gold

deposits. We know there's lots of gold there to mine yet. We have to be

optimistic and we are optimistic that Anaconda, Rambler, these are going to do

well. These are going to do well, and it's good for the province.

Then, of course, we go down to the Burin Peninsula –

HON. MEMBER:

St.

Lawrence.

MR.

LETTO:

in the great Town of St. Lawrence, the fluorspar. They are in their infancy stage of putting the production

in place and we will see production from there, sooner rather than later.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, that's a mine that's been dormant for years. We, as a government,

were very happy to invest in that with a $17 million loan to help them develop

that new mining prospect, and it's something that's going to benefit all of us

again.

Mr.

Speaker, when we talk about mining, of course, I go back to the prospectors and

developers. We're seeing more claims than ever in the mining industry, not only

in Labrador. Labrador is doing very well. We look down on the South Coast of

Labrador, of course, the Search Minerals, the Rare Earth – my friend in

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair – that's now going through an environmental

assessment process. Mr. Speaker, who knows where that could go.

Rare

Earth is the way of the future when you look at all the technology that's taking

place today and the electric cars and everything is all developing. You have

one, Mr. Speaker, you know. You may have Rare Earth operating in your car, I

don't know. Anyway, it's something that's going to be in big demand for the

future.

That's

what we have to do, Mr. Speaker. What happened in the past, what happened in the

last two years, we can't forget it because it's been very bad for our province.

We understand that, but we have to get beyond that now. We have to put that

behind us. We've dealt with it. Now let's look to the future because the future

is very bright.

I'm just

concentrating on mining because that's where I spent my career. I love the

industry. I think it has great potential. I follow it every day.

The

first thing I do when I get up in the morning is check the iron ore prices. So

it's something that's near and dear to my heart. It's near and dear to the

district I represent. It's very important for our province, very important,

whether it's on the Burin Peninsula, whether it's the Great Northern Peninsula,

whether it's the Baie Verte Peninsula, whether it's Labrador, the South Coast,

the North Coast, West, East, it affects everybody. We all have a part to play in

that. It's a great boost to our economy. It creates jobs, lot of jobs. It's

high-paying jobs. It creates lots of expertise. It creates lots of royalties. It

creates lots of taxes.

The

supply sector, the spinoff industry; there's probably no other industry in the

world that has a bigger spinoff industry than mining does because you need parts

every day, whether it's a piece for a tractor, whether it's a piece for a

filter, whether it's inflatable tents. There are so many moving parts in the

mining industry that the service industry is huge, not only in parts but in the

expertise, the technical part of it.

Mr.

Speaker, this government, our government, is committed to the mining industry

because we see the benefit in the mining industry. We see how beneficial it is

to our province, and that's what we have to start believing in, Mr. Speaker,

because it's not only for the one region where the mine is, it's for everybody.

It's good for the province, it's good for the company.

We have

to get beyond the doom and gloom that people are leaving in droves and the sky

is falling. Mr. Speaker, there's so much potential in the mining industry that

for anybody who understands it, we've only scratched the service, as I said. The

future is so bright for mining. Prices will rebound. The commodity prices will

become stable again.

It's a

very cyclical industry, Mr. Speaker. We know that. It has its ups and downs, its

peaks and valleys, but I tell you what. We have to be ready for the peaks and we

have to be ready for the valleys because they are going to happen again. As a

matter of fact, the point I'm trying to make is we have to be ready for both,

Mr. Speaker, and mining is a bright part of our future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's

indeed a privilege to get up here again today and represent the beautiful

District of Cape St. Francis and the beautiful people in Cape St. Francis.

I want

to thank the former Member who just got up there. He did a Member's statement a

little while ago on a resident from the Town of Flatrock. I heard a lot of

residents want to make sure that I said thank you to him. It was Gord Parsons.

He was a resident and had a big family in Flatrock. I'm not sure, I think there

was like 19 of them in the family all together; a big family. I live very close

to them. I knew Gord personally. He was a fine gentleman and you did a great job

on the Member's statement.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Great last name.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, great last name. You did

a fine job, and I know the family really appreciated what you did, so I just

want to say thank you for that.

Mr.

Speaker, today we're going to be talking about, and I am going to try to stick

my best to it, is the resource sector. What we're looking at in this sector is

there are different parts of Estimates that we did. I did Estimates on the

fishery part but there's also Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. There are

Fisheries and Land Resources, Natural Resources and Tourism, Culture, Industry

and Innovation.

Now, I'm

going to try to touch on a little bit of all of them in my time that I have here

this morning. Mr. Speaker, this side of the House and our party has never looked

at the sky falling. We've never looked at this as, oh, she's gone b'y, she's

gone type thing. I go back to a few years when I heard – I think it was at

dinner, not the Premier at the time but the leader of the Opposition described

Newfoundland as the least, the last and the lowest. I don't think we've ever, on

our side, or our party has ever considered Newfoundland the least, the last and

the lowest.

To that

day, I'll always remember those statements because what we need in society, we

need people to be optimistic and we need people to believe in what we have in

our province, and we need to believe in who we are as people. That's the one

thing I can really say that's changed in society in Newfoundland and Labrador,

and I'm going to give you a little example now before I start to go into the

resource area.

I can

remember before, when I was working in the industry I was working in, I used to

do a lot of training. I remember in the '90s and in the '80 that I was training,

we'd go to, it could be Toronto, it could be Halifax, all over Canada. Do you

know something? The attitude that was in other parts of Canada about

Newfoundland and Labradorians was disgusting. In the 2000s and the later couple

of years, it changed because we changed it. We, as a people, changed it. We, as

a government, changed the attitude that people had toward us. We were the

brightest, we were the newest province and we were the most exciting province in

Canada.

Everywhere you'd go, they talked about what we were doing in Newfoundland and

Labrador. That's what we have to continue to do. That's what we have to show

people around the world, in other parts of Canada, that this a great province.

It's a great province to invest in.

I know I

had a brother of mine that worked all over the world and he always used to tell

me that the name Newfoundlander and Labradorian, once it went to the workforce,

people knew that they were getting great workers because we were known around

the world for our ethic of how we worked, hard workers and great individuals.

That's who we are as people, so we always have to stay on the positive side.

There's no sky falling in Newfoundland and Labrador. As long as our people are

here, we're going to be rich because we have the richest thing in the world: the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to just start talking today – I'm definitely going to get

into the fishery, but I want to touch on natural resources. I know the Member

just before me spoke a lot about mining. I do a lot of hunting in Central

Newfoundland; it's around Millertown, in that area. Costigan Lake is where we

have a place. I love it. I'll have a trip up this summer and I'll have another

trip this fall. We have a cabin up there. It's a beautiful part of this country.

It's just amazing.

There's

a lot of activity on the go up there too with mining and stuff like that, and

it's amazing to watch it. Like the Member before me said, what happens is the

spinoffs, the road construction. You go up one year and you're in towards

Valentine Lake – a lake they're doing up there now. There's mining actually

right under the lake. I think it's gold they're looking for. They're doing it

right underneath the lake.

The road

going in there now is as good as the Trans-Canada. From the main road going up

through to go into Valentine Lake, it's 24 kilometres. It opened up the whole

country forest and stuff like that. And just to see the number of people – it's

amazing, last year, when I went up. There were all these young, I guess,

university students that were there. They were doing some kind of course. There

were young people there and they had all the core – it's amazing when you look

at this because what they do, I guess, they drill into the rock and they haul

out this core. It's about two inches around and they take it out. It doesn't

look like there's any gold there, at least I didn't see it shining or anything

like that, but it was amazing how these young students were in and the spinoff

that our mining resource does. It is huge.

We are

very rich. I know the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, the mining is huge in

his area, but in the Central area also it's huge. Mining is very important.

That's something that we have to work on. That's one industry that we can

because we're very rich – if you look how Voisey's Bay was discovered, it was

just a fly over in a helicopter, I do believe, and look down and saw okay, that

looks a little bit different, here we go. Our mining and our natural resources

are very important to our province. That's who we are. We are a province with

huge natural resources.

I look

to the offshore also. I look at the offshore and I know, over the years, I've

had a lot of good friends, a lot of good buddies of mine, that was their

livelihood and they're still at it today, going back and forth to Hibernia.

I can

remember the day the Ocean Ranger went down actually. It was a hard day for my

family because at the time my brother was out on the Sedco 706. We heard that

morning. I can remember exactly where I was; I was going up Hamilton Avenue when

I heard there was a rig in trouble offshore. I can remember hauling in,

listening to it and concerned about what would happen to my family.

Offshore

oil has been around a long, long while for people in the province and it's done

great for some people in our province. It's been an industry that – not only the

wealth, what oil comes out of the ground and what it does to our province but

it's the people that work there. It takes a special individual too to be able to

fly out there three weeks at a time and come back in three weeks at a time.

I've

seen a lot of people with young families and basically you are six months away

from your family. It's not easy. It's the same thing as going to Alberta or

whatever, but our offshore oil industry has brought wealth to our province and

has helped all areas of our province. You can have people from Grand Bank or you

can have people from the Northern Peninsula, you can have anyone. There's a lot

of employment after being created. Again, like the former Member said it's the

spinoffs that these industries that bring the wealth to our province, gives us

employment and stuff like that.

Our

natural resources are so important to us and it's so important that we manage

them correctly and we do what we can to ensure we take full advantage of what we

have to offer. We have to make sure that our environment and everything else is

taken care of too, whether it's our fishery or whether you are in Central

Newfoundland mining at Valentine Lake, Pats Pond, or one of these places. Once

you go in there and see the environment I'm sure that if everyone in the country

could come and see what I see when I go to Millertown, they'd all want to go up

there and see the caribou, the moose, the bears and everything else that I've

seen, because it's absolutely beautiful.

That's

one part of our Resource Committee. It's very important. It's huge to this

province the income that it brings. Next I'm going to talk about the fishery,

and I know I'll end up going back to the other two because I think I'm going to

end up almost taking up the rest of my time in the fishery.

Mr.

Speaker, there's a lot of talk today about cod fish and whether the food fishery

should be going or if there should be a food fishery or should not be a food

fishery. I believe there should be a food fishery. I really do believe there

should be a food fishery, and I partake in it. I have my own boat and I enjoy,

absolutely love being on the water. To me, and I know there are other Members

across the way, the Minister of Finance, we've talked about it before, about

being out catching a cod, different sides, and the feeling you get just to be

able to go out and catch a codfish and the feeling you get when you bring it in

and you fillet it or you take it and whatever you want to do. If you have a boil

up in the garage or you have a boil up here and what it does, because it makes

you feel like: that's our resource. It's a resource we have. Again, it's

something that I think everyone who partakes in it enjoys it.

I can

always remember, a good few years ago there was no food fishery. Actually, the

moratorium wasn't even on. I had an instructor come from Montreal down to teach

a course. He came out one evening with me and I took him out cod jigging. About

10 years after he told me it was the greatest trip he ever had in his life. He

couldn't believe – he was used to catching something about six inches long and

here we were out catching fish 24, 26, 30 inches. Real nice cod and he was just

blown away that we had this resource right on our shore that we could just get

in a boat and go out and catch it.

The cod

fishery is a huge part of who we are to people. I'd like to see more studies

done on the cod. I believe that science and things have changed. We always

looked at the cod fishery that the capelin would come first. In the last number

of years, I have a big concern with capelin. I have a huge concern with the

capelin fishery.

trucked capelin for years. We'd start in St. Mary's Bay and we'd come to

Conception Bay. We'd go right around, and that's what I did for the summer. I

used to take time off work where I was and we'd catch capelin. I saw capelin

seven, eight inches long, nice size capelin, lots of females. They were there.

They'd come in – the seine would go out and we'd get 50,000 in the seine.

Last

year, I saw capelin down in Middle Cove Beach that was three and four inches

long. We have an issue with capelin. We need to do more science on capelin.

Capelin is a food that cod will eat. Capelin is something that attracts cod. The

reason why I believe the cod was so late coming last year is because capelin was

so late coming. They follow it. That's like anything, if that's what you eat

that's what you're going to follow. I believe we really need to have a proper

science on everything.

Now last

year in the cod fishery, we never saw it down our way before, that you'd catch

cod in October and November. For the last three or four years now harvesters

down our way have been out fishing, and its rough. I'm telling you right now, I

watched the boys come in last year, to see them coming in a 26-foot rodney in

seas like you wouldn't believe. I couldn't believe they were out there at it,

but they're diehards. The fish they were catching last October and November was

never seen before.

There

was a change in what's happening. I think people need to look, science and what

we have, DFO need to do a bigger evaluation on what's happening with these

different stocks. The capelin stock is something that really needs to be looked

at because it seems like every year they're getting less and less and we need to

make sure because that's the food the cod likes to eat.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the shrimp fishery, especially in

Area 6. I talked to a couple of harvesters here in here in St. John's actually,

only a little while ago. I go over every Saturday morning, over to the basin

over in Prosser's Rock. I know a good few of the people over there and I have a

chat with them and stuff like that. Right now, the shrimp fishery is not worth

their while to go and harvest shrimp.

Last

year, they had the buddy up where they could put two licences on a boat. I think

this year it's changed again, that they can put three or four. I know myself and

the Member for Cape Freels talked about it the other day. The whole area, Area

6, is a huge issue. That's where most of our inshore shrimp is caught. Now, the

offshore are still in Area 6 and they also have options for 5 and 4 to go a

little bit further North and catch some, but we have some serious issues there

in that fishery.

Right

now, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there are eight shrimp

plants. These are eight communities that rely on these plants for their

employment, for their communities to survive. Like we talked about the mining,

there are a lot of spinoffs from those areas.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to talk a little bit about the crab. Just yesterday, my son

left at 10 o'clock in the morning. They went off 80 miles, dropped their pots

and they got in again at about 11 o'clock last night. So they were gone for 24

hours. They'll go back again.

The

mid-shore crab seems like it's not bad. It's as good or on par with what it was

with other years. Offshore, further out, the 200-mile stuff, that seems pretty

good, but inshore has a real issue. It's a concern because there are lot of

spinoffs on the inshore. There are a lot more harvesters inshore than there are

mid-shore and offshore.

Saturday, over in Prosser's Rock, I saw boats come in with 1,200 pounds, 700

pounds, 1,400 pounds. These boats usually came in with, this time last year,

3,000 and 4,000 pounds. So that has a spinoff effect too in what's happening

with the plants and stuff like that.

believe we need to really – I know that DFO, we're just a little small part of

DFO here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I brought a motion to this House last

December on joint management. It's time for our province and it's time for the

people in our province to have some say in our fishery. That's how we're going

to get it. I don't care if it's an all-party committee or what it is. I know we

have the Atlantic Accord for our offshore. We should have some accord with our

fishery so we get a say in our fishery because it's who we are, it's what we are

as people and we really need to manage our stocks.

I just

mentioned a couple that are a huge concern of mine. I know that proper

management and input from people that are on the water, input from people that

know a little bit about the industry is needed. We need to do more. We need to

do a whole lot more because I know it's not the industry it was. It's not the

industry it was where there were fish plants in every second community, we know

that.

It's so

important that – while harvesters will catch the crab and while they'll do

something with shrimp, but there are a lot of communities in this province that

rely on that fish plant that's in that community, and not only that community.

It could be on the Baie Verte Peninsula. It could be down in Fogo. It could be

on the Bonavista Peninsula. It could be anywhere at all. That's where we need to

be, but we all have to work together on that.

Mr.

Speaker, I've got three or four other things marked down. I wanted just

to mention about the surf clams. I'm really disappointed in what happened with

allocation of quota for surf clams. I think there were a couple of good

proposals made by companies here with Aboriginal groups with them, and I think

it should have stayed in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think most people in this

province agree with me that the 25 per cent we're going to lose should be here

and should be harvested in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, I think that's

something we should all work together and make sure.

The last thing I want to mention – and I know I had

conversations with both Members for Baie Verte - Green Bay and the Member for

Fogo Island - Cape Freels. We had a great conversation the other day, and it was

on the seals. I got up the last time – it wasn't the last time, the time before

I got up, and I think I spoke about 15 minutes on seals.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do something. I know back in 2011

there was real close, we were so close to striking a deal with China that would

have made a huge difference in our sealing and the market itself. Listen,

there's no doubt about it, the market for seals has been cut like you wouldn't

believe with the European, American and different markets, but the Chinese

market is a place where we can be. There is so much of seal that we can use.

Mr. Speaker, we have a country that's out there, and we're

known around the world to be one of the best countries in the world that when we

see a crisis anywhere where there's starvation or anything at all in this world

that we step up and we take care of people. I can think no better way of

stepping up and being a leader in the world and donating food to countries.

We have 20 million people a day that are starving in this

world of ours, and what a better – the leader of the Opposition asked me today

if I'd go to a dinner up in Topsail . The Topsail church are having a seal flipper dinner and I said I'll

definitely be there because I love eating seal –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. K. PARSONS:

You're going too; good for

you.

There

are other things – omega-3, the oil that's coming from them. There are markets

out there. We just have to work – the federal government has to come through for

the people in this province.

Seals,

just to let you know, are eating a lot of our fish. We say there's 7.4 million –

DFO's estimate now; it could be a lot higher – harp seals that are here off

Newfoundland and Labrador right now. Estimates show that 7.4 million harp seals

in six days will eat the total amount of catch that we have in all our

fisheries, whether it's shrimp, crab, cod, you name it. It will take care of it

in six days.

That's a

huge problem. I think that us, as a province, and us, as people in this

Legislature, should be getting together and demanding that Ottawa step up

because the seals are the reason, I believe, that our fishery is in the state it

is today and I think –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

I really believe –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS:

I really believe it's

something we can do something about.

I think

all of us working together – and like I said, I spoke to my two colleagues

across the way and we agree that something needs to be done.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte - Green Bay.

MR.

WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member on his comments, the hon.

Member for Cape St. Francis who just finished. We did have a wonderful

conversation and I'll refer to that a little bit later in my notes as well.

I guess before we get started, I always want to say

thank you to my District of Baie Verte - Green Bay for giving me the wonderful

opportunity to represent them here in this time-honoured building that we're in,

known as the House of Assembly. It's always a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to

represent the good people there as well.

Just a short while ago, the Government House Leader, as

well as Members from the Opposition ranks, got up to thank the outgoing

Lieutenant-Governor, Frank and Patricia Fagan. I do want to thank them as well

at this particular point in time. They've been wonderful ambassadors in their

roles as Lieutenant-Governor. I certainly want to thank them for all that

they've done for us here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to congratulate and

welcome our newest Lieutenant-Governor to be sworn in tomorrow, the hon. Judy

Foote, and her husband as well and family, and wish her all the successes. I'm

sure she will make us proud as well.

It gives

me pleasure to stand and speak to Concurrence. I had the opportunity to sit on

two committees. I had the opportunity to chair the Resource Committee. This

year, I sat on the Social Services Committee as well. I thank my hon. colleagues

for giving me that opportunity as well.

While I

spoke to the Resource Committee just a couple of days ago, the Resource

Committee represents the Departments of Fisheries and Land Resources; Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation; the Department of Advanced Education, Skills

and Labour; and last, but not least, the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to thank the Members:

the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port; the Member for Fogo Island

- Cape Freels, who's sharing the seat with me this morning; the Member for

Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; the Member for Exploits; the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi; the Member for Mount Pearl North; and the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

Again, Mr. Speaker, those meetings of the Estimates

would have never have taken place without the help and guidance of our Table

Officers, the Broadcast Centre, our wonderful Pages who continuously do a good

job from day to day and the ministers and their departments. The last time I

rose to speak to the budget, I talked about the role of Estimates and the

wonderful education that it is. It really is, Mr. Speaker, when you get an

opportunity to sit down and look at the budgets, what was budgeted last year,

what was spent and obviously what the budget speaks to this year.

Members of the Committee and, in particular, the

Official Opposition and Third Party and our independent Member had the

opportunity to go line by line and discuss the budgets of that particular

department. I have to take my hat off to both those c ommittees

and the departments that were represented in both those committees this year.

The ministers went above and beyond to speak to any question that was asked of

them in the three hours that we did have for each committee.

particular, take for instance the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, I

know that we didn't ourselves finished on time and, cordially, he gave the

Committee extra time to make sure that they asked the questions that were

pertinent to this year's Estimates. I know they appreciate it as well. Mr.

Speaker, my hat is off to both those committees that I had the opportunity to

represent.

Mr.

Speaker, when I spoke to the budget the other day, I sort of finished off, I was

speaking to some highlights in my district, or highlighting opportunities

provided by this year's budget in my district, but I just want to take a few

minutes to discuss – I think, first of all, I'll talk about this year's ice

conditions. I know last year with the ice conditions that we had along the

Northeast Coast, which is where my district falls into – and you've all often

heard me say before I did have 42 communities in my district, of which 41 of

them are touched by the salt water. The community of Sheppardville is the only

community in my district that doesn't touch the salt water.

As you

know, fishery and aquaculture are huge in my area. Last year I remember, in

particular, the port of La Scie. La Scie used to be the home of a national sea

plant. They were processing many species at that particular point in time and

100 per cent employment in the community of La Scie. Actually, they had to go

out to outlying communities to fill their employment needs.

Today,

Mr. Speaker, it's probably one of the largest longliner ports in the province

and probably one of the largest offloading ports in Newfoundland as well. I know

last year, again with the ice conditions, we saw that port practically shut down

until well into mid-season and it was devastating. It was devastating for that

whole part of that Baie Verte Peninsula because in a good year, we have – and

you've heard me say that here in the House of Assembly before as well – anywhere

upwards to $350 million to $450 million of seafood that travels up over the La

Scie highway, up over the Baie Verte highway and on to plants throughout the

Island.

It goes

without saying that it was a huge downfall in that part of my district last

year, but things are looking good. I wish the crab and the shrimp were looking

just a good, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately that is not so. Hopefully, the

harvesters will get an opportunity at least to fill their quotas.

I want

to talk about the aquaculture industry for a bit. We had the opportunity last

year to host an aquaculture summit in the area of the Member for Fortune Bay -

Cape La Hune and certainly in my area of Green Bay. It was an opportunity for me

to highlight to my colleagues that part of my district, especially in Green Bay

South.

We have

two harvesters in Green Bay South, Sunrise sea farms which is operated by the

Halfyard family and Badger Bay Mussel Farms which is operated by the Roberts

family out of Triton. I can't forget the mussel farms in Shoal Arm which are

operated by the Simms family out of Little Bay.

I shared

with some of my colleagues yesterday a picture that was on Facebook of the

mussels. It was low tide in Little Bay Islands. For those of you who saw those

pictures yesterday, it was absolutely amazing the amount of mussels that had

come to shore.

It's

just a wonderful industry, Mr. Speaker. I certainly want to highlight that.

There are lots of jobs that are created by that industry. I know in

The Way Forward document we are hoping to grow that industry to 8.3

million metric tons, and certainly we want to be a huge part of that.

I can't

leave the aquaculture industry, Mr. Speaker, without talking about a

post-secondary plant that I had the opportunity to visit in Triton. I spoke with

the owner, Mr. Jason Roberts, maybe just a short while after I got elected,

maybe sometime in mid-2016. He took me down to a plant that had never operated

and told me of his plans.

At that

time, I spoke with the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources and had the

opportunity actually to bring the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation to that part of my district, as I did the Minister of Municipal

Affairs had the opportunity to go down and visit that plant as well.

I'd like

to announce today the plant is up and running, doing an absolutely fabulous job.

I did bring in some product for my colleagues here in the House of Assembly to

share. There are some colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that are still waiting for their

product. They know I have it readily available for them to sample, and sample

they will: three types of mussels that they are processing out of that plant,

and bottling as well. We have mussels in garlic and vinegar, mussels in vinegar

and a mussel salad.

They

have 18 to 20 people working in that plant now. They have picked up a contract

with Sobeys enterprises. Just a little while ago, Mr. Roberts reported that he's

picked up a huge contract in Quebec as well. Things are looking up for the

mussel industry in that part of my District of Baie Verte – Green Bay, certainly

in the Green Bay South, Green Bay North area.

Mr.

Speaker, I only have a few minutes left and I want to touch on the Member for

Cape St. Francis, my good friend, on the seal fishery. I want to talk about – I

have an advocate of the seal fishery as a constituent in my district. I keep

reminding him he's forgotten more about the fishery than I'll ever know, and

that's Captain Wilfred Bartlett. Those of you who know Captain Wilfred Bartlett

will know his passion for the fishery. It goes without question, Mr. Speaker,

that Mr. Bartlett is – I don't know if he'd like for me to say his age, but I

can tell you that he's not 79 anymore, nor is he 80.

I tell

you, Mr. Speaker, he's a man who I have a deep respect for, especially his

opinions around the fishery. I shared some of those comments with the Member for

Cape St. Francis and the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels. We had a

wonderful conversation. I, too, agree with the Member for Cape St. Francis.

We've got way too many seals. I think we have a cull of a total of probably half

a million animals this year. Mr. Speaker, we won't take 100,000 animals. We're

not hurting the industry. I mean, the industry is actually hurting us when you

look at what it does to our groundfish industry.

We have a plant, Mr. Speaker, probably one of only a

few plants. I think there's one in the Member for Bonavista, in his district as

well, but one of the only few plants in Fleur de Lys as well. It's a busy plant

when there are animals that are harvested. Again, I agree with my friend with

regard to his comments on we have an abundance of seals.

We have people all over the world that, as a country of

Canada and Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we're very generous to with

our support and our giving to these countries that are less fortunate than what

we are. Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why we shouldn't be harvesting an animal

that is depleting our stocks to help people all around the world. I agree with

his sentiments on that as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk briefly on the forest

industry of which my district for centuries – I come from an area that has

harvested wood for hundreds of years. My own family's business, we were probably

one of Bowater's largest contractors for many, many years. I want to talk about

a business in my district, Arthur Fowlow Limited from South Brook that received

notice just two or three weeks ago with regard to the anti-dumping tariffs that

are being put on Canadian companies from the US government and –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. WARR:

I will take my time, Sir –

from the US government and, Mr. Speaker, it's caused the demise of a company in

my district – one that was just recognized a few short years ago as contractor

of the year for the Kruger plant in Corner Brook and today they find themselves

out of business.

understand somewhat the decisions behind the Kruger company, but it was

unfortunate that those decisions weren't spread out over the three or four major

contractors that they have. Right now, we're going to have maybe 24 to 30 people

without employment. Some of those other workers have found employment through

the bumping system, I guess, in their unions.

Mr.

Speaker, like I said, I continue to work with the Minister of Fisheries and Land

Resources, I have brought my concerns to the Premier as well and, hopefully,

we'll see a light at the end of the tunnel with regard to that.

Mr.

Speaker, I hope that I get an opportunity to speak to this again. Like I said, I

want to thank again my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to sit on those

two committees. I appreciate the comments from my good friend from the lovely

District of Cape St. Francis.

With

that, I will take my seat and ask for the opportunity at a later time.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

adjourn debate on the Concurrence Motion that we were just debating.

At this

time, I would suggest we recess, but prior to doing so, I just to put on the

record for posterity, I'd like to wish a very happy birthday to the Member for

Bonavista today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

In accordance with Standing

Order 9, this House is in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

And

Happy Birthday!

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the

Speaker's galley today, I would like to welcome Ms. Sarah Lewis, who will be

mentioned in a Member's statement this afternoon. Sarah is joined by her

parents, Tracey Shave and Peter Lewis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I would also like to welcome

to the Speaker's gallery and recognize members of the Avalon

Chapter of the

Multiple Sclerosis Society. With us today we have Cindy Clouston, Peter

Clouston, Heather Mercer, Zita Kavanagh-Taylor, who is the Multiple Sclerosis

Avalon

Chapter Chair, and a very special guest, we have Buffy, who is a loyal

service dog belonging to Ms. Mercer. Buffy also acts at the society's mascot.

Welcome

to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear four statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of

Burin - Grand Bank, Bonavista, Cape St. Francis and St. John's East - Quidi

Vidi.

The hon.

the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again the month of May is upon us, and with it, its annual and eternal offer of

hope.

With

hope being the central theme of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, it is fitting

that May be designated as MS Awareness Month, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday was a very busy day. I had the pleasure of joining members of the

Avalon

Chapter of the MS Society for the signing of the proclamation, a

flag-raising ceremony to mark the commencement of this year's MS Awareness

Month, and the annual light up of the Confederation Building in commemoration of

this worthy cause.

I was

pleased to have been joined by Zita Kavanagh, Cindy Clouston, Heather Mercer and

the chapter's mascot, the petite and adorable service dog, Buffy, who are all

here in the gallery with us today.

There

are hundreds of individuals suffering from MS, Mr. Speaker, here in Newfoundland

and Labrador, but those are not individuals living without hope. I too am

hopeful one day a cure will be found.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking Zita Kavanagh and the Avalon

Chapter for their efforts in helping eradicate this terrible disease.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April

22, I was honoured to attend the CLB Trinity - Conception Battalion's spring

parade and church service. The Trinity East - Port Rexton Company hosted the

event and were joined by companies from St. George's, Harbour Grace - Carbonear,

Upper Island Cove, Bay Roberts, the Battalion youth band, the CLB Regimental

Band, RCSCC Clode Sound and local guiding units.

Under

the command of Major Wayne Lilly, the parade marched from Bishop White School to

Christ Anglican Church in Port Rexton. The service was presided over by Rev.

John Nicolle with a wonderful homily provided by Bishop John Waddon. One of the

highlights of the service was when the jam-packed church was educated on the

different uniforms of the CLB by both the young members and officers.

Many

honours and awards were presented, recognizing the hard work and dedication of

those who serve this wonderful organization. Congratulations have to be given to

2nd Lieutenant Michael Cooper who became the new Commanding Officer of the

Trinity East - Port Rexton Company.

Please

join me in congratulating the Trinity - Conception Battalion, and wish them many

more years of: Fighting the Good Fight. Keep the Flag Flying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Sarah and

Nicole Power, two young women – cousins actually – from Logy Bay-Middle

Cove-Outer Cove who are making their mark on the Canadian acting scene.

Mr. Speaker, Sarah attended Ryerson University's

Theatre School and landed roles in many successful Canadian films and television

series such as Random Passage ,

Rosewood ,

The Good Witch , Schitt's Creek

and the Killjoys .

Nicole is a graduate of Sheridan College's Musical

Theatre Program as well as Second City Conservatory. She also performed across

the country in roles in productions of

West Side Story , Bonnie and Clyde ,

Legally Blonde ,

Evangeline and Anne of Green

Gables . Nicole is currently playing a role as Shannon Ross on the hit series

Kim's Convenience and was

nominated for a 2018 Canadian Screen Award.

Mr. Speaker, Sarah and Nicole Power are excellent

representatives of the amazing talent our province has to offer. I know they're

shining starts of their parents Sylvester and Eunice, and James and Chris Power,

and also to their grandparents and their entire families.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating these

young women on their achievements and wishing them continued success in their

acting careers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm delighted today to congratulate Sarah Lewis, a grade 11

student at St. Bonaventure's College, who was recently awarded the Lester B.

Pearson scholarship to attend the prestigious Pearson College in Victoria, BC.

Sarah was

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2018-05-02
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	2018-05-02
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5bc1806a656d237fd5ef1bffb6a5f8113875778c

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).