PDF Version

March 18, 2026 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. LI No. 10

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker, Order 6, second reading of Bill 6.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Labrador West, that Bill 6,

An Act to Amend the Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 6,

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 6)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: The Pension Benefits Act, 1997 , sets minimum rules to protect workers’ pension benefits to make sure pension plans are properly managed.

Speaker, many pension plans today operate across our provincial-federal boundaries, depending on where people live and where companies operate. Newfoundland and Labrador participates in an agreement on multi-jurisdictional pension plans with all provinces and territories and the federal government.

Before I go further, I just want to speak about being signed up here to represent people and how it is a true honour to present a bill, as such, to protect the employment that people have put in for years and years and years, and the whole goal in this bill is to allow participating in federal-provincial-territorial agreements.

Pension assets are allowed to move between provinces and territories when plans are merged or consolidated. National companies often want to combine small provincial plans into one national plan; this lowers administration costs for them and can improve investment returns for pension members, which is the goal here. If assets can’t be transferred, however, companies may be forced to terminate local pension plans instead. That would be detrimental, Speaker.

When a plan is terminated, workers receive the value of their pension at that point in time only; no future pension growth occurs, workers must manage it themselves and take on the risk of investment. Those funds are then placed into a locked-in retirement account and many people need professional advice to manage them, many times at the senior age. While individuals can choose to move those funds into another pension plan, each person has to do this on their own, which is complicated and can be burdensome.

Allowing direct transfers between pension plans across provinces and territories avoids this problem and lets workers, one, stay in a pension plan secured, two, continue earning benefits and, three, avoid unnecessary disruption and risk. Current legislation, however, does not allow these kinds of transfers, which creates real challenges for workers. That is why we are proposing this change here today and looking to update the Pension Benefits Act, 1997 .

These changes would allow out-of-province transfers and ensure protection for workers, including the requirements that the receiving plan must meet standards similar to Newfoundland and Labrador and the plan must be well funded; by that we mean, at least 85 per cent funded or better than the original plan of transfer.

The goal here, truly, is simple. It’s to protect workers’ pensions, reduce the risk and reflect how today’s workforce and businesses operate.

Speaker, as a youth growing up in this province – I first grew up in Churchill Falls in Labrador and moved on to Deer Lake when my father got transferred and went to Roddickton – I can still remember my parents on a Saturday night or a Friday night, watching a hockey game or watching Dallas , all I heard was pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions. At that age, I was very inquisitive but I still didn’t understand what a pension was – what is a pension?

Every employer, every place I went throughout life, the first thing you’d talk to people and they’d say: Set your pension; make sure you’re in a good fund. Back to this bill and when I go around the province, you talk to people at their doors, the fact people are struggling, not everybody’s up to speed. Sometimes I look back at that inquisitive kid. I was seven or eight years old and think about Mary in Rocky Harbour or John in St. Judes, and not everybody is up to speed on where they should be in a pension plan.

This bill, ultimately conducted by staff in my department – you’re going to hear me speak about them a lot, Mr. Speaker, because I’ll be first to come here to say that I’ll never proclaim to know it all or have all the answers, but I know what they are doing with myself and the department. It’s an honour to be here and to be able to impact people’s lives in a prosperous way that they can be protected. This truly is a bill about protecting seniors. The goal is to retire with pensions.

Maybe this is not pertinent to the bill – correct me if I’m wrong – but I think it’s something that needs to be said here, I’ve often heard and you’ll hear about every politician that sits here in this room – we only all signed up for a pension.

Well, that’s not a fact, in my case. If I had stayed in the trades, this pension wouldn’t even be close. I know there’s been adjustments, but our ultimate goal when you work through life in any profession, whether you’re a doctor, a teacher, a lawyer or a plumber, like myself, it’s how do you benefit for when you finally get to retire?

That’s a whole other word because, when I look at my mother, she’s like Michael Jordan; she keeps coming back out of retirement. She just doesn’t want to accept the fact that she’s a pensioner, but that’s where it is and that’s where it needs to be. The reality is this is a very important bill as much as it may be a simple one to get through, and that we all agree on. I’m open for questions; that’s what I’m here for.

You go to grocery stores, especially in my district, and you see a lot of seniors on grocery day. It wasn’t that long ago, maybe 30-plus years ago, when I used to stock shelves and push grocery carts out to the parking lot and, oftentimes, you’d hear the seniors talking about: I got my pension cheque. That rolls into a whole other thing now where you’re seeing banks starting to get away from the bricks and mortar, which I think is another conversation that’s within this bill. If a senior can’t get their pension cheque as they’re used to, delivered by hand to cash it for the goods that they need, then that’s something else that we’ll further have to adapt to.

Coming in here, I watched this place as long as it has been online, and I think CPAC was on since the ’90s, and the word continues, continues, continues, pensions, pensions, pensions, and here I am standing up to talk about it.

When you get into the crux of what some questions may be, ultimately all this comes down to there’s a layer of protection. When I ask my staff, so why is this bill here now, what is it we need to do and why is it we’re doing it, the reality is to protect pensioners.

But that can only be done with justification of the Superintendent of Pensions, which is solid for me to know and for all Members to know that may not be aware – as I said, I’d never stand here to say I know it all, but I’m having a great learning. It all comes back to the Superintendent of Pensions. It’s a really good backstop. It’s a very professional individual in our department, and I’d like to thank him for his service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: To remain in a professional managed pension plan that holds larger assets, gives me greater comfort to support and present this bill, and that ultimately is what the goal is here. The fact that I get to stand here – and I’ll say this, Speaker, I’ll make your job a lot easier. If I go off par, someone doesn’t have to call relevance because I can stand here and talk all day, but I want to stick in particular to this bill.

There are a multitude of pensions, fixed pensions, and I do believe, back to me speaking about being a child and being inquisitive, I think in our education portfolios, I think in our public education, I think we could protect people and do a better job. It’s not always about the politics of who voted in favour, who didn’t vote in favour. You’ll hear me say it numerous times about the people outside these four walls, is what we are all here for. Whether we have our differences and our disagreements, that’s all the blessing of democracy. But this here also is a blessing of democracy, that allows us to pass law that protects people.

You’ve heard me say it numerous times that I still feel that to be here is an honour that feels surreal. When I wake up in the morning or when I go to bed at night reading a bill like this and I know I get to stand here, this still and will always be an honour.

Back to going to bed, when someone can go to sleep at night and know they have a predictable income – although we hear struggles of pensions, seniors say how they’re capped and that’s the other side of what we’re trying to do to make life affordable for everybody is to lessen taxes, to lessen burdens. But, boy, could I get into this crux. So everyone might want to sit back here for a little bit.

I keep referring back to my late father, and you’ll probably hear me often because he was a very intelligent, very strict individual. When I told him I was going to sign up into politics and, being a military veteran, he didn’t have a whole lot of love for government programs. A lot of times he felt left behind.

When I look at this and I think of some seniors, still vets – and I’m very well involved and I try to stay close to the Legion in my hometown and other places. Any time, if there are questions on this bill, if there’s debate, I’m not trying to sell it and say hey, this is how you should vote, but this is a very crucial part to citizens, to seniors, to vets.

I can almost feel like my dad would be saying he’s pretty proud to see us standing here to do the right things in what we were elected to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: It was interesting. It was just last week I was in the hallway here and I met a gentleman that’s had a case file with government for maybe two decades. It’s a struggle for me to understand how they couldn’t get an answer. It’s his late mother. They had talked about how she was two years where they had thought she was 65 and basically the Crown was telling her she was 63.

It really, truly struck me because this is as true as it can get – it happened to my grandmother. It wasn’t until we were at her birthday party, being younger, kids love candles, and I said, Mom, I want to put 65 candles on Nan’s cake. Everybody said, no, Nan’s 63. I said, no, Nan is 65, and I’ll tell you why. So when I visited her house often, basically became part of her couch watching The Young and the Restless at lunch –

AN HON. MEMBER: Victor Newman.

M. GOOSNEY: And Nikki, and God love – Nan used to say I used to look like Nicholas, which I still don’t get.

It was only because of her photo albums, and I know we live in a digital era, but I saw a birth certificate for my late grandfather and they were both the same age. I said: How can Nan be two years younger than Pop when they got married at the same age? So then they went back and they found all the documents, and it took quite a while, but when she was actually two years past her pension, she got two years of retro pay because the government had messed up.

I met a gentleman out here with the Commissionaires, and I have his file. I’m hoping to be able to clarify that, but it’s just something so, so important. Can you picture being a senior for two years, husband passed, very little income, and trying to make your way through?

I can remember going to the grocery store and it was much, much a time before Interac or any plastic banking cards, and I go grocery shopping. It was okay if you went up to the register – everybody knew it in my home town specifically – if you had $107 worth of groceries and you only had $100, you put $7 back.

I still see seniors struggle. Whether this pension plan, this bill, which I say is extremely important, as much as it might seem like a minute move in government, can protect people when I’m not here, when many of us won’t be here, I think that’s the importance and the whole goal of this bill.

When I think about all the doors that I knocked on, and talking to seniors and the cost of living and everything that goes on and the expectation of conduct and the business that happens in this House, it all comes back to money. Some can say it’s the root of all evil; some can say it’s the blessing, but how we best work together to secure the future for seniors that are current and for youth that we hope – at least I hope myself, too – will become a senior.

To be able to maybe look back on a computer one day, and many of us will hopefully be off in our greater later years, to be able to look back and say that we presented this bill and we worked together to do something to protect the future that will be our present.

It will be an honour if this bill were to pass, and I would kindly ask all to feel free at the point of when it comes to question in Committee, to don’t not ask a question that you think might be silly or might be off track, because I’m here for any question, and I’m also the type that will ask any question.

I feel within this bill, my colleague across the way, my critic, I think we’re both eager – and they’ve met and it’s great when you see, again, the learning curve, that Opposition wants to come to be briefed so we can all understand what it is we’re here to present to improve the lives of others. So I just want to say thank you for that.

The conduct that’s went on – correct me if I’m wrong here. I’m not one to break the rules, but if I do, I’d want to be told and sit first. The conduct and the passion that goes on in this House – and I know it might seem like games to folks, and I can hear this Member chirping and this Member chirping and eventually I’m feeling I’m probably going to chirp at some point too, but I’m going to try my darndest to just be me. We’re all individuals and we all do this differently, but it can be intense.

But I think it’s intense for the right reasons, even when sometimes we can feel we lose ourselves. I was looking at the Grade 5 classes up here a couple of weeks ago and was thinking, shoot, if they were down here and we were up there, what would they think? But it’s real, because nobody here would have knocked on all the doors or went and made all the calls and got all the volunteers and all the friends behind them and supporters to get here.

I just want to talk just a little bit longer on the fact that I – and I hope other Members – remind ourselves as we knocked on a door, as we had – for us new MHAs – our training, that everything we do here now has a continuity to pensions and the fact that we’re here to improve the future. Long goals, present solutions, they’re never easy. Not even at a municipal level. You go in, you’re gung-ho, I’m going to fix 100 different things, and you hit roadblocks and you realize you can’t fix it all. But sometimes in legislation and policy and regulations, back to – not to quote the Member opposite, but it was said similar, we’re here for evolving, in evolution to continue to improve things.

In 50 years’ time, look around the room, some of us may still be here – there are a couple. They’ll still be amending things because we learn from how things weren’t the best, and that’s what we’re here, to make it the best.

Bear with me, Speaker, because I could go on here for quite sometime.

I’m not going to chew up the whole clock but, again, I ask everybody if you do get the time – I understand everybody’s portfolios are extremely full, emails, texts, messages, the modern world we work in and the modern – when I see a lot of the pictures around this – I call this place the building. When talking to my partner, she’s like, are you in the House today? I just call this whole place the building because there’s a lot of history in this building.

To be here, to be a part of this history – again, I am going talk about forever – it’s something that will be honorable and I think there’s a reason for it. It’s because we get to stand to speak, to debate, to battle, to improve the lives of others, and the Opposition and everyone hears it all the time and it is truly –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister if he could try to bring it back to the actual bill.

Thank you.

M. GOOSNEY: Yes, s orry.

I appreciate that, Speaker, because like I said, this is new to me and try to throw too much passion out, but you don’t want to turn a bill into politics. I mean, the opposite had their platform and some key messaging. Ours is, we’re here for all of us, to improve for all of us, and this what this Pensions Act is about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: I once was an employer, not just an employee, and I thought at that time, now where do I go with pensions or how am I going to protect myself? I think this also includes employers in improving how they feel that their employees are protected. When morale is up in places of employment, things are more productive, which is better for society; it’s a benefit for all of us.

The reality is this bill that is presented – and I look forward to the debate and the discussion – is an important one. I just ask that everybody read through the fine lines of each part. Again, if there are any questions, I’m here. I’m here to serve in the best interest of all of us, progressively and conservatively.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John’s West.

K. WHITE: Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill 6,

An Act to Amend the Pensions Benefits Act, 1997.

While this is a technical piece of legislation, I’m happy to say our caucus will be supporting it, as pension protection and security is very important. Pensions represent years of hard work and stability for individuals, and security in retirement. This bill modernizes and clarifies Newfoundland and Labrador’s pension solvency framework, aligning our legislation with other jurisdictions in Canada and further protecting workers.

First, it formally defines two key actuarial terms: solvency assets and solvency ratios. These are standard pension concepts used across Canada. Putting them clearly in statute improves transparency and reduces ambiguity in how funding levels are measured. Second, the bill repeals and replaces

section 58 of the act, to establish clearer rules around pension asset transfers.

Under this framework, pension assets cannot be transferred unless certain conditions are met. If the receiving plan is registered in Newfoundland and Labrador, it must be properly filed and reviewed. If the receiving plan is registered in another jurisdiction, it must be part of a recognized multilateral agreement and meet minimum solvency standards.

Importantly, the plan must have a solvency ratio of at least 0.85 or higher than the transferring plan. A solvency ratio measures whether a pension plan has enough money to meet its obligations if it were to wind up. A 0.85 ratio means the plan is funded at 85 per cent of its liabilities on a termination basis.

This 0.85 threshold is consistent with other Canadian pension regulatory practices, such as in the Province of Ontario. It represents a reasonable and balanced standard, one that protects plan members while allowing practical flexibility in cases of corporate restructuring or multi-jurisdictional consolidation.

This bill also requires written approval from the Superintendent of Pensions before any transfer occurs. It strengthens oversight and ensures that pension assets cannot simply be moved without regulatory review. The accompanying regulatory amendments further clarify how transfer values are calculated when a plan is underfunded. The formula now explicitly states that transfer values will be calculated by multiplying the committed value by the lesser of one and most recently determined solvency ratio.

This means if the plan is fully funded, members receive 100 per cent of their value, and if the plan is underfunded at transfer, the value reflects the actual funded status of the plan. This standard actuarial practice ensures fairness and consistency and prevents payouts that exceed the assets available in the plan.

These amendments do not fundamentally change how pensions operate, rather they clarify

definitions, codify standard practice and strengthen oversight mechanisms. The Liberal Opposition supports responsible modernization of our pension framework. We support clear standards and appropriate regulatory oversight and, most importantly, we support retirement security for workers and retirees in Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe this legislation strikes a reasonable balance between protecting plan members and ensuring that our pension regulatory system remains aligned with contemporary Canadian standards.

For those reasons, we will be voting in favour of Bill 6.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s always an honour and privilege to rise in this wonderful House and talk a little bit about Bill 6 here and the Pension Benefits Act.

Now I’m going to take you back to Goose Bay for a little while, if you don’t mind. I want to talk about my grandparents. I wanted to talk about Maude Russell, and I wanted to talk about Eliza Edmunds.

If you’re wondering how this is going to fit, we had two very big families. We had a Labrador family and a Newfoundland family, if you would. In talking about that family, both of the men, so both my pop and my gramps, happened to pass on before my nan and my gram. So there were many years – I’ll use Nan when it comes to talking about a pensioner for the simple fact that she was 40 years without Pop; Pop dying somewhere around ’81, I believe, and Nan worked up on the base, and you know 5 Wing Goose Bay in Lake Melville, Mr. Speaker, a big military presence.

As a pensioner, as a widower, Nan had 40-plus years working without Pop. She worked up at the mess hall on base, and when she ran into military personnel in there serving chow, she was known for her extra hamburgers. My good friend, Udo Mollers, up the road, who was part of the German Airforce, basically said whenever you saw Nan and her beautiful smile, you knew you were getting an extra bit of hamburger – maybe an extra patty or two if you wanted, Mr. Speaker.

In saying that, that’s what this piece of legislation is all about. It’s about protecting pensions, pensioners and the rules outlined therein.

Again, we said, it’s about, firstly, protecting workers and that’s what that’s about. We talked about my gram and we talked about my nan. They were, like I said, many years without Pop and Gramps there.

My grandfather on the Edmunds side, Mr. Speaker, he came down, settled in Goose Bay from Northern Labrador and ended up becoming a fully-accredited engineer with the American government, which was, I’d say, a beautiful story, if you will, for a young Inuk from Northern Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: Thank you very much.

In saying that of course, then you think about Gramps passing away before Gram, and then you have Gram and the pensions. That’s what happens in these situations, those pensions will be transferred over so they’ll be able to claim that as they get up in age too.

Unfortunately, I got cut off in the House there last time, Mr. Speaker, when I was talking about my grandmothers. As it relates to government and the purse strings that we hold, and how we are duty bound and it is an honour and a privilege for us to take care of our elders in this province, but I’ll say that I did want to remind people of that, that I did get cut off last time when I was here speaking in this hon. House, and I wanted to talk about that in terms of, I had watched one grandmother go through Alzheimer’s and everything, and one where her body deteriorated.

It was interesting to see that as they aged, and these were both pensioners, Mr. Speaker, again, but that’s what happens. That’s how we have to be in this province when we take care of those people who have shown us the way, because it’s those pensions and those calculations that have to be made on behalf of our seniors as they go into personal care and long-term care here, and we cover the cost of those as best we can too. So when it comes to talking about that, from a financial perspective, to make sure that our seniors can be well cared for as they get up in age is a very important thing.

So anything we can do from a legislation point of view and as Legislators as part of our work in this hon. House and to protect them, I say it’s well warranted and it’s good work in and of itself, just for what it means.

In saying that, as we have to take our old folks and put them in the homes sometimes and make sure that they’re safe and, in some cases, even being protected from themselves as they get up later in years; that we have progressive legislation, Mr. Speaker, that can make sure that we protect.

If it’s only the finances of people in this case, that’s great, but, like I you said, that’s what it takes in order to have them financed in those twilight years, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that it’s trying times out there and everybody is seeing this across the province. I mean, it’s tough times in terms of economies, what’s going on across the world. We’re seeing that but we’re also feeling the pinch here at home. As gas prices rise, as food prices rise, we feel the pinch right here. So everything we can do to make sure that the financial assets of our seniors are protected in the long run, is meaningful work. It’s as simple as that.

If you talk about the way things are changing, we have to be progressive in the sense that we shift with the times. If we look at the way businesses operate, the way people operate within companies, there’s much more fluidity to it in these times, I can say, than in past where, perhaps if you had a shop, you had bricks and mortar. You had a building and that building was located at such-and-such location within town and then you did your physical advertising where you put a piece of paper in a newspaper or in a mailbox.

People could see that and then come out to that business, support that business and all that, but what I’m saying is businesses now employ people differently. They work differently. They behave differently. They exist differently.

In saying that, they have to have ideas behind pensions and the remittances of all kinds of remuneration to their staff that is progressive and that is with the times, which this does.

The Member across the way talked about liquidity ratios and all that stuff and how we’re bringing this in as a minimum of 0.85 in terms of that, and that’s great. If your pensions are doing better, well, so be it. I mean, what if you’re up over 100 per cent? You’re doing great.

This says that no matter where you are, we’re going to perform at least this good; we’re going to make sure that, if we bring in pensions from outside or we consolidate pensions, whether that’s crossing jurisdictions or whether we’re talking about provincial, inter-provincial or, even in some cases, where we’re talking about people coming from countries and companies abroad as well.

So what I’ll say, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to behave differently. We have to make sure the legislation reflects that the changing times are there.

We have to make sure that we take into consideration how people are doing today, how they are going to be doing as they get into their twilight years, as pensioners, and to make sure that the legislation can be brought, time and time again, into this House and we see the democratic process at work, by which we see changes needed, whether that’s industry driven, whether that’s driven by markets, whether it’s driven by individuals, companies, pensions out there, the success and failures of certain pensions. We’ll see, but we have to be flexible so that we can take those ideas back into the House.

This comes from all sides of the House and, I say, from every party, again, Mr. Speaker. We’ve heard the minister in his opening remarks, he’s saying he’s ready – just not only on this bill, but on everything that we do on this side of the House, we’re ready to work. We’re ready to work with Members across the way. We’re ready to work with people out there in the public, in their districts, and we’re ready to say that when the time comes and we need that change – and it could be brought upon by anybody from across the way. It could be a member of the public. It could be a pensioner out there with a great idea that it leads to bringing that to our bureaucrats.

They’ll propose the amendments, the change to the legislation. The hon. minister then brings that towards this House. We get up from all sides and we talk about gram and gramps. We talk about nan and pop. We talk about our pensioners, the people who mean something in our lives, the ones that mean the most to us and the reason, hopefully, that we’re all here in this House is to support not only our friends in our districts and all that, but those family members and those elders that have shown us the way.

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, whether that’s a change, what we’ve seen here is a few changes in there. We’ve seen some of the other people have already – I won’t bother you with that, Mr. Speaker, but when you’re talking about the individual changes there, we said basically if you’ve got a solitude ratio and you want your pension to be consolidated and moved from one province to another, no problem, we’ll make sure you’re at least at 0.85.

It’s about making sure that these fund holders are protected, too. So we talk about people that are holding on to this pension; they own that pension. That’s their fixed pension. They can budget their month, their year, based on what they’re going to be getting from their pensions. They know what that is. We want to make sure that those things are protected for our people.

We want to make sure that people know that no matter who holds your pension, that when your pension is in Newfoundland and Labrador, your pension is going to be safe. You know that you have a government that is responsive to your needs as a pensioner. So if things change in your life and you want to talk to your MHA, about maybe what can be done or changes could be incorporated into this hon. House, we’re open for that as well.

I think, as the minister said and he alluded to, it’s not so much just simply dotting a few i’s and crossing a few t’s here, Mr. Speaker, but it’s about a Progressive Conservative government that is doing just that, that’s being progressive to the point that we’re trying to get ready for any pitfalls that might be out there from our pensioner’s perspective and from those seniors who have built this beautiful, wonderful province that we’re all so proud of. We want to make sure we do whatever we can.

Again, like I said before in the House, it’s not the biggest changes we’re amending here or making. There’s nothing really contentious here. I think we can expect to have a lot of support across the House for this.

Everybody has that in their family. We’re all pensioners, to some degree. Some more than others, I say to the ones with a little more snow on the mountain. You know who you are around this House, Mr. Speaker, in terms of some of us – you also have younger fellows here, got a ways to go, maybe. Even in terms of some of the newer people in the House, before you can say you’re a pensioner, you’ve got to serve your time. You’ve got to pay your dues.

What we are saying as a government is simply this – when it comes to our elders, it comes to those people that built this place, when it comes to your nest eggs, if you will, and what it takes to get your family by in these trying times with the prices what it is, the gas what it is and all the other volatility across the world we can’t control at home, we tell you this.

At least when it comes to your pension, we want to make sure that you and your pension are protected, that this government is responsive in the sense that we’ll be here to make moves to our legislation and to our regulations as need be, as per the needs of the people of the province and that we are just that – a Progressive Conservative government that cares for our people, that makes sure that this House engages in respecting our elders and the ones that built this beautiful province.

So with that, I’ll take my seat, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. Thank you to the minister. Congratulations to him for putting it forward and I look forward to further debate in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

This, again, is a multilateral agreement across provinces. It allows for the transfer of assets, corporations represented in the province allows for individuals to move to larger plans and it benefits members at no risk to the plan.

Now, as one of these Members here with more snow on the mountaintop, I will echo the minister’s comments about the importance of pensions and the need to protect worker pensions and to limit risk. I’m glad to see that there is a focus on pensions and this is something certainly that we will support.

I will say this, that if anything else in my former career as a teacher, that pensions and benefits were often more important than salary, or equally as important, because you can have a salary but if you don’t have anything to retire to, then it makes it very difficult. So planning for that retirement because there may come a point when you may want to work longer or you may want to move to another province. Whatever it is, the fact is that if you don’t have that ability, you’re really limited in your options, especially if you’re not up to working at that time.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit when I first started teaching, I think I was more happy with regard to having a salary. I was making more money than I had made before. I would say, like most new teachers, I didn’t really know if a pension was fit to eat, but we had a lot of senior teachers there, a lot of senior people who very clearly made sure that young colleagues were laser focused on looking to the future. That’s really what a pension is.

Because, in the end, it allows for options. I can only think of the Teachers’ Pension Plan because I look at what we struggled with over the years, Speaker, is the unfunded liability that was there. We did have, as long as I was a teacher, it was a perennial problem.

I know back in 2006, at that time, there was a PC government that attempted to fix that. It was under Premier Williams at the time. They put $1.95 billion, Atlantic Accord money, into the Teachers’ Pension Plan. Now, we surrendered, made significant concessions on sick leave and I’ll be one of the first to say that I opposed it, because of the fact that the sacrifice was way too great.

However, here was the problem. The plan was run by government. They didn’t derisk. They didn’t change the asset mix and two years later, that $1.95 billion was gone and the plan was back into an unfunded liability status, and here we were facing the prospect of it going bankrupt, and we also gave up sick leave.

While we’re talking about this pension plan here, about this move, I’m a firm believer in defined benefit plans as opposed to defined contribution plans, because defined contribution plans put all the risk on the worker. If I understand it with this bill here, this amendment is about also taking the risk from workers. But a defined contribution plan really puts all the risk totally on the individual.

A defined benefit plan, I guess, regardless of what it’s doing, you’re guaranteed a certain benefit when you retire. I think, for most people, especially if they don’t have an index plan, that offers some modicum of protection.

When I became president of the NLTA in 2013, guess what was one of the main issues? The pension plan again. We entered into discussions with the then PC government to enter into a joint sponsorship. It was a significant challenge. It meant that teachers and government or the employer, they were sharing that risk.

Now, a lot of good discussion. There was some fear at the time that the Liberals were coming in, and there was a threat that they would turn all pension plans into defined contribution plans. So we did sign the deal, but it worked out; if I’m reading the results correctly, it’s at 125 per cent funded ratio. It’s doing better than it’s ever done, but it’s a joint sponsorship.

We also made sure, in setting up the board of directors, when we chose our members that there would be no political influence on this. We made sure that the people we chose to sit on that board basically had one thing in mind, the health of the plan. It didn’t matter – like, they could come to the association and we couldn’t just say, no, we don’t want that, there had to be a fiscally viable option there that would make the plan work with the option of maybe creating and having an indexer clause in it. Which is why we were surprised then, in 2021, with the Moya Greene report, and the Minister of Finance at the time, that our plan was underfunded when everything said otherwise.

That riled a number of people, me included, but the fact is that the plan has been doing well and, guess what, that means generations of teachers, young people, at least they know when they enter the profession that at some point in the future they’ve got that flexibility to either keep teaching, retire and take a pension, maybe enter into some other work if they wish, but the fact is they have that option. That’s because of the hard work and the sacrifice of the generations of teachers that went before and the fact that we realized if you’re going to protect people now, you have to protect their future.

I’ll go a bit further because this plan allows flexibility. I know for us, for many years, it was hard to transfer from – let’s say, if a teacher here wanted to go up to Ontario to teach. It was very difficult to transfer their pension benefits from here when it was underfunded. At least now that it is funded, the ratios very well allow that for people to transfer that pension into another jurisdiction, especially if, because of family situations, they have to move.

I’ll end with this, pensions are good but I will say that it’s not just good enough to say pensions. It has to be defined benefit plans, it must be; because, if anything else, that protects the workers who are – really, their income is their income. They’re not making the profits or anything else, but defined benefit plans are definitely the way. If we’re going to invest in plans, let’s focus on defined benefit plans and making them work.

By the way, the TPP and the Public Service Pension Plan are examples of how we can make defined benefit plans work and keep them funded.

The other thing is indexing, because I think it’s been raised by a few people here already, with regard to our mom and dads and that who are on pensions, if they’re not indexed, it doesn’t take long. If you live 10, 20, 30 years, you start to realize that the real purchasing power of those dollars is going down significantly, which is why we have so many seniors struggling right now.

So I think if you’re looking at future amendments and future ways, let’s find ways to also make it so that people who do retire are able to live comfortably and are not finding themselves struggling.

The joke, I guess, I used to make whenever I attended an actuarial meeting when they talk with the health plan, my question was: When do you want me to die to make the plan work, because that’s what it comes down to. Actuaries are looking at how many people are going to live long, how many people are going to die early and so on and so forth. Those are going to calculations, but I think the defined benefits plans and indexed plans, we have to look at that if we’re going to have a healthy and aging senior population.

I’ll end with this, while we’re making the changes to the pension plan here, and these amendments – which we will support – we will continue to fight; and why we demand that you cannot just have a four-year plan to talk about pensions and have advisory committees on pension plans for our early childhood educators, that will not put food on the table and allow them to retire. It comes down to having a pension plan that they can actually depend on and it starts today.

So while we’re making these amendments, Speaker, and we’ll support them, we also demand action from this government to provide the benefits to our early childhood educators so that they too can look forward to a retirement and one that provides them a comfortable retirement at that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s a privilege to stand and talk about pensions. I got to be very familiar with pensions when I was minister of Digital Government and Service NL, when we brought forward legislation in 2020 to allow unlocking of pensions, which I’ll talk about after.

I do think pensions are very complicated. The average person doesn’t really understand their pension. Very few people understand what’s allowed, what’s not allowed and all the nuances around pensions. This act, I would say the average person may or may not know, we’re not talking about anything to do with teachers’ pensions, for example, they have their own legislation. We’re not talking about public service pensions; they have their own legislation.

This legislation only deals with pensions that are registered in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you look at someone’s employer, to find out if their pension is registered in Newfoundland and Labrador versus another province, you could look like where the headquarters of the pension is. If I worked at Dominion or Loblaws, for example, and I had a pension – if I was fortunate enough to have a pension with a company like that – their pension is unlikely to be registered in Newfoundland and Labrador because the headquarters for Dominion or Loblaws, as an example, would be in Ontario.

Their headquarters are in Ontario and that’s usually where the pension is registered so the laws of Ontario, in terms of their pensions, would apply. So the Pension Act , what we’re talking about today, would not apply for those workers. The province in which the pension is registered applies for those pensions and oversees those pensions.

So we’re only talking about pensions registered in Newfoundland and Labrador. So those are primarily Newfoundland and Labrador companies; companies where, in terms of their Canadian presence, they have the most individuals living in Newfoundland and Labrador. That’s what we’re talking about in terms of pensions registered under this pension plan. The MHA pension, for example, is not – this does not apply to the MHA pension plan; that has its own legislation.

I have a lot of questions in Committee that we’ll get to, but I do want to talk about the concern, I guess, about the 85 per cent solvency. I think it’s really a question of flexibility versus solvency.

I can appreciate how the government wants to allow people to have more choice about what happens with their pension, to change it to another plan, but I do think it’s important, and I haven’t heard this in discussion yet, moving your pension from a pension plan registered in Newfoundland and Labrador to one registered somewhere else with the threshold in the act is 85 per cent, that carries risk, Speaker. I think that it’s important that we don’t understate that risk.

We look at other provinces across the country, Ontario requires your pension to be topped up if the pension plan is less than 100 per cent solvency. So the superintendent in Ontario will not allow a pension transfer unless they top it up if the solvency is less than 100 per cent. BC also requires deficiencies to be topped up before a pension is transferred. So I do think this is an important area of risk that we have not yet discussed in terms of this bill, Speaker.

I just want to talk about what that looks like. Let’s say we have a pension of someone in Newfoundland and Labrador and it’s registered here and it’s at 100 per cent, or maybe 125 per cent if a pension plan is so fortunate, and someone wants to transfer it to a pension plan in Quebec, let’s say, that is 85 per cent funded. That means that if the pension plan were to go under, there’s 15 per cent of their pension that’s just gone. We’ve seen this, Speaker.

The example that comes to mind is Wabush Mines. We had a pension here for Wabush Mines – and this is very important for workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Wabush Mines company went under and the pension kind of wound up. So those workers had not done anything wrong. Those workers had paid into their pension. They lived their whole life expecting that they would get a certain defined benefit pension. Then when Wabush Mines went under – I’m not exactly sure about the situation about the company but I do know, in terms of the pension, people lost a significant value of their pensions.

If we look at the Wabush Mines example – and that was only in 2015, so not that long ago – that pension plan was 70 to 80 per cent solvent when the company went under. So that means if you had a million-dollar pension, let’s say – that sounds like a lot, but it’s not really in terms of a pension. After that, you would have just lost $200,000 to $300,000 off the value of your pension. So a significant impact for, let’s say with the Wabush Mines example, it was only 70 to 80 per cent solvent. In that example, retirees experienced benefit reduction of 15 to 25 per cent.

You might be doing your family budgeting for your retirement and you work with your family and say I’m expecting a defined benefit pension of XYZ. Maybe I need so much a month to cover my mortgage and my light bill and my power bill and my property tax. So you know how much you’re expecting your pension to be to give your family in terms of your income. Then, all of a sudden, let’s say I’m going to take that pension, I’m going to move it to a pension in Quebec that’s only 85 per cent funded – now, it’s unlikely that pension would go under, but it’s certainly a possibility as we’ve seen.

We’ve see, for example, the Nortel pension went under and those pension members lost 25 per cent of the value of their pension overnight. Sears pension – anyone who was a member of the Sears pension –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

S. STOODLEY: They lost 30 per cent of their pension when the Sears pension wound up. So if you had a million dollars in your pension, Sears pension wound up, theirs was only 70 per cent funded and they lost 30 per cent, all of a sudden, as someone who anticipated you were going to get maybe $2,000 a month, $1,000 a month; now you’re only getting $700 a month of your defined benefit pension.

I don’t want to underestimate – I don’t want this House to pass this legislation without fully understanding the risk that the 85 per cent solvency carries, because you’re essentially allowing someone to move their pension to a pension that is 85 per cent or more solvent, which means that in the unlikely situation that that pension winds up, those members would absolutely be financially disadvantaged if they’re moving from a 98 per cent solvent pension to an 86 per cent solvent pension.

So, for example, if they had $1 million – that is a nice, round number – in a pension and it was currently 100 per cent solvent – because I know the Superintendent of Pensions here in Newfoundland and Labrador is very strict and works very closely with pensions. So let’s say they move it to a pension plan in Quebec and that pension plan is 86 per cent funded and then that pension plan goes under or winds up, then all of a sudden those pension members lose $140,000 on their pension, so they lose 14 per cent. If you were estimating that you were going to get $1,000 a month of your pension to live on, now you have 14 per cent less of your pension, Speaker.

I think that’s a very important consideration, that is flexibility versus solvency. We do have questions about this for the minister in Committee. Why did they choose 85 per cent?

Whereas when we look across the country, that’s one of the lower solvency ratios allowed when you’re talking about transferring pensions, Speaker.

I do think the Wabush Mines; it probably didn’t come top of mind, but when I was in the department, the team would always talk about the Wabush Mines example and how important pensions were and how important solvency was. Because, for example, Wabush Mines – and I know Members here probably know people impacted. I know staff in this building have family members who are impacted by the Wabush Mines example, Speaker, where they were part of a pension and the Wabush Mines went under. After that, the pension plan was found to be an unsecured creditor.

So the government, I believe, and there were many – the pension plan had to go to court; they had a very long court battle. Those pensions were found to be unsecured creditors. Secured creditors got paid before the pension holder, Speaker. The Wabush Mines pension members had reduced health benefits, they got reduced survivor benefits and they lost indexing on their pensions. Those pension members did nothing wrong, the pension was registered here, and that pension was at 70 per cent to 80 per cent solvent when the company went under.

Now we’re talking about allowing people to transfer a pension somewhere that’s, at minimum, 85 per cent solvent, I believe. I don’t know if it’s minimum or if that’s the lower ceiling, but there is a risk that comes with that. In the unlikely situation that a company goes under, there is a significant risk to people’s pensions and the amount of money they can get on a monthly basis could significantly change.

So, again, Sears and Nortel were other examples of that. I think it’s important for the government to understand and make sure that they’re okay with that risk. It is flexibility versus solvency. So there is a risk associated with transferring your pension from a pension that is managed by the Superintendent of Pensions under this act and moving it to a pension, transferring to another province.

Once that pension is moved to another province, this government has no control. You can call your MHA but there’s nothing they can do about it. You’ll have to call the MHAs in Quebec or the MHAs in Alberta. This is kind of a ridiculous example, but what happens if a province leaves Canada? It’s a huge risk, Speaker, taking your pension if you live in Newfoundland and Labrador and you are moving it to another province, that carries risk, especially if the solvency is 85 per cent. I just want to make sure that that risk is understood by this House, Speaker.

I’ve talked about that; I’ve talked about Ontario and BC. We have other questions in Committee. I do also want to highlight the changes that we did make. In December 2020, when I was minister – I was minister for a few months then. I remember it just because I was in here with my little baby, and it was a very traumatic experience, I would say. But that’s okay, we got through it and we changed the legislation for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’m finding it difficult to hear the hon. Member.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

I was just looking at a news release that went out December 14, 2020: Proposed amendments would allow the unlocking of retirement savings. That was the first, I guess, significant controversial bill that I did as minister, that I can recall. The changes we made allowed someone – so if they had a pension in a locked-in retirement account, we allowed them to unlock some of that value for four specific reasons.

The first one was if the person had a shortened life expectancy. If someone got a medical diagnosis and they only had a few years to live, Speaker, they could certainly unlock their locked-in retirement savings for that reason. If they had a small balance; so sometimes – for example, I used to work for an insurance company and I have a small pension – I don’t know if it would be considered small, but not that big, so it might not make sense if you have $1,000 or $500 to turn that locked-in retirement account into a LIRA. There are different ways you can transfer your locked-in retirement account upon retirement, in terms of a life annuity or something like that.

So if there is a small balance, you can withdraw your locked-in pension. If you are a non-resident of Canada for two years – so let’s say someone is in Canada and moves out of the country, and they’ve been out of the country for two years, then they’re allowed to withdraw their locked-in pension, Speaker.

The fourth is for financial hardship. So if someone loses their job; they’re behind on their mortgage payments; their house is in foreclosure; they have medical bills; if they have to pay costs related to equipment or treatment of a disability; they can use it to make their first month’s rent or security deposit when trying to rent; the threat of eviction due to inability to pay rent.

Then if they have a job and they unexpectedly have a lower income, let’s say they lose their job or their EI runs out and they’re on income support, for example, there is a formula that allows them to withdraw a locked-in pension. It’s a bit complicated. It is based on 66 per cent of the yearly maximum pensionable earnings, which in 2021 at the time was $41,000.

If their income went below $41,000 in 2021 – it’s probably about that now, but there is a specific federal government trigger, the yearly maximum pensionable earnings and it’s 66 per cent of that. Then you could use that to withdraw a portion of your locked-in retirement account. You can withdraw from your locked-in retirement account once a year, I believe, Speaker.

So if you were behind on your mortgage and you were on EI, for example, you could withdraw some to pay any mortgage payments and you could do that once a year, Speaker. Some people do have large locked-in retirement accounts and this gives them more flexibility.

I was very pleased to make that make that change in December of 2020. I know that it is controversial, you’re giving more people control of their money, but on the other hand there’s less money for them when they retire. It’s not a perfect answer but we made that change. I don’t know if it was unanimous, but I believe at the time both major parties supported that bill. We’ve seen a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians take advantage of that, since it was passed then.

As I wind up today, I just want to reiterate, I guess, the risk that allowing somebody to transfer their pension to another pension plan that has 85 per cent solvency, the risk that that carries and to make sure that this House understands that, Speaker.

I do want to reiterate the Wabush Mines, like, it is such an important part of Newfoundland and Labrador’s history. When I was in the department, they were almost traumatized still, five years later, from the Wabush Mines. I believe the government went to court on behalf of the pension holders and the pension association. It was a very long court battle about he Wabush Mines and everyone who worked there – and that, at the end, their pension was 70 per cent to 80 per cent solvent.

So again, if you worked at the Wabush Mines and let’s say you had a million-dollar pension and after the 70 per cent, 80 per cent, you would lose $200,000 to $300,000 out of your pension. So you would lose 20 to 30 per cent of what you thought you were getting as a monthly income or a bi-weekly income moving forward, when you are withdrawing your pension.

It was a significant change to people. If you plan your life and your expenses around your pension and how much you’re going to save, and then you end up with 30 per cent less from your pension, that is a significant amount. That impacts people’s lifestyle, it impacts when they retire and it impacts how long they work. It might impact their leisure activities – I would imagine it certainly would.

I use that example to show this House what happens, and that solvency ratios are extremely important. That example, Wabush Mines, was 70 to 80 per cent solvent when it wound up. So now, with this change, we’re allowing people to take their money from a pension registered in Newfoundland and Labrador and move it into a pension in another province – and the pension they are moving it to only has to be 85 per cent solvent.

I think that’s important to understand. It is unlikely the pensions will go under, but there is a chance that these people, if those pensions wind up, that they will lose 15 per cent off their pension, and I think it’s important that people understand that. I hope that when a pensioner is looking at moving their pension, they do understand that risk. I would say that most probably would not. The average person I don’t think understands very much to do with pensions, but I do think it’s a risk that this House should consider when approving this.

It is about flexibility, and I understand the argument of giving people more flexibility with their money, and who is government to say what you should do with your money, but we have laws and regulations for a reason. I do think it is just important that we recognize that moving your pension to one that has a lower solvency ratio carries significant financial risk. Also, when we look across the country, this is one of the lowest in terms of solvency risks allowed.

Like I said, Ontario often requires a top-up if the solvency ratio you are moving your pension to is less than 100 per cent; BC requires a deficiency payment, so if you’re moving your pension to one that is less solvent, it requires a deficiency payment. This is one of the lower ones across the country. Flexibility is important, yes, but also the Members opposite talked about how important pensions are and knocking on people’s doors and having that conversation.

I think that’s incredibly important and I’m sure a lot of them do want more flexibility with their money and with their pensions. But I guess I would also challenge then, what about if someone transfers their pension, that then goes under? Then they are directly at financial risk because of the change that we’re making today, Speaker.

So I do think that’s incredibly important, that the Members opposite understand. It’s very unlikely, I’m not going to lie, it’s not probably going to happen, it’s unlikely, but that is a direct potential consequence and I’m sure the workers at Wabush Mines didn’t think that their pension was going to go under. I’m sure the workers at Sears and Nortel, just as some major Canadian examples, didn’t think their pensions would go under.

Again, in the Wabush Mines example, pensions were found to be – they were treated as unsecured creditors. So all the other creditors, the bank, BDC, I’m sure, the government, they all got paid before the pension members got their pension at the end of the day. I think it is incredibly important that this House understands the risk of allowing people to transfer their pensions to one that is only 80 per cent solvent.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

I’m not sure what bill that the previous Member was reading, but this doesn’t allow an individual to transfer their pension anywhere. I don’t know where that thought came from. This is about companies, such as Wabush Mines – and I will say that both of my parents were affected by that. So I lived through the Labrador closure of the then Scully Mine, now reopened as Tacora. I watched people lose their pensions, watched people lose their health care. I had friends, and I’m sure Joe – sorry, the Member for Labrador West will tell you people killed themselves over it. People died because of this.

I’ll speak from fact here. So I served as a fiduciary for a pension plan for a number of years. This allows companies, be it their trustees or however they managed their pension funds, to take a pension fund and reinvest into another province or territory in order to grow and make it better. It’s not about an individual. When an individual leaves a job or wants the pension fund – we know; we passed legislation years ago – this goes into a LIRA or some other type of form where they can’t draw it out until they’re later in life.

This is specifically about the ability for a company to port, no different than someone does with a mortgage or something else, from one pension jurisdiction into another, making it a larger pension plan, making it more profitable, hopefully. The whole idea that the 85 per cent is a risk, 85 per cent is a pretty prudent rule when it comes to fiduciaries with pensions.

At the end of the day, a lot of pension plans are not overfunded unfortunately. We would hope they all were, but unfortunately, as the Leader of the Third Party has said, they’re not. That should be the goal, that it is the fiduciary responsibility of the trustees that are involved with these pension plans. The whole idea that we can take a company, as an example, and we can go to Wabush Mines or whatever, that goes into insolvency, and they could have ported that pension plan into something else in order to keep those people whole, that’s the goal of this. This is a way to make things better, not to assume more risk.

So they went through their court battles and they did it. A lovely lady by the name of Rita Pynn, who was a staff member up there , she took this upon herself – she was management – and she fought hand-in-glove with the union and, between the union, Jim Skinner and Rita Pynn, they got so much back.

I can tell you right now, my mom sits at home. She worked 36 years in Wabush Mines, one of the very first women hired in Wabush Mines in 1973. Both, her and my dad, who worked there for 38 years, had their pensions reduced. There’s no question about that. Had this legislation been in place, there is a stronger possibility that that may not have happened.

So the ability to take a pension fund and put it into something else – so, for example, Scully Mine, Wabush Mines, at the time, they could have gone to a subsidiary company that they owned, combined the pensions and kept people whole. That’s what the legislation is about, and I’m sure that the minister will get up and talk about that after, when he gets his few minutes, but I just needed to track that for the record.

It’s not about an individual having the ability to take their pension out of a pension fund. Every pension fund that we know in this province would be at risk if individuals had the ability to do what they wanted with their pension funds. That’s just not how it works. So I just wanted to clear the air on that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Georges - Humber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CORMIER: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s an honour to rise in this House again and talk about pensions.

Pensions are very dear, I guess, to myself. For 35 years I worked at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, but also, I grew up in a union family where my mom and my dad both paid into a pension plan. The conversation of pensions always occurs when I see former retirees down at the mill, and even my union brothers and sisters that are down there now. We talk about pensions, because the act of 1997 exists to protect workers’ pensions and ensure pension plans are responsibly managed.

Speaker, that’s so important. We work all our lives for the golden years to retire, to enjoy our time. Whether it’s on a river fishing or at the cabin or in the springtime making maple syrup, we enjoy it and that’s what we worked for. This amendment will help strengthen the pensions that are in Newfoundland and Labrador if by chance a corporation from outside the province wants to take over a company in this province.

The pension plan will only be passed over if it is to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. At the end of the day, that’s what it’s all about. It’s about protecting the people in this province and that’s exactly what this government has planned to do.

So congrats to the minister on bringing this bill forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

H. CORMIER: I’d like to speak about my mom and dad. My mom was a teacher at the trades school in Corner Brook, paid into the pension plan – and, yes, she happened to teach the Member from Humber - Bay of Islands many, many moons ago.

E. JOYCE: That’s true.

H. CORMIER: It’s very important.

My dad worked at the mill, I said that in my maiden speech, and our pensions were so important but I can’t imagine if you were to work all your life and a company take over your pension plan that was less solvent than your own and put your plan at a detriment or even a decreased value when you go to retire. It doesn’t make sense.

So, I mean, growing up I spent time on the pension committee at the mill in Corner Brook and I learned from some great retirees about how our pension plan, a defined benefit plan, is the gold standard of pension plans.

There are three main types of pension plans. There is the pooled, which is deferred profit sharing, stock options. You’ve got your defined contribution plan, which a lot of our transient workers have. They’re able to port their own pension. It’s more of an RRSP program from one company to another. They just travel with it, so it’s protected by them; but a defined benefit plan that’s stationed here and that’s registered here in the province needs protection. We need to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that’s exactly what we’re trying to do.

We have interprovincial regulations now that allow companies to transfer it from one province to the other, and if we don’t protect our people, then why are we even here? This legislation will help strengthen that protection to allow our people that worked 20, 30, 40 or sometimes 50 years and pay into a plan to enjoy their golden years, enjoy their time fishing or at the cabin or whatever they want to do – travel. It’s so important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

H. CORMIER: Yes, thank you.

But can you imagine working all those years and there was an opportunity to strengthen your pension plan and we didn’t do it and all of a sudden something happened to your company, your corporation? We were at the mill in Corner Brook for a number of years and a former premier, Tom Marshall, done a deal with Kruger that tied Deer Lake power plant to the pension plan. The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands was also involved with that.

E. JOYCE: In 2017 it was done –

H. CORMIER: Twenty –?

E. JOYCE: – 2017.

H. CORMIER: That was important to do; to tie that together to protect the pensions at the mill.

Fortunately, the power plant could be tied to the mill and it could protect it. There was an asset there that could protect people; but if that asset wasn’t there, then the pensions could be at risk, and all those people paying all those years, all those retirees – because the mill had a large number of employees.

Back when I first went to work there, there was like 1,300 of us inside that plant. They forced it down to about 400 now, but it was 1,300. Alot of those guys have passed on, but there are still a lot of those guys still kicking around, still alive. I run into them every day down at the grocery store, at the mall, at the gas station, at the coffee shops and the first question they ask you is: How is the pension plan doing? How are we doing?

Well, we’re protected. A lot of these companies aren’t protected and if we allow a corporation to come in and take over their pension plan, it’s important that we protect those people. I can't stress it enough.

I worked 35 years paying into a pension plan; that was so important. My dad worked 40 years at the mill; he lost over half his pension when Bowater decided to pull out of Corner Brook before Kruger took over. He lost half of his pension. My mom, who worked less years at the trades school, her pension was higher than my dad’s – a defined benefit plan. It’s important that we’re able to move these around across jurisdictions and protect the people that elected us to protect them.

This is so important. This is important to me. It’s important to the pensioners. It’s important to people’s quality of life, so they’re not worried about if they can buy their grandson or granddaughter a birthday gift; they’re not worried if they can go down and get that tank of fuel or go get some groceries. That pension is protected and they know what they’re getting month after month so they can budget. That’s so important – so important to everybody.

This amendment will allow people to remain in a pension plan if a company is going to take over. It’ll only be signed by the Superintendent of Pensions. If it’s in the best interest of the pensioners in this province, it’s up to the decision to be made by the Superintendent of Pensions. He has the final say and, if it’s in the best interest of the people of the province, he’ll do it. If it’s not in the best interest of the people of the province for their pensions to be taken over, then it won't be signed over. It’s not a free will – here, take it all. Ultimately, it comes down to that department who will make sure that pensioners in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are protected.

I can't stress it enough. I can't stress it enough. We’ve got people in this building here – in this room right now – that are pensioners; I’m one of them. Can you imagine; can you imagine if there was an opportunity to protect your pension and it didn’t happen and you ended up losing it? How would you feel? How would you feel if this government let you down? We wouldn’t feel very good.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they’d be letting themselves down if (inaudible) pensions.

H. CORMIER: Right. I wasn’t going to go there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well (inaudible).

H. CORMIER: I wasn’t going to go there. I’m a kind, fun-loving individual.

AN HON. MEMBER: I’m not, Sir.

H. CORMIER: Well, you do cheer for the Cataracts.

Allowing companies to take over pensions that will increase the pension benefits will allow the pensioners to continue to earn benefits while they’re working, rather than lose their pension, and avoid unnecessary risk to those pensions and the complexities – I mean, the idea of this amendment is to strengthen the pension laws to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that are paying into a pension plan. I can’t stress it enough. It’s so important to me.

All you worked at the mill, all you acquired, you didn’t want to call in sick, you went to work on days you weren’t feeling the best, because you were going to lose those pensionable hours on your pension at the end of the day. We didn’t have that option of sick time at the mill, or call in sick for a day here or a day there. We lost pensionable time, and it was so important for us to go to work, because we realized how important it was to put that pensionable time in a pension.

I can’t imagine putting that at risk. This government’s not going to put it at risk. We want to strengthen the pension plans in this province if, by chance, a company or corporation from outside the province wants to buy in to our province. We can’t stop that. We can’t stop progress; it doesn’t make sense. But we have to protect the pensions.

I’ll say pensions and pensions and pensions over and over again, because it’s what I worked for. It’s what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians worked for, to work their hardest, to enjoy those golden years.

I can’t stress enough the defined benefit plan that some of us are fortunate enough to be in. That’s the gold standard. Defined benefit is the gold standard of pensions. Defined contributions – next level down, we’ll call it, where you take your pension and travel from corporation to corporation. You see a lot of that with managers and corporations, they stay at one spot for two or three years and move to the next, move to the next. They can take it; they’re protected. It’s up to them and their financial planners to see what they are going to do with their money from one step to the next.

But defined benefit plans are controlled by the companies, invested by the companies, and it’s important that employees understand, take the initiative to understand their pension plan, but when a corporation tries to take it over, it’s also important that we protect it. This legislation will do just that.

The Superintendent of Pensions has the final say and if it is not in the benefit of the pensioners or the corporation and another company tries to take over in this province, then the pension doesn’t get signed over. We’re not here to float some other company on the Mainland. We’re here to take care of the people in this province, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.

P. PIKE: Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise today to speak to Biil 6,

An Act to Amend Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

While this piece of legislation is somewhat technical in nature, it has real implications for workers and retirees across this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In my District of Burin - Grand Bank, we have people who have spent decades working in industries such as the fishery, mining, processing plants, in the trades, transportation and small local business industries. I think about the mines in St. Lawrence. Go back to the ’30s and, first, it was owned by the St. Lawrence Corporation, a company that existed in the United States, in Detroit, as a matter of fact. From then on, owned by companies outside the province.

Ultimately, these mines provided employment – and it came at a good time because it came after the tsunami, which wiped out the fishery on the Burin Peninsula but, still, it was something that put our men to work. We all know the history of the St. Lawrence mines and what happened there.

I’m coming from a family who worked in these mines. Once these mines would close, the pensions would be gone. My father worked his whole lifetime in the mines and, at the end of the day, he had zero pension – zero – because of the closures of these mines.

These were hard-working men who went underground every day and were trying to build up a pension for their families and to be able to retire in comfort, of course. Fish plant workers in my area, as well, a lot of them retired, no pension. So we are looking at degrees of income when we look at pensions.

A lot of people in my district that I deal with now when they come for government assistance, whether it’s for home repair or whatever, the first thing we ask them is, what is your income? Well, I’m getting a bit of Canada Pension, I’m getting the old age pension and the wife is getting her old age pension. It’s not a lot to live on, so pensions are so important.

It allows people to stay in their communities as well. It allows people to stay in their homes. That’s what pensions do, and that’s important. We all want to be able to remain in our own homes, have our children visit and so on. The part of that, that’s so important, is that people keep their dignity. That’s the key.

When we talk about this pension legislation, we are talking about protecting something that people have actually earned. The bill focuses on strengthening the rules around pension asset transfers, and that matters. Because when pensions are moved between plans, there’s a real risk that some of these plans are not financially stable. Simply put, it measures whether a pension plan has enough money to meet its obligations. That’s where we bring in the solvency ratio.

This bill sets a clear expectation that receiving plans must be 85 per cent funded – very important – or stronger than the plan, the assets are coming from. That’s very important because it ensures pension assets are not transferred into weaker or underfunded plans. It protects workers from losing value through the decisions that happen far away from their communities.

We have industries that see restructuring and mergers and operations that span multiple jurisdictions and, in those situations, plans can be moved or consolidated without strong rules. Workers could be exposed to an unnecessary risk, and we don’t want that happening.

This bill closes that gap. This bill makes it clear that payouts will reflect the actual funding level of the plan. Meaning, if a plan is fully funded, workers receive full value. If it’s underfunded, payouts are adjusted proportionately. This is not about reducing benefits unfairly. It’s about transparency, it’s about fairness and ensuring the system remains stable for everyone.

The bill strengthens oversight by requiring approval before any pension plans can be transferred. This adds an important layer of accountability. In any plan that we have – any plan – accountability is key. It ensures that all decisions are reviewed and that there’s a safeguard in place to protect plan members.

For those people that are on pension plans, that’s a lifeline, really, for them. It enables them to live in a way that they can socialize, that they can eat well, that they can drive cars, they can do things that they worked their whole lifetimes to achieve. They’ve raised families. They’ve educated their families. Now they’re going to sit on their pension.

AN HON. MEMBER: It’s their money.

P. PIKE: It’s their money. That’s correct. It’s their money.

Overall, this bill will give us confidence in the pension system. It provides clearer rules, stronger oversight and better protection for workers.

I was talking to a family a while ago and we were talking about income and how much that they were getting and so on for various government programs, of course. I said, well, you always worked. I watched you go to work my whole lifetime. Yeah, but, see, at that time, we were given a choice whether to buy into a pension or not. I couldn’t afford it at the time. I had a family that needed to be fed. There were things happening. We needed to work on the old house, so I didn’t opt for it – so sad.

What this plan does as well, it puts us in a way that we can align with other pension standards right across Canada. We believe workers deserve to know their pensions are secure and the system that protects them is transparent and they have control over what happens to their pensions.

At the end of the day, this is a plan about people we all know in our communities who have worked hard, very hard, who have paid in their pensions and expect security when they need it. I remember when I was in the workforce, during breaks, a lot of people said five years left to go and I’m out, because then I can enjoy my pension and enjoy life.

When I saw my neighbour get up this morning and get on his quad and head off trouting or berry picking, that’s me; I’m going to do that. We have to protect those people. We have to protect our pension plans. This bill ensures that and, for those reasons, I plan to vote in favour of Bill 6.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi.

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this bill amending the pension benefits.

The reality is that we know that not all folks have the benefit of pensions. But, of course, everybody has a lifetime of labour and people should be provided with this, especially in their elderly years. As a social democrat, pensions are crucially important to the well-being of workers and their families and the economic health of our families and our communities.

For most workers with a pension, they have a union to thank for that. It enables dignity in the workplace, fair compensation, as unions do, on behalf of the workers; and, of course, with clear, decisive action, many workers and, tomorrow, seniors won’t find themselves in their final years in absolute poverty.

Of course, affordability is a huge issue for all of us here in this House right now, tackling the present financial situation of many of our residents. Certainly, I can speak for those in St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi. As I’ve mentioned, it’s very diverse. We have a population where we have some of the wealthiest people and we have some of the poorest people. It begs the conversation about why pension income is so important.

So I can give you some stats. In the East End, the A1A area district of St. John’s, in 2021, the pension income was $83 million; RRIF withdrawals were $63 million; entrepreneurs’ income, $78 million; and EI and social assistance was at $60 million. So, remember, pension incomes $83 million in the East End area in ’21.

In my colleague’s district here, the A1E area, which would fall under the St. John’s Centre District, the pension income was $65 million; RRIF withdrawals were $50 million; entrepreneurs’ income, $29 million; and EI and social assistance, $83 million. Again, $65 million, so we can see the discrepancy.

In the A1C area district, which is the St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi District, primarily the downtown, the area in the Battery, the Quidi Vidi and all of that, which basically is the highest percentage right across the country, the A1C district of artists per capita across the country, the pension income was $22 million in ’21; RRIF withdrawals were $17 million; entrepreneurs’ income was $27 million; EI and social assistance was $42 million.

We see a discrepancy from $83 million, $65 million to $22 million in the A1C district where we have the bulk of our arts and cultural producers. There’s discrepancy for you there and there’s poverty. So we’re seeing many of those people, those cultural producers and, of course, many of the other fine folks who are living in that district as well, who are not receiving pensions. What does that mean? Very likely, it leads to poverty in your senior years, if not poverty throughout your life.

So I think it’s a really important thing to mention, and that’s why previously I certainly brought that issue forward about Ireland and on the heels of St. Paddy’s Day and how wonderful it is to see the GBI enacted for artists in Ireland because they are the cultural producers, they value their artists and their cultural communities and then these people can actually, possibly, attain pensions. They won’t be in poverty when they’re in their senior years.

Again, that’s a broad scope. I just thought it was really an important bit of statistics to bring into the fold here, and on the importance of making sure that we don’t allow people to fall into poverty. Pensions are a part of that, and that’s where, certainly, we see the unions playing a huge role.

The transfer of benefits, which is obviously what we’re dealing with, specifically here, is something my colleagues already mentioned. We will be supporting this amendment because we want to ensure that people can transition their benefits and not at their loss. I have family members who found themselves in similar positions and, certainly, it is a benefit to see this kind of stuff tightened up.

I reflect upon my former role in municipalities. Of course, as we know, many of the municipal leaders right across our province work diligently for no pay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. O’LEARY: In the City of St. John’s and other cities there is some remuneration; however, in the City of St. John’s, there is no pension. There is no pension received for municipal –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. O’LEARY: N o, it was phased out years –

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn’t know that.

S. O’LEARY: It was phased out; my former colleague here certainly can attest to that. There is no pension plan for people in municipal government at the City of St. John’s right now.

So people have all these illusions and understandings that people may be in the certain fields for pension benefits and all that kind of stuff, there are a lot of people who are very, very vulnerable, who do not have the privilege of accessing a pension. I think it’s very important that we all understand that in this House; that we are representing a lot of people who will not have that security – that economic security – as they enter into their senior years. That’s assuming, of course, the life of affordability will not create health issues and things like that that will shorten their lives.

These things are all interconnected. How we live. How we continue to be able to live healthy lives impacts how long we’re going to be kicking around.

So this economic security is not something that everybody has the benefit of, but I do want to say, emphatically, that I’m so supportive of the unions that, really, are the staple that have been ensuring that we see workers supported with pension benefits in their retirement years, whenever that should come.

The issues that I would certainly like to reiterate, again, that my colleague has mentioned, is early childhood educators. They are looking for this economic security. We can't leave them in poverty. We can't leave them in a situation where they don’t know whether or not they’re going to be able to continue. They’re looking for security; they’re looking for sustainability so that they can take care of our children, the most precious commodity, the most precious resource that we have.

They’re going to be there; they’re going to be the future for us. We are tasked to take care of them. Early childhood educators are tasked to take care of them. So support for child care, the families, the workers – these benefits, these are crucial. These are things that we need to keep on the front burner. This is something that definitely is necessary, so we will continue to advocate on behalf of the early childhood educators, because we know, as social democrats, how important it is to achieving affordability, security in your life and making sure that we’re supporting families, all of them, from the youngest to the oldest.

That was kind of an overview there, certainly, on pension benefits. Some who are fortunate enough to avail, others who do not, but we know that people deserve to have economic security in their retirement times and their senior years.

So, with that, I will say thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of St. John’s East - Quidi Vidi and to give some statistics and some perspective on the differential between different areas. I know I’m talking about within the City of St. John's; of course, throughout our province we’ll see these massive differentials as well. So whatever we can do to ensure that people can protect those pension benefits in transition, we’re there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

R. BALSOM: It’s a great honour to get on my feet here today representing the great people of the District of Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde, and it’s a true honour to speak to Bill 6. I’d like to thank the Minister of Government Services for bringing forth this bill.

The Pension Benefits Act is there; it exists to protect the workers and their pensions, and to ensure that they are responsibly managed. With today’s workforce operating across provincial and federal boundaries, pension legislation needs to reflect that reality.

Having the province as part of a federal-provincial-territorial agreement on multi-jurisdictional pension plans, and participation in this agreement allows the transfer of pension assets between jurisdictions when plans are merged or consolidated. That’s something that national employers increasingly seek to do.

Like my colleague from St. George’s - Humber said, it is always going to be done to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and through the pensioners themselves, and it won’t be done without the direct approval of the Superintendent of Pensions. Making sure that he has his stamp of approval on it is something that’s very important. With his expertise and his advice it ensures that the best decisions are being made in respect to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Speaker, in my previous life, I had the opportunity to participate in a DPSP, a deferred profit sharing plan. While it’s not exactly like a pension, it’s something similar to a defined contribution pension plan but it’s something that only the employer contributes based off a percentage of the profits. I’m a little bit familiar with that side of things, but I was fortunate enough to have my mother. She worked for 30 years in the banking industry in a financial institution, so I learned a lot of my knowledge on the financial side of things from her. She always told me one of the biggest things is to plan for the future. You need to plan for your future.

Now, I might be the youngest Member of this House, but I never think that it’s too early to plan for your future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

R. BALSOM: That’s something that I’ve always taken to heart. You know, I look at things for, when do I want to retire? When will I be able to look, to be able to see and say, you know, what now is the time for me to enjoy doing the things that I enjoy, take a trip, go hunting, go fishing, go camping. These are the things that, with the proposed changes to this legislation, it’s going to provide a little bit more security, some confidence to pensioners and to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that they’re going to ensure that they have this continued guarantee into their pension.

Speaker, it ensures that people are going to be able to retire with comfort. You know, you work all your life, you shouldn’t have to be worried. You shouldn’t have to be stressing over: Where’s the money going to come from? Is something going to happen to my pension? These changes are going to ensure that. They’re going to make sure that people have the ability to retire with comfort.

You know, when asset transfers aren’t permitted like they are now, employers may be forced to terminate local pension plans, and that’s going to have a very negative impact on the workers. This often means that funds are moved into locked-in retirement accounts which would require professional advice and placing a significant burden on the individuals.

By enabling direct pension transfers across provinces and territories, it’s going to avoid these disruptions and allow workers to remain in a pension plan, continue earning benefits and avoid unnecessary risks and complexity. That’s something that I would think about.

When I get older and when I go to retire, I don’t want to be worried about my pension. I don’t want to have to deal with the stress of not knowing if something is going to happen, if there’s uncertainty or how things are going to go forward. It’s about enjoying your retirement. You worked all these years, you get your pension and then ensuring that seniors will be able age with dignity.

While the current legislation does not allow for this, this is why the proposed changes to the Pension Benefits Act, 1997 , and its regulations. The goal is simple: protecting workers’ pensions, reducing risk and modernizing our legislation to reflect how people live and work today.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any further speakers?

If the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will end the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Speaker.

As a current minister, I’d like to thank everyone for their input on this very important bill and this amendment. I just want to reiterate the importance of this bill, backstopped by the Superintendent, which gives me full assurance that pensions indeed will be protected. Ultimately, he’s the gatekeeper.

I’ll say that again, the Superintendent is the backstop which gives me full assurance that pensions indeed will be protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Speaker, I listened to each Member and I wrote some notes.

I want to thank the Leader of the Third Party. He spoke about pensions fit to eat. This is a secure move, and I think we all agree, so that people can eat and be protected in these hard economic times. This is to solidify that the protection is there for the people that we represent.

It’s ironic that I would say, taking risk – which we know governments are known; that’s how the public see us – but that is the point, to take away risk. The Superintendent would never allow a transfer – to note some of the comments made – with lower solvency – never. This bill doesn’t allow any pensions to move unless they’re moving to a plan that is better for the members.

I just also wanted to note that this change applies – just so the public, if anyone is watching, they’re not confused – to a plan sponsor for employers’ and members’ registered pension plan. This isn’t about individual plans. This is something that we’re proposing to protect everyone outside these four walls in the best interest of all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 6 be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

Carried.

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 6)

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

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

L. PARROTT: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On 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. (Bill 6)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Humber - Gros Morne, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair and this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Dwyer): Order, please!

Before I begin, I would like to rule on a point of order raised by the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands yesterday.

I reviewed Hansard and rule that the matter was a disagreement between two hon. Members. There is no point of order.

We are now debating Bill 6,

An Act to Amend the Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

A bill, “Act to Amend the Pension Benefits Act, 1997.” (Bill 6)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I also thank the Members for correcting my

interpretation. I know the Members have a lot of experts texting them answers while they’re sitting there. I used to have that privilege; I don’t anymore, but I’m very happy the ministers across the way do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

S. STOODLEY: Okay.

So I accept that, but I think my points are still valid in terms of the solvency ratio. I accept and appreciate the clarification that members are not allowed to transfer out of the pension fund. This is just, I guess, in terms of the plan administrator. We do have some questions for the minister in terms of that.

I guess, my first question – I’m not sure if I should stand up or sit down? I don’t know if in Committee we only sit down now – anyway, it doesn’t matter. I’m wondering if the minister could walk us through exactly what is allowed today in terms of being transferred, please.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Chair, can I ask for clarification? It seemed like a broad question, if the Member opposite wouldn’t mind repeating, sorry.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

I was wondering if the minister could walk us through what exactly is allowed, today, in terms of what is being transferred to where, please.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: I’ll answer the question to the best of my ability. Transfers are not allowed, today, outside the province.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I am wondering in terms of the amendment, the bill that we’re in Committee on today – assuming we’re at a point where, after Royal Assent, the minister could walk us through what is allowed, what will be allowed in terms of what is being transferred and to what and where, please?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: I don’t know if I’m having a hard time hearing the Members – yes, I got it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible.)

M. GOOSNEY: No, mine is not working so well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn it up.

M. GOOSNEY: Yes, I have.

The question proposed was, where you can transfer to? Sorry, Member, I’m not trying to ignore you. I totally respect –

AN HON. MEMBER: Plug into the Member next to you.

M. GOOSNEY: No, I can hear. It’s just it’s very mumbled.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try this one. That better?

M. GOOSNEY: Yes.

CHAIR: We’ll just pause for one second until we get the minister’s earpiece.

Minister, we’re going to test your earpiece. Is it coming?

M. GOOSNEY: Yes.

CHAIR: The Chair acknowledges the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

I was wondering if the minister could clarify for this House, in terms of the bill and the amendment that he’s making today, after it receives Royal Assent, what will and will not be allowed to be transferred and where and how can and should it be transferred to, please.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: I’m very procedural. I noticed everybody yesterday was raising your hand and the Member opposite – is that part of the parcel?

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait for your light.

M. GOOSNEY: Okay.

If I heard the question correctly, it’s asked to where it can be transferred, so it’s anywhere in Canada and it’s only allowed in Canada, assets to be transferred. Ultimately, you have to be above the threshold and only when approved by the superintendent, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

Wondering if the minister could clarify, because I obviously misunderstood, in my reading of the amendment, who can make the transfers and who can’t make the transfers, please?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: Question, who can make the transfer – pension benefit plan holders only, not the individuals.

Does that answer your question?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

I wonder if the minister can walk us through, I guess, plans being transferred into Newfoundland and Labrador and how that works, please.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: To that question, the answer is plan sponsors are by request of employers and plan holders. Then it gets – bear with me – from the Superintendent at that point.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

Sorry, I didn’t catch all that. My mic is working but wondering if the minister can repeat that. What are the rules in terms of pensions being transferred into pension plans under the minister’s Pension Benefits Act?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: First of all, company pension plans will be allowed to be transferred but only with the approval of the superintendent.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

Is there a solvency percentage required when a pension is being transferred into Newfoundland and Labrador?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Government Services, and Labour.

M. GOOSNEY: The question was the minimum – I apologize, Speaker, I’m really having a hard time. Maybe I can just ask for the (inaudible), seeing how it’s quiet here?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Carried.

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

SPEAKER (Lane): The hon. the Member for Placentia West- Bellevue; Chair of Committee of the Whole.

J. DWYER: Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

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 progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

L. PARROTT: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

L. PARROTT: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Premier, that this House do now recess.

SPEAKER: It’s been moved and seconded that this House do now recess.

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The House is in recess until 2 p.m.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today in the public gallery, I would like to welcome Felicia Rosemary Power who is the subject of a Member’s statement. Felicia is accompanied by her parents Donna and David Power.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome Rod Forward, Margaret Forward and Robert Forward from The Big R Restaurant, who are also the subject of a Member’s statement.

Welcome to you, as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we will hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Lake Melville, Placentia - St. Mary’s, Placentia West - Bellevue and St. John’s Centre.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to pay tribute to Hank Penashue who was raised in Sheshatshiu, deeply rooted in traditions and strength of his Innu people. The vast homeland of Nitassinan shaped his spirit from childhood.

Nutshimit was where he felt most at peace – and that is out on the land, surrounded by the quiet power of nature, connected to his ancestors and to himself. Hank faced struggles in his life, including a battle with alcoholism. It was a difficult journey – one that many of us carry quietly. Yet, even through hardship, Hank remained a man of heart.

His challenges were only one part of his history, and they never erased the kindness that he carried with him. In Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Hank was known for his gentle spirit and he showed kindness to everyone who encountered him. Whether through a warm greeting, a simple conservation, a helping hand, he made people feel seen and respected. His presence carried humility and compassion. Hank was the proud father of his son, Robin and his three daughters, Mary Georgette, Monique and Louisa Penashue. They carry forward his memory, his roots and his deep love to Nutshimit.

Hank’s life was woven with both hardship and love, strength and gentleness, and he will be remembered for not only for the struggles he endured, but for the kindness he gave so freely and for the deep love he held for Nitassinan – a love that lives on in his children and in the land itself.

Speaker, I ask all in the hon. House to stand with me in acknowledging the life of Hank Penashue, an Elder of Sheshatshiu and forever a gentleman of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary’s.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Speaker, I rise today to recognize an inspiring woman from Mount Carmel-Mitchell’s Brook-St. Catherine’s, Miss Felicia Power.

Felicia is the eldest daughter of Donna and David Power. Born with Down syndrome, she faced significant health challenges early in life, yet she has never allowed this to define her. She completed her high school equivalency after attending school in Paradise and CBS, went on to the College of the North Atlantic and earned her entry-level early childhood education certification, working in daycare for several years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Felicia is a dedicated volunteer, known for serving tea, preparing food, decorating, speaking publicly and brightening age-friendly socials.

She participates in Special Olympics bowling and supports fundraising efforts for Special Olympics and the Newfoundland and Labrador Down Syndrome Society. She is also a model whose photos have appeared in Pie Magazine .

Most recently, Felicia fulfilled a lifelong dream by competing in the Miss Newfoundland and Labrador pageant in Carbonear, where she proudly represented her community and received both the People’s Choice and Miss Friendship Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: As Felicia says: “I have never let the fact that I have Down syndrome stop me from reaching my goals. I am not only a model. I am a role model.”

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

Today I rise in this hon. House to recognize the Arnold’s Cove Lions Club that makes up a huge part of the second-largest community within the beautiful District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

The Arnold's Cove Lions Club is an important volunteer organization in the small community of Arnold's Cove. The club focuses on community support and bringing residents together. Members organize a variety of local events and fundraisers throughout the year, helping raise money for community projects, charities and individuals in need.

They support youth activities, seniors’ programs and community celebrations – just over the weekend, they had a nice Irish stew for our seniors – e vents such as community dinners, charity draws and holiday activities. They are also known for responding when local families face emergencies and financial hardship.

Beyond fundraising, the club provides a place for people to volunteer, build friendships and contribute to the well-being of their town. Today it remains a proud symbol of local service and community spirit for residents and visitors.

From helping individuals in need, supporting other non-profit organizations and being strong community leaders, I stand here with pride to know we have such a great organization in our communities for people to turn to and look up to.

Speaker, I am calling on all communities to support them for the plethora of support they provide to our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

The Big R Restaurant has been serving delicious food to St. John’s residents and visitors alike for over 70 years. From its opening as Max’s Restaurant in 1952 to Rice’s Take Out to The Big R in1980, this locally owned restaurant is a labour of love of the Rice, McDonald and Forward families.

Rod Forward and his family are a testament to resiliency and entrepreneurial spirit.

The restaurant was originally located on Harvey Road until the fire of December 1992 destroyed it and other businesses. Undaunted, the Forwards rebuilt, reopened in March 1993, and opened their Blackmarsh Road location two months later. The Harvey Road location closed in 2019, but the Blackmarsh location still thrives.

Rod’s mother, Margaret, still bakes the delicious bread and desserts found at the restaurant.

Rod established a separate catering company with a different menu, serving sit-down dinners for weddings and functions and, recently, added a food truck to their services.

Owning a restaurant was Rod’s dream and his desire to serve and interact with people is reflected in the restaurant’s homey atmosphere.

Please join me in recognizing Rod, his family and parents, Margaret and Robert, for creating a restaurant that has become a city landmark.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I concur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I’ve got fish and chips on my brain there now.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: I’ve got fish and chips on my brain there now.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize the compassion, expertise and essential role that pharmacy professionals play in Newfoundland and Labrador’s health care system.

Pharmacy professionals, including pharmacists, technicians, assistants and interns are trusted, accessible health professionals and vital pillars of care in communities throughout the province. They support patients every day and make a meaningful contribution to public health.

Our new government is committed to listening to health care workers, including pharmacy professionals, to better understand the challenges they face and the solutions they recommend. We are already making concrete action; all 40 pharmacy students graduating from Memorial University in 2026 will be eligible for an enhanced $50,000 bursary through a return-in-service agreement to work in our public health system. This builds on existing recruitment and retention incentives, competitive benefits and access to the public service pension plan.

We are also rebalancing our system to strengthen team-based care and looking at ways to support expanded scope of practice for pharmacists. At the same time, we are calling on the federal government to resume negotiations with our province to implement a national pharmacare agreement that improves access to prescription drugs and diabetic supplies for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Speaker, on behalf of the provincial government, I thank all pharmacy professionals for their dedication and proudly proclaim March as Pharmacy Appreciation Month.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for recognizing the vital contributions of pharmacy professionals across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Pharmacists, technicians, assistants and interns are often the first point of contact in our health care system. They provide, not only medications, but trusted advice, continuity of care and reassurance, especially in parts of our province that do not have consistent access to a family doctor.

This is why our Liberal government worked hard to expand the scope of practice for pharmacists in this province. Giving pharmacists the ability to practice to their full scope is a win-win for residents of this province. It increases access to primary care for patients while reducing the strain on the province’s emergency rooms.

We also echo the call for meaningful progress on a national pharmacare agreement. This would improve access to medications, lowering out-of-pocket costs and creating a more equitable health system.

We wish pharmacists all the best in Pharmacy Appreciation Month.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement.

We, too, would like to express our deep gratitude and appreciation for the pharmacists who keep us well. It is unfortunate, through, that many in our communities can’t afford the products that they dispense. Now, if government had put half the enthusiasm into pharmacare that they did for the Bay du Nord, we would have a deal by now.

That’s why we, once again, call on this government – demand this government – to work with Ottawa and force Ottawa to sign a deal for the pharmacare program in Newfoundland and Labrador. Get this deal done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O’DRISCOLL: Speaker, this past weekend, Premier Wakeham and I had the privilege of attending Seafood Expo North America in Boston.

This annual event is the largest seafood exhibition in North America, bringing together thousands of buyers and suppliers from around the globe. For more than 40 years, Seafood Expo North America has been the premier event for the seafood industry leaders to exchange knowledge and foster business opportunities.

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador’s seafood is renowned for its freshness, sustainability and taste. The Seafood Expo is an ideal opportunity to showcase the world-class quality of our province’s seafood products. Seafood exports are vital to the livelihood of our province, supporting countless families and communities while generating over a billion dollars for the Newfoundland and Labrador's economy. Our province’s participation at the expo, not only helps to strengthen valuable business relationships, but also reinforces Newfoundland and Labrador’s prominent reputation in the international seafood market.

The Seafood Expo North America provides an important platform to highlight our commitment to the fishing and aquaculture industries and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador remains at the forefront of the global sector. I am confident that our efforts at the expo will help open new doors, drive economic growth and enhance prosperity for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, for all of us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I remind the hon. minister and all Members that we don’t refer to anyone in this house by their actual name, just their title.

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

E. LOVELESS: Mr. Speaker, as former minister, I can appreciate the Boston seafood show being one of the most influential global events in the seafood industry, bringing together buyers, suppliers and industry leaders from around the world. It is a venue for trade, innovation and expanding Newfoundland and Labrador’s presence in international markets. It’s very important.

Newfoundland and Labrador is one of Canada’s largest seafood exporters, with world-class products like snow crab, shrimp, cod and mussels and more. Events like this help us maintain that visibility in the global seafood market because, if we aren’t, competitors will fill the space immediately.

As the minister noted, this expo is also about demonstrating our commitment to the fishing and aquaculture industry. My time as minister in our government made it clear that workers in these sectors deserve stability, predictability and respect. That principle still maters today. The harvesters, processors, aquaculture workers and plant workers in rural communities who power this industry need a government that stands firmly behind them every single day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement.

We do have a great array of products that come from our waters and, rightfully so, they are in high demand around the world. It’s just too bad that they’re not always readily available or affordable in supermarkets here at home.

We, therefore, ask this government to double its efforts to improve access to local foods and ensure that people of our province are able to feed themselves with quality products grown and harvested here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Last week in this House, and in the media, the Premier stood by his claim that the staffer in his office is only being paid by MCP to advise on health care issues; however, we presented documents that prove that wasn’t the case, but the Premier has doubled down.

So I will give the Premier another opportunity today; will he admit that Dr. Whalen gives him political advice on things other than just health care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I make no apologies for hiring good people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: I make no apologies for taking policy advice from someone who works in our health care system; particularly, someone who is on the front lines of our health care system, working daily in emergency departments in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are also going to make sure that we get lots of policy advice when it comes to the social determinants of health, something that this government forgot about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Again, Speaker, they’re very specific questions, and I would appreciate an answer, as would Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The Premier said – and from Hansard , I quote – for providing policy advice to the Premier’s office on health care matters, and that is the only thing that he’s providing advice on.

As I said, we know, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know, that is not the case, because Dr. Whalen has been involved in other briefings that have absolutely nothing to do with health care.

Why does the Premier think it’s okay for MCP to pay for political advice that does nothing for health care in this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I’ll reiterate my comments about hiring good people and not afraid to take advice from people that work in the health care system on the front line.

That’s exactly what we have done and, perhaps, if the previous government had done a better job with that, we wouldn’t find ourselves in the mess we are in with our health care system right now.

SOME HON.