PDF Version

May 29, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 26

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

We'd

like to welcome some visitors today. In the public gallery we have Kevin O'Shea,

Linda Ross and Cheryl Mullett. They are members of the Access to Justice

Committee. They're going to be referenced in a Ministerial Statement this

afternoon.

Welcome

to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to welcome a

very new set of eyes to my right.

This

morning we're very pleased to have a ceremony; we call it the hanging ceremony.

We have a new tribute to number 43 in the line of Speakers; this is the former

speaker Osborne, now the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. He

gets to sit across from his portrait for the next little while.

Welcome

to you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

In the spirit of so much

going on in the Francophone community I'm very pleased to announce that this

morning, live on our website now, are aspects of the site that guides one

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I would like to thank the

and also my own team in the House of Assembly staff. Please enjoy that nice

bilingual website.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

I look forward to hearing from the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova,

Mount Pearl North, Bonavista, Harbour Main, Conception Bay East - Bell Island

and a little tribute from a minister who now represents the District of Corner

Brook. We'll hear from you as well.

The hon.

Member for the District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to acknowledge the tremendous

leadership and volunteer efforts of the Discovery Health Care Foundation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Formed in 1989, the board and

its partners have organized various fundraising efforts in support of health

care facilities and services to the residents of Clarenville, Bonavista and

Burin region.

The

Health Care Foundation is well known for several annual signature events

including the Dave Hawkins Memorial Hockey Game, the George Martin Golf

Tournament and the walk for mental health. On Sunday I, along with my colleagues

from the Districts of Bonavista and Placentia West - Bellevue, attended the

foundation's annual telethon at the Eastlink Events Centre.

Mr.

Speaker, this year's event was another huge success. Through support from local

Lions Clubs, volunteers and various musical performers, the foundation raised in

excess of $77,000 which will enhance community initiatives like the Tip-A-Vista

Foundation's Wellness Centre and the redevelopment of the emergency room at the

Bonavista hospital. In its 29-year history, the Discovery Health Care Foundation

has raised nearly $5.7 million.

I ask my

colleagues to join me in congratulating the Discovery Health Care Foundation for

its continued interest in the health of the citizens of my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to pay tribute to the contribution that service organizations provide to

our province. In particular, I am proud to acknowledge the Mount Pearl Kinsmen

and Kinettes and to show my appreciation for their spirit of giving. The Kinsmen

and Kinette Clubs of Canada are the largest Canadian-only service organization.

The

Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Mount Pearl are made up of passionate members who

work together to improve our community. Contributions from their fundraising

efforts provide valuable support and services to many worthwhile causes. From

raising money for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis, to volunteering their

time and providing advocacy for the national organ donation program, their

efforts are invaluable.

The

Mount Pearl Kinsmen provide sponsorship to Mount Pearl Minor Hockey and the

local Air Cadets. They also organize various fundraisers and host many events

such as the annual Christmas seniors' dinner. The Mount Pearl Kinettes also host

many events and fundraisers which include their annual Trivia Night which I had

fun participating in this year.

I would

ask all Members present to join me in congratulating all the good work of the

Mount Pearl Kinsmen and Kinettes and all service organizations throughout our

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, it's an honour

to recognize the robotics team of Heritage Collegiate. Through the years,

Heritage has been known for its robotics teams; however, in recent years,

interest waned. Through the guidance of mentors Stewart Churchill and Lyndon

Williams, with a renewed interest from 10 eager students, Heritage recently

competed at provincials for the first time since 2015.

The

Marine Advanced Technology Education (MATE) competition was held at the Marine

Institute with over a dozen teams competing. After MATE was completed, Heritage

was one of two teams to qualify for the international competition in Seattle.

This competition of 50 teams begins on June 21 and our team is hard at work to

improve their ROV.

Working

since September, our team has built their ROV from the ground up. They do their

own computer programming and are quite resourceful in salvaging parts from

household items to save on costs. Even an old set of speakers comes in handy as

the end result is a medley of pipes, motors, glue, sweat and elbow grease.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating Heritage Collegiate on their

performance at MATE and wish them our best as they head to worlds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for District

of Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, local businesses

are no doubt the lifeblood of many rural communities, and oftentimes receive

international recognition for their products. Such is the case of the

Newfoundland Distillery Company located in Clarke's Beach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PARSLEY:

They have been awarded a

double gold medal for their Seaweed Gin at the San Francisco World Spirit

Competition and silver for their Cloudberry Gin.

Winning

a double gold means that their Seaweed Gin is among the finest products in the

world and that each member of the judging panel independently awarded it a gold

medal.

The

Seaweed Gin is made using seaweed harvested from the Grand Banks, the barley

from Cormack paired with local juniper and a hint of savoury. It is a unique gin

that blends the classic flavour of juniper with the taste and freshness of the

ocean air of our windy shoreline. The Cloudberry Gin has local juniper,

cloudberries and a dash of savoury. This has the classic gin taste enhanced by

citrus and fruit notes to give a complex and a smooth gin.

I extend

congratulations to Mr. Peter Wilkins and the Newfoundland Distillery Company on

receiving this prestigious award.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize a sports team with players from my district who made history

by winning the gold medal in the Boys Ice Hockey division of the recently held

provincial Winter Games in Deer Lake. I speak of the St. John's North Boys

Hockey team who are made up of players from the St. John's North area which

includes Paradise and Portugal Cove-St. Philip's in my district.

Mr.

Speaker, this team went undefeated during the round robin play and defeated the

Mount Pearl South team in the gold medal game with a 3-1 victory. These games

give young men and women from every corner of our province an opportunity to

compete for their regions in a variety of high-level competitive sports and to

make lasting friendships and memories.

Believe

it or not, Mr. Speaker, I, too, had the privilege of participating in past games

and I am forever grateful for the thrill of competition and the memories and

friendships that I cherish. Unfortunately, I never did make it to the podium but

the memories live on.

I do

want to congratulate all who participated in this year's Newfoundland and

Labrador Winter Games, but I particularly would like to congratulate the St.

John's North Hockey Team players from my district: Brady Mitchelmore, Will

Williams and Thomas O'Brien, who were key contributors to the regional team

winning goal.

Good

luck in your future hockey participation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Corner Book who will need to seek leave before he proceeds, please.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, consultations

have been held with the parties and I think if you seek it, you will find

unanimous consent.

Mr.

Speaker, imagine having a kind of looking glass to be able to peer into one full

century and see the start of yet another. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, what it would be

like to speak to someone who could recall from memory every milestone event of

the 20th century and into the 21st century right up to the present day.

If you

were blessed by knowing the late Mary Power of Corner Brook, you would have such

a window. Mary passed away a week ago today, Mr. Speaker, sound in mind and

spirit, but seeking rest from a very long, well-lived life after having met the

wonderful milestone of being 108 years young.

Don't

think for one second, Mr. Speaker, that Mary was captured by nostalgia of that

which was passed. She was a woman of progress, of change and of achievement.

Known

better as Muffy, Mary Power was a powerhouse of ideas, dreams and actions. She

loved her family and lived for them. She was a devoted instrument of her Roman

Catholic faith. She was a life of true example, but don't think for one moment

that it was a life of solitude or without a certain edge. She enjoyed her toddy

of gin, an odd trip to Vegas, and to stay on the dance floor from one year

literally on into the next. And that was while she was still in her 90s, Mr.

Speaker.

Muffy's

life was not a catalogue of events. It was a life of exceptionalities,

well-lived, and on each and every straightaway and turn she lived it. She added

to every moment and every life she touched. I'm very happy to have been one of

her occasional visitors and to sit with her as often as I possibly could as she

told stories of my own family, the Main Street Byrne's, and of her own family

and their enduring friendships with each other.

Oh Lord,

let your perpetual light shine upon Mary Power and let the souls of all of the

faithfully departed rest in peace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety and the Attorney General.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, our government

is working hard to ensure that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have access

to justice. I'm happy to say we have made great progress through initiatives

such as the Sexual Violence Legal Support Program, Drug Treatment Court,

additional supports for victims of revenge pornography and the study into bail

supervision. Mr. Speaker, these initiatives are made possible because of a group

of hardworking individuals who are committed to access to justice.

The

Newfoundland and Labrador Access to Justice Steering Committee was formed in

2013 and has met on a regular basis to share information, develop partnerships,

and to encourage and promote a variety of access to justice initiatives in the

province.

Mr.

Speaker, we have members from the Department of Justice and Public Safety, the

Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, both General and Family Divisions, the

Provincial Court, the Legal Aid Commission, the Law Society, the Canadian Bar

Association, the Public Legal Information Association, the Provincial Advisory

School District.

Since

2016, the committee has established five free legal clinics in the province. The

Small Claims Legal Assistance Clinic, the Court of Appeal Legal Assistance

Clinic, the Access Law Clinic, the Gathering Place Legal Assistance Clinic, and

the Choices for Youth Legal Assistance Clinic and they have assisted 311

participants. Seventy-three volunteer lawyers, articling students and law

students have generously given over 250 hours of legal service to the community.

Mr.

Speaker, I am thrilled to see these community members who are working hard to

improve the justice system in Newfoundland and Labrador and it's my pleasure to

recognize them in the House of Assembly today, including people like Kevin

O'Shea, Cheryl Mullett, Linda Ross and those that may be watching on TV.

Mr.

Speaker, thank you so much, and to these individuals I'd say thank you for your

commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of

Topsail - Paradise.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for

providing us with an advance copy of his statement today. Also, we want to join

with the minister and the government in recognizing the good work undertaken by

the Steering Committee, all of its members and the volunteers who support their

work and who come from a variety of backgrounds. It's always advantageous when

the government consult and engage outside of that government bubble, and those

who have particular skills and expertise add great value to any endeavour.

It's the responsibility of government, Mr. Speaker, to

then action the various items and proposals that come forward. While government

seems to have brought forward some or many of these ideas, there are still some

others that need to be actioned. A case in point would be Bill 12, the

Protection of Intimate Images Act, which was announced back in April but hasn't

made it to the floor of the House of Assembly yet. Well, we're only a couple of

days left in this session.

So while I commend the minister for engaging with the

group, for making progress and working towards those goals, I encourage him to

bring the ideas forward in a timely and responsible manner. Again, I want to

very briefly thank all Steering Committee members for their assistance and their

direction. We all look forward to further positive recommendations that will

benefit all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

ROGERS:

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the minister.

Thank you and congratulations to all those on the

Access to Justice Steering Committee for their progressive and innovative work.

Bravo!

We lost a family resource office at our local Legal Aid

office. Fewer and fewer people have representation because they can't afford

lawyers, resulting in more people self-representing. Justice Green has raised

that alarm numerous times. A drug court only works if the necessary wraparound

and rehabilitation services are in place, and 60 per cent of inmates in our

corrections facilities are on remand. We need a better and more just bail

supervision program. There is a lot more work to be done.

Again, to those who have so generously served on the

Access to Justice Steering Committee, thank you for your expertise and crucial

work. Thank you and

bravo!

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

Ministers.

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize the outstanding achievements of two members of the Department of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

Fish and

Wildlife Enforcement Officer Mark Gilliam and Superintendent Barry White were

recently nominated for the 2018 Peace Officer of the Year Award. This award,

presented annually by Newfoundland and Labrador Crime Stoppers, recognizes the

successes of recipients both on the job and in their respective communities.

congratulate Mr. Gilliam on his nomination and I applaud Mr. White for being

named the 2018 Peace Officer of the Year.

Mr.

White was not able to be here in the House of Assembly today, Mr. Speaker, but

is instead involved in specialized training today that will further benefit the

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and wildlife enforcement.

Mr.

Speaker, Barry White was born and raised in Millertown, and is a

second-generation Wildlife Enforcement Officer. Over the past 25 years,

Superintendent White has worked as an officer in Cartwright, in Carmanville, in

Gander and, most recently, in St. John's, where he has been the Regional

Superintendent since April 2011.

Superintendent White is heavily involved in a number of community groups in St.

John's and surrounding areas, including the Law Enforcement Torch Run, Special

Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador, Paradise Grasshoppers, Newfoundland and

Labrador Police and Peace Officer Memorial, Uniformed Services Gala, Gender

Equity Committee (through the Department of Justice and Public Safety) and the

Duke of Edinburgh Awards. He is also a coach of female under-12 soccer.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleagues to join with me in recognizing

and congratulating Superintendent White for his dedication to the wildlife of

our province and the social well-being of our communities. It is because of

people like Barry White that our province will continue to flourish in years to

come.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Again I

thank the minister for providing us with an advance copy of his statement today.

We join with him, government and the people of our province in congratulating

two distinguished peace officers, and not only those as well, but also the

police officers of the year.

I had

the pleasure to attend the annual Police and Peace Officers of the Year event

recently that was held in Conception Bay South and was quite pleased at the

calibre of those finalists that were there. There were several finalists there

in each category and they had, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, very impressive

backgrounds, not only strictly in enforcement, but also with the work they do in

the community.

I know

Superintendent Barry White. He lives in Paradise in a part of my own district.

Some of the work they've done there has been of great value to citizens within

the town, but not only that, throughout the province.

Again, I

join with the minister in extending these congratulations and wish them all the

very best.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased to join

him in congratulating both Mark Gilliam and Barry White on being nominated for

2018 Peace Officer of the Year and offer special congratulations to

Superintendent Barry White on receiving this year's honour.

I also

thank all the workers in Fisheries and Land Resources as their dedication to

wildlife and public service is an essential part of our communities all over the

province. Both Superintendent White and enforcement officer Gilliam exemplify

this commitment. I, again, congratulate them on their continued successes.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, in early December of 2017 the minister announced a province-wide audit

of road ambulances. The minister stated it would be completed in nine weeks.

It's

been six months. Where's the report, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, for the question.

engaged an outside company to do this work and they have asked for an extension.

They had some challenges validating the data. I expect the report within the

next fortnight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

audit was requested so the people throughout our province could have knowledge

that in case of emergencies they could rely on an ambulance.

While I

realize the audit is not completed, are there any findings here that could be

shared so people can feel comfortable about response times for emergencies?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

people of this province can feel confident in the ambulance service they have,

both on the ground and in the air. This audit will take another two weeks or so

fortnight. I apologize.

The

facts of the case are, Mr. Speaker, the audit of response times is an

operational activity undertaken by the RHAs and occasionally by the department

on an as-needed basis. That is independent of the financial audit which will be

ready in two weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, we know that

people in the province have lost their lives while waiting for an ambulance. The

minister gave his word to have the results of the audit publicly released within

a matter of weeks.

Why has

the minister chosen not to proactively disclose the delay up until this point?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It was

my view, and the view of the auditors, that this should be presented as a

package, complete, without any hands in the pie from any sources. That was my

aim, to have a transparent and independent audit. That is what we will deliver.

Two weeks is the time I have been given, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When

chemo patients were sent home in Central the minister blamed it on staff. When

the health ethics board held up life-saving clinical trials, the minister didn't

know there was a problem. Now the ambulance audit is delayed and this is his

explanation.

Will the

minister guarantee that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have access

to that audit within the next two weeks?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As I

have said from the get-go, the results of that audit will be made public. They

will be ready, according to the auditors, in two weeks' time. When we have it,

we will release it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A doctor

who received a $50,000 government bursary to work in our province had his job

offer at St. Clare's hospital cancelled.

Can the

minister explain why the job offer, which was offered to fill a critical

radiology position, was cancelled?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It was

an unfortunate situation which I was made aware of through the media. I have

directed Eastern Health to describe to me the circumstances around their

decision process and let me know. At the moment I only know what's out there in

the media.

We do,

however, have a very successful bursary program; we have 22 bursaries, in actual

fact. In general, these work very well. This is only the second case in over two

decades that Eastern Health had where there has been this kind of a problem.

We're looking into it and I will report back when I have some more to tell you,

Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

bit alarming when – what message does this send to our health professionals who

are working to recruit and retain when a regional health authority cancels a job

offer agreed to?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, for the question.

Recruitment and retention has been an issue in this province for a considerable

period of time. We are working through a variety of means, both with Memorial

and the faculty of medicine, to grow our own recruits and to keep them.

We have

a distributed medical education program which is second to none. Our retention

rates in this province for our own graduates are as good as any other

jurisdiction at 10 years, Mr. Speaker. We are making a difference; we will look

into this hiccup.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, I think it's

more than a hiccup when you've got Western Health currently looking for a

radiologist that's in dire need.

Why

would Eastern Health pull a contract for a radiologist when it's so challenging

to recruit and retain radiologists in our province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As I

have said, and I will repeat again, I have directed Eastern Health to look into

their decision-making process and apprise me of it.

We are

always faced with challenges with recruitment, Mr. Speaker; but, as a fact, we

have over 1,200 physicians in this province, the largest number we have ever had

in this province. We lead the country in doctors per capita. It is not all doom

and gloom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

people of our province deserve the best and brightest medical professionals, and

the government is responsible for recruiting these doctors.

Why did

the government allow the service of a Newfoundland doctor to go to the United

States instead of remaining here in Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, once again, I

cannot speak to the specifics. We offer in this province a very, very

competitive package with Atlantic Canada and we offer some of the best working

circumstances for physicians in any jurisdiction in this country.

We will

look into the instances of this particular decision, Mr. Speaker, but this is an

exceptionality. It is the second time it has happened in several decades of

regular offering of bursaries. We will look into it. We'll let you know, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People

living and visiting our province are feeling the pain at the pumps. All

indications point to record high gas prices into the summer.

Will the

minister take immediate action and lower the gas tax?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, oil prices are volatile. I'm not going to commit today to taking action

knowing that last week oil was at $80 a barrel, today I believe it's at $75 a

barrel.

What I

will say, Mr. Speaker, is we've committed to phase out the remaining gas tax as

the carbon tax, which is imposed upon us by the federal government, is phased

in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Drivers cannot afford these

high gas prices.

Will the

minister agree that the high gas prices in this province are endangering our

already fragile economy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, tourism numbers

are up. Gas prices have not stopped tourists from coming here. In fact, they're

at record numbers; while gas prices at the pump are higher in British Columbia

than they are here.

The

Member can fear monger if he wishes, but oil prices are volatile. We've seen oil

prices in the last 12 months, Mr. Speaker, go from lower than $60 a barrel up to

$80 a barrel. We're not going to make rash decisions. That was the pattern of

the Members opposite to make decisions based on what a barrel of oil was today,

and we saw where it got the economy and where it got the finances of this

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not fear mongering but I do have some fear here after

hearing the minister mention a carbon tax and what impact that would have on gas

prices. So we're going to look forward to that discussion over the next number

of days.

Your government increased the gas tax in

Budget 2016 . This gas tax is hurting

families, businesses and the economy.

Will the minister direct the immediate repeal of the

remaining gas tax as introduced in Budget

2016 ?

MR. SPEAKER: The

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr.

Speaker, I find it absolutely incredible that if something good happens in the

province they're going to jump to their feet and say: We did it. But what they

don't jump to their feet and say is we did it when they had a $2.7 billion

deficit in this province and didn't bother to tell the people of the province;

didn't have a mid-year update. They continued to tell the people of the province

it was a $1.1 billion deficit.

Yes, we made tough decisions in 2016, because you left the

province in the situation where they couldn't make payroll.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From that exchange, when you cut through all the rhetoric,

I'll tell you one thing we just learned. We learned that the government is going

to replace the gas tax with a carbon tax. That's what the minister just said,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it's becoming increasingly apparent that

police will not have the approved roadside screening devices needed to enforce

the law when marijuana becomes legalized.

I ask the Premier: What is police in Newfoundland and

Labrador expected to do to fill this void?

MR. SPEAKER: The

Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the first thing to point out right now is that as

of today, impaired driving is illegal. As of tomorrow, impaired driving will be

illegal. When cannabis is legalized, impaired driving will still be illegal.

The police right now, every single day, are detecting

impaired driving through their specialized training, a DRE Program which has

been around since the 1970s. It came out of California. In fact, it's been

legislated in this country since 2008 through the

Criminal Code .

If you spoke to Constable Karen Didham yesterday, someone

who has been doing this work for some time, what she says is: They are ready.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Part of the new bill and the legalization process will also

be to identify drivers when they're between 2 nanograms and less than 5

nanograms. Another law is 5 nanograms or more; another one is 2.5 nanograms when

there are 50 milligrams of alcohol. These roadside devices are intended to help

guide police in determining the level of THC content.

How are police going to fill that void?

MR. SPEAKER: The

Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Again, we're dealing with a situation here where we do have

policy that's going forward. Much of this policy is driven by the federal

government. I'm not sure if the Members opposite have spoken to their members of

the Senate or their members in Ottawa to talk about this.

Every province faces the same challenges, which is there is

no federally approved screening

device. The fact is that impaired driving will still be tested. What you can do

is a Standard Field Sobriety Test followed by a DRE. The fact is you can test

blood through a urine sample right now.

The fact

remains that legal or not legal, people, unfortunately, are driving impaired in

this province. Thankfully, we have some of the best police officers in the world

right here in Newfoundland and Labrador and I have faith in them.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I join

in with the comment of the minister, that we have great police officers in this

province. There are no two ways about it, absolute great police officers, very

talented, very capable, very well experienced, but it's hard for them to do

their job if they don't have the technical devices that the law allows for

usage. That's the problem. We're not criticizing police. It's about not giving

them the tools to do their job.

Mr.

Speaker, the government has indicated that drivers can safely drive with less

than 2 nanograms in their bloodstream. Can the minister tell us exactly what

that means?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, Mr. Speaker, the tone

of the questions from the Member opposite, not just in this last week but over

the last little while, I think have been inspired to create fear in the general

public once the legalization of cannabis happens. The fact remains, that's

simply not the case.

What we

are having is a legalization of cannabis that is being driven by the federal

government. We, here as a province, have said that we will do what we can within

our power to be ready for this. That's why we have four pieces of legislation

that are ready within government.

What I

will point out, I think it is interesting, that the legislation we debated last

night and will debate today, the Highway

Traffic Act , the president of MADD Canada came out and said it's amongst the

best in the country. She was here last night, she watched the debate. So when I

hear somebody like that talking, I know we're on the right track.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I've had

conversations myself with the president of MADD. MADD does great work. I talked

about them yesterday in debate in the House here. They do great work in the

province and they do great work in the country as well, Mr. Speaker. They do

support the levels that are going to be contained within the legislation. The

problem is there's no way for the police to evaluate those levels at this point

in time because the device has not been approved, they haven't been obtained,

there's no policy and there's been no training, Mr. Speaker.

Even

today, we hear last night in the Senate two dozen amendments unanimously passed

by Committee in the Senate just last night.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: With changes still happening in the federal

government, how are those changes likely to impact your legislation that you're

trying to pass here today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

all we can do as a province is control the changes that are within our control.

We are debating legislation that is of a provincial jurisdiction.

What the

Member opposite is talking about is federal issues and I don't know what he

expects. Does he expect us to do nothing and allow the feds to come in and

impose their system? What we're showing here is that we as a province are ready

to act. We've said it all along, we're doing it now.

The

federal approved screening device is exactly that, it's a federal approved

screening device. Legislation in the Senate – again, it's up at the federal

level. What we're doing here is making legislation that we have the power to do

within provincial jurisdiction regarding smoke-free environment, regarding

consumption, regarding everything else.

We've

taken action and we're ready to debate.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, many people not only in our province, but

in our country have some sense of their personal limits when it comes to

drinking alcohol and driving. It should be zero for everybody. Some people

choose and they have some sense of where they're very, very safe. Two nanograms;

people really don't know what that – or understand what that means and the

minister hasn't told us.

I ask the government: How will you educate and inform

people on the use of marijuana? What will equate or expectations be to reach two

nanograms? How will people know what their limit is before we even get off the

ground here?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

The

first message I'm going to put out: Driving impaired is illegal – period. That's

the first message that we're going to put out.

Thankfully, what we have here is some of the most

progressive legislation in the country as evidenced by the support of groups

like MADD Canada, a national organization. As evidenced by our progressive

policy, we have no tolerance whatsoever when it comes to novice drivers, drivers

under the age of 22 and commercial drivers.

The fact remains, yes, with this huge policy shift that

is happening everywhere, we have a duty as a province to roll out education and

awareness programs. We will do that but first we need to get the legislation in

place which we are debating in this House. We will continue on, we will continue

educating and we will be ready for whatever comes our way.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR.

P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the minister was: How are people going

to have an understanding of what the level is? What is that level of impairment?

What is that legal limit? What do those two nanograms mean? The minister hasn't

provided it. If he can provide it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I'll ask the minister if school curriculums or

educational institutions, either our public system or post graduates – will

there be programs introduced so that people better understand how marijuana

impacts the human body, what causes the impairment and those levels of

impairment?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I agree with the Member opposite, there is a

lot of education to come with this; I've been stressing that for the two years

that I've been in this position. We've also stressed that point to our federal

counterparts.

With this huge policy shift that they have indicated

they will be imposing on our country – and we've been ready for it – part of

that is education. That's why the feds will be coming

up with a significant

education awareness program that will be rolled out not just to school kids, but

to the entire population. That is coming. You will see it soon.

Right

now, we are dealing with the legislative side. We don't know what the

legislation is. We've put forward what we think is a very strong proposal in

terms of what we can control. We remain to see what comes up to the federal

side. Either way, what comes out, we do need to educate the public. There will

be a significant public education and awareness program that people can expect

to see.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Topsail -

Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lloyd

Hobbs of SafetyNL says that employers are waiting for guidance from the

government as employers need to adopt policies, understand those policies and

educate their employees on policies right away in preparation for the

legalization of marijuana.

I ask

the government: When can employers expect the necessary concrete guidance they

need to develop and educate their employees?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of

the things about passing on guidance is that, obviously, we have to know what it

is we are dealing with. Right now, we are just dealing with the legislation.

It's

interesting. The Member opposite has criticized us by saying you're taking so

long; now, we can't do it fast enough. We can't get the information out fast

enough.

The

first thing we have to do is have legislation passed by this House. I will point

out that we will have this done some time during the month of May or June.

Either way, legalization will not be happening in July of 2018. We will be

ready.

What I

will say is we'll continue to work with WorkplaceNL and work with the employment

community. We've already done one of the largest public consultation campaigns

in the history of this province when it comes to this and we'll continue to work

with these groups to ensure safety is preserved.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: What studies were done at the

Newfoundland Liquor Corporation related to projected gross sales of marijuana

when legalized?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

numbers that they've used were numbers provided federally. At this particular

stage this is a brand new industry. Even numbers that are provided to us, Mr.

Speaker, we can't say for certain whether those numbers are going to be met or

whether they're going to be well exceeded.

At this

particular stage it's a brand new market, it's a brand new product for the NLC.

We can only give best estimates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister more specifically: Were there actual studies done by the NLC by

auditing firms or any other groups or consultants related to this issue here in

the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if

you went down on Water Street with an auditing firm and asked the current

retailers of cannabis for their sales projections and sales numbers, if they'd

give you the accurate numbers. All we can go by are the numbers that the federal

government provided us. That's what we're going by.

Again, I

don't know how often I need to say it: It's brand new territory, it's a brand

new business and it's a brand new product for the NLC. We have to be nimble. I

believe that the numbers we put in, Mr. Speaker, were a cautious projection. I

hope they're exceeded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

straightforward question to the minister: Did the Liquor Corporation engage a

consultant or others to do a study on the projected sales of marijuana and what

the gross profits would be?

straightforward question: Did it occur or did it not? That's the question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I will say that

I have a great deal of confidence in the NLC; they've been dealing in controlled

substances for decades. I believe they know how to set up retail shops. I

believe they know how to do distribution. I believe they know how to make

projections on sales.

What I

will also say is I'm not aware of any auditing firm that conducted studies on

sales projections, Mr. Speaker, but I can certainly ask.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, when compared to the percentage of net return on alcohol sales – about

50-60 per cent – what is the expected return on gross sales of marijuana?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

The

dollar figures, I believe, were $5.8 million that we're expecting this year as

revenue to the province. Out of that, there are some expenses. We've outlined

that previously in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker; the expenses that are

associated with it. In addition to that, there are other expenses that the

provincial government will take on for education and so on.

Again,

these are just projections. We have absolutely no certainty whether these are

going to be right on the nose or whether they're going to be exceeded. I

certainly hope that these numbers are exceeded, Mr. Speaker, but we don't know

the market yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understand where the minister is coming from but there would have been, I'm

sure, some projections in terms of what those actual gross revenues would be.

In the

Cannabis Act it references a

federal-provincial taxation agreement: Where sales exceed $100 million the rate

of return to the province changes.

I ask

the minister: What is the basis for this $100 million in the tax agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

At a

federal-provincial-territorial meeting of Finance ministers we were provided

with the $100 million figure by the federal minister. Those are federal

calculations, Mr. Speaker. There was a negotiation that took place.

I will

say with the input of our Premier this province was able to negotiate the $100

million cap at the national level. Once we exceed that, the profits – instead of

75 per cent to the province – will be shared provincially on a proportional

basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understand as with alcohol sales that money remittance of gross sales revenues

must be completed for marijuana sales with a portion reflecting the monthly

revenue to the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation.

Is this

the method that Canopy Growth will use to get back for any infrastructure they

build in Newfoundland for production and retail of cannabis until their

$40-million investment is paid back to them?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

the opportunity to clarify again the Canopy investment where they will be

building a $55-million facility. With that agreement that is put in place,

they're operating for 20 years and 145 jobs.

They

have the ability, with their four retail stores, for any product that is sold

within the province they will remit a reduction in sales remittances until their

$40 million is recouped – only in their retail stores.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did

get somewhat of an answer. That's the method. The $55 million they spend on

infrastructure will now be – they'll draw back. It's not going to go into the

Provincial Treasury; they're going to draw back, that $55 million.

Are

facilities built by Canopy Growth and paid for by those revenues from the

production and retail of marijuana – or retail as you've indicated – by the

company on completion? Are those premises owned by Canopy Growth or will

taxpayers own them as they have paid for those facilities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The Canopy Growth Corporation

is making an investment. They're a publicly traded company in Newfoundland and

Labrador. They will be setting up their retail outlets.

Their

production facility of what they're making, their capital investment will be

upwards of $55 million. They're only able to recoup a maximum of $40 million

based on their agreement. They can only recoup any funds for sales that are made

at their retail outlets in Newfoundland and Labrador, and for a product that

would either be sold online through this particular agreement and deal.

There is

no tax exchange, there is no money provincially that is going into any of these

operations. They have to sell product here in Newfoundland and Labrador before

they can ever get a refund.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Third

Party.

MS. ROGERS:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety has announced an independent review of the tragic three deaths in

provincial corrections centres that happened since August to be undertaken by

retired superintendent Jesso.

I ask

the Premier: Will he immediately release the terms of reference and powers of

the investigator so that the families and the public will know what her work

will involve, what her time frame is, what resources she will have, who will she

report to and if her report will be tabled in the House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Justice and

Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

can say is that yesterday I did announce an internal investigation – an internal

investigation, not an inquiry – into these tragic situations, something that

concerns us very much. Action is being taken.

We have

retained Marlene Jesso – a 34-year veteran of the RNC, someone with significant

experience – to undertake this investigation for us. We look forward to the work

being started which I think, actually, the work has already commenced as of

today. We look forward to getting that information back.

The

purpose of doing this investigation is to determine if our policies and

procedures were followed – if they were followed, they were appropriate – and

making sure that those who lost individuals find out what happened. I think the

public is interested in this information. I look forward to getting that

information as soon as we have it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Third

Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I will

assume that information will be made public. Mr. Speaker, in March 2017 the

All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions recommended mental health

services in correctional facilities be provided by Health and Community

Service's system. The action plan committed to doing this by 2021; four years

since the recommendation, three years from now. 2021 is too late; these services

need to be provided now.

I ask

the Premier: Given the crisis of mental health issues in our corrections

facilities, will he commit to transferring mental health services in

correctional facilities to the health authorities immediately?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

Towards Recovery

did indeed state that physical and mental health services for corrections

inmates in any provincial jurisdiction would be transferred to the Department of

Health. That is underway.

We are

certainly on time, if not ahead of schedule. I hope to be able to announce some

progress in a very tangible way in the not-too-distant future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Canadian Institute for Health Information reports that this province has some of

the highest rates in the country for use of restraints and antipsychotic drugs

on nursing home residents with dementia.

I ask

the Minister of Health and Community Services: What is his government doing to

lower the instance of these practices?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

pleased to inform the member opposite through the Canadian Foundation for Health

Improvement we were part of a multi-center national trial. We had 110 residents

in long-term care in this province as part of that. Through a pilot scheme, we

actually had a significant reduction in that population of inappropriate use of

antipsychotics. The use went down by half.

Nationally, that reduction was of the order of 40 per cent. I hope to be able to

announce in the not-to-distant future a provincial-wide program to deal with

this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for St. John's

East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I think

government will also be introducing a program to assess residents and provide

specific routines for each resident in order to make the nursing home

environment friendlier and more responsive to each resident's needs.

I ask

the minister: Will he ensure that new staff will be provided to carry out these

assessments and new routines? Or will this be another task assigned to

overworked existing staff?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Health and

Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to

stand up here and talk about our long-term care and home care assessment

process. We have revamped them and are continuing to improve them.

These

will ultimately result in individualized patient-care plans for residents of

long-term care to address their social, physical and psychological needs on an

as-needed, case-by-case, personalized basis. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, we will

have that assessment tool out in the community for clients of the home-support

system as well.

This

system is undergoing a whole reboot. It will be done progressively over the next

three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move

the following resolution:

Be it resolved that the House of Assembly urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish an all-party Select

Committee on Democratic Reform.

Further,

pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), I move that this House do not adjourn at 5:30

p.m. on Thursday, May 31.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament

assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

school-aged children are walking to school in areas with no sidewalks, no

traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks; and

WHEREAS

this puts the safety of these children at risk;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to ensure the safety of all children by removing

the 1.6-kilometre busing policy where safety is a concern.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, a number of my colleagues have spoken to the issue around bus safety,

but particularly around those children who have to walk to school, those

students in areas where the dramatic changes in traffic flows, in shouldering in

particular areas, and in the nature of the type of traffic where we have big

developing areas and high-traffic volume areas. It's a safety issue for

everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador with children having to walk within the

1.6, and it has a major impact on it.

We've

looked at it, and we've even had some discussions around the financial costing.

We know over the last number of years there's been a number of rural areas where

there's been a reduction in the number of buses necessary. So we realize that

everything has a cost implication. We understand there are restrictions on that

and you have to work within the confines of certain budgets, but you've got to

look at the safety component here.

On a

yearly basis we're saving money in particular areas of this province because of

lower enrolment and smaller contracts with the busing companies because we need

fewer and fewer buses. We are looking at the fact that courtesy busing, no

doubt, is important and does work to a certain degree, but it is the

inconsistency of it. It's the administrative nightmare it puts on administrators

and somebody dedicated within the school district and a particular school to try

and allot it.

Then it

becomes almost like a lottery game. If you fit into a certain pigeon hole, you

have access to it. That becomes encompassing. There's a process here to look at

changing that policy. That's a 45-year-old policy that's been in play that needs

to be reviewed here, because it's about safety. It's about the geography has

changed in communities, particularly heavy growth areas, and we're talking about

when you identify safety concerns.

Maybe

there's not a one-fits-all process here, but there has to be a dialogue and a

discussion and an openness for the school district and the department to

seriously have a look at the 1.6 busing. It's ironic that only a couple of weeks

ago, with very little conversation on a public notice, and there's sort of been

a don't ask, don't tell concept of bus companies picking up kids along the way

in certain areas when there's space on their buses to ensure kids are safely

walking, and this hasn't happened.

So we're

encouraging government to take a full review of this and set up a process that

works for everybody and continues to keep people safe.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find

it really ironic today that the Members opposite talked about the fact it's a

45-year-old policy. They had the last 12 years to change that policy. So

obviously over those 12 years, Mr. Speaker, they did not see fit that there was

a safety issue or any other issue with the 1.6 kilometre busing route. Now all

of a sudden it's a concern for them. I find that ironic.

Mr.

Speaker, instead of spending more time just talking about what they've been

doing or what they have not done over the last 12 years – again, it's important

for all of us. This is a policy, if you do a jurisdictional scan across the

entire country you will find that a 1.6 kilometre is in line with most of the

provinces across Canada. It's something not unique to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

understand the 1.6 kilometre. I have four grandchildren that are actually going

to school in Toronto. I'd like for them to go and research what happens in

Toronto, in Ontario as well, when it comes to kilometres.

Mr.

Speaker, we're well aware of that. When it comes to looking at where the school

board is, it's certainly an issue that the school board is working within the

policy that we have.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to rise today and to present a petition on behalf of residents in my district

related to the Witless Bay Line, Route 13, a well-travelled highway and

significant piece of infrastructure, the connection of the Trans-Canada Highway

to Route 10 on the Southern Shore. It certainly plays a major role in the

commercial and residential activity of the region.

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

We, the

undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to perform brush

cutting on the Witless Bay Line, Route 13, immediately for driver safety and to

provide clear visibility for the driving public in recognition of the high

volume of vehicles travelling this route every day.

This, as

I said, is a significant piece of infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, certainly for

residents that travel back and forth for a variety of reasons. A lot of people

work on various sides, either on the Trans-Canada side or the Southern Shore. As

well, from a tourism perspective, it's another access to the Irish Loop to bring

folks around and down through the Southern Avalon. It plays a key role in the

flow of visitors to the region.

As I

said, from a residential point of view, commercial and the various industrial

sites, we have the site in Bay Bulls, the offshore site. It's significant in

terms of, oftentimes traffic needs to route through that area. I got a lot of

complaints from a lot of people in regard to particular areas and the brush

cutting. It's close to the highway, close to the road itself, especially in the

nighttime and other conditions, whether it's foggy, and provides a lot of

concern to those who travel that highway.

So I ask

the minister and the department to take a look at this. I know the last time the

brush-cutting program, we did apply to put in for some work to be done but we

ask that this be considered and considered this summer to have some work done to

relieve some of the concerns of many of the residents and travellers who travel

this particular piece of highway.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works for a response, please.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that in

Budget 2018 we were able again this

year to commit $2 million to brush cutting throughout the province. I can assure

the hon. Member that as we hear stories of concern with roads, whether it's the

highway or other connectors in this province and moose-vehicle incidents, we

take all of that data into factors as we do our brush-cutting budget.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm very proud again this year as a government that we are able to

commit $2 million to brush cutting. We're also committed to doing earlier brush

cutting tenders this year. It's one of those things that is important to all

people in this province.

We work

with SOPAC when we work with moose reduction polices and strategies throughout

the province. It's something that – at this time of the year I would encourage

all residents of our province to be very vigilant when it comes to moose on our

highways.

I can

assure the hon. Member opposite that we will commit to a steady and a firm

commitment to brush cutting throughout the province again this year.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 2.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, pursuant to Standing

Order 11(1) the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay.

Thank

you.

MS. COADY :

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I call from the –

MR. SPEAKER:

Sorry, excuse me.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

apologies.

MS. COADY:

That's okay.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 8,

second reading of

An Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment

Of Severance Pay For Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory

Officers Of The Province. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

particular bill that we're –

AN HON. MEMBER:

I move.

MR. OSBORNE:

Sorry.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that this

bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 24,

An Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of

Severance Pay For Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers

Of The Province, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And

Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And

Statutory Officers Of The Province.” (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Explanatory Notes in this bill essentially lay it out. “This Bill

would enact the S alary Restraint and

Extinguishment of Severance Pay Act .”

“would prohibit an increase in pay scales of non-represented public sector

employees and statutory officers during the period beginning on June 1, 2018 and

ending on March 31, 2020.”

Furthermore, would “fix severance pay entitlement for qualifying employees as of

May 31, 2018, terminate any further accrual of severance pay and eliminate any

further severance pay.”

Mr.

Speaker, what we're looking to do in this particular bill – and there are two

bills. There's this bill and

an act as well to amend Post-Employment Benefits

Eligibility Modification Act. This bill and the other would essentially put in

place for management and non-bargaining employees of government the same

framework essentially that we've negotiated with NAPE, in the agreement that

we've received with NAPE, and what we're hoping to achieve through negotiations

with other public sector unions.

This

would essentially put the wage freeze in place up to March 31, 2020, which is

when the contract with NAPE expires. It would also ensure that we pay out the

severance entitlements. The courts here in this province essentially, Mr.

Speaker, have determined in 1997 that severance is actually a paid benefit, an

earned benefit, and regardless of how one's employment is terminated with

government, they're entitled to their severance pay.

It would

essentially pay out severance, meaning there's no further accumulation of the

liability on severance. Severance was accumulating. That liability was growing

at a staggering rate each and every year. The payout of severance is something

that former administrations had attempted to accomplish with public sector

unions.

In fact,

they did have success with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing employees in, I believe it was 2012 negotiations. This bill

essentially will do this for bargaining and non-bargaining employees the same as

what we've achieved with NAPE and the public sector employees through NAPE.

Mr.

Speaker, any questions that Members have on this particular piece of

legislation, I'd be happy to answer them. We will say at the outset, the savings

as a result of the four zeros, each zero public sector-wide represents

approximately $40 million in savings. The payout of severance, after the

carrying costs that we estimate are about $10 million annually on the payout of

severance. The true savings to government – the savings of $35 million when you

take off the $10 million in carrying costs to borrow what we're paying out in

severance. The actual savings on an annual basis to the province is $25 million.

We'll

get into the savings on the other post-employment benefits once we get into Bill

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to rise today to speak to Bill 24,

An Act Respecting the Restraint of Salary and

Extinguishment of Severance Pay for Non-represented Public Sector Employees and

Statutory Officers of the Province.

As the

minister has outlined, this is related to the collective bargaining process.

Particularly, related to NAPE and the implications of that negotiation and I

guess the operationalizing of what was – or some of the parts of that that's

reflected here in this amendment or this piece of legislation. We had a briefing

on it. I want to thank the folks with the Department of Finance for the

briefing. We had some questions, and took us through the intent of the bill.

This is

looking at prohibiting an increase in pay scales of non-bargaining employees,

from June 2018 to – as the minister said – March 31, 2020. This bill will also

freeze the severance entitlements for these employees and give an option of

paying out the severance entitlement – well, the entitlement will be paid out,

but I think there are some options in exactly the payout and when and how that

would happen.

The

minister mentioned, this is one of two bills we'll be looking at intended to

implement a similar cost-savings restraint mechanism as in the NAPE collective

agreement. What this does is basically mirror that agreement, which often

happens with collective agreements. With bargaining agents, once a collective

agreement is reached it's almost always mirrored non-bargaining positions,

management positions, executive and the type. Particular sections of the act

outline the changes and what's going to apply and also outlines who's excluded

from it.

In this

particular act, those who are members of a union, a judge, an MHA or political

staff would not be included in this particular piece of legislation in regard to

severance. The act will apply to executives, managers, non-bargaining and

non-management employees, House of Assembly service staff and statutory offices

and their non-bargaining office staff.

So it

does distinguish between employees of government and who's part of it and who

are not. Non-bargaining and non-management employees are employees who are not

in a union but their pay scale are anchored against a scale of unionized

employees.

In the

briefing we had, there were some questions asked in regard to: What type of

employees are they? What kind of positions would they be? Those types of

questions. It was advised they could be in areas of policy analysts,

administrative assistants, temporary employees. There could be some contractual

employees there and titles of that particular kind. I mentioned in regard to the

changes and who they would not apply to.

The

first part of the bill looks at salary restraint measures, and that looks up to

March 31, 2020. I think that's the period of time that's left when the

collective agreement was negotiated. I think it will lapse for approximately two

years. Under a normal four-year period, adding on two years from when it was

signed or when it was agreed to, that would bring it up to 2020. I know there

was some discussion before in regard to the NAPE collective agreement in when it

did actually expire and some side letters and what that would mean. This one

here we're saying it's 2020.

Step

progressions, overtime amounts, bonuses and shift premiums will stay intact.

They will be eligible, someone in this classification who's defined by Bill 24.

That was questions we had in the briefing as well in regard to things like

normal step progression. Someone could be in a position, and most positions do

have step progressions based on time in that position. After a year or two or 18

months, you graduate to a new pay scale.

For

these employees in such a position, which you likely are in regard to

classification and step progression, you wouldn't be inhibited by this piece of

legislation we're talking about today. You would receive your step progression.

overtime amounts, if there was a need in a position for overtime and you worked

that overtime, you would not be negatively affected by that. You'd still be

entitled to the overtime amounts based on this piece of legislation.

As well,

any bonuses that are tied to a particular position, is what the briefing told

us, and shift premiums as well based on if someone is in a position that's on a

call-in basis, those types of incentives, those won't be affected by this

particular piece of legislation as well, as we were advised of in the briefing.

The

amount of these particular ones I've talked about, the step progressions, the

overtime amounts, the bonuses and shift premiums, all of those – according to my

understanding in terms of the briefing we had – cannot be increased during the

restraint period. So up to the restraint, which has been designated by this and

by the current government up to March 31, 2020, none of those items I listed,

which an employee covered by this piece of legislation, would normally avail of

and would be entitled to or still entitled to, as I said, step progressions,

overtime amounts, bonuses and shift premiums.

They

can't change according to this during that period. They cannot change up to the

period of March 31, 2020. At that point in time a collective agreement would

expire and there would be discussions and bargaining in regard to moving forward

from there. What happens there oftentimes would happen post-2020. They would be

mirrored, probably in a similar instance as it is here today.

The

minister did speak to the fact that this arose from the collective agreement

that was signed with NAPE. I guess the intent is that these provisions would

flow over to any new collective agreements, whichever bargaining units. But

there's no guarantee that this would be part of another collective agreement

that's negotiated with another bargaining unit. That would be a separate

negotiation. What we're doing here now is entrenching elements of this, which is

in the NAPE collective agreement, in these non-bargaining positions. In relation

to the other collective agreements that the minister mentioned, it's my

understanding they haven't been signed and haven't been agreed to. The elements

are here that are reflected in the NAPE agreement.

This

doesn't mandate or make it illegal for something different to be negotiated in

another collective agreement that hasn't been signed yet. We'll wait and see if

the collective agreements yet to be signed or yet to be negotiated will reflect

the provisions that are here related to severance that was negotiated by NAPE.

My understanding, as I said in the briefing, there's no guarantee that will take

place. I'm sure that's the government's intent in terms of their negotiations

and where they're going to go.

There

are two components to the bill: one is the salary-restraint measures and the

other

part is the extinguishing of the severance pay. Currently, most employees

must have completed nine years of continuous service and receive a maximum of 20

weeks of service pay upon resignation, retirement or termination of employment

based on the rate of one week's salary per year of service. My understanding is

that this is the core public service Treasury Board policy that exists today.

It's on the books and that's abided by.

We also

had a discussion in the briefing about agencies, boards and commissions and what

actually happens with those. Some of those may have their own policies related

to these provisions related to the extinguished severance pay. My understanding

is that applies to those organizations, so they would be implemented or there

would be talks underway if they were to modify that, if that was the change. But

those policies would exist with those ABCs and would not reflect what we're

doing here.

That

would be an ongoing process government would have with the ABCs. I know the

minister talked in the past in regard to working with ABCs, reducing costs and

reducing expenditures. I would guess or assume that it's one of the initiatives

they're working on and try to mirror, in some way, some of the things that are

reflected here. But, again, my understanding is it's not binding on ABCs.

The

current act we're looking at, Bill 24, will freeze the value of the severance as

of May 31, 2018. That's what we were advised in the briefing. Employees who have

at least one complete year of service as of May 31, 2018, will receive their

severance payout. For most employees the severance payout will be based on the

number of complete years of continuous service multiplied by the weekly salary

on May 31, 2018, to a maximum of 20 weeks.

The

severance entitlement is based on a point in time when the service is

discontinued which is – well, the last day would be May 31, 2018. The weekly

salary at that time would be used to calculate severance entitlement based on

the complete number of years of continuous service multiplied by the weekly

salary on that particular date to a maximum of 20 years. There's a cap on how

much you can receive and how many weeks would be part of that.

I know

there was discussion in the briefing as well about breaks in service, part time

over a longer period of time. I understand that person – I think the minimum is

a year – would still be entitled but it would have to reflect cumulatively that

12-month period and then they would be entitled. Interrupted service or

part-time service could be used collectively to determine entitlement of

severance in this particular instance.

If a

person has a different severance structure, the value of the severance on March

31, 2018, will be used to calculate the severance payout. Severance will be paid

out no later than March 31, 2019 is our understanding – it was what we were

advised – except where a deferral was requested. If employees want their

severance deferred they have to give notice by December 2018. If employees want

to roll a portion of it into RRSPs – I think you need to have the RRSP room –

they have to give notice by October 2018. There are particular provisions when

this act is approved and timelines for individuals to meet or to express

interest in how they want to go with this.

I'm sure

government is going to go through a process of informing employees of these

dates and the importance of them. Certainly, it's very important to people in

terms of their financial management, their particular retirement and other

aspects of investments, so that they're fully aware of these dates and they have

every opportunity to make an informed decision and meet those deadlines in

regard to what they can or cannot do in regard to their severance. Some people

will look at maybe transferring into RRSP, looking at things like spousal RRSP

in terms of their particular circumstance: all of it important to them.

The

issue of deferral, too, is significant in regard to some individuals I heard

from in regard to maternity or paternity leave. Where this is not, we'll say, a

planned severance, it's instructed or being legislated in regard to the

discontinuance of severance and therefore having to take severance at some

point. Originally when it was announced through the NAPE collective agreement,

which originally it came from, I don't think at that time the minister indicated

or talked about deferrals. I think there was a deadline set over four quarters

of a fiscal year and you needed to make a decision within one of those four

fiscal years when you would draw it down.

The

concern with that, that I had heard from in regard to maybe drawing down federal

benefits, maternity or paternity benefits, because of that, because of the quick

window, there could be an instance where you would be negatively affected in

terms of drawing down those benefits. Based on the fact that the time period,

when you draw down, you wouldn't be able to – maybe not access those federal

benefits because you're seeing a severance.

We were

advised in the briefing that because of this deferral mechanism, people would

have an option to do that or to use it, to exercise it, and therefore should not

be negatively affected by that situation. That's something I think we need to

keep an eye on because, again, this is something that's been mandated, it's not

by choice per se. How that affects other benefits, we certainly need to keep an

eye out for that to make sure people aren't negatively affected by it.

mentioned earlier this was based on the NAPE collective agreement and what

happens if other unions have a different deal. We're not really sure on that

because government has gone through this and done a one-off here with one union

and settled it. What the implications are with other collective agreements, if

there's something different than what's negotiated in regard to severance, it

could be a difference. I mean, we could have to be back here debating something

different.

Section

2 in the act also looks at any individual who is entitled to severance and has

deferred it, and not yet received it, will still have the right to that payment.

There's also, after May 31, 2018, a compensation plan shall not include a

severance pay policy or an increase in compensation.

There

are various elements in the piece of legislation dealing with going forward

after May 31, 2018. The list of ABCs, which this act applies to, is also listed

in the

Schedule and who is not included. Nalcor and MUN are not included,

related to this particular bill or amendment. Those are listed in the

Schedule

of who is, but those were – we had a discussion on that as well in the briefing.

Some of

the agencies would be: Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities; C.A. Pippy

Park Commission; Central Regional Health Authority – all the Health Authorities

– ; College of the North Atlantic; Human Rights Commission; Independent

Appointments Commission; Labour Relations Board; Marble Mountain Development

Corporation; Mental Health Review Board; Multi-Materials Stewardship Board;

Municipal Assessment Agency; Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health

Information; Newfoundland and Labrador Eastern School District; Newfoundland and

Labrador Film Development Corporation; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation; Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation; Newfoundland and

Labrador Medical Care Plan; Newfoundland 911 Bureau Inc.; NL Innovative Council;

Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women; Provincial Information and

Library Resources Board; Public Procurement Agency; Public Service Commission;

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary; Student Loan Corporation of Newfoundland and

Labrador; The Rooms Corporation; West – and as I said, the Health Authorities –

; Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division; and Workplace NL.

So those

are part of the

Schedule of Bill 24. They list all the agency, boards and

commissions which this particular act would apply to. Again, they would be

related to this specific group of employees, and others within those

organizations would be part of, probably, a collective agreement, maybe NAPE or

others. They would include executives, managers, non-bargaining and non-managed

employees, which would be relevant probably to those organizations and who this

particular piece of legislation applies to.

This is

the direction government has taken in negotiations and now they're mirroring,

parlaying it in to – a similar direction they're taking with this group of

employees, which is outside the normal collective agreement employees, and this

will mirror what happened with the NAPE agreement.

As I

said, it will be interesting to see as we move forward in regard to those other

collective agreements that are outstanding. As they're negotiated, will it

reflect what's here, as this is a reflection of what transpired in the NAPE

collective agreement?

We'll

certainly look forward to having further discussion and debate, and no doubt

we'll probably have a few questions when we get to Committee.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

pleased to stand and speak to Bill 24 this afternoon. The Member for Ferryland

did a great job in presenting the bill. This language hasn't been used by either

him or the minister, but basically it's a housekeeping bill. Because the

practice of government with regard to the salaries and benefits for

non-represented public sector employees and statutory officers is for them to

follow what happens in the collective bargaining agreements with the public

service sector.

We all

know this was public when it all happened, that NAPE and government came to an

agreement and there is now a collective agreement in place. The issue of

severance, which this bill deals with, that is dealt with in that collective

agreement with the 15 bargaining units of NAPE which was accepted by the public

service sector workers. What this bill is doing is stating in legislation that

what is in that collective agreement between government and NAPE covers the

non-represented public sector employees and statutory officers and spells out

what that means for these people who are affected.

The

Member for

Ferryland did go through them, but I'll mention them again. People

affected include non-management, non-bargaining employees, House of Assembly

service staff, statutory officers and the non-bargaining staff, managers and

executive. I did ask in the briefing – and I thank the minister for having his

staff do a briefing with us, it was a very good briefing – in the

non-management, non-bargaining employees, that sometimes there are positions

under that title of

people who are policy analysts, doing various types of policy planning and are

not recognized as members of the union.

I was

assured by the officials in the briefing that those positions are part of agreed

upon agreements between NAPE and the government, that there are positions that

are non-union, that are not part of the bargaining unit. These people are the

ones who are being affected by this change.

Basically, the change has to do with severance. The new provisions, to put it in

a nutshell, is there will be no more severance for the members of NAPE, nor the

groups that I just mentioned. For the members of NAPE, it's already in their

collective agreement. Now it's being put into legislation for the groups I just

mentioned.

There

will be no more severance after May 31, 2018, but employees must have – as of

that date – one or more years of service to get severance pay back. They'll get

one week's salary for every year of service, up to 20 weeks. They will have to

be paid in a lump sum before May 31, 2019, except if somebody has requested a

special deferral that will be considered. But without a deferral, the lump sum

payments have to be done by May 31, 2019. The deferral can include having the

lump sum put into an RRSP.

All of

those things that are in this piece of legislation are things that are in

keeping with the NAPE agreements that the NAPE members voted for. It's pretty

straightforward. I really don't have any questions when we get to Committee. The

answers I got in the briefing were very straightforward as well, and I will be

happy to support this bill.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to take very long to repeat what has been said. Basically, I don't know if

I would call it housekeeping. I do know what the Member for St. John's East -

Quidi Vidi says in the sense of housekeeping, in that it's traditionally what

has been done. When NAPE negotiates a collective agreement, traditionally when

it comes to management and non-bargaining employees, they usually end up with

the same benefits – or in this case the loss of benefits – that the union

members do.

suppose in that sense it's housekeeping, but if you're someone who is a manager

or whatever, and if you're in a situation where you were going to get your full

severance anyway, maybe you'd look at it as a positive thing. If you're someone

who hasn't yet qualified for severance or you only have a few years, at the end

of the day you're losing severance. That's what was agreed to by NAPE in the

collective agreement. Fair enough. We understand the situation we're in as a

province financially and they agreed to that.

I think

it is important to point out though, that what was agreed to, being the loss of

severance and a wage freeze for the next three years, personally if I was a

manager or whatever here in the Confederation Building or in any of these –

they're all listed here: RNC, Public Procurement Agency, the health authorities,

WorkplaceNL, the Compensation Review committee and we can go on down through the

list – I would think it was a little bit more than just simply housekeeping in

the sense that I'm now being legislated that I'm going to take a wage freeze for

three years and I'm going to lose my severance. While I do appreciate what my

colleague is saying – I understand what she meant – it is still significant on

someone who's going to face this. As I said, we understand the situation we're

in as a province and why it's being done.

The only

other thing I would say is that it's interesting to note here that while we have

all of the management and non-bargaining employees here at the Confederation

Building, at our health authorities, at the RNC, the Public Service Commission,

the Health, Safety and Compensation Review commission, The Rooms, all of these

government organizations, agencies, boards, commissions – while all of these

managers and non-bargaining unit employees are being told now, by way of

legislation, that they're going to take a wage freeze and they're going to lose

their severance, guess who's not on the list?

Just

guess who's not on the list, Mr. Speaker? Nalcor is not on the list. I point

that out just as an observation that Nalcor is not on the list. All of the

managers and everyone all throughout government, health authorities – everyone

is going to have to do their

part in taking a wage freeze and severance, but

Nalcor is not on the list. If you're a non-bargaining unit employee, or a

manager, or director or whoever at Nalcor, you're not on the list of having to

take a wage freeze. I just point that out as an observation because everybody

else is there.

I think

the only other one that's not there is MUN. MUN is separate as well. Certainly,

if they have bargaining unit employees it will be done through their collective

agreements. I assume that the government will be talking to MUN and other

agencies and boards who may have their own collective agreements and try to

encourage a similar template as everybody else is doing. MUN and Nalcor are not

on the list, so that's just an observation.

Other

than that, Mr. Speaker, we all understand why it's being done. NAPE agreed to

it. We have collective bargaining that's still going to be taking place with the

nurses, the teachers and CUPE, I think. Obviously, there's going to be an

expectation, given the fact that NAPE has accepted this, given the fact that

we're going to legislate it to all of our non-bargaining employees, our managers

through all the boards, commissions, agencies and core government. Obviously,

there's an expectation that if I was president of the nurses' association, CUPE

and the Teachers' Association, I think it's pretty obvious what government's

position is going to be.

It's

going to be pretty hard not to go down that road, quite frankly. If everybody

else has agreed to or is being legislated these measures because it's required,

it's going to be difficult for the other groups, I suppose, to fight that.

Although, it will be interesting to see if they fight it and if the membership

accepts it, but that's for negotiations. We're not here to negotiate collective

agreements in the House of Assembly.

With

that said, Mr. Speaker, the bill is what it is. I understand why we do it. We've

always done it. It's sort of tradition, if you will, of how things work. Given

our tough fiscal circumstance that we're in, I understand why we're doing what

we're doing. At the end of the day nobody likes this, but something has to give.

At the end of the day I suppose everybody has to chip in and do their part.

NAPE has

agreed to this, and so now this template will be carried forward with

non-bargaining, with management. I assume this proposal will be carried forward

into future collective bargaining with the other unions.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's

indeed a privilege to get up here again today to speak to Bill 24. While some

Members say it is a piece of housekeeping, I beg to differ. I think it's a very

important part of legislation. It shows our workers, especially our unionized

workers, that when it comes to restraint and when it comes to government policy

or it comes to severance packages or whatever, that everybody is going to be

treated the same for non-union and union members.

The

purpose of the bill today is twofold. While we're in negotiations with different

unions and bargaining units we have to respect the largest union which is NAPE.

Once an agreement is done with them I'm sure that part of the negotiations that

were done was saying that other unions will follow along with basically similar

language that they have. Also, when it comes to non-union members to be part of

the negotiations, that would work to show the same follows through.

We're

very fortunate in Newfoundland and Labrador to have the public service that we

do have. We have great people working in our public service. We have great

employees right here in the building and we have great employees right across

the province. It's important that we get up, realize and respect what people do

in this province. To all our workers I really want to say thank you for all that

they do. A lot of them have put their daily lives on the line sometimes for us,

our workers that work for our government.

I just

have a few things to say here on this part of it. Over the years on both sides

of the House we've worked very hard to show the appreciation that we do have for

our workers. There were a lot of years back in the '90s and '80s where there

were costs, government didn't have the funds to be able to pay employees and

there were wage freezes. I remember there were different slogans; there were

licence plates made up and everything else.

But when

our government came into power and there was some money, workers in this

province were shown that they were appreciated with some huge increases in pay.

They deserved it.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. K. PARSONS:

When the cows come home.

That's right, there were sayings.

It took

time when we could afford to do what we could. Now we're in another time where

times are a little bit tough and both union and non-union people that work for

our province are stepping up again and saying we understand. We just had an

agreement that there's a wage freeze. We understand about severance and the

money that it's going to save down the road. It won't save anything in the next

couple of years but in the next 20 years it's going to be huge to the province.

I'm sure that when times are better again then negotiations will be better for

unions and non-union people in the province also.

I just

wanted to make that note that we do appreciate what public servants are doing in

this province and we do appreciate – and we have, in the past, shown them how

much we do appreciate it when we did negotiations in the past; 21 per cent was

what our government negotiated with the public service, and it was well

deserved. Do you know why? They paid the price for years and years and years.

I'm not blaming any government back then, the fiscal times were difficult and

they had to take the wage freeze, but when times got better, it's when you show

people that you really appreciate them.

Again,

that's part of what's happening here today. I just wanted to get up and say that

to our public servants that we really appreciate everything you do for us.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted

to thank all Members who spoke to second reading in this. As a couple of Members

had indicated, we can't exactly call it housekeeping but it is almost

essentially housekeeping because we are putting in place for non-bargaining

employees, the same framework that we have in place for our bargaining employees

through NAPE, and that's what this legislation does.

I look

forward to questions and looking forward to answering those questions as we get

into Committee.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 24 be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For Non-Represented

Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers of the Province. (Bill 24).

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

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

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of

Severance Pay For Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers

of the Province,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Reid):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 24,

An Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And

Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And

Statutory Officers Of The Province.

A bill,

An Act Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay

For Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The

Province.” (Bill 14)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

Schedule of the bill lists the ABCs that this would give oversight to, this

particular amendment or piece of legislation. There are two excluded; Nalcor and

MUN are not included.

I ask

the minister: In relation to these provisions, what attempts are being made or

is there an attempt being made that these would be reflective of those two

organizations in regards to severance or how that would actually work?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you.

That is

a very good question. We have been working with Nalcor and with Memorial

University. They have their own bargaining units so we can't impose upon their

bargaining units conditions that we've achieved through our bargaining, through

collective agreement.

We've

asked them to put in place the same framework with their bargaining units. I

expect them to put the same framework in place. We are continuing to discuss and

meet with them, and it's certainly my hope that this same framework will be put

in place for their management.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister for that. Just to follow up on that. I understand from a collective

bargaining point of view you're hoping that they would mirror this particular

provision, but, right now, is there anything stopping government from mandating

the non-bargaining element of those two organizations to adhere to this

particular provision?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Myself and the Minister of Natural Resources are working on that issue with the

non-bargaining there.

If it

does become an issue, I'm prepared to look at other measures, but we are working

with Nalcor, for example, on the non-bargaining employees at Nalcor. It's

certainly our hope that this same framework will be followed with the

non-bargaining unit.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really

had the same questions as the Member for Ferryland. I guess just to take it a

little further. Minister, you said once again that you're working with them,

you're hoping that they'll do it, you and the Minister of Natural Resources, in

terms of the non-bargaining and the management employees of Nalcor, MUN and so

on.

While I

appreciate what you say, that you're working with them, I would hope – what

we're doing here in the House of Assembly today, we're not working with the

management and non-bargaining unit employees of the Confederation Building or

any of the other ABCs, the health authorities or whatever, we are imposing the

same restraint on all of those people as was agreed to by NAPE, and we

understand why we're doing that.

So, I'm

just wondering if you try to work with them and there is resistance, if you

will, will you or the Minister of Natural Resources be going to the board of

Nalcor and imposing these same restraint measures on the management of Nalcor

and non-bargaining, the same as everybody else has to?

Again,

the same situation in terms of – I don't know what flexibility you have in terms

of MUN. I believe through the board of directors of Nalcor, it would be my

understanding, my belief, that you could impose it. I'm not sure exactly with

MUN how much autonomy they have, if you could actually impose it or not, but at

least with Nalcor will it be imposed, if need be?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

What I can say, which may create some greater clarity, is Nalcor doesn't have a

severance identical to ours. Their severance package is called a severance

retirement termination package. If we impose the same legislation on them, we'd

be basically saying that they have to pay out severance to all employees. There

are some nuances that make them completely different than us in that respect. So

at this particular stage we're working with them.

The only

time, I understand from Nalcor officials, that they receive a severance payout

is when a position is actually made redundant. Under the Court of Appeal in the

province, we are told through a court decision that our public servant's

severance is an earned benefit and must be paid. That's not the same because a

contract at Nalcor is different, the wording is different. So they have a

different set-up than us. At this particular stage, we're working with them.

I am

very hopeful that they are going to follow the same framework. It cannot be

identical to what we're doing for our agencies, boards and commissions, other

than Nalcor, for example, because their severance termination benefits are

different and have a different set of rules than ours.

At this

particular stage, it would be very complicated to try and suss them out in this

piece of legislation, but, believe me, we've made the request and we're

continuing to work with them.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Minister, for the

response. I do appreciate that. I didn't realize the differences there, so I

really appreciate the explanation and that makes a whole lot of sense to me. I'm

sure you will do what you can to work that out.

That's

the severance piece. Are there any nuances or anything different in terms of

salaries? Is there any reason why we could not ensure that we impose the

three-year salary freeze on the management of Nalcor, the same as other managers

in government?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

That is part of their

collective bargaining process.

What I

can say here, and it's the first time that I've actually said this publicly, but

I've met with the board of Nalcor. I've spoken with the CEO of Nalcor and we are

working with Nalcor to ensure that, while we grandfather the existing employees,

that as new employees are hired at Nalcor, their salaries will be in line with

similar positions within government.

That is

our hope, that is our desire and that is what we are working towards.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a

further question to the minister in regard to the two organizations and the

expiry of collective agreements with those two organizations. Are both of those

– and there could be multiple –

MR. OSBORNE:

Can you (inaudible)?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Yeah.

Just in

regard to the two organizations we're talking about, Nalcor and Memorial, there

are probably multiple bargaining units. I'm just wondering, can you give a sense

of whether those collective agreements have expired and they're now in the

process of – that would be the unionized, obviously, but that would flow over,

maybe, to what we're talking about here? Are there talks underway within both of

those organizations in regard to expired collective agreements?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

There are. Non-bargaining at

Nalcor, I believe, have had the same wage freeze as government has had since

2016. So there has been no increase in that regard.

Nalcor,

at the moment, have three expired contracts. If I'm not mistaken, I think

there's a fourth one that has not yet expired, but there are – or two, sorry,

that are not yet expired. So they've got three expired and there are two that

are not yet expired. They're in varying stages of going through their collective

bargaining with Nalcor.

I think

Memorial has somewhat of a similar situation. We're going through a review with

Memorial now. The relationship with Memorial is also different. Not in the same

way that it's different with Nalcor, but the relationship – as government

Members would know – with Memorial is different. They have academic autonomy and

there's always a discussion as to what economic autonomy goes with academic

autonomy. So it is a different organization for sure.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the minister for that. Just one final question maybe you could comment on. This

amendment mirrors what happened in the NAPE negotiations and, obviously, there

are other union workforces there that you're currently negotiating with, with

the intent that this provision would be similarly negotiated with those

bargaining units as well.

Could

you comment on how that is going and what if you're not able to reach an

agreement, which could mirror what we're talking about here?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Certainly, we have to allow Nalcor to go through their bargaining process with

their unions. For example, within government, we've got NAPE sorted away. I'm

hopeful that any day we'll be able to announce with one of our other bargaining

units that we've reached the same framework we have with NAPE, but we have to

allow Nalcor, for example, to go through their bargaining process with their

five contracts.

believe Memorial University – again, where we don't deal directly with their

bargaining, they do that, but I believe they've got in excess of 10 bargaining

units at Memorial University, and they're also at varying stages, similar to

Nalcor.

So we

have to expect them to go through their bargaining process, and like government

wouldn't speak publicly about what's happening inside the bargaining room or at

the bargaining table, I would also expect that Nalcor and Memorial University

would want that same level of discretion in dealing with their bargaining units.

CHAIR:

Seeing no further speakers,

shall the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

believe our Law Clerk in the House has probably discussed with both Opposition

parties and the independent Member, it's come to the Law Clerk's attention that

the language in the Green act is somewhat different.

In any

event, we need to make an amendment in order to capture one of our statutory

offices so that we have all of our statutory offices.

So I

move a small amendment to clause 2 of the bill. The current version in paragraph

2(

u) defines a statutory office as a statutory office defined in the

House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act .

It's

come to our attention that in that act, which we call the Green act, does not

include the Office of the Auditor General. So in order to include the Office of

the Auditor General, as well, the proposed revision would correct the error by

deleting and substituting the more general definition as follows: “Clause 2(

u) of the Bill is deleted and the following substituted: (u) 'statutory office'

means the office of a statutory officer.” That would then capture all statutory

offices.

I move

this amendment, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources.

CHAIR:

We'll take a few minutes to

recess to review the amendment as presented.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

amendment has been found to be in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

We will resume clause 2.

Seeing

no further speakers, shall the amendment carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR:

Shall the clause, as amended,

carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 3 through 20

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 3 to 20

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, clauses 3 through 20 carried.

CLERK:

The Schedule.

CHAIR:

Shall the

Schedule carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion,

Schedule carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

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

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act

Respecting The Restraint Of Salary And Extinguishment Of Severance Pay For

Non-Represented Public Sector Employees And Statutory Officers Of The Province.

CHAIR: Shall the

title carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR: All those

against?

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall we

report Bill 24 carried with amendment?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR: All those

against?

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The

Deputy Government House Leader.

MS. COADY: Mr.

Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 24 as amended.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 24 carried as amended.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. Member for St. George's - Humber and Chair of the Committee of the

Whole.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have carried Bill 24

with an amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

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

referred and have carried Bill 24 with an amendment.

When

shall the report be received? Now?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the

amendment be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the amendment be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

First reading of the

amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the

amendment be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the amendment be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

Second reading of the

amendment.

motion, amendments read a first and second time. Bill ordered read a third time

on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

It was a trick there, Mr.

Speaker.

thought I was going back to do the third reading, and (inaudible) just said no.

MR. SPEAKER:

It's your choice.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 9,

An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment

Benefits Eligibility Modification Act, Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 25,

An Act

To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility Modification Act be now

read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 25,

An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility

Modification Act, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Other Post-Employment Benefits

Eligibility Modification Act.” (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour to be able to stand in the House again and speak to Bill 25.

Mr.

Speaker, the Explanatory Notes here, the bill “would amend the

Other Post-Employment Benefits Eligibility

Modification Act to describe the eligibility requirements to qualify for

other post-employment benefits for non-represented public sector employees hired

on or after June 1, 2018.”

essentially with this particular one, I'll read the second Explanatory Note and

then I'll get into the explanation of each one. The other is “the percentage of

premiums a non-represented public sector employees hired on or after June 1,

2018, who qualify for other post-employment benefits is required to pay upon

retirement.

Mr.

Speaker, essentially, the first part of the explanation here says that any

employee that's hired on or after June 1, 2018, would be under a different

post-employment benefit for health and life benefits than existing employees.

Existing employees are required to work for 10 years and then they qualify for

OPEBs, or other post-employment benefits, for the rest of their life based on a

10-year work employment with the provincial government or with one of our

agencies, boards or commissions.

This

particular one, by the way, I will say – because it's not complicated like the

severance issue with Nalcor – Nalcor is actually included in this particular for

OPEBs. With this, instead of working for 10 years and qualifying for other

post-employment benefits for the rest of your life, you now have to work a

minimum of 15 years before you're considered qualified to take your other

post-employment benefits into retirement.

The

second paragraph in the Explanatory Note, essentially, right now, once you work

10 years, you're entitled to your post-employment benefits, your health and

life. Government pays 50 per cent of that for the rest of your life. So you only

need to put in 10 years of employment with the provincial government and you get

health and life insurance benefits for the rest of your life and government will

pay 50 per cent of it.

We've

changed that under the negotiation with NAPE. We're putting that in place for

our non-bargaining and managers and other employees that are not part of the

bargaining unit. Once you reach 15 years, you've got to work an extra five years

before you even qualify to get any post-employment benefit entitlement in your

retirement.

The

second part of it, it's a sliding scale. So at 15 years the employee pays 85 per

cent. Instead of 50, the employee will pay 85 per cent of their health and life

insurance premiums. That's from 15 years to 19 inclusive. Once they reach 20

years employment, they are required to pay 70 per cent of their premiums,

government will pay 30. Once they reach 25 years, they then pay 55 per cent,

government will pay 45. If they reach 30 years of employment, it's 50-50. Where

right now it's 50-50, after 10 years of public service it's got to be 15 years

and then there's a sliding scale on what the retired employee pays and what

government pays.

Based on

this change, Mr. Speaker, if we were to look at this change over all public

sector employees with government and our agencies, boards and commissions,

including Nalcor, this year alone, even though any employees hired on this year

– our actuaries have looked at it, and this year alone, based on the new

employees that will be hired and the number of employees that are retiring under

the old system, new employees hired this year – we're about $3.5 million savings

just based on what they determine people have to work an extra five years and

then they pay 85 per cent of their premium. This year, the very first year

employees will be hired under the new system government saves about $3.5

million.

Next

year, it gets even larger because there are more employees under the new system.

By 2026, we break $20 million annuall