Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED transcript of the House of Assembly sitting for Wednesday, March 18, 2026, to the end of Question Period. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.

The entire audio/visual record of the House proceedings is available online within one hour of the House rising for the day. This can be accessed at:

https://www.assembly.nl.ca/HouseBusiness/Webcast/archive.aspx

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker, Order 6, second reading of Bill 6.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Labrador West that Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Pensions Benefit Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Pensions Benefit Act, 1997, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Pensions Benefit Act, 1997.” Bill 6)

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

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

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

Before I go further, I just want to speak about things signed up to represent people and how it is a true honour to present a bill as such, to protect the employment that people have put in for years and years and years and the whole goal in this bill is to allow participating in federal-provincial territorial agreements, pension assets are allowed to move between provinces and territories when plans are merged or consolidated.

National companies often want to combine small provincial plans into one national plan. This lowers administration costs for them and can improve investment returns for pension members which is the goal here.

If assets can’t be transferred, however, companies maybe forced to terminate local pension plans instead. That would be detrimental, Speaker. When a plan is terminated workers receive the value of their pension at that point in time only. No future pension growth occurs. Workers must manage it themselves and take on the risk of investment.

Those funds are then placed into a locked-in retirement account and many people need professional advice to manage them, many times at the senior age. While individuals can choose to move those funds into another pension plan, each person has to do this on their own which is complicated and can be burdensome.

Allowing direct transfers between pension plans across provinces and territories avoids this problem and lets workers: (1) stay in a pension plan secured; (2) continue earning benefits; (3) avoid unnecessary disruption and risk.

Current legislation, however, does not allow these kinds of transfers which creates real challenges for workers. That is why we are proposing this change here today and looking to update the Pension Benefits Act, 1997. These changes would allow out-of-province transfers, ensure protection for workers including the requirements that the receiving plan must meet standards similar to Newfoundland and Labrador and the plan must be well-funded and by that we mean at least 85 per cent funded or better than the original plan of transfer.

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

Speaker, as a youth growing up in this province, I first grew up in Churchill Falls in Labrador and moved on to Deer Lake when my father got transferred and went to Roddickton. I can still remember every night, my parents on a Saturday night or a Friday night watching a hockey game or watching Dallas, all I heard was, pensions, pensions, pensions, pensions. At that age, I was very inquisitive, but I still didn’t understand what a pension was. What is a pension? Every employer, every place I went throughout life, the first thing, you’d talk to people and they’d say, set your pension. Make sure you’re in a good fund.

Back to this bill and when I go around the province and you talk to people at their doors, the fact that people are struggling and not everybody’s up to speed. Sometimes I look back at that inquisitive kid I was at seven, eight years old and think about Mary in Rocky Harbour of John in St. Judes and not everybody is up to speed on where they should be in a pension plan.

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

This truly is a bill about protecting seniors. The goal is to retire with pensions. I’ve heard it often and maybe this is not pertinent to the bill and correct me if I’m wrong, but I think, it’s something that needs to said here, I’ve often heard and you’ll hear about every politician that sits here in this room, we only all signed up for a pension. Well, that’s not a fact in my case. If I had stayed in the trades this pension wouldn’t even be close. I know there’s been adjustments but our ultimate goal when you work through life in any profession, whether you’re a doctor, a teacher, a lawyer, a plumber like myself, it’s to how do you benefit for when you finally get to retire? That’s a whole other word because when I look at my mother, she’s like Michael Jordan, she keeps coming back out of retirement. She just doesn’t want to accept the fact that she’s a pensioner. But that’s where it is and that’s where it needs to be.

The reality is, this is a very important bill. As much as maybe as simple one to get through that we all agree on and I’m open for questions, that’s what I’m here for.

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

When I was told that coming in here – I’d watched this place as long as it’s been online, and I think CPAC was on since the ’90s, and word continues, continues, continues. Pensions, pensions, pensions and here I am standing up to talk about it.

When you get into the crux of what some questions may be, ultimately all this comes down to there’s a layer of protection. When I ask my staff, so why is this bill here now, what is it we need to do and why is it we’re doing it, the reality is to protect pensioners. But that can only be done with justification of the Superintendent of Pensions, which is solid for me to know and for all Members to know that may not be aware – as I said, I’d never stand here to say I know it all, but I’m having a great learning – but it all comes back to the Superintendent of Pensions.

It’s a really good backstop. It’s a very professional individual in our department, and I’d like to thank him for his service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

You’ve heard me say it numerous times that I still feel that to be here is an honour that feels surreal. When I wake up in the morning or when I go to bed at night reading a bill like this and I know I get to stand here, this still and will always be an honour to be able to give – back to going to bed. When someone can go to sleep at night and know they have a predictable income, although we hear struggles of pensions, seniors say how they’re capped and that’s the other side of what we’re trying to do to make life affordable for everybody is to lessen taxes, to lessen burdens. But, boy, could I get into this crux.

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

When I look at this and I think of some seniors, still vets and I’m very well involved and I try to stay close to the Legion in my hometown and other places. Any time, if there are questions on this bill, if there’s debate, I’m not trying to sell it and say hey, this is how you should vote, but this is a very crucial part to citizens, to seniors, to vets. I can almost feel like my dad would be saying he’s pretty proud to see us standing here to do the right things in what we were elected to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

I met a gentleman out here with Commissionaires, and I have his file. I’m hoping to be able to clarify that, but it’s just something so, so important. Can you picture being a senior two years, husband passed, very little income, and trying to make your way through? I can remember going to the grocery store and it was much, much a time before Interac or any plastic banking cards, and I go grocery shopping. It was okay if you went up to the grocery, the register, everybody knew it in my home town specifically, if you had $107 dollars worth of groceries and you only had $100, you put $7 back, right? I still see seniors struggle, and whether this pension plan, this bill, which I say is extremely important as much as it might seem like a minute move in government, can protect people when I’m not here, when many of us won’t be here. I think that’s the important, and the whole goal of this bill.

When I think about all the doors that I knocked on, and talking to seniors and the cost of living and everything that goes on and the expectation of conduct and the business that happens in this House, it all comes back to money. Some can say it’s the root of all evil; some can say it’s the blessing, but how we best work together to secure the future for seniors that are current and for youth that we hope – at least I hope myself, too, will become a senior. To be able to maybe look back on a computer one day, and many of us will hopefully be off in our greater later years, to be able to look back and say that we presented this bill, we worked together to do something to protect the future that will be our present.

It will be an honour if this bill were to pass, and I would kindly ask all to feel free at the point of when it comes to question in Committee, to don’t not ask a question that you think might be silly or might be off track, because I’m here for any question, and I’m also the type that will ask any question. I feel within this bill, my colleague across the way, my critic, I think we’re both eager and they’ve met and it’s great when you see, again, the learning curve, that Opposition wants to come to be briefed so we can all understand what it is we’re here to present to improve the lives of others. So I just want to say thank you for that.

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

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

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

In 50 years’ time, look around the room, some of us may still be here, there are a couple, they’ll still be amending things, because we learn from how things weren’t the best and that’s what we’re here, to make it the best. Bear with me, Speaker, because I could go on here for quite sometime.

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

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

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Thank you.

M. GOOSNEY: Sorry.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

K. WHITE: Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Pensions Benefits Act, 1997.

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

First, it formally defines two key actuarial terms: solvency assets and solvency ratios. These are standard pension concepts used across Canada. Putting them clearly in statute improves transparency and reduces ambiguity in how funding levels are measured. Second, the bill repeals and replaces section 58 of the act, to establish clearer rules around pension asset transfers.

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

Importantly, the plan must have a solvency ratio of at least 0.85 or higher than the transferring plan. A solvency ratio measures whether a pension plan has enough money to meet its obligations if it were to wind up. A 0.85 ratio means the plan is funded at 85 per cent of its liabilities on a termination basis. This 0.85 threshold is consistent with other Canadian pension regulatory practices, such as in the province of Ontario. It represents a reasonable and balanced standard, one that protects plan members while allowing practical flexibility in cases of corporate restructuring or multi-jurisdictional consolidation.

This bill also requires written approval from the Superintendent of Pensions before any transfer occurs. It strengthens oversight and ensures that pension assets cannot simply be moved without regulatory review.

The accompanying regulatory amendments further clarify how transfer values are calculated when a plan is underfunded. The formula now explicitly states that transfer values will be calculated by multiplying the committed value by the lesser of one and most recently determined the solvency ratio. This means that the plan is fully funded, members receive 100 per cent of their value and if the plan is underfunded at transfer, the value reflects the actual funded status of the plan. The standard actuarial practice ensures fairness and consistency and prevents payouts that exceed the assets available in the plan.

These amendments do not fundamentally change how pensions operate, rather they clarify definitions, they codify standard practice and strengthen oversight mechanisms. The Liberal Opposition supports responsible modernization of our pension framework. We support clear standards and appropriate regulatory oversight, and most importantly, we support retirement security for workers and retirees in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We believe this legislation strikes a reasonable balance between protecting plan members and ensuring that our pension regulatory system remains aligned with contemporary Canadian standards. For those reasons, we will be voting in favour of Bill 6.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s always an honour and privilege to rise in this wonderful House and talk a little bit about Bill 6 here and the Pension Benefits Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, I’ll take you back to Goose Bay for a little while, if you don’t mind. I want to talk about my grandparents, I wanted to talk about Maud Russell and I wanted to talk about Elijah Edmonds.

If you’re wondering how this is going to fit, Mr. Speaker, we had, I guess two very big families. We had a Labrador family and a Newfoundland family, if you would, Mr. Speaker. In talking about that family, both of the men, so both my pop and my gramps happened to pass on before my nan and my gram.

So there were many years – and I think with Nan, I’ll use Nan when it comes to talking about a pensioner for the simple fact, Mr. Speaker, that she was 40 years without Pop, Pop dying around – somewhere around ’81, I believe. Nan worked up on the base, and you know 5 Wing Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, in Lake Melville, a big military presence.

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

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

So again, we said about firstly protecting workers and that’s what that’s about. We talked about my gram and we talked about my nan. They were, like I said, many years without pop and gramps there and my grandfather on the Edmunds’ side, Mr. Speaker, he came down, settled Goose Bay from Northern Labrador and ended up becoming a fully-accredited engineer with the American government which was, I’d say a beautiful story if you will for a young Inuk from Northern Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: Thank you very much.

In saying that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: – of course, then you think about gramps passing away before gram and then you have gram and the pensions and that’s what happens in these situations, Mr. Speaker, is those pensions will be transferred over and so they’ll be able to claim that as they get up in age too and unfortunately I got cut off in the House there last time, Mr. Speaker, when I was talking about my grandmothers and I’ll say that too as it relates to government and the purse strings that we hold, Mr. Speaker, and how we are duty bound and it is an honour and a privilege for us to take care of our elders in this province, but I’ll say that I did want to remind people of that, that I did get cut off last time when I was here speaking in this hon. House and I wanted to talk about that in terms of – I had watched one grandmother go through Alzheimer’s and everything and one where her body deteriorated.

So, it was interesting to see that as they aged and these were both pensioners, Mr. Speaker. Again, but that’s what happens. That’s how we have to be in this province when we take care of those people who have shown us the way because it’s then it’s those pensions and those calculations that have to be made on behalf of our seniors. As they go into personal care and long-term care, Mr. Speaker, here and we cover the cost of those as best we can too.

So when it comes to talking about that from a financial perspective, to make sure that our seniors can be well cared for as they get up in age is a very important thing. So anything we can do from a legislation point of view and as Legislators as part of our work in this hon. House and to protect them, Mr. Speaker, well I say it’s well warranted and it’s good work in and of itself, just for what it means.

In saying that, as we have to take our old folks and put them in the homes sometimes, make sure that they’re safe and that in some cases even been protected from themselves as they get up later in years, that we have progressive legislation, Mr. Speaker, that can make sure that protect. If it’s only the finances of people in this case, that’s great but I mean, like I said that’s what it takes in order to have them finance in those twilight years, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that, you know, it’s trying times out there and everybody is seeing this across the province. I mean, it’s tough times in terms of economies, what’s going on across the world. We’re seeing that but we’re also feeling the pinch here at home as gas prices rise, as food prices rise. We feel the pinch right here.

So everything we can do to make sure that the financial assets of our seniors are protected in the long-run is meaningful work, as simple as that. If you talk about the way things are changing, Mr. Speaker, we have to be progressive in the sense that we shift with the times. If we look at the way businesses operate, the way people operate within companies, there’s much more fluidity to it in these times, I can say, than in past where, perhaps, if you had a shop, you had bricks and mortar, you had a building. That building was located at such-and-such, a location within town and then you did your physical advertising where you put a piece of paper in a newspaper or in a mailbox. People could see that and then come out to that business, support that business and all that but what I’m saying is businesses, now, employ people differently. They work differently. They behave differently. They exist differently. In saying that, they have to have ideas behind pensions and the remittances of all kinds, remuneration to their staff that is progressive and that is with the times which this does.

The Member across the way talked about liquidity ratios and all that stuff and how bringing this in as a minimum 85 in terms of that. That’s great. If your pensions are doing better, well, so be it. I mean, what if you’re up over 100 per cent. You’re doing great. This says that no matter where we’re going to perform, at least, this good. We’re going to make sure that if we bring in pensions from outside, we consolidate pensions whether that’s crossing jurisdictions, whether we’re talking about provincial, inter-provincial or even, in some cases, we’re talking about people coming from countries and companies abroad as well.

So what I’ll say, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to behave differently. We have to make sure the legislation reflects the changing times are there and that we have to make sure that we take into consideration how people are doing today, how they are going to be doing as they get into their twilight years, as pensioners, and to make sure that the legislation can be brought, again, time and time again. Brought into this House and we see the democratic process at work by which we see changes need, whether that’s industry-driven, whether that’s driven by markets, whether it’s driven by individuals, companies, pension out there – success and failures of certain pensions. We’ll see. We have to be flexible so that we can take those ideas back into the House and this comes from all sides of the House and I say from every party, again, Mr. Speaker.

We’ve heard the minister in his opening remarks. He is saying that he’s ready for, you know, just not only on this bill but on everything we do on this side of the House. We’re ready to work. We’re ready to work with Members across the way. We’re ready to work with people out there in the public, in their districts and we’re ready to say that when the time comes and we need that change and it could be brought upon by anybody from across the way. It could be a member of the public. It could be a pensioner out there with a great idea that it leads to bringing that to our bureaucrats, they’ll propose the amendments, the change to the legislation. The hon. minister then brings that towards this House. We get up from all sides and we talk about gram and gramps. We talk about nan and pop. We talk about our pensioners, Mr. Speaker, the people who mean something in our lives. The ones that mean the most to us and the reason hopefully that we’re all here in this House is to support not only our friends in our districts and all that but those family members and those elders that have shown us the way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we are saying as a government is simply this – when it comes to our elders, it comes to those people that built this place, when it comes to your nest eggs, if you will, and what it takes to get your family by in these trying times with the prices what it is, the gas what it is and all the other volatility across the world we can't control at home, we tell you this. least when it comes to your pension, we want to make sure that you and your pension are protected, that this government is responsive in the sense that we’ll be here to make moves to our legislation and to our regulations as need be, as per the needs of the people of the province and that we are just that – a Progressive Conservative Government that cares for our people, that makes sure that this House engages in respecting our elders and the ones that built this beautiful province.

So with that I’ll take my seat, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

Thank you to the minister. Congratulation to him for putting it forward and I look forward to further debate in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

I know back in 2006, at that time there was a PC government that attempted to fix that. It was under Premier Williams at the time, $1.95 billion, Atlantic Accord money into the Teachers’ Pension Plan. Now we surrendered, made significant concessions on sick leave and I’ll be one of the first to say that I opposed it because of the fact that the sacrifice was way too great. However, here was the problem, the plan was run by government. They didn’t derisk. They didn’t change the asset mix and two years later that $1.95 billion was gone and the plan was back into an unfunded liability status and here we were facing the prospect of it going bankrupt and we also gave up sick leave.

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

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

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

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

We also made, in setting up the board of directors, when we chose our members, that there would be no political influence on this and we made sure that the people we chose to sit on that board answered to, basically, had one thing in mind, the health of the plan. It didn’t matter. They could come to the association. We couldn’t just say no, we don’t want that. There had to be a fiscally viable option there that would make the plan work.

With the option of maybe creating, having an indexer clause in it which is why we were surprised then, in 2021, with the Moya Greene report and the Minister of Finance, at the time, that our plan was under-funded when everything said otherwise. To me, that riled a number of people, me included but the fact is that the plan has been doing well and, guess what, that means generations of teachers, people, young people, at least they know when they enter the profession that at some point in the future they’ve got that flexibility to either keep teaching, retire, take a pension, maybe enter into some other work if they wish but the fact is they have that option. That’s because of the hard work and the sacrifice of the generations of teachers that went before and the fact that we realized that if you’re protect people now, you have to protect their future.

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

I’ll end with this. Pensions are good but I will say that’s it’s not just good enough to say pensions. It’s got to be defined benefit plans. It must be because if anything else that protects the workers who are, really, their income is their income. They’re not making the profits or anything else but defined benefit plans are definitely the way. If we’re going to invest in plans, let’s focus on defined benefit plans and making them work. By the way, the TPP and the Public Service Pension Plan are examples of how we can make defined benefit plans work and keep them funded.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

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

So the Pension Act, what we’re talking about today would not apply for those workers. The province in which the pension is registered applies for those pensions and oversees those pensions. So we’re only talking about pensions, registered in Newfoundland and Labrador. So those are primarily Newfoundland and Labrador companies, companies where in terms of their Canadian presence they have the most individuals living in Newfoundland and Labrador. That’s what we’re talking about in terms of pensions registered under this pension plan.

The MHA pension, for example, is not –this does not apply to the MHA Pension Plan, that has its own legislation.

I have a lot of questions in Committee that we’ll get to but I do want to talk about the concern, I guess, about the 85 per cent solvency and I think, it’s really a question of flexibility versus solvency. I can appreciate how the government wants to allow people to have more choice about what happens with their pension, to change it to another plan. But I do think it’s important and I haven’t heard this in discussion yet, moving your pension from a pension plan registered in Newfoundland and Labrador, to one registered somewhere else, with I believe the threshold in the act is 85 per cent, that carries risk, Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

We’ve see, for example, the Nortel pension went under and those pension members lost 25 per cent of the value of their pension overnight.

Sears pension – anyone who was a member of the Sears pension –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I don’t want to underestimate. I don’t want this House to pass this legislation without fully understanding the risk that the 85 per cent solvency carries because you’re essentially allowing someone to move their pension to a pension that is 85 per cent or more solvent, which means that in the unlikely situation that that pension winds up, those members would absolutely be financially disadvantaged if they’re moving from a 90 per cent solvent pension to an 86 per cent solvent pension.

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

So I think that’s a very important consideration, that is flexibility versus solvency. So we do have questions about this for the minister in Committee, you know, why did they choose 85 per cent whereas when we look across the country, that’s one of the lower solvency ratios allowed when you’re talking about transferring pensions, Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER: Order, please! I’m finding it difficult to hear the hon. Member.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

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

The fourth is for financial hardship. So if someone loses their job, Speaker, they’re behind on their mortgage payments, their house is in foreclosure, they have medical bills, if they have to pay costs related to equipment or treatment of a disability, they can use it to make their first months’ rent or security deposit when trying to rent. The threat of eviction due to inability to pay rent and then if they have a job and then they unexpectedly have a lower income, let’s say they lose their job or their EI runs out and they’re on income support, for example, there is a formula that allows them to withdraw a locked-in pension and it’s based on – it’s a bit complicated, 66 per cent of the yearly maximum pensionable earnings, which in 2021 at the time was $41,000. So if their income went below $41,000 in 2021, it’s probably about that now but there is a specific federal government trigger, the yearly maximum pensionable earnings and it’s 66 per cent of that. Then you could use that to withdraw a portion of your locked-in retirement account. You can withdraw from your locked-in retirement account once a year, I believe, Speaker.

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

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

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

I do want to reiterate the Wabush Mines, like it is such an important part of Newfoundland and Labrador’s history. Like when I was in the department, they were almost traumatized still, five year’s later, from the Wabush Mine, because I believe the government went to court on behalf of the pension holders and the pension association, like it was a very long court battle about he Wabush Mines and everyone who worked there, that at the end their pension was 70 per cent to 80 per cent solvent. So again, if you worked at the Wabush Mines, and let’s say you had a million-dollar pension, after the 70 to 80 per cent, you would lose $200,000 to $300,000 out of your pension. So you would lose 20 to 30 per cent of what you thought you were getting as a monthly income or a bi-weekly income moving forward, when you are withdrawing your pension.

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

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

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

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

Like I said, Ontario often requires a top-up if the solvency ratio you are moving your pension to is less than 100 per cent; BC requires a deficiency payment, so if you’re moving your pension to one that is less solvent, it requires a deficiency payment. So this is one of the lower ones across the country and so flexibility is important, yes, but also the risk – you know the Members opposite talked about how important pensions are and knocking on people’s doors and having that conversation, and I think that’s incredibly important and I’m sure a lot of them do want more flexibility with their money and with their pensions.

But I guess I would also challenge then, what about if someone transfers their pension, that then goes under? Then they are directly at financial risk because of the change that we’re making today, Speaker. So I do think that’s incredibly important, that the Members opposite understand. It’s very unlikely, I’m not going to lie, it’s not probably going to happen, it’s unlikely, but that is a direct potential consequence and I’m sure the workers at Wabush Mines didn’t think that their pension was going to go under. I’m sure the workers at Sears and Nortel, just as some major Canadian examples, I’m sure they didn’t think their pensions would go under.

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

So thank you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

But I can tell you right now, my mom sits at home, she worked 36 years in Wabush Mines, one of the very first women hired in Wabush Mines in 1973, and both her and my dad, who worked there for 38 years, they had their pensions reduced. There’s no question about that. Had this legislation been in place, there is a stronger possibility that that may not have happened. So the ability to take a pension fund and put it into something else – so, for example, Scully Mines, Wabush Mines at the time, they could have gone to a subsidiary company that they owned, combined the pensions, and kept people whole.

That’s what the legislation is about, and I’m sure that the minister will get up and talk about that after, in a few minutes, but I just needed to track that for the record. It’s not about an individual having the ability to take their pension out of a pension fund. Every pension fund that we know in this province would be at risk if individuals had the ability to do what they wanted with their pension funds. That’s just not how it works. So I just wanted to clear the air on that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

H. CORMIER: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s an honour to rise in this House again and talk about pensions. Pensions are very dear to myself; for 35 years I worked at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, but also I grew up in a union family where my mom and my dad both paid into a pension plan. The conversation on pensions always occurs when I see former retirees down at the mill, and even my union brothers and sisters that are down there now. We talk about pensions. Because the pension plan that in fact protects – the act of 1997 exists to protect workers’ pensions and ensure pension plans are responsibly managed.

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

The pension plan will only pass over if it is to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That’s what it’s all about. It’s about protecting the people in this province, and that’s exactly what this government has planned to do. So congrats to the minister on bringing this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. JOYCE: That was 2017, we done it – 2017.

H. CORMIER: So that was important to do, to tie that together to protect the pensions at the mill. Fortunately the power plant could be tied to the mill and it could be protected. There was an asset there that could protect people.

But if that asset wasn’t there, if that asset wasn’t there then the pensions could be at risk and all those people paying all those years, all those retirees, because the mill had a large number of employees. Back when I first went and worked there, there was like 1,300 of us inside that plant. They forced it down to about 400 now, but it was 1,300. A lot of those guys have passed on but there are still a lot of those guys still kicking around, still alive. I run into them every day down at the grocery store at the mall, at the gas station, at the coffee shops and the first question they ask you is how is the pension plan doing? How are we doing? Well, we’re protected. A lot of these companies aren’t protected and if we allow a corporation to come in and take over their pension plan, it’s important that we protect those people. I can't stress it enough.

I worked 35 years paying into a pension plan. That was so important. My dad worked 40 years at the mill. He lost. He lost over half his pension when Bowater decided to pull out of Corner Brook before Kruger took over. He lost half of his pension. My mom who worked less years at the Trades school’s pension was higher than my dad’s, a defined benefit plan.

So it’s important that we’re able to move these around across jurisdictions and protect the people that elected us to protect. This is so important. This is important to me. It’s important to the pensioners. It’s important to peoples’ quality of life if they’re not worried about if they can go and buy their grandson or granddaughter a birthday gift. They’re not worried if they can go down and get that tank of fuel or go get some groceries. That pension is protected and they know what they’re getting month after month so they can budget. That’s so important, so important to everybody.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: If they’d let themselves down (inaudible).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Well?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: I’m not.

H. CORMIER: You do cheer for the Cataracts.

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

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

I can’t imagine putting that at risk. This government’s not going to put it at risk. We want to strengthen the pension plans in this province, if by chance a company or corporation from outside the province wants to buy in – buy in – to our province. We can’t stop that. We can’t stop progress, it doesn’t make sense. But we have to protect the pensions. And I’ll say pensions and pensions and pensions over and over again, because it’s what I worked for. It’s what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians worked for, to work their hardest, to enjoy those golden years.

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

But defined benefit plans are controlled by the companies, invested by the companies, and it’s important that employees understand, take the initiative to understand their pension plan, but when a corporation tries to take it over, it’s also important that we protect it. This legislation will do just that. The Superintendent of Pensions has the final say and is not in the benefit of the pensioners or the corporation in (inaudible) this province, then the pension doesn’t get signed over. We’re not here to float some other company on the mainland. We’re here to take care of the people in this province, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

P. PIKE: Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise today to speak to Biil 6, An Act to Amend Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

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

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

From then on, owned by companies outside the province. Ultimately these provided employment and it came at a good time because it came after the tsunami which wiped out the fishery on the Burin Peninsula but still, it was something that put our men to work and we all know the history of the St. Lawrence Mines and what happened there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have industries that see restructuring and mergers and operations that span multiple jurisdictions and in those situations, plans can be moved or consolidated without strong rules. Workers could be exposed to an unnecessary risk and we don’t want that happening. This bill closes that gap. This bill makes it clear that payouts will reflect the actual funding level of the plan, meaning if a plan is fully funded, workers receive full value. If it’s underfunded payouts are adjusted proportionately.

This is not about reducing benefits unfairly. It’s about transparency. It’s about fairness and ensuring the system remains stable for everyone.

The bill strengthens oversight by requiring approval before any pension plans can be transferred. This adds an important layer of accountability and in any plan that we have, any plan, accountability is key. It ensures that all decisions are reviewed and that there’s a safeguard in place to project plan members. For those people that are on pension plans, that’s a lifeline, really for them. it enables them to live in a way that they can socialize, that they can eat well, that they can drive cars, they can do things that they worked their whole lifetimes to achieve. They’ve realised families. They’ve educated their families. Now they’re going to sit on their pension. It’s –

AN HON. MEMBER: Their money

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

It’s their money. Overall, this bill will give us confidence in the pension system. It provides clearer rules, stronger oversight and better protection for workers. I was talking to a family a while ago and we were talking about income and how much that they were getting and so on for various government programs, of course, and I said, well, you always worked. You know, I watched you go to work my whole lifetime. Yeah, but, see at that time, we were given a choice whether to buy into a pension or not. I couldn’t afford it at the time. I had family. They needed to be fed. There were things happening. We needed to work on the old house so I didn’t opt for it. So sad.

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

At the end of the day, this is a plan about people we all know in our communities who have worked hard, very hard, who have paid in their pensions and expect security when they need it. I remember when I was in the workforce, during breaks a lot of people said five years left to go – five years left to go and I’m out, because then I can enjoy my pension and enjoy life. When I saw my neighbour get up this morning and get on his quad and head off trouting or berry picking, that’s me, I’m going to do that. We have to protect those people; we have to protect our pension plans. This bill ensures that and for those reasons, I plan to vote in favour of Bill 6.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The reality is that we know that not all folks have the benefit of pensions. But, of course, everybody has a lifetime of labour and people should be provided with this, especially in their elderly years. As a social democrat, pensions are crucially important to the well-being of workers and their families and the economic health of our families and our communities. For most workers with a pension, they have a union to thank for that. It enables dignity in the workplace, fair compensation, as unions do, on behalf of the workers and, of course, with clear, decisive action, many workers and tomorrow seniors won’t find themselves in their final years in absolute poverty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The transfer of benefits, which is obviously what we’re dealing with specifically here is something my colleagues already mentioned, we will be supporting this amendment because we want to ensure that people can transition their benefits and not at their loss.

I have family members who found themselves in similar positions and certainly it is a benefit to see this kind of stuff tightened up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. O’LEARY: In the City of St. John’s and other cities, there is some renumeration, however, in the City of St. John’s there is no pension. There is no pension received for municipal – no, it was phased out. My former colleague here can certainly attest to that. So there is no pension plan for people in municipal government at the City of St. John’s right now.

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

These things are all interconnected, how we live, how we continue to be able to live healthy lives impacts how long we’re going to be kicking around. So this economic security is not something that everybody has the benefit of but I do want to say emphatically that I’m so supportive of the unions that really are the staple, that have been ensuring that we see workers supported with pension benefits in their retirement years, whenever that should come.

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

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

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

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

So whatever we can do to ensure that people can protect those pension benefits in transition, we’re there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Like my colleague from St. George’s - Humber said it’s always going to be done to the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and through the pensioners themselves and it won’t be done without the direct approval of the superintendent of pensions.

Making sure that he has his stamp of approval on it is something that’s very important. With his expertise and his advice it ensures that the best decisions are being made in respect to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

By enabling direct pension transfers across provinces and territories it’s going to avoid these disruptions and allows workers to remain in a pension plan, continuing earning benefits and to avoid unnecessary risks and complexity. That’s something that I would think about. When I get older and when I go to retire, I don’t want to be worried about my pension. I don’t want to have to deal with the stress of not knowing if something is going to happen, if there’s uncertainty. How things are going to go forward. It’s about enjoying your retirement. You worked all these years, you build, you get your pension and then ensuring that seniors are able, we will be able to age with dignity.

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

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Any further speakers?

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Thank you, Speaker.

As a current minister, I’d like to thank everyone for their input on this very important bill and its amendment.

I just want to reiterate, the importance of this bill, backstopped by the superintendent which gives me full assurance that pensions indeed will be protected and ultimately, he’s the gatekeeper. I’ll say that again, the superintendent is the backstop which gives me full reassurance that pensions indeed will be protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

M. GOOSNEY: Speaker, I listened to each Member and I wrote some notes. I want to the thank the Leader of the Third Party. He spoke about pensions fit to eat. This is a secure move and I think we all agree so that people can eat and be protected in these hard economic times.

This is to solidify that the protection is there for the people that we represent.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Are the Members ready for the question?

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against.

Carried.

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill, An Act to Amend the Pensions Benefit Act, 1997. (Bill 6)

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

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

L. PARROTT: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Pensions Benefit Act, 1997,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now. (Bill 6)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against.

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Dwyer): Order, please!

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

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

We are now debating Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Pension Benefits Act, 1997.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

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

I accept that but I think my points are still valid in terms of the solvency ratio, but accept and appreciate the clarification that Members are not allowed to transfer out of the pension fund. This is just, I guess, in terms of the planned administrator.

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

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

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

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

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

No mine is not working so well. Yes, I have.

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Try this one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Better?

M. GOOSNEY: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you repeat the question, please?

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

Can you hear me now?

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

M. GOOSNEY: Yes.

CHAIR: The Chair acknowledges the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

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

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

M. GOOSNEY: Question, who can make the transfer, pension benefit plan holders only, not the individuals. Does that answer your question?

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

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you.

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

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

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

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Chair.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against.

Carried.

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

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

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

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

L. PARROTT: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

SPEAKER: When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

L. PARROTT: Tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye.’

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay.’

The House is in recess until 2 p.m.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

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

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Welcome to you, as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

K. RUSSELL: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

His challenges were only one part of his history and they never erased the kindness that he carried with him. In Happy Valley- Goose Bay, Hank was known for his gentle spirit and he showed kindness to everyone who encountered him, whether through a warm greeting, a simple conversation, a helping hand, he made people feel seen and respected.

His presence carried humility and compassion. Hank was the proud father of his son Robin and his three daughters Mary Georgette, Moneque and Louisa Penashue, they carry forward his memory, his roots and his deep love for Nutshimit.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

The restaurant was originally located on Harvey Road until the fire of December 1992 destroyed it and other businesses. Undaunted, the Forwards re-built, reopened in March 199, and opened their Blackmarsh Road location two months later. The Harvey Road location closed in 2019, but the Blackmarsh location still thrives.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I concur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Statements by Minister.

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

Statements by Ministers

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

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

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

Our new government is committed to listening to health care workers, including pharmacy professionals to better understand the challenges they face and the solutions they recommend.

Speaker, we are already making concrete action. All 40 pharmacy students graduating from Memorial University in 2026 will be eligible for an enhanced $50,000 bursary through a return-in-service agreement to work in our public health system. This builds on existing recruitment and retention incentives, competitive benefits and access to the public service pension plan.

We are also rebalancing our system to strengthen team-based care and looking at ways to support expanded scope of practice for pharmacists.

At the same time, we are calling on the federal government to resume negotiations with our province to implement a national pharmacare agreement that improves access to prescription drugs and diabetic supplies for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I thank the hon. Members for recognizing the vital contributions of pharmacy professionals across Newfoundland and Labrador. Pharmacists, technicians, assistants and interns are often the first point of contact in our health care system. They provide, not only medications, but trusted advice, continuity of care and reassurance especially in parts of our province that do not have consistent access to a family doctor. This is why our Liberal government worked hard to expand the scope of practice for pharmacists in this province.

Giving pharmacists the ability to practice to their full scope is a win-win for residents of this province. It increases access to primary care for patients while reducing the strain on the province’s emergency rooms. We, also, echo the call for meaningful progress on a national pharmacare agreement. This would improve access to medications, lowering out-of-pocket costs and creating a more equitable health system.

We wish pharmacists all the best in Pharmacy Appreciation Month.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. We, too, would like to express our deep gratitude and appreciation for the pharmacists who keep us well. It’s unfortunate, through, that many in our communities can’t afford the products that they dispense.

Now if government had put half the enthusiasm into pharmacare that they did for the Bay du Nord, we would have a deal by now. That’s why we, once again, call on this government, demand this government to work with Ottawa to enforce Ottawa to sign a deal for pharmacare for the pharmacare program in Newfoundland and Labrador. Get this deal done.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador’s seafood is renowned for its freshness, sustainability and taste. The Seafood Expo is an ideal opportunity to showcase the world-class quality of our province’s seafood products.

Seafood exports are vital to the livelihood of our province, supporting countless families and communities while generating over a billion dollars for the Newfoundland and Labrador's economy. Our province’s participation at the expo not only helps to strengthen valuable business relationships but also reinforces Newfoundland and Labrador’s prominent reputation in the international seafood market.

The Seafood Expo North America provides an important platform to highlight our commitment to the fishing and aquaculture industries and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador remains at the forefront of the global sector.

Speaker, I am confident that our efforts at the expo will help open new doors, drive economic growth and enhance prosperity for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for all of us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement.

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

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

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

Will he admit that Dr. Whalen gives him political advice on things other than just health care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: I make no apologies for taking policy advice from someone who works in our health care system, particularly someone who is on the front lines of our health care system, working daily in emergency departments in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We ae also going to make sure that we get lots of policy advice when it comes to the social determinants of health, something that this government forgot about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Premier said, and from Hansard, I quote: For providing policy advice to the Premier’s office on health care matters and that is the only thing that he’s providing advice on. As I said, we know, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know, that is not the case because Dr. Whalen has been involved in other briefings that have absolutely nothing to do with health care.

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

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, I’ll reiterate my comments about hiring good people and not afraid to take advice from people that work in the health care system on the front line. That’s exactly what we have done and perhaps if the previous government had done a better job with that, we wouldn’t find ourselves in the mess we are in with our health care system right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: When we talk about health care, one of the things we ought to be talking about, as the former Minister of Health should know, is the social determinants of health which impact a lot of different areas and we’ll continue to seek advice from somebody who works in the front lines of the health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

What the Premier is missing, either intentionally or unintentionally, it’s not about the person. It’s about where the money is coming from and what the money is being used for. That’s the questions that we’re asking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: I’ve given the Premier two opportunities today. We’ve given him two weeks to come clean, however, we do have more evidence that we’ve gotten through Access to Information requests. We have a copy of Dr. Whalen’s calendar and big surprise, what does it show? More meetings and briefings that have absolutely nothing to do with health care.

Why is the Premier saying one thing, when the evidence continues to mount and the documents show that what the Premier is saying is not true?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, when I talk about the social determinants of health, let’s talk about what that actually means. Let’s talk about how affordable housing impacts people’s health. Let’s talk about how having a job impacts people’s health. Let’s talk about how the cost of living impacts people’s health. There are lots of subjects and lots of topics of conversation that impact peoples’ health and I will continue to take advice from people who work directly in the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

I’ve been through the calendar and I’m not sure there was one meeting that’s about the social determinants of health, but what is in there is a meeting about fisheries and aquaculture.

So, Premier, please tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what fisheries and aquaculture has to do with getting advice on health care in this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Clearly the cost of food is a big issue in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Clearly, the cost of eating healthy and being able to afford these healthy (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: – is a part of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. We just heard the Leader of the Third Party talk about the importance of affordability of seafood in our own province, the ability that we fought for with Ottawa to try to allow fishing seven days a week for our recreational food fishery, that’s what we’re talking about: health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, food that will help keep people healthier.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I think that’s a stretch, but we’ll try something else that I don’t think he can stretch into the truth.

Why was Dr. Whalen meeting, in his calendar, about a bird dog firefighting aircraft? What does that have to do with health care, and why is MCP paying for advice on that?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, as I have said previously, I make no apologies for taking advice from people that are involved in our health care system in our province, and I will continue to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I want to be very clear that regardless of the advice that is being given, it is totally inappropriate and wrong for MCP to pay for political advice regardless of what that advice is.

Not only is that wrong, what’s gotten worse is that this has become a cover-up, and the Premier of this province is telling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians things which, factually, are incorrect.

I would ask the Premier, why does he think it’s okay to use MCP money for things other than health care, and why is he not being honest with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WAKEHAM: Speaker, the fact of the matter is that health care involves a lot of different issues. We’ve taken advice. It’s not about location; it’s about getting results, and that’s what we’re focused on: getting results for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You know, when we think about results, let’s talk about the fact and the cost of living that we’ve heard so much about in discussions these days. Let’s talk about the fact that people are paying to see a nurse practitioner. Think about the cost of that to people of our province, seniors of our province. Think about the cost of medical transportation, where they have to pay to travel for medical transportation. Think about the 165,000 people who don’t have a medical doctor.

Yeah, we’ve got a lot of work to do, and I’ll continue to take advice on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, MCP stands for Medical Care Program, not money for Conservative politicians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER: Dr. Whalen’s calendar was released today for the months of December, January and February. While he took plenty of meetings that had nothing to do with health care, glaringly, it does not show any meetings with the Minister of Health.

Has the minister been ignored by the Premier’s health advisor, or is there important information missing from Dr. Whalen’s calendar?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, the Premier talked about, I guess, some of the issues that we’re running into. He’s talked about that a lot when addressing the questions about Dr. Des Whalen. Well, Speaker, we’ve been left with a serious, serious mess when it comes to health care and we are taking advice from Dr. Des Whalen, including myself. He is actually out there providing (inaudible) sound voice so that we don’t fall into the pitfalls.

We look at the social determinants of health: family care teams, $20 million over budget; basically, no planning for these travel nurses, $80 million not accounted for.

SPEAKER: The hon. minister’s time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health, has she ever asked Dr. Whalen for partisan political advice, given that is his job as a political staffer – reading from the contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, Dr. Whalen has provided sound health advice. When I’m looking at the mess that was created because the social determinants of health are so important to the Health Accord, and one of those factors that was going to pay into that was the Family Care Team. When we looked at the Family Care Team, 21 had been announced, but we’ve got empty buildings because they haven’t been properly staffed. We’re looking at now some of them almost having to close because they weren’t properly staffed, that’s the Family Care Teams.

The social determinants of health were a key factor in the Health Accord, Speaker. This is the mess we’re left with. Basically, no planning, no planning for the travel nurses, yet they billed us $80 million and we’re stuck with that, with nothing in the budget for that.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, I don’t know why his contract stipulated that he was a political advisor and being paid from MCP.

Speaker, we still haven’t heard any firm numbers on medical travel. I’ve asked multiple times in this House, so I’ll give the minister some.

If a round-trip for a doctor’s appointment from St. John's to Goose Bay costs $1,000, the Conservatives could cover 275 trips if they stopped paying a political staffer from MCP.

Is the minister going to transfer money out of MCP? If she is going to do that, can she at least spend some of it on helping Labradorians get to their appointments (inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, we are now planning to roll out the MTAP program so the MTAP coverage is 100 per cent –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: – something that the Member, when she was minister, failed to do. The government had failed to do it when they were a Liberal government, Speaker. The PC government is going to deliver on that practice, but we’re going to plan it, we’re going to roll it out in a few months, Speaker, and then Labradorians and people on the Island who use MTAP will actually have 100 per cent coverage of the MTAP program, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, the now Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs was very vocal about supporting physicians in Grand Falls Windsor, stating in 2024: We’re talking about how we’re doing everything to retain doctors, by God, we’re not. We’re 100 per cent not, because if we were, we would have had a phone call sometime this week.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs: Why didn’t you pick up the phone and what is your plan for your 2,000 constituents who are losing their family doctor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I’ve actually engaged with the Member that she referenced. He is actually engaged with that doctor, Speaker. At the end of the day, we have to ensure that the policies outlined ensure that patient care is safe and effective, Speaker. That’s what we’re doing. But also, too, is we are now looking at those patients that may be stranded because of this. But it wasn’t because Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services failed to engage with the doctors, Speaker. Everything was done to try to accommodate this, but at the end of the day, when a new physician has a provisional licence, they have to be supervised, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

B. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The $275,000 that the Conservatives are using from MCP for political advice could equate to two registered nurses and a licenced practical nurse at Pleasant View Towers in my district.

So I’m asking the Minister of Health: Why did you let the Premier take the money from MCP that could have been used to support seniors in long-term care and open more beds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I remind the Member that the travel nurses cost $400,000 for one travel nurse. How many of our own nurses could we have provided for that? They continue to use these expensive travel nurses, Speaker, where businesses actually got the profit. The poor nurses that were travel nurses did not get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. EVANS: So, Speaker, at the end of the day, I also will note that really, there was $80 million not accounted for in the budget because they didn’t plan for the travel nurses, Speaker, but they used them. They didn’t put it in the budget. That’s poor fiscal planning, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

As we have heard from the Auditor General, of course, we managed to decrease reliance on travel nurses by 40 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. HOGAN: So it would certainly move it in the right direction. Sadly, what I saw over the weekend on Facebook – I am sure the Minister of Energy saw it as well – was numerous advertisements from recruiters looking for travel nurses in this province.

So can the Minister of Health answer why numerous recruiters are actively recruiting travel nurses throughout the province, despite her commitment that that would not happen anymore?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: I will address the former minister of Health and the former premier on his question. I will address that, Speaker.

In actual fact, if they want to pay $400,000 for a travel nurse, fill your boots. Here, we are going to get unionized nurses to do that work in the province (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: At the end of the day, we are going to use unionized nurses. We are not going to give profits to businesses; we are going to make sure our health care system is fixed. We are going to clean up their mess because this is what they left us: a mess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Corner Brook.

J. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like advertising right now.

As a new MHA, I am disgusted and embarrassed by the use of MCP funds for political, partisan advice. What’s worse is government’s attempt to blur the line between political staff and our independent public service by drawing false comparisons between the likes of Dr. Fitzgerald, Dr. Parfrey, Dr. Browne. Public servants are prohibited from giving partisan advice, unlike the Premier’s new advisor.

Why is government disparaging our public service to protect one of their own?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: Pretty rich coming from the same group – we had a premier who denied knowing about the $35,000 bonuses that they gave themselves. Now, either the staffer didn’t tell them and he kept him working for his or he knew. Does that embarrass or disgust you, I wonder?

What about the land deal that the former minister made with H3?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: Does that disgust you? Millions of dollars –

SPEAKER: Order, please!

I’m going to start naming Members.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Speaker.

What about Snow’s Lane? I wonder does that disgust the Member?

One other thing, what about the apartments that were rented out? No repercussions, nobody in there. They knew all about it and they never did a thing. They talk about being disgusted, look in the mirror –

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. LOVELESS: I’ll say to that Member, you want to talk about land, you want to talk about a previous Progressive Conservative premier who did a lot for his land and benefited from it. You want to start talking about that, well absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: Absolutely, you know what I’m talking about. That’s why your temperature is up

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

E. LOVELESS: Mr. Speaker, we couldn’t get answers out of the Premier so I’m going to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

On February 15, Dr. Whalen attended a meeting about fisheries and aquaculture. Was the minister present at that meeting and if so, can he please tell us the connection of fishery and health care?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: I’ll speak to the preamble and I’ll remind the Member about the vote that happened inside Cabinet that they wouldn’t answer to when they voted to give themselves a bonus, a pay raise on the way out the door. Pre-election, just in case they didn’t win and guess what, they didn’t win, we’re here and we’re doing what has to be done. We’ve hired the people to advise us in the proper way, so we can fix the mess that was left behind after 10 years of neglect, misappropriation of funds and everything that they done –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT: So here we are.

Now they sit here and their time machine doesn’t work anymore. It worked very well when they were in government but it doesn’t work anymore, get back in your hot tub.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. LOVELESS: There’s a social media, tell us all about the Member that was just on his feet about what he said over here and what he’s doing over there. The people of the province know it and I’ll say that to the Member.

But I’ll ask the question again and hopefully he will allow this time, instead of putting his hand up to keep the minister down, let the minister stand on his feet, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, if he was present at that meeting, if so, can he please tell us the connection of fishery and health care.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: I’ll address the preamble. My social media didn’t have campaign signs up saying if you want pavement vote for me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PARROTT: My social media didn’t say anything about voting for secret bonuses and not disclosing to the public. My social media doesn’t say anything about the land deal with Snow’s Lane. Didn’t say anything about the mental health facility –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. PARROTT:  – awarded to their buddy for $42 million more than the next lowest bidder. Didn’t say anything about sole sourcing a penitentiary because nobody would bid anything through them because of the previous practices.

They want to talk about corruption and all of those other things, I’ll say what I said earlier, look in the mirror.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Thank you, Speaker.

It would be helpful if the government knew the election was over and we could down to the people’s work here in question-and-answer period.

Speaker, on Wednesday, January 28, from 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., Dr. Des Whalen’s calendar indicated a prep meeting with the Minister of Infrastructure.

Does Des Whalen advise the Minister of Infrastructure to cancel the new provincial hospital?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I’ll remind the Member that we know the election’s over because we’re over here and we’re doing things (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, a big thing with having a good advisor is you’re going to get good advice, right Speaker, but at the end of the day, we’re not going to be building hospitals when we need long-term care beds. We’re not going to be wasting our money. We’re not going to be out there wasting our money and not accounting for a lot of things, Speaker. I remind the Member that $80 million –

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Thank you, Speaker.

Well, you’re not going to build a hospital, a badly needed hospital at Kenmount Crossing. We’re going to patch up a hundred-odd-year-old hospital.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. KORAB: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I ask –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. KORAB: The Minister of Health said they’re going to build long-term care beds. When and where are we building those long-term beds? When and where?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, 23 per cent of beds in hospitals, acute-care beds, are being taken up by people that need long-term care beds. We got elected; we were sworn in in October; we are planning to build long-term care beds so our seniors can be treated with respect, the seniors that built this province first, Speaker. The difference between the Liberals and the PCs is we care about people, and we care about our elders, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. EVANS: We’re going to actually address that. In actual fact, Speaker, that’s the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. EVANS: We’re not going to be building flashy buildings at a huge cost of $10 billion to $14 billion, Speaker, when our seniors are struggling.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Speaker, a simple question, when and where are the long-term beds going? When and where? Simple. No preamble, no blah blah blah. When and where?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, we are coming up with a plan to actually make long-term care beds available across the province. We’re going to be putting long-term care beds in regions.

AN HON. MEMBER: So there’s no plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

L. EVANS: We do have a plan, that’s the difference between you – $80 million, you had basically paid out for travel nurses, nothing in the budget, Speaker. Nothing in the budget. That’s a lack of planning.

Family Care Teams, Speaker, not staffed, but yet going $20 million over budget. How did that happen when some of them are actually empty with no staff. At the end of the day, on this side, we plan. Plan efficiently, the Minister of Finance said, and that’s what we’re doing, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Wildfire Centre, established in my District of Gander, is extremely important. On January 5, Dr. Des Whalen was invited to a meeting to talk about the acquisition of a new Bird Dog aircraft to help with forest fire fighting operations.

Does this Premier really expect anyone to believe that a forest fire fighting aircraft has anything to do with health care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry, Agriculture and Lands.

P. FORSEY: Thank you, Speaker, and I am certainly glad to get up here and talk about our forest fire protection, I really am. I’m glad the Member brought up the forest fire protection centre in Gander, a very important part of the system.

We train people in Gander, we utilize people in Gander, all our equipment’s in Gander, our station’s in Gander, our aircraft are in Gander, and we keep working to enhance our forest fire protection as well as bringing back the fifth water bomber for this year’s fire season.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. FORSEY: So I’m glad that the Member for Gander brought up the forest fire protection.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

S. O’LEARY: Thank you, Speaker.

While the blame game happens, last night an elderly Inuk man was refused care multiple times at the emergency room at St. Clare’s and the Health Sciences Centre. His first language is Inuktitut. He was dismissed as being drunk and was ejected by security more than once. Only after First Light intervened with senior NLHS officials was the man able to obtain the immediate care that he deserved.

So I ask the minister, will you acknowledge that culturally informed care is not a duplication of existing services, as the minister has suggested in the past, and will we see funding for the First Light clinic in this upcoming budget, yes or no?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I take great offence to the Member taking my words and twisting them. I said – in actual fact I didn’t say it was a duplication; I said one of the things we would look at is make sure, because of the region and the supports that are actually in the region, we want to make sure if there is actually a clinic for Indigenous people that there’s no duplication of services, Speaker. That’s what you call good planning.

I take great offence at the Member taking my words and twisting them. I did not say that, Speaker, and if she wants to play on words, I will say again, we respect Indigenous people. We respect all different groups that live in the province (inaudible) –

SPEAKER: The hon. minister’s time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

J. DINN: Speaker, timely access to mental health care is key to a person’s well-being. A person called our office who has been waiting three years to see a psychiatrist since being referred. Another person received a call that her daughter had an appointment to see a psychiatrist six years after being referred and five years after her daughter died by suicide.

Will the Minister of Health table, in this House, the number of people on the wait-list to see a psychiatrist as well as the length of time they have been on the wait-list?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. EVANS: Speaker, I, certainly, hope the Member forwarded the patient’s information who’s been waiting for so long.

At the end of the day, we provide services to people. We don’t play political games over here, Speaker. We don’t. At the end of the day, if there’s an issue with mental health wait-times, access to mental health care, then we need to know about it. I do know, after being in Opposition for seven years, coming into government now in October that there’s been a real disservice done to people who are seeking mental health supports, with 10 years of a past Liberal government. We are going to address mental health. We’re going to increase the supports for people seeking care. At the end of the day, we’re going to do government different on this side.

SPEAKER: The hon. Minister’s time is expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, health care is a major pillar in the government’s platform. One of the very important and crucial part of health care is home support workers. Some health care workers, who do not work with agencies, have not received a pay increase for many years. Your government has committed to retain these workers.

I ask the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board: Will your government review this request to help the residents in need to keep these very valuable home care support workers in work?

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed we will.

Answer to the question.

We value everyone who provides care and home support for our seniors in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We value them. I think we’ve got 6,000 agency support workers. We’ve got about 2,100 that are self-managed and hired by the clients. They provide a valuable source of help and assistance to keep people aging in their community and aging at home which is their preferred place. We value them. The Premier and the platforms stated about improving health care. That’s a good start.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

E. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, agencies pay their workers at a higher wage. Self management private workers do the same but they get paid less. Many private workers work in the rural settings where agencies do not even operate. The workers are crucial in these settings. Will the minister offer any assistance available to keep these crucial workers on the job in their rural settings.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands asks great questions, good questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: When we were on the Opposition side of the House, and I think we can recall, we presented a petition about pay equity and the discrepancy between the members that were in the self-employed versus the agency. We thought that was an injustice. In fact, we presented it and I think we all rallied amongst each other in support of it. I would say we are aware of that, to the MHA. We are aware of it, and I think we are committed to make sure that we make adjustments to make it fair because we do value their work and it is so, so important.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED portion of the House of Assembly sitting for Wednesday, March 18, 2026, to the end of Question Period. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.